Happy Face

I'm saying no to that. Nice selective posting, entirely ignoring most of the rest of this thread and recent 'real world' events. There was Trevor MacDonald tonight thing on Monday btw which actually described the ethical dilemma in prescribing Avastin (for colon cancer) quite well; it showed the point of view of cancer sufferers, cancer charities, the drug company (evil Roche iirc), and NICE. Did you see it? Would Avastin be available under the NHS if you had your way, or conversely would it be fairer to let no-one have it? I did say "the WHOLE debate is moot" in response to no-one in particular - and with a wink. Can't see why I'm being picked up on not relating it to a specific point five months down the line. I didn't see it I'm afraid. Chez, i know "Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe." but when it comes down to it, isn't the main difference between, say, France and the UK that they just spend more on their public system than we do on ours? In terms of % GDP.

OP I'm saying no to that.

Any reformed NHS doesn't need to be based on the US model though. I'd hope it wasn't tbh, although I don't know enough about their system so I may be judging it harshly from afar. The US springs to mind from the thread title though. I think the vast majority of Europe is still predominantly publicly funded.

Of course the whole debate is moot, we all know national healthcare wins since the US taxpayer already pays for their healthcare twice anyway. First via a private policy, then again to cover the nationalised bailout of the insurance companies that spent all the cash on the gamblers.

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed. How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too. Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views. If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so. You what mate? If employment is irrelevant why do you bring it up? Anyway, despite all the slurs against me I'll not get bogged down in an argument about how we argue. I was listening to five live this morning and they were talking about the chief executive and the trouble he's going to have balancing the Premier League interests with those of the grass roots game. To me it seemed perfectly analogous to the private healthcare debate. The top 4 teams in the league hold most of the power, they buy the best players, win most of the trophies and collect most of the TV money. The idea of the premier league was that it would benefit the English game as a whole, that money would 'trickle down', but all that's happened is the strong get stronger and every season more and more clubs are threatened with closure as they can't afford to exist in the modern game. I can't see how that is even vaguely analogous to the discussion in this thread. You don't think the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are getting rich while poor people die or go bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare in the US? Or you don't think Premier League Chairman, players, managers, agents are getting rich while lower league clubs are docked points for going into administration? Wrong about pharma, universal coverage brings another 50 million people into our market. Thats a good thing commercially by the way Also, those who are getting richer in the US whilst others go bankrupt are taxpayers, no one else. I mean that categorically too. So where was I wrong? On your second point, what's the benefit of taxing those huge corporations that are raking it in if universal "coverage" is the goal, any taxes raised are going to be spent on humvees, once the government wash their hands of healthcare, right?

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed. How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too. Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views. If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so. You what mate? If employment is irrelevant why do you bring it up? Anyway, despite all the slurs against me I'll not get bogged down in an argument about how we argue. I was listening to five live this morning and they were talking about the chief executive and the trouble he's going to have balancing the Premier League interests with those of the grass roots game. To me it seemed perfectly analogous to the private healthcare debate. The top 4 teams in the league hold most of the power, they buy the best players, win most of the trophies and collect most of the TV money. The idea of the premier league was that it would benefit the English game as a whole, that money would 'trickle down', but all that's happened is the strong get stronger and every season more and more clubs are threatened with closure as they can't afford to exist in the modern game. I can't see how that is even vaguely analogous to the discussion in this thread. You don't think the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are getting rich while poor people die or go bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare in the US? Or you don't think Premier League Chairman, players, managers, agents are getting rich while lower league clubs are docked points for going into administration? Wrong about pharma, universal coverage brings another 50 million people into our market. Thats a good thing commercially by the way Also, those who are getting richer in the US whilst others go bankrupt are taxpayers, no one else. I mean that categorically too. So where was I wrong?

I used the phrase real world to mean the one existing outside your 6th form-style ramblings about 'free' healthcare. Whatever that means. Most basic healthcare in the U.K is free at point of need if you fill the right forms in.... I think Alex's point is, all healthcare is paid for, whether by the government or the consumer.

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed. How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too. Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views. If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so. You what mate? If employment is irrelevant why do you bring it up? Anyway, despite all the slurs against me I'll not get bogged down in an argument about how we argue. I was listening to five live this morning and they were talking about the chief executive and the trouble he's going to have balancing the Premier League interests with those of the grass roots game. To me it seemed perfectly analogous to the private healthcare debate. The top 4 teams in the league hold most of the power, they buy the best players, win most of the trophies and collect most of the TV money. The idea of the premier league was that it would benefit the English game as a whole, that money would 'trickle down', but all that's happened is the strong get stronger and every season more and more clubs are threatened with closure as they can't afford to exist in the modern game. I can't see how that is even vaguely analogous to the discussion in this thread. You don't think the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are getting rich while poor people die or go bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare in the US? Or you don't think Premier League Chairman, players, managers, agents are getting rich while lower league clubs are docked points for going into administration?

