RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen

RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/1/2014 3:55:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Why are you so pessimistic, PS? Surely a good big shake up is just what we need? Yes but a shake up with a government getting in power with a clear advantage. The deal or no deal style coalition of the last five years has been a disaster.

Politesub53 -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/1/2014 4:03:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Anyone can walk into a hospital ER and will be taken care of to the best of the hospital's ability (which, btw, is better care than that received in a jail). EMTALA means they can't turn anyone away for lack of ability to pay. Any patient that comes in has to, at the very least, be stabilized, if the hospital can do so. If the hospital can't stabilize the patient because of lack of ability, that patient gets transferred to a hospital that has that ability. It's a pretty fucked up system, innit? So, for now on, I do expect you to put an asterisk next to "universal" to identify that it's not universal. So, yeah, you have Universal* Health care. Bollocks...... EMTALA isnt anywhere near an equivalent to the NHS service. It is only equal to our A & E.....How the fuck you decided to bring jails into the debate is beyond me, but then again much of your bullshit is beyond me. I never stated that EMTALA is equivalent, or near equivalent to the NHS. I'm not familiar with "A&E," so I can't make a point towards it. How the fuck did I decide to bring jails into the debate? That's seriously beyond you? Sanity might not use the King's English, but I still assumed you could interpret his posts, click links and read. The whole discussion about "Universal Access" has to do with a woman who was kept in a jail cell because of lack of a bed at a hospital. Maybe you don't actually read what Sanity posts (not exactly the worst decision you could make), but that's where jails came into play. A and E would what you would call the ER...... Accident and Emergency. Sadly for me, I do indeed read Sanitys posts. Being held in a police cell isnt exactly jail, not by a long way, hence my post. That said, convicts get the same treatment as anyone else in jail.

Politesub53 -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/1/2014 4:10:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The human reality, Lucy, is that health care costs too fucking much! That's the whole fucking point! Why do you need health insurance? Mainly due to rip off pricing from the health companies and big pharmacuticals. THAT, is the whole fucking point !

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/1/2014 4:10:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I'm arf socialist, aren't I. Me grea' granda being from Bethersden Kent and so forf, wot? On me mums side, 'e were a Hook, 'e were. Had a rellie won the victorias cross in Zulu wif Michael Caine. Bethersden?? Eeeek!! We almost cudda bin neighbours! [sm=insane.gif] 'tis just a spit down tha road from me here.

Politesub53 -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/1/2014 4:12:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Are you? Christ, you're easily pleased, Peon. If Labour win a majority, I'll eat my hat and yours; and Sanity's, which will likely be a big hat. No chance. The Conservative Party have it all wrapped up. They're much more believable and they did a very good job of painting Labour as reckless during their stewardship. I think the majority of people will see the Conservative Party as the safer bet when election day comes round. A word of caution, dont eat Sanitys hat as he keeps his head up his arse. I have known mushrooms that see more daylight. [8D]

dcnovice -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/1/2014 4:35:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The human reality, Lucy, is that health care costs too fucking much! That's the whole fucking point! Why do you need health insurance? Mainly due to rip off pricing from the health companies and big pharmacuticals. THAT, is the whole fucking point ! I honestly think it's more complex than that. Other factors include defensive medicine (ordering every last test lest one be sued), R&D costs for new drugs (the U.S. essentially subsidizes the rest of the world's medications), and an inability to accept death (a huge amount of an individual's overall health expenses come in the last months or even weeks of life as doctors battle to postpone the inevitable), a topic covered with horrifying clarity in Atul Gawande's amazing new book, Being Mortal.

deathtothepixies -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/1/2014 5:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The whole discussion about "Universal Access" has to do with a woman who was kept in a jail cell because of lack of a bed at a hospital. I don't have the "boxing" skills to include Lucy's witheringly acute reply but the whole point of universal access is that it is a concept, an ideal that the NHS and pretty much everyone else in this country believes in. Is our health care system perfect? No, far from it, but the reasoning and ideology behind it is totally correct. Care for all of our citizens. Finding an article where one person has slipped through the net and using it to try and discredit the whole system is petty, pointless and beneath you. It is impossible to care for 100% of the people 100% of the time, there would have to be a ridiculous amount of redundancy built into the system, but the point remains that the idea of caring for everyone is the right thing to do whether they are "truly needy" or not.

