Arrested for having "money eyes"
- Thread starter Sonny
- Start date
If this is true, how did you elect Bush 43 for 2 terms?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin, 1818.
UK-21
Well-Known Member
Despite all of the critics, I think the NHS runs reasonably well. I've had several recent experiences of it (both myself and close family) and certainly haven't been given any reason to think it's falling apart at the seams as many would claim it is.
There are fundimentally two aspects I think - quality of care and quality of service, both related of course but quite separate issues. Generally, the quality of care is as good as you'll receive in any developed country on the planet. The quality of service on the other hand varies greatly from area to area, hospital to hospital and so forth. In the past I've waited in A&E for over 6 hours to have two stitches put into a cut (something that took 10 minutes). On the other hand my youngest daughter has been in hospital for a minor op, and the service was first class from the moment we walked through the hospital entrance. I'm afraid it remains a lottery, and standard of service (not care) seem to be largely down to individuals rather than any solid management framework that has been developed (although alledgedly the NHS nationally work to common standards). Without divulging how, I know that the financial management of our local Primary Care Trust (the organisations given public funding to purchase health care services for the general public) is shambolic.
Having said all of this, I prefer it to the system of healthcare provision in the States - where if you have money or insurance you can have the best available on the planet, and if you don't you have to rely on a pretty shaky public service. As an American said to me once, if you get shot and get rushed into hospital you'll get good service (provided you're the first one to get shot that night). If you suffer from a chronic illness of some sort and need to purchase regular medication, you might have to give up eating and should think about writing your will.
A sad state of affairs for the richest nation on the planet.
daddybo
Well-Known Member
Prescription Drugs are artifically expensive in the U.S. because of Government interference (Food and Drug Administration) and Our Jackpot Legal System.
Because of The FDA regulation, it now takes at ton of money and many years to bring new drugs to market. That's money spent up front before they even know whether they can market it. We pay for the ones that don't make it to market along with the ones that do. Some of these same drugs are sold all over the world ..but not here. Then add the liabilty exposure for drug companies doctors ect.. and that adds another huge chunk. You can turn on the tube any time and see advertisements from lawyers saying have you taken this drug? Call us, you could be entitled to money! (It's the lawyers that make most of the money... not the so called victims of these "ruthless drug companies.") I will add that drug companies do work with people that truly can't afford critical meds by offering them at a much discounted price on a case by case basis.
As I said earlier....LESS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.... and REAL TORT REFORM are the real
answers.
P.S. I've never known anybody to go without medical care. I know doctors that do freebies all the time for patients that can't afford it. All you have to do is ask.
Because of The FDA regulation, it now takes at ton of money and many years to bring new drugs to market. That's money spent up front before they even know whether they can market it. We pay for the ones that don't make it to market along with the ones that do. Some of these same drugs are sold all over the world ..but not here. Then add the liabilty exposure for drug companies doctors ect.. and that adds another huge chunk. You can turn on the tube any time and see advertisements from lawyers saying have you taken this drug? Call us, you could be entitled to money! (It's the lawyers that make most of the money... not the so called victims of these "ruthless drug companies.") I will add that drug companies do work with people that truly can't afford critical meds by offering them at a much discounted price on a case by case basis.
As I said earlier....LESS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.... and REAL TORT REFORM are the real
answers.
P.S. I've never known anybody to go without medical care. I know doctors that do freebies all the time for patients that can't afford it. All you have to do is ask.
daddybo
Well-Known Member
Now Children... Can You Say SWINE FLU VACCINE?
Seriously.. Yes, they should be tested... No, it shouldn't take 10 Years. Trying to protect everyone from every possible outcome is akin to trying to calculate the exact order of an 8 deck shoe before every round... there may be a way to do it....but you wouldn't play many hands.
P.S. Even after 10 years they still have unexpected problems. Trial Lawyers love it.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
That's true. And there are a lot of perfectly good drugs and procedures that aren't offered in the US simply because they have risks (as all medicine does) that will be hard to defend in court from greedy lawyers. If you have a condition that will kill 10% of the people who get it and it can be treated with a drug that will kill 1% of the people who take it, that's a pretty good deal for the patient. But not for the doctor's insurance carrier.
