Osama Bin Laden DEAD- Killed By U.S. Forces

[Errata]

As a rich, developed Western society we should grant basic free health care to everyone on demand to stop people having to worry about sacrificing the other basic necessities of life.

As usual Derrick spouts left wing nonsense without thinking about what he is saying or how it would impact in the real world.

Everything you said may in fact be true. I am willing to concede it is. And we in the US have VERY different healthcare problems than you do. But...

You gotta dream, man...

Is true Universal healthcare impractical, improbable, and maybe impossible? Yeah. But what if it weren't?

Is changing the hearts and minds of enough of the US population to get rid of segregation, poll taxes and tests, and eugenics laws in under 20 years impossible? Yeah. But it happened. People fought like hell for it. There were plans and Socratic arguments and civil disobedience and nagging and nibbling and nudging and we got it done.

And I truly think that is harder than a money issue.

In this day and age, money is essentially an abstract concept. Sort of like Jazz music. There are a few rules and guidelines, and nothing is without consequence, but it's essentially a freeflowing concept no longer linked to tangible goods.

So we need the dream. And yes, we need the execution, but the dream comes first. And maybe someday someone will hear the call for true universal health care and say "you know what might work?" and we'll build from there.

Just cause we don't know how to do it yet doesn't mean we need to stop wanting it, or even calling for it. And yeah, in the meantime we'll do other stuff, but it's a good dream.

Anyway, you think they had any effing clue how they were going to get to the moon when Kennedy announced that we were going to be on it in 9 years? Expectation is a powerful motivator for problem solving.

I'm just saying, don''t knock the dreamers for not being practical. We need both in the world.

[Bob Hinton]

Oops

Link doesn't seem to work but if you cut and paste it and then follow it you will get to the story.

[Bob Hinton]

Demonstration

Here's a link to the Countryside Demonstration that Derek is so het up about.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../ROBERT-HARDMAN-Why-Left-silent-riot-squads-inflicted-terrible-injuries-peaceful-country-folk-2004.htm

Notice the pictures of all the badly wounded people. It's strange that the likes of Derrick was so quiet about that one isn't it?

[Bob Hinton]

Jason,
Except of course if you are Limehouse or Caps who reserve the right to make ludicrous statements and then get all bent out of shape when you ask them to justify them.

[Bob Hinton]

Sorry Limehouse ( she of the UK shipped tanks and guns to Iraq) what part of my post do you deem to be offensive?

[jason_c]

Any chance we can discuss the posts and the issues, rather than the posters?

Phil

Fair enough. But when a certain poster posts a statement so fundamentally wrong he ought to be pulled up on it.

[jason_c]

....he claimed Lord Halifax was a Nazi

While not factually true, and completely wrong as far as the man himself was concerned, I can see where Derrick may have been coming from with that statement.

Halifax WAS an appeaser, believed that (to an extent) Hitler could be dealt with and had Churchill failed as PM in May 1940, Halifax and his cohorts (such as RA Butler) would probably have sought a negotiated peace with Germany. (See John Lukacs' books, The Duel, and Five days in London, as well as Andrew Roberts', The Holy Fox.)

Compared to Eden, for instance, Halifax appears to have been less opposed to Nazi aspirations, and like his PM Neville Chamberlain, happy to negotiate with them. Eden (then Foreign Secretary) was clear in cautioning Halifax to be wary in meeting and discussing policy with Hitler and Goering during a visit to a Hubnting Exposition hosted by the latter. halifax pretty much ignored that advice.

I have great admiration for Halifax, who was in many ways a remarkable man, and one of integrity. But I am certain that history would have been VERY different had he succeeded Chamberlain as PM in May 1940.

So I can understand where Derrick was coming from, to some extent.

Phil

Phil

That seems to be Derricks problem. He knows some history but the interpetation of it is simply b*ll*x. No person objectively looking at Halifax can call him a Nazi. They could rightly call him an appeaser, a fatalist, a snob, misguided, wrong, or simply a realist. It requires the mentality of a Derrick to call him a Nazi.