Marini -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/1/2014 7:53:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies I don't have the "boxing" skills to include Lucy's witheringly acute reply but the whole point of universal access is that it is a concept, an ideal that the NHS and pretty much everyone else in this country believes in. Is our health care system perfect? No, far from it, but the reasoning and ideology behind it is totally correct. Care for all of our citizens. Finding an article where one person has slipped through the net and using it to try and discredit the whole system is petty, pointless and beneath you. It is impossible to care for 100% of the people 100% of the time, there would have to be a ridiculous amount of redundancy built into the system, but the point remains that the idea of caring for everyone is the right thing to do whether they are "truly needy" or not. THIS The system in the UK may be flawed, but the premise is the right one. We are taxed up the ass, and no single payer health insurance.

PeonForHer -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/1/2014 7:57:48 PM)
quote: Is our health care system perfect? No, far from it, but the reasoning and ideology behind it is totally correct. Care for all of our citizens. Now you've gone and done it. effete Britishness ...freeloaders getting ill deliberately ...socialism ... totalitarianism ... Marx and Stalin working their evil influence ... apple pie banned ... end of freedom as we know it ... [etc.]

Marini -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/1/2014 8:06:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Is our health care system perfect? No, far from it, but the reasoning and ideology behind it is totally correct. Care for all of our citizens. Now you've gone and done it. effete Britishness ...freeloaders getting ill deliberately ...socialism ... totalitarianism ... Marx and Stalin working their evil influence ... apple pie banned ... end of freedom as we know it ... [etc.] I love it The systems we have in place right now, are not working all that well. Freedom is just another word, for nothing left to lose. Money.com Seniors in almost every state struggling to afford retirement