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed. How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too. Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views. If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so. You what mate? If employment is irrelevant why do you bring it up? Anyway, despite all the slurs against me I'll not get bogged down in an argument about how we argue. I was listening to five live this morning and they were talking about the chief executive and the trouble he's going to have balancing the Premier League interests with those of the grass roots game. To me it seemed perfectly analogous to the private healthcare debate. The top 4 teams in the league hold most of the power, they buy the best players, win most of the trophies and collect most of the TV money. The idea of the premier league was that it would benefit the English game as a whole, that money would 'trickle down', but all that's happened is the strong get stronger and every season more and more clubs are threatened with closure as they can't afford to exist in the modern game.

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed. How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too. Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views. If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so. I don't think Chez has been banging that particular drum tbf. I'm probably more guilty of that but its canny frustrating arguing against someone who is clearing trawling Google as the source of their knowledge. All I've heard from HF in this thread is whining about the health service becoming a two tier system. Fair enough maybe, but no alternatives have been offered. I'd genuinely like an alternative 'real world' point of view on what we should do in the future. If one isn't forthcoming then that speaks volumes. We've had a nationalised health service since after the war, only a small percentage choose private treatment. We are living the real world alternative but it's being pushed slowly and surely towards an American model where forty odd million don't have any health care.

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed. How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too. Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views. If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

Something to do with Death - Sir Christopher Frayling

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree). But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with. I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view. Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest. But only because you disagreed with him. Perfect example Only what? Disagreed with who? See chance to start an argument with me and you're all over it no matter how tit for tat and utterly boring. (anyway amuse yourself for a few hours now ) You didn't answer the questions. Textbook

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree). But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with. I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view. Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest. But only because you disagreed with him. Perfect example Only what? Disagreed with who?

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree). But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with. I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view. Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up. If only Fop would 'debate'

ruff

RIP http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7726024.stm

Whoever's choosing the music is doing a great job. Panda Bear, Black Mountain and a couple of Fuck Buttons tracks that I recognised this week and a few other tracks I rather enjoyed especially some Radiohead sounding track and some Yann Tiersen style piano. Found this handy little forum as a result of my enquiries.... http://forums.finalgear.com/wts-tg-season-...h-2008-a-31639/

While not racist, dismissing someone for their personal beliefs is a bit discriminatory like. It's not like she was racialistic on air.

Wouldn't argue with that. I like the way it's ok for the black man to survive in Hollywood nowadays, shame the muslim is the token good guy death these days. Ben-Hur - Shit Hur

Olbermann a week late.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/27652443#27652443 ...but well put.

The things that would make a difference are little things like....... prosecuting more than 6 (yes six) individuals per year for selling alcohol to under-age people, in the whole of England and Wales. But instead of, I don't know, say prosecuting a few more people (maybe 10 more a year, or maybe say all of the 1000's of fuckers) that sell alcohol to under-age drinkers the only reasonable solution is to TAX EVERYTHING. Tax on drink is a pittance compared to bines. 80% of each packet of 20 cigarettes is duty, or £4.03 of the cover price of £5.23. 30% of each pint of lager is duty, or £1.60 of the price of a £5 round. That's still not the point though. The point is that's is still vastly cheaper elsewhere (without the same issues) and that it's better to actually ENFORCE THE LAW (as opposed to just persecuting 6 per year in the whole of England and Wales) instead of trying to tax people into submission. Although you could be onto something, maybe if you were saddled with £1,000,000's worth of debt for murdering someone it'd be better than the piffling old fashion manner of a trial and few years in prison. Well the point of my post wasn't to join your debate, more of an aside concerning the persecution of smokers opposed to the endorsement of drinkers. On your point though, I think you're forgetting that it's a crime usually punished by a fine rather than a custodial sentence. It's not like only 6 people have been done. It'll be a while before we find out exactly how many though... http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-10-16a.226025.h

The acclaimed follow up to Paedo's on a Train.

The things that would make a difference are little things like....... prosecuting more than 6 (yes six) individuals per year for selling alcohol to under-age people, in the whole of England and Wales. But instead of, I don't know, say prosecuting a few more people (maybe 10 more a year, or maybe say all of the 1000's of fuckers) that sell alcohol to under-age drinkers the only reasonable solution is to TAX EVERYTHING. Tax on drink is a pittance compared to bines. 80% of each packet of 20 cigarettes is duty, or £4.03 of the cover price of £5.23. 30% of each pint of lager is duty, or £1.60 of the price of a £5 round.