[Phil H]

Any chance we can discuss the posts and the issues, rather than the posters?

Phil

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

Derrick wrote:

The second is the Countryside Alliance demo which was a right wing mish mash of saddo's who somehow tried to convince us townies that they were the true custodians of the countryside.

Isn't that also somewhat offensive?

Graham

[Phil H]

....he claimed Lord Halifax was a Nazi

While not factually true, and completely wrong as far as the man himself was concerned, I can see where Derrick may have been coming from with that statement.

Halifax WAS an appeaser, believed that (to an extent) Hitler could be dealt with and had Churchill failed as PM in May 1940, Halifax and his cohorts (such as RA Butler) would probably have sought a negotiated peace with Germany. (See John Lukacs' books, The Duel, and Five days in London, as well as Andrew Roberts', The Holy Fox.)

Compared to Eden, for instance, Halifax appears to have been less opposed to Nazi aspirations, and like his PM Neville Chamberlain, happy to negotiate with them. Eden (then Foreign Secretary) was clear in cautioning Halifax to be wary in meeting and discussing policy with Hitler and Goering during a visit to a Hubnting Exposition hosted by the latter. halifax pretty much ignored that advice.

I have great admiration for Halifax, who was in many ways a remarkable man, and one of integrity. But I am certain that history would have been VERY different had he succeeded Chamberlain as PM in May 1940.

So I can understand where Derrick was coming from, to some extent.

Phil

[jason_c]

As a rich, developed Western society we should grant basic free health care to everyone on demand to stop people having to worry about sacrificing the other basic necessities of life.

As usual Derrick spouts left wing nonsense without thinking about what he is saying or how it would impact in the real world.

Take his above statement. What he is saying is that Britain should pay for basic health care for the rest of the world on demand. Couple of points here Derrick.

1. What do you mean by ‘Basic health care? Does that mean everyone gets an aspirin? How about two aspirins? Does basic cover anti-biotics? What about sticking plasters or bandages? Does the ‘basic cover’ include fractures? What about operations?

2. How about treatment for people who injure themselves deliberately, such as drug addicts and alcoholics? How about removing tattoos that people were stupid enough to have?

3. If we gave every person in the world just one aspirin a day we would be bankrupt within a year. So who pays for the treatment then?

All these silly ideas sound great when shouted out by morons at rallies, however when it comes to enacting them it’s not quite so straightforward. As usual though the morons are usually out of work, spending taxpayer’s money so they can bite the hand that feeds them.

I stopped listening to Derrick the minute he claimed Lord Halifax was a Nazi. I think he also wishes to repeal the Enclosure Acts.

[Limehouse]

As a rich, developed Western society we should grant basic free health care to everyone on demand to stop people having to worry about sacrificing the other basic necessities of life.

As usual Derrick spouts left wing nonsense without thinking about what he is saying or how it would impact in the real world.

Take his above statement. What he is saying is that Britain should pay for basic health care for the rest of the world on demand. Couple of points here Derrick.

1. What do you mean by ‘Basic health care? Does that mean everyone gets an aspirin? How about two aspirins? Does basic cover anti-biotics? What about sticking plasters or bandages? Does the ‘basic cover’ include fractures? What about operations?

2. How about treatment for people who injure themselves deliberately, such as drug addicts and alcoholics? How about removing tattoos that people were stupid enough to have?

3. If we gave every person in the world just one aspirin a day we would be bankrupt within a year. So who pays for the treatment then?

All these silly ideas sound great when shouted out by morons at rallies, however when it comes to enacting them it’s not quite so straightforward. As usual though the morons are usually out of work, spending taxpayer’s money so they can bite the hand that feeds them.

Is it completely impossible for you to respond to a post containing elements you disagree with without being so offensive? How would you like to be called a moron?

[Phil H]

Bob Hinton's post raises a very good point.