Lucylastic -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/2/2014 12:58:38 AM)
As further to my point, regarding mentally ill people being jailed instead of cared for? NEW YORK (AP) — The New York City mayor wants to spend $130 million over four years to overhaul how the nation's most populous city deals with mentally ill and drug-addicted suspects, diverting many to treatment instead of the city's troubled Rikers Island jail complex. Mayor Bill de Blasio's plans, to be announced Tuesday, are based on the recommendations of a task force he appointed following a series of reports by The Associated Press detailing problems at Rikers, including the deaths of two inmates suffering from serious mental illness. The reforms are aimed largely at inmates with mental-health or substance-abuse problems who repeatedly end up in jail on minor offenses because there is nowhere else for them to go. The changes, which do not require city council approval, include offering stepped-up training for police to identify such suspects, using drop-off treatment centers for low-level offenders and allowing more leeway for judges to order supervised release and treatment instead of jail. They draw on reforms already tried in Seattle, Washington D.C., and Louisville, Kentucky. "The jails hold up a mirror to the rest of the criminal-justice system," the mayor's task force report says, noting that "at every point, the criminal-justice system has become the default for addressing the problems presented by people with behavioral health issues, whether at arrest, arraignment, confinement or in the neighborhood." De Blasio has for months pledged to reform the jails, which he has dubbed "de facto mental health facilities." While the overall jail population has dropped in recent years, the ratio of those with a mental health diagnosis has soared to 40 percent of the roughly 11,000 daily inmates, up from 24 percent in 2007. A third of them suffer from serious mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and officials say the mentally ill are both more likely to be victims and perpetrators of jail violence. That's compounded by the fact that 85 percent of all prisoners have a substance-abuse disorder. The deaths of the two inmates reported by AP this year — one who was said to have "baked to death" in a cell that was heated to 101 degrees and another who sexually mutilated himself after being locked up alone for seven straight days — "threw a spotlight" on the jails, where mentally ill inmates also stay longer, said Elizabeth Glazer, the mayor's criminal justice coordinator. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/nyc-jail-reforms_n_6252646.html Oh...snip<> The mother of a mentally ill and homeless former Marine named Jerome Murdough — who died in February after being locked in the overheated cell on a misdemeanor trespassing charge — said she took solace in reforms that might keep men like her son out of Rikers altogether.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/2/2014 3:10:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 A and E would what you would call the ER...... Accident and Emergency. Thanks for the clarification. EMTALA is Federal Law requiring a hospital to treat anyone who walks in regardless of ability to pay, or stabilize and transport if they lack proper facilities to treat. It doesn't equate to the NHS because it isn't a way to pay for health care, but it does allow equal access, regardless of ability to pay. quote: Sadly for me, I do indeed read Sanitys posts. Being held in a police cell isnt exactly jail, not by a long way, hence my post. That said, convicts get the same treatment as anyone else in jail. What is the difference between being held in a police cell and jail (asking for informational purposes as we, generally, use the two interchangeably)?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/2/2014 3:24:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The human reality, Lucy, is that health care costs too fucking much! That's the whole fucking point! Why do you need health insurance? Mainly due to rip off pricing from the health companies and big pharmacuticals. THAT, is the whole fucking point ! You need health insurance from rip off pricing from health companies and pharmaceuticals? In other words, you need health insurance so you can pay for health care that costs too fucking much, which means we agree on the same fucking point! I don't know any prices for care in the UK (you do treat foreigners at no point of use cost too, right?). I did have a friend with American insurance living in Germany. His experience with the German system's costing (he had to pay up front and get reimbursed from his insurance company) demonstrates that if our prices were the same as theirs, many people wouldn't even need insurance to pay for care, and that insurance would be a helluva lot less expensive for those that did. Obamacare is vernacular for the ACA, the Affordable Care Act. As such, it's title is a complete lie. It should have been coined the "Shifting of Costs of Insurance" Act, because that's what it does. "RomneyCare" has run into issues because it doesn't address costs, either. KFF has a table of health care spending per capita broken down by State. Location Health Spending per Capita 1. District of Columbia $10,349 2. Massachusetts $9,278 3. Alaska $9,128 4. Connecticut $8,654 5. Maine $8,521 6. Delaware $8,480 7. New York $8,341 8. Rhode Island $8,309 9. New Hampshire $7,839 10. North Dakota $7,749 11. Pennsylvania $7,730 12. West Virginia $7,667 13. Vermont $7,635 14. New Jersey $7,583 15. Maryland $7,492 16. Minnesota $7,409 17. Wisconsin $7,233 18. Florida $7,156 19. Ohio $7,076 20. South Dakota $7,056 21. Nebraska $7,048 22. Wyoming $7,040 23. Missouri $6,967 24. Iowa $6,921 25. Hawaii $6,856 United States $6,815 26. Louisiana $6,795 27. Washington $6,782 28. Kansas $6,782 29. Illinois $6,756 30. Indiana $6,666 31. New Mexico $6,651 32. Montana $6,640 33. Michigan $6,618 34. Kentucky $6,596 35. Oregon $6,580 36. Mississippi $6,571 37. Oklahoma $6,532 38. North Carolina $6,444 39. Tennessee $6,411 40. South Carolina $6,323 41. Virginia $6,286 42. Alabama $6,272 43. California $6,238 44. Arkansas $6,167 45. Colorado $5,994 46. Texas $5,924 47. Nevada $5,735 48. Idaho $5,658 49. Georgia $5,467 50. Arizona $5,434 51. Utah $5,031 District of Columbia (not, technically, a State) is the highest, with Massachusetts being second. I'm not sure why Obamacare was going to be such a force to making care affordable, when Romneycare (what Obamacare was touted as being based on) wasn't such a force in making care affordable.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/2/2014 3:27:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini We are taxed up the ass, and no single payer health insurance. How much further up do you want to be taxed if we're already taxed and aren't being taxed for single payer for everyone?

