Privatise the NHS

[Park Life 71]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

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.

 

 

ie the people.

[Guest alex]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

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.

[Happy Face 29]

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'

 

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?

[Park Life 71]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

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.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

People far cleverer than anyone on here have tried to make the NHS work with limited success though. I'd have some serious misgivings about even a partial privatisation of the NHS but the overriding concern, for me, is that as many people as possible get the best care possible. If that means reforming the NHS and ripping up the socialist principles it was founded on then fair enough, let's do it. Because it's a vastly different UK to the post-war one in which the idea was conceived and put into place.

[Renton 22001]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

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.

[Happy Face 29]

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'

 

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?

[Park Life 71]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

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.

[Renton 22001]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

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.

[LeazesMag 0]

Aimed at Rob, Leazes or both?

Leazes is class when he comes on pissed anyway and calls everyone a 'cunt'.

 

Spot on. It was deliberately left as an 'open letter', but you can add Fop to the list too.

 

Hilarious how they profess some of the strongest opinions on here but time and again fold under cross examination from someone with any actual expertise in a subject.

 

No coincidence either that these are all too scared to admit what they do in their professional life.

 

what does "what they do in their professional life" have to do with who is making a correct comment and who isn't ?

 

Fact is that Renton is a dick for the simple reason that anybody who disagrees with him is instantly deemed to "lack intelligence/be a thick cunt/uneducated.....blah blah, delete as appropriate.

 

Most of us have been around a bit, some have their heads in the sand, some don't.

 

FOP appears pretty confident he knows more than rent boy regarding what is being discussed in this thread, so who's to say he is wrong ?

 

What is indisputable is that Renton knows fuck all about football, especially compared to me.

 

The reference to professional credentials was to do with the fact that Fop and Rob purposely omit to answer that question when it is directly asked of them. They do this because they feel that it allows them to pontificate anecdotally on subjects they don't have any real forensic knowledge of.

 

To answer your question more specifically however, on (to give an example) healthcare, Fop freely disputes clinical issues with a qualified doctor (Luke) and non-clinical/funding issues of pharmaceutical companies with someone who is dirctly employed in the sector (Chez). Now that's not determinative of who is right in a debate, but lets just say if I was relying on someone's judgment as a layperson, I know who it would be in either scenario. To put it simply, it would be fucking idiotic to do otherwise.

 

PS Leazes, nowt personal and I'm not being funny or owt, but you're a grown man (50 as I understand) who's spat his dummy and 'left' the forum on several occasions when your logic has been shown to be defective in various arguments, so this is all a bit rich coming from you.

 

I have never left this forum on account of disagreeing with anybody. Thats a fact.

[Park Life 71]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

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?

Edited November 13, 2008 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

The electorate don't like tax increases, especially income tax within the huge middle class (for want of a better phrase) demographic, which is where problems also arise.

[Happy Face 29]

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.

[Guest alex]

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.

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.

[Park Life 71]

The electorate don't like tax increases, especially income tax within the huge middle class (for want of a better phrase) demographic, which is where problems also arise.

 

Brainwash the fuckers..Till they love it.

[LeazesMag 0]

Aimed at Rob, Leazes or both?

Leazes is class when he comes on pissed anyway and calls everyone a 'cunt'.

 

Spot on. It was deliberately left as an 'open letter', but you can add Fop to the list too.

 

Hilarious how they profess some of the strongest opinions on here but time and again fold under cross examination from someone with any actual expertise in a subject.

 

No coincidence either that these are all too scared to admit what they do in their professional life.

 

what does "what they do in their professional life" have to do with who is making a correct comment and who isn't ?

 

Fact is that Renton is a dick for the simple reason that anybody who disagrees with him is instantly deemed to "lack intelligence/be a thick cunt/uneducated.....blah blah, delete as appropriate.

 

Most of us have been around a bit, some have their heads in the sand, some don't.

 

FOP appears pretty confident he knows more than rent boy regarding what is being discussed in this thread, so who's to say he is wrong ?

