Park Life

He was one of the programmers that worked on the game. There is quite a funny article on The Guardian website about Championship Manager. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/...yofsix-football I remember Bakayoko.

Theres a differennce between rounding up people and killing them (which he did) and people dying of starvation brought about as an unintended result of agricultural planning which didn't work. I suppose thats semantics but he didn't make killing an industrial process like Hitler. Russell Brand > Hitler

Socialist Worker is the Trots Alex - they aren't big fans of JV Stalin Did I say they were? implied by association now tell me the difference between the CPGB (M-L) and the CPB (M-L) personally I always had a soft spot for the IWA - dug me and some mates out of a nasty do with the Front once Indian Workers Assoc?

As if Mormonism needed any more negative press!

Got this down as a win.

Just waiting for Vinny Jones now.

It's fireworks innit.

It's fireworks innit.

It's fireworks innit.

The French system is counter productive as it penalises business.

Would GSK be interested in getting into a niche heathcare insurance product? You see I realise the underlying debate ain't about band aids it's about the allocation and supply of more exotic drugs. I would suggest GSK deliver an insurance product as an add on to supply special and expensive drugs if needed by the client. Any good? Isn't that in essence what is being proposed/becoming reality???? Yes. (just by insurance co's though - see link from when i bumped) If they're up for it let them have a go. And no limits on cover and no transfer out into the NHS core and Govt Subsidies and no crying into beer.....

Would GSK be interested in getting into a niche heathcare insurance product? You see I realise the underlying debate ain't about band aids it's about the allocation and supply of more exotic drugs. I would suggest GSK deliver an insurance product as an add on to supply special and expensive drugs if needed by the client. Any good? Isn't that in essence what is being proposed/becoming reality???? I doubt it GSK wouldn't touch that with a bargpole. The risks for them are way too high and who would they call on for lines of risk management (to make sure the system is in place for the long term) no finance or credit line would touch it. YOu see when people get ill they also become unprofitable.

Would GSK be interested in getting into a niche heathcare insurance product? You see I realise the underlying debate ain't about band aids it's about the allocation and supply of more exotic drugs. I would suggest GSK deliver an insurance product as an add on to supply special and expensive drugs if needed by the client. Any good?

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. The OP was a little provocative. Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe. Certainly keen to get employers more involved, but that will become a penalty to middle sized businesses...France is bankrupt anyway.

Excellent point. In what way does 'national' healthcare win? The NHS is failing to deliver modern medicines to the UK. Countries with similar GDP per capita are able to pay more because of the way they are organised. The UK delivers the same quality of medicines as Slovakia due to its inefficiency. The US market is a bad example of an alternative as, at present, it represents the opposite extreme. I quoted Marshall in another thread but his insight is relevant here. The extremes are separated by degrees with multiple possibilities in between. The UK and the US have healthcare systems that represent the extreme 'public' (the most fair) and 'private' (the most efficient*) systems. Reforms to each represent trade-offs between these two extremes and social values. *The efficiency of the system depends on more than just the 'financing' of the system. Thats another debate though. If by efficient you mean it delivers fuck all to 40million Americans then I guess you're right.

Excellent point. In what way does 'national' healthcare win? The NHS is failing to deliver modern medicines to the UK. Countries with similar GDP per capita are able to pay more because of the way they are organised. The UK delivers the same quality of medicines as Slovakia due to its inefficiency. The US market is a bad example of an alternative as, at present, it represents the opposite extreme. I quoted Marshall in another thread but his insight is relevant here. The extremes are separated by degrees with multiple possibilities in between. The UK and the US have healthcare systems that represent the extreme 'public' (the most fair) and 'private' (the most efficient*) systems. Reforms to each represent trade-offs between these two extremes and social values. *The efficiency of the system depends on more than just the 'financing' of the system. Thats another debate though. I could be wrong but doesn't the U.S. have the highest drug prices in the world?

Excellent point. People in this thread also need to understand the significant factor of the flight of capital. What seems like a good idea to the money markets today is dropped tomorrow cause summink a computer programme spits out in Geneva...Then what? Govt to pick up the pieces...We all know how that ends.

Brainwash the fuckers..Till they love it.

