Papa Smurf wrote:
> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> news:yOgOa.77788$%L.70944@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5jaOa.77018$%L.1677@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:T73Oa.76196$%L.10957@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>>>>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Oj1Oa.76183$%L.67657@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:40:07 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of US political parties as I am
>>>>>>>>>> an Englishman - I take it the democrats are the very right
>>>>>>>>>> wing party and the republicans are the even more right wing
>>>>>>>>>> party?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. You've got it wrong. The Democrats are the socialists
>>>>>>>>> and the Republicans are the liberals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Democrats are socialists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To be a socialist (like Tony Blair or Karl Marx :)) you need to
>>>>>>>> believe in:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> State ownership of big business.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually that's too much work for them, they just believe in
>>>>>>> taxing it into submission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So no then.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd put it down as a sort of. It's not that they don't want it,
>>>>> it's just that they screw up each company that they try this one.
>>>>> They can't do it out right so it's a lot of smoke and mirrors,
>>>>> regulate everything so tightly that it might as well be run by
>>>>> the government (ironically: California calls this deregulation).
>>>>> But do they believe in it and lust for it, I think so.
>>>>>
>>>> So they have actually tried a compulsory purchase of a national
>>>> industry which then subsequently failed?
>>>
>>> As I said previously anything antithecal to vast majority of the
>>> public is never do straight out in this country. So rather than buy
>>> a company outright, they set rigid limits on what it can charge, and
>>> set up a billion rules it must comply to. Essentially running the
>>> company through legistration rather than by direct hand. So it's not
>>> like in a socialist cou ntry, be we were refering to what they
>>> believe in and desire.
>>>
>> Ahhh, I see your definition. In truth nationalisation really
>> involves the creation of a state owned monopoly which would mean for
>> example, your govt buying every electricity company in the US,
>> lumping them all together and calling it American Energy Inc or
>> similar. What you describe seems to be simply heavy handed remote
>> control.
>
> I agree that it is mere shadow of what you describe, I offer it
> nearly as insight into their wishes and desires, as the actions you
> describe are currently still against the law in terms of the power of
> the government.
>
I see, of course govt's can always vote themselves some new rights!

>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A command economy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well?
>>>>>
>>>>> I skipped this because I'm not sure what this means and I'm too
>>>>> lazy to look it up today.
>>>>>
>>>> Sorry - it's an economy where the govt control the means of
>>>> production.
>>>
>>> Admittedly here, we have only reached the point of the govt limiting
>>> and undermining the means of production.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Redistribution of wealth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Big time. Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. . . . . .could you elucidate please.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Top half of all American Wage Earners Pay almost all Income
>>>>> taxes. Nope that probably didn't help. Damned IRS moved everything
>>>>> around again, I'll have to go with this link:
>>>>> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html
>>>>>
>>>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would
>>>> be expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from
>>>> both a social and economic perspective.
>>>
>>> I don't feel like debating that at the moment. But my point was that
>>> the Libs are for ever higher rates on the top tax brackets, more
>>> people on the bottom paying ever lower amounts of taxes, and more
>>> and more social programs for those unable or unwilling to help
>>> themselves. So clearly they believe in and are very efficient at
>>> redistribution of wealth.
>>>
>> Out of interest, here low earners pay about 22% income tax and the
>> top rate is 40% even for millionaires - and everyone gets an annual
>> tax free allowance of around $8000 before they start paying tax. How
>> does that compare with the US tax system currently?
>
> On a Federal level (state and countries add their own income (and
> other) taxes which vary enormously from State to State. Alaska
> actually has a negative tax rate, several states have no state income
> tax, and some are heavily taxed. massachusetts is currently 6% and
> rising) the Top rate is 37% (it was a high at 71% under Carter), the
> bottom rate is 15%, but that really doesn't tell the picture as 37%
> pay no tax at all, many are actually given money (A wonderful wealth
> redistribution tool called tax credits), and as I stated before the
> top 50% pay 96.09% of the taxes. And then several types of income are
> taxed completely differently, and some are taxed twice. Our system is
> absurdly complex, mostly to keep the lawyers employeed and make sure
> everyone feels like a criminal (which makes them easier to control).
> One interesting aspect of our revenue system is you can ask 50
> different IRS agents the same question and get upwards of 50 starkly
> different answers (this has been done and documented). But you can
> see with this kind of a spread on revenue, NHS on a tax basis, simply
> is a another aspect of wealth redistribution.
>
Yes, that is very complex indeed. I earn twice the national average and get
to keep around 70% of it which i consider fair in a physically small country
with a large population. Perhaps a national set of tax levels would be a
good idea over there but would be painful to implement. We have tax credits
over here too and they seem to be working well.