 

What is indisputable is that Renton knows fuck all about football, especially compared to me.

 

See that's quite funny, because in the majority of cases I've agreed with you with regard to what happens on a football pitch, in the past you have even claimed words to the effect that I was the most clued up on the board with the exception of your good self. But because I disagreed with you about Shepherd, suddenly I know nothing. So what does that say about you?

 

Anyway, you may have noticed this isn't a football thread, so please don't try and derail it. It's also one of the few threads I have bothered to post in in General chat even, precisely because it is relevant to my present career, but also is pertinent to what I want to do in the future. I've stated what I do (pretty much drug evaluation most of the time), yourself and Fop haven't.

 

So, are you seriously saying what a person does for a living should have no bearing on the likelihood of their opinion being at least factually correct, and are you saying a google merchant wum like Fop should be treated seriously, even when it is clear (surely to any 'neutral') he has no knowledge of what he is talking about, and continuously ducks questions whilst accusing others of doing the same (does that sound familiar btw?). Take his response to Chez in post 447 - that would be sad even by your standards.

 

Anyway, your problem always has been you have a massive chip on your shoulder, it seems to be eating away at you and turning you borderline sociopathic. Oh, and once again, you should check who is making the insults in this thread, try and find when was the last time I called someone a thick cunt while you're at it. In a way it's a pity you can't find something to argue about with Fop, you would most probably both disappear in a non-ending circular thread, disappearing up your own arseholes for all eternity.

 

Clever lad is back. It hasn't been the same without you. Chip on my shoulder ? I think not, dear chap. As has been said, you don't know what I do either or anything about me. So use your own super intelligence and ask yourself who is insulting who now.

 

What has been the reason for your disappearance ? Have you disappeared up someone's arsehole or something too ?

 

Whatever. Strange how this board has been free of the old clique type aura, and now all of a sudden its back on account of you pontificating on about people being inferior to you.

 

Chip on the shoulder perhaps ?

Edited November 13, 2008 by LeazesMag

[Park Life 71]

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.

 

 

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.

[manc-mag 1]

Aimed at Rob, Leazes or both?

Leazes is class when he comes on pissed anyway and calls everyone a 'cunt'.

 

Spot on. It was deliberately left as an 'open letter', but you can add Fop to the list too.

 

Hilarious how they profess some of the strongest opinions on here but time and again fold under cross examination from someone with any actual expertise in a subject.

 

No coincidence either that these are all too scared to admit what they do in their professional life.

 

what does "what they do in their professional life" have to do with who is making a correct comment and who isn't ?

 

Fact is that Renton is a dick for the simple reason that anybody who disagrees with him is instantly deemed to "lack intelligence/be a thick cunt/uneducated.....blah blah, delete as appropriate.

 

Most of us have been around a bit, some have their heads in the sand, some don't.

 

FOP appears pretty confident he knows more than rent boy regarding what is being discussed in this thread, so who's to say he is wrong ?

 

What is indisputable is that Renton knows fuck all about football, especially compared to me.

 

The reference to professional credentials was to do with the fact that Fop and Rob purposely omit to answer that question when it is directly asked of them. They do this because they feel that it allows them to pontificate anecdotally on subjects they don't have any real forensic knowledge of.

 

To answer your question more specifically however, on (to give an example) healthcare, Fop freely disputes clinical issues with a qualified doctor (Luke) and non-clinical/funding issues of pharmaceutical companies with someone who is dirctly employed in the sector (Chez). Now that's not determinative of who is right in a debate, but lets just say if I was relying on someone's judgment as a layperson, I know who it would be in either scenario. To put it simply, it would be fucking idiotic to do otherwise.

 

PS Leazes, nowt personal and I'm not being funny or owt, but you're a grown man (50 as I understand) who's spat his dummy and 'left' the forum on several occasions when your logic has been shown to be defective in various arguments, so this is all a bit rich coming from you.

 

I have never left this forum on account of disagreeing with anybody. Thats a fact.