I presage what i am about to say with the assurance that I regard the NHS as (on the whole a good thing), BUT -

Without some consideration of what it should provide, its parameters or limits, if you like - the NHS becomes an open maw which could suck in almost all UK public expenditure as it chases ever increasing public aspirations. It is "demand led" and thus any limits on expenditure set ahead of time can be difficult is not impossible to manage leading to spiralling costs (administrative and in terms of operations and drugs).

Add to that the difficulty of making reforms to the NHS - because there mere suggestion of "cuts", economies or doing things in a different way attracts attack from aall the lobbyists who feel their interests threatened and who then whip up scare stories among the public. This goes for more efficient ways of running ambulance and emergency services. Any use of managers or consultants who might make recommendations that would increase efficiency is also always immediately attacked.

I find it difficult to envisage how the NHS CAN go on providing all care to everyone on demand and immediately - whether the latest equipment (because you cannot have "post-code lotteries", or a facility more than a step away); the latest operations, treatments or drugs no matter how expensive; and ignoring the fact that some patients have made deiberate life-choices that make them high-risk.

As I understand it, the founding fathers of the NHS, in Atlee's reforming goverment (1945-51) never envisaged such a situation. They saw the NHS as being a "safety net" for those less-well off, unemployed etc. I don't think they ever foresaw those who could afford to pay even something for their care, being treated free. They also, I believe did not take into account the rate of medical and technical change.

So, where does the NHS need to go from here, how can it change/adapt in order to meet people's needs (and aspirations?) and survive, because otherwise I don't think it is sustainable without first economically damaging levels of tax, and potentially national bancruptcy (especially if you take into account the other "demand led" services such as unemployment and welfare benefits, care for the disabled etc etc). The NHS and its cost cannot be isolated from economic, and other government pressures - it can be ring-fenced (i.e. expenditure can be protected in total) but it cannot be excluded from the overall picture - at what point does a welfare state become impossible to afford?

I repeat that I fully appreciate the "emotional" relationship that many have to the NHS - it is a wonderful idea - but without realistic thought, it may not last into even the medium future in its present form, whatever party is in power and whatever temporary patches are put in place to try to make it work. It could fall under its own weight and in response to the unrealitic expectations and demands being placed upon it. There is no God given guarantee of its survival.

This is not party politics or an expression of dislike of the NHS, just (I hope) a cool and distanced appraisal of the facts.

Phil

[Bob Hinton]

Oh really...

As a rich, developed Western society we should grant basic free health care to everyone on demand to stop people having to worry about sacrificing the other basic necessities of life.

As usual Derrick spouts left wing nonsense without thinking about what he is saying or how it would impact in the real world.

Take his above statement. What he is saying is that Britain should pay for basic health care for the rest of the world on demand. Couple of points here Derrick.

1. What do you mean by ‘Basic health care? Does that mean everyone gets an aspirin? How about two aspirins? Does basic cover anti-biotics? What about sticking plasters or bandages? Does the ‘basic cover’ include fractures? What about operations?

2. How about treatment for people who injure themselves deliberately, such as drug addicts and alcoholics? How about removing tattoos that people were stupid enough to have?

3. If we gave every person in the world just one aspirin a day we would be bankrupt within a year. So who pays for the treatment then?

All these silly ideas sound great when shouted out by morons at rallies, however when it comes to enacting them it’s not quite so straightforward. As usual though the morons are usually out of work, spending taxpayer’s money so they can bite the hand that feeds them.

[Phil H]

Derrick, I realise that many people do get very emotionally wound up about the NHS. I understand that.

And I HAVE NOT knocked it.

What I did was to compare it as a cultural object with other similar organisations that "minister" to people - churches/denominations. I find a huge amount of correlation.

Your hang-ups about religeon are your affair (rather like a lot of views on things people disagree with). I frankly couldn't care less. Just don't off-load your baggage on me.

But if you cannot see past and present constructs in a comparative way, sorry, but I make no apologies.

Phil