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'm aware of that. Everything still has a cost though. If it's your view all healthcare should be free at the point of service then, fine. I took it to be akin to comments you've made in the past, e.g. all public transport should be free. In any case, nothing is free, it's just a case of deciding who pays for it and how. Ok, fair enough. But ultimately people create all wealth with their knowledge, skills and labour. It's also a question of hiring the right people. If I was running it, I'd hire people like Chez double his salary and put him to work to liase and consult on behalf of the state system. I'm confident he'd take GSK, Roche etc..to the cleaners at the first meeting. I have always believed basic services ie water, transport and health should have strong oversight (whether it is the Govt or appointed an appointed knowledge base of professionals) and they should be easily affordable if not as close to free as possible. The vast chunk of the cost imo should come from direct taxation. How much would you be prepared for direct taxation to go up to (I assume you mainly mean income tax). If Government paid for everything you mention, I imagine the tax burden would be astronomical. What's more, you'd still have an army of dole wallers happy to take and give fuck all, meanwhile I'm sure a large proportion of the 'elite' would up sticks and move abroad. If that's what you want and believe in, fair enough, it's not what I, or I suspect the democratic majority, want though, which brings us back to the 'real world' rather than 6th form politics. Not sure 2p is going to kill anyone or higher N.I. payments for people on higher incomes. Government oversight doesn't stop companies making money. Capitalism is not interested in full employment as as it has a negative effect on wage erosion/labour bargaining. Governments and non-alingned bodies are better at distributing wealth to the periphery as Soros (right wing guru) pointed out in his last book. This is neccessary as unchecked wealth colonised by the biggest companies (terrible at redistribution) will bring down Capitalism quicker than any Tony Benn clone. Two pence!!!!!!!!! Where was that plucked from, can you provide a source? Tell you what, I'd be delighted to pay that if it ensured I was entitled to everything modern medicine has to offer. Unfortunately I don't think it would scratch the surface. Modern healthcare is a very expensive business and we have less and less people in the tax paying bracket, especially with a recession looming. Nonsense response ignoring nearly the whole post. Irrational withdrawl to your little kennel ie (higlighted bit)...(The Lib dems have fig for the 2p rise and its consequences if you're interested). I have no problem with this either...ie buying in when necessary... http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...ate-569010.html I don't actually have a problem with some of Chez's ideas either. But hey lets flip the coin, feel free to show me where in the U.K. privatisation has been successful and cost effective in a former nationalised sector?

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'm aware of that. Everything still has a cost though. If it's your view all healthcare should be free at the point of service then, fine. I took it to be akin to comments you've made in the past, e.g. all public transport should be free. In any case, nothing is free, it's just a case of deciding who pays for it and how. Ok, fair enough. But ultimately people create all wealth with their knowledge, skills and labour. It's also a question of hiring the right people. If I was running it, I'd hire people like Chez double his salary and put him to work to liase and consult on behalf of the state system. I'm confident he'd take GSK, Roche etc..to the cleaners at the first meeting. I have always believed basic services ie water, transport and health should have strong oversight (whether it is the Govt or appointed an appointed knowledge base of professionals) and they should be easily affordable if not as close to free as possible. The vast chunk of the cost imo should come from direct taxation. How much would you be prepared for direct taxation to go up to (I assume you mainly mean income tax). If Government paid for everything you mention, I imagine the tax burden would be astronomical. What's more, you'd still have an army of dole wallers happy to take and give fuck all, meanwhile I'm sure a large proportion of the 'elite' would up sticks and move abroad. If that's what you want and believe in, fair enough, it's not what I, or I suspect the democratic majority, want though, which brings us back to the 'real world' rather than 6th form politics. Not sure 2p is going to kill anyone or higher N.I. payments for people on higher incomes. Government oversight doesn't stop companies making money. Capitalism is not interested in full employment as as it has a negative effect on wage erosion/labour bargaining. Governments and non-alingned bodies are better at distributing wealth to the periphery as Soros (right wing guru) pointed out in his last book. This is neccessary as unchecked wealth colonised by the biggest companies (terrible at redistribution) will bring down Capitalism quicker than any Tony Benn clone.

Villa play the wrong type of footy for Owen.

I was so incensed by the racist implication of the stereotype I filled-in a lad wearing a turban in town the following weekend.

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'm aware of that. Everything still has a cost though. If it's your view all healthcare should be free at the point of service then, fine. I took it to be akin to comments you've made in the past, e.g. all public transport should be free. In any case, nothing is free, it's just a case of deciding who pays for it and how. Ok, fair enough. But ultimately people create all wealth with their knowledge, skills and labour. It's also a question of hiring the right people. If I was running it, I'd hire people like Chez double his salary and put him to work to liase and consult on behalf of the state system. I'm confident he'd take GSK, Roche etc..to the cleaners at the first meeting. I have always believed basic services ie water, transport and health should have strong oversight (whether it is the Govt or appointed an appointed knowledge base of professionals) and they should be easily affordable if not as close to free as possible. The vast chunk of the cost imo should come from direct taxation.