>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeois is a
>>>>>>>> politcal struggle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Definately.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> State provision of services.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't know how strongly they feel about publicizing everything,
>>>>>>> but they show do go ballistic whenever talk of privitizing
>>>>>>> something comes up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what public services are provided by the democrats that aren't
>>>>>> by the republicans?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing parties
>>>>>>>> neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them in the
>>>>>>>> face! ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, we'll just call em 4/5 socialists then....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even 5% socialists - must try harder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, if that's 5% then they must whip most kids straight out of
>>>>> the delivery room into a bubblewrap crate designed for safety and
>>>>> health, while pushing the few producers to breaking point to keep
>>>>> society going. No, too far from one of my concepts of hell.
>>>>> What's good side for the non-leeches?
>>>>
>>>> You seem somewhat dogmatic - a nations success surely must not only
>>>> be measured in dollars, but also how it looks after it's less
>>>> fortunate citizens and I say this a right wing Conservative.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where as I believe that a country is only as strong as the intregity
>>> of it's people.
>>> And intregity I measure by the individuals belief in personal
>>> reponsiblity. And that I see (by which I mean I observe it happening
>>> in this country) as undermined by the entitlement mindset.
>>
>> We both believe similar things then, but my belief in my fellow
>> Englishmen leads me to trust that their self-respect will allow them
>> only to use entitlement as a last resort, whereas you seem to think
>> many Americans will immediately give up trying if they can get the
>> basics for free.
>
> Forty years of experience has shown me that it works that way here.
> The more that is given the more they not only want, but they more
> that they feel they deserve.
> Pick a random person around my parts, and on one hand they are proudly
> milking the system for what it's worth and decrying the rich as
> selfish, greedy and not paying their fair share. It's both insane and
> maddening. Of cpurse it doesn't help that the entitlements here are
> designed to make you more dependant. For instance: Unemployment
> discourages working by making it largely an all or nothing deal. You
> can't work a little and build your way up with slowly reduced
> benefits, because that would lead too many people off the roles and
> not dependant on the government. The system wants to be milked.

I certainly wouldn't criticise what is clearly your experience, perhaps I am
too much the optimist.

The unemployed here get what is called 'Job seekers allowance' which is only
paid if you can prove you are actively seeking a job and not excluding any
offers unreasonably. It seems pretty effective along with our reasonably
robust economy keeping unemployment down to 5%.

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."


 

"David L. Moffitt" <moffitcl@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:XM5Oa.175$MA3.119@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> news:Vl4Oa.2198$7e.2064@fed1read07...
> :
> : "Paul Jensen" <pjensen@gnt.net> wrote in message
> news:vghj1gn00vaq98@corp.supernews.com...
> : > "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> news:0f1Oa.76182$%L.60422@news-
> : > > Well we could stop providing free health care for everyone and then
> remove
> : > > the duty from petrol with the money we've saved.
> : > >
> : > > But my American friends pay more per onth for Healthcare than I do
for
> : > > petrol, so I guess I'd be worse off! :)
> : >
> : > Most of us Americans get ourselves a skill or an education, then go
out
> and
> : > get jobs and get our own health care
> :
> : taken a look at the unemployment stats lately? I didn't think so.....
>
> %%%% Why not? The Mexicans are able to do it!! I haven't been out of a job
> in 36 years! I have multiple skills from flippin burgers to medicine
> including farming and building houses.
>
> :

Quite a few "help wanted" signs around here. But in order to see them, a
person has to be willing to stop playing video games for a while.





 
>
> Well someone has to pay for private healthcare too - you might pay your
HMO
> all your life and never get sick. Instead of helping someone who is ill,
you
> simply line the shareholders pockets. At least with the NHS you get a
sense
> of doing right by others. The NHS is paid for by National Insurance which
is
> a small fixed percentage of income that is paid at the same rate by all,
> rich or poor. I suspect there is a little more community spirit still left
> over here as I and many others don't begrudge paying national insurance
when
> it means children and the elderly get all the care they need for free.
> Setting up an NHS now for the USA would however be rather expensive and
need
> a large hospital to be built for every town, several for every city and a
> clinic for every suburb - might set you back a bit of cash.
>

See I would go for that, but you'd never ever see that happen here. Rich and
poor paying the same rate? The libs would hemorrage.

When I was poorer I saw private insurance as a necessary evil that I was
happy to pay, as I was paying for peaceof mind.
When I got richer, I began to insure myself. A bond, the interest on which
more than pays for my health needs each year (fingers crossed). If something
catastrophic happens the bond will cover those bills.
I set it up as entity and it is billed by the hospital. I don't have to
worry about being turned down for flimsy reasons and am much more in control
than with an HMO. and because it is still my money I am much more conscious
of health decisions on both ends (preventative and medical).
At both stages on my life I lived by the motto of self-reliance to the
levels at which I could manage it.

But a fair system like you say you have, I'd go for that, but if the Reps
ever proposed it, they'd be lionized in the press and class envied out of
office. Expect them to pay their fair share? Where would it end?

Tell me, does one have the option not to part of your NHS (pay his own way)?
That's usually the first litmous test in my mind. If somethings mandatory it
is usually rigged.


 

> >>>
> >> Ahhh, I see your definition. In truth nationalisation really
> >> involves the creation of a state owned monopoly which would mean for
> >> example, your govt buying every electricity company in the US,
> >> lumping them all together and calling it American Energy Inc or
> >> similar. What you describe seems to be simply heavy handed remote
> >> control.
> >
> > I agree that it is mere shadow of what you describe, I offer it
> > nearly as insight into their wishes and desires, as the actions you
> > describe are currently still