 

There was definite dummy spitting and histrionics on exit as I recall. And I'm virtually certain it was in the aftermath of longrunning debates where you were taking a bit of a shoeing.

[Guest alex]

What has been the reason for your disappearance ? Have you disappeared up someone's arsehole or something too ?

[Guest alex]

The electorate don't like tax increases, especially income tax within the huge middle class (for want of a better phrase) demographic, which is where problems also arise.

 

Brainwash the fuckers..Till they love it.

We both know you don't really believe in that though.

[manc-mag 1]

This thread is an absolute gem btw.

[Park Life 71]

This thread is an absolute gem btw.

[Renton 22001]

Aimed at Rob, Leazes or both?

Leazes is class when he comes on pissed anyway and calls everyone a 'cunt'.

 

Spot on. It was deliberately left as an 'open letter', but you can add Fop to the list too.

 

Hilarious how they profess some of the strongest opinions on here but time and again fold under cross examination from someone with any actual expertise in a subject.

 

No coincidence either that these are all too scared to admit what they do in their professional life.

 

what does "what they do in their professional life" have to do with who is making a correct comment and who isn't ?

 

Fact is that Renton is a dick for the simple reason that anybody who disagrees with him is instantly deemed to "lack intelligence/be a thick cunt/uneducated.....blah blah, delete as appropriate.

 

Most of us have been around a bit, some have their heads in the sand, some don't.

 

FOP appears pretty confident he knows more than rent boy regarding what is being discussed in this thread, so who's to say he is wrong ?

 

What is indisputable is that Renton knows fuck all about football, especially compared to me.

 

See that's quite funny, because in the majority of cases I've agreed with you with regard to what happens on a football pitch, in the past you have even claimed words to the effect that I was the most clued up on the board with the exception of your good self. But because I disagreed with you about Shepherd, suddenly I know nothing. So what does that say about you?

 

Anyway, you may have noticed this isn't a football thread, so please don't try and derail it. It's also one of the few threads I have bothered to post in in General chat even, precisely because it is relevant to my present career, but also is pertinent to what I want to do in the future. I've stated what I do (pretty much drug evaluation most of the time), yourself and Fop haven't.

 

So, are you seriously saying what a person does for a living should have no bearing on the likelihood of their opinion being at least factually correct, and are you saying a google merchant wum like Fop should be treated seriously, even when it is clear (surely to any 'neutral') he has no knowledge of what he is talking about, and continuously ducks questions whilst accusing others of doing the same (does that sound familiar btw?). Take his response to Chez in post 447 - that would be sad even by your standards.

 

Anyway, your problem always has been you have a massive chip on your shoulder, it seems to be eating away at you and turning you borderline sociopathic. Oh, and once again, you should check who is making the insults in this thread, try and find when was the last time I called someone a thick cunt while you're at it. In a way it's a pity you can't find something to argue about with Fop, you would most probably both disappear in a non-ending circular thread, disappearing up your own arseholes for all eternity.

 

Clever lad is back. It hasn't been the same without you. Chip on my shoulder ? I think not, dear chap. As has been said, you don't know what I do either or anything about me. So use your own super intelligence and ask yourself who is insulting who now.

 

What has been the reason for your disappearance ? Have you disappeared up someone's arsehole or something too ?

 

Whatever. Strange how this board has been free of the old clique type aura, and now all of a sudden its back on account of you pontificating on about people being inferior to you.

 

Chip on the shoulder perhaps ?

 

Your first post on this thread to me was the same as always, antagonistic bollocks. A 50 year old man, spoiling for a fight on the internet ffs, give your head a shake. You're certainly not mellowing with age, you're just the stubborn angry donkey you've always been.

 

Tell you what leazes, do us both a favour and just ignore me from now, eh? After all, I had no intention of ever talking with you again until you forced the issue.

[Guest alex]

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.

 

 

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.

Would you care to elaborate on it to those of us who don't get it then? Without being nebulous, if possible

[Renton 22001]

This thread is an absolute gem btw.

 

Are you sure the old clique type aura doesn't spoil it?