Marini -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/2/2014 3:44:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Marini We are taxed up the ass, and no single payer health insurance. How much further up do you want to be taxed if we're already taxed and aren't being taxed for single payer for everyone? Why can't a substantial portion of the taxes that I pay go to single payer health care? Where the hell IS the money going? I have a lot of issues concerning how/and where our money is spent. Capitalism at its finest, don't even get me started. Money for everyone and everything, millions/billions often thrown away, but gosh forbid we have single payer health care. The current system is failing, but even as it fails, lets not blow the money on health care. Unbridled capitalism is going to be a major factor in the continuing decline of this country.

MariaB -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/2/2014 4:28:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 2015 is going to be quite a year for you blokes. I've been sort of watching out of the corner of my eye, although here it is hard to get much news and insight. Doesn't appear that it will be business as usual, Tories v Labour v Liberals (yes, I see a separation there), you have your own brand of nutsuckers there now, amongst them UKIP, and some other rather extremist groups making moves. Give us the views Regarding the conservative sell out of the NHS; don’t get me started. Unfortunately the penny hasn’t yet dropped with most of the general public and so the conservatives will get back in and the For Sale signs on our NHS hospitals will soon have a Sold sign slapped on them. Its a fast moving train that’s already precariously close to its destination. Needless to say, I won't be voting blue. I won’t be voting UKIP because its a divided party which insures future tension. Its amateurish and unrealistic politics and their lack of ability to do their sums is laughable. That said, the more who vote for UKIP, the higher the chances of Labour getting in. As laughable as they are, UKIP worry me more than any other party. They’ve got some very clever, if not devious tricks up their sleeve and I’m in no doubt that little bit of genius will guarantee them seats. Whilst the Tories concentrate on the middle classes, UKIP have caught the hearts and minds of the poor; the very people who have been encouraged to believe some poor Somali person running for his life is responsible for their poverty, their unemployment and even violence, rather than those at the top who are ripping billions of pounds from the economy to ensure the rich become richer and the poor remain poor. UKIP has aimed much of its politics towards white, badly educated, bigoted and easily persuadable people, which means UKIP has successfully become a friend amongst the disadvantaged communities and yet UKIP is the one party that will take the poor backwards and I’d put money on that one. I need to plan my vote but I need to do a lot more reading first.

PeonForHer -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/2/2014 4:45:34 AM)
quote: I need to plan my vote but I need to do a lot more reading first. This is a very good place to start, if you haven't already tried it. You complete a questionnaire, giving your responses to lists of policies that you like or dislike. At the end, you're told which of the parties is best suited to the collection of policies you prefer. A lot of people have been very surprised by their results: http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

Lucylastic -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/2/2014 4:46:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 2015 is going to be quite a year for you blokes. I've been sort of watching out of the corner of my eye, although here it is hard to get much news and insight. Doesn't appear that it will be business as usual, Tories v Labour v Liberals (yes, I see a separation there), you have your own brand of nutsuckers there now, amongst them UKIP, and some other rather extremist groups making moves. Give us the views Regarding the conservative sell out of the NHS; don’t get me started. Unfortunately the penny hasn’t yet dropped with most of the general public and so the conservatives will get back in and the For Sale signs on our NHS hospitals will soon have a Sold sign slapped on them. Its a fast moving train that’s already precariously close to its destination. Needless to say, I won't be voting blue. I won’t be voting UKIP because its a divided party which insures future tension. Its amateurish and unrealistic politics and their lack of ability to do their sums is laughable. That said, the more who vote for UKIP, the higher the chances of Labour getting in. As laughable as they are, UKIP worry me more than any other party. They’ve got some very clever, if not devious tricks up their sleeve and I’m in no doubt that little bit of genius will guarantee them seats. Whilst the Tories concentrate on the middle classes, UKIP have caught the hearts and minds of the poor; the very people who have been encouraged to believe some poor Somali person running for his life is responsible for their poverty, their unemployment and even violence, rather than those at the top who are ripping billions of pounds from the economy to ensure the rich become richer and the poor remain poor. UKIP has aimed much of its politics towards white, badly educated, bigoted and easily persuadable people, which means UKIP has successfully become a friend amongst the disadvantaged communities and yet UKIP is the one party that will take the poor backwards and I’d put money on that one. I need to plan my vote but I need to do a lot more reading first. this