My favorite example of how lawyers do us harm is the "do not induce vomiting" warning found on any poison container. It use to be about half of labels would tell you to induce vomiting if swallowed and half would tell you not to do it, depending on the nature of the poison. Now they all say "do not induce." The reason why is that even if the substance will kill you, the label never told you to consume it, which makes it tough to sue. But if you swallow something and the label tells you to induce vomiting, and you are injured from aspirating vomit, the lawyers are going to come after you for the suggestion on the label and its bad outcome in this case, even if the vomiting is what it takes to save you. Thus from the perspective of the lawyers, it is better that you definitely die from the poison than to take even a small risk of you dying from the vomiting.
And that makes me sick! :vomit:
Automatic Monkey
Banned
I'll have my owners do that.
Yeah, pets children and slaves are required to be taken care of by their masters. Which one are we supposed to be?
Katweezel
Well-Known Member
We are supposed to be good law-abiding citizens who are provided a fair, reasonable health-care plan by our government of/for the people. Instead of this:
Attachments
blackchipjim
Well-Known Member
southern justice
I have in my life had some bad experiences of southern justice that I will not get into right now. The law enforcement have alot to learn about enforcing law instead of the way they feel about you at the time. I go into the state to gamble about twice a month and haven't had any real problems to date. I did get an icy "what you lookin at boy" stare from a local sheriff but that was expected.
I have in my life had some bad experiences of southern justice that I will not get into right now. The law enforcement have alot to learn about enforcing law instead of the way they feel about you at the time. I go into the state to gamble about twice a month and haven't had any real problems to date. I did get an icy "what you lookin at boy" stare from a local sheriff but that was expected.
daddybo
Well-Known Member
Let's see. It wouldn't be pets... Pets don't have to work and are generally given more rights and freedom. People can't be pets.
It wouldn't be children ... Children have someone older to look after their every need and usually don't have to worry about putting food on the table, making the house payment, or supporting other people that don't produce. Grownups can't be children.
So.. it must be slaves... Hope we get better masters. :grin:
Blue Efficacy
Well-Known Member
Democratic socialism is very much alive in northern Europe. Scandanavia, for instance.
Like most people in my country, you are clearly confused as to what socialism actually IS.
UK-21
Well-Known Member
I'm not confused at all, thank you. I'm from the UK. Anyone over the age of 40 from the UK knows all about Socialism - we had first hand experience of the labour government that preceded Mrs Thatcher's. When you have lived through tax threasholds of 98p in the pound, the full range of public utilities being under public ownership and whole industries where the closed shop was in force , you are free to talk about Socialism. As I've said several times in the past, the US have never had, and never will have, a "socialist" administration as long as a massive wealth gap exists and the majority of the electorate are doing all right under the free market structures in place. To describe a move to reform public healthcare (whether you support it or not) as being the result of socialism is nonsense.
I certainly wouldn't describe the Swedish or Norwegian administrations as "socialist".
I certainly wouldn't describe the Swedish or Norwegian administrations as "socialist".
Katweezel
Well-Known Member
Vikings ruled Britannia
Well their Norse forebears thought it was OK to sack, pillage, plunder and steal whatever they could get their hands on, and not just in the UK. Doesn't that sound a bit like a Socialist government?
UK-21
Well-Known Member
Yeah . . . but I think they've moved on a bit. Strange in Sweden, a country like any other in Europe where people were quite happy to burn suspected witches up until around the 17th/18th century (when some of the more enlightened considered that maybe the spinster up the road with the cat wasn't the reason for the poor harvest) but which now has banned boxing as a sport. Hope for the human race yet perhaps?
But back to the original thought, how anyone can claim that the US is under a socialist administration, when a permanent right remains within the constitution to bear arms, and the only state monopolies are the military and security services, is bizarre. It's all subjective of course. But I'm afraid few Americans will have experienced "socialism" (as I understand it) first hand.
But back to the original thought, how anyone can claim that the US is under a socialist administration, when a permanent right remains within the constitution to bear arms, and the only state monopolies are the military and security services, is bizarre. It's all subjective of course. But I'm afraid few Americans will have experienced "socialism" (as I understand it) first hand.
The thing is the state does not only monopolize security, but also currency, roads, charity and any number of other things. Furthermore there is tremendous state intervention in every aspect of the market, and as Ludwig von Mises pointed out a while back, the end result of the interventionist state is full blown collectivism, which tends always towards socialism.
If you look at the communist manifesto, much of what Marx argued for is coming true in America, the land of the free.
If you look at the communist manifesto, much of what Marx argued for is coming true in America, the land of the free.