mnottertail -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/2/2014 9:17:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Marini We are taxed up the ass, and no single payer health insurance. How much further up do you want to be taxed if we're already taxed and aren't being taxed for single payer for everyone? What exactly is the nefarious cataclysmic event if I put a 45 cent stamp on something and write out the check every month or it is deducted from my paycheck?

NorthernGent -> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen (12/2/2014 9:45:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 2015 is going to be quite a year for you blokes. I've been sort of watching out of the corner of my eye, although here it is hard to get much news and insight. Doesn't appear that it will be business as usual, Tories v Labour v Liberals (yes, I see a separation there), you have your own brand of nutsuckers there now, amongst them UKIP, and some other rather extremist groups making moves. Give us the views Regarding the conservative sell out of the NHS; don’t get me started. Unfortunately the penny hasn’t yet dropped with most of the general public and so the conservatives will get back in and the For Sale signs on our NHS hospitals will soon have a Sold sign slapped on them. Its a fast moving train that’s already precariously close to its destination. Needless to say, I won't be voting blue. I won’t be voting UKIP because its a divided party which insures future tension. Its amateurish and unrealistic politics and their lack of ability to do their sums is laughable. That said, the more who vote for UKIP, the higher the chances of Labour getting in. As laughable as they are, UKIP worry me more than any other party. They’ve got some very clever, if not devious tricks up their sleeve and I’m in no doubt that little bit of genius will guarantee them seats. Whilst the Tories concentrate on the middle classes, UKIP have caught the hearts and minds of the poor; the very people who have been encouraged to believe some poor Somali person running for his life is responsible for their poverty, their unemployment and even violence, rather than those at the top who are ripping billions of pounds from the economy to ensure the rich become richer and the poor remain poor. UKIP has aimed much of its politics towards white, badly educated, bigoted and easily persuadable people, which means UKIP has successfully become a friend amongst the disadvantaged communities and yet UKIP is the one party that will take the poor backwards and I’d put money on that one. I need to plan my vote but I need to do a lot more reading first. Maria B, Is it a case of being 'badly educated'? As far as I can tell, there are some disaffected conservatives rallying to the UKIP cause and a significant amount of older people with previous left-wing convictions also buying into UKIP. Seems to be 3 major pulling points with UKIP: immigration, European Union, they're not part of the status quo/establishment. Do you really have to be 'badly educated' to go along with those three central tenets of UKIP existence? I don't think so. People quite rightly have concerns about immigration, and Labour have pushed us here because it has been an open house. The European Union? unelected people being paid a fortune, whom no one has ever heard of? Hardly a big surprise when people say they don't want a part of that. A change to the status quo? Christ, if ever a country needs this it's us, given that we have had the same two parties for a hundred years now saying the same things in cheap sound-bites. I'd stop short at voting for Hitler, but I might consider Pol Pot if it helps to just change the political landscape in this country. Even they know it's a joke; they spend all of their time in Parliament laughing their heads off and falling asleep. I wouldn't vote for UKIP because they're not for me, but I can half understand why people would do just for a change. Only problem is that in my view they're not getting change - they're getting a group of disaffected conservatives not happy that the Conservative Party became a liberal party some time back. It could only happen in this country that the party of change is harking back to 1850. What we need is real change. A party that offers us something beyond the polarised state of politics that we currently have, and perhaps is underpinned by ethics, principles, liberty, that sort of thing; and concentrates more on what it has to offer rather than demonising some other party. I think the dichotomy of left and right had its day a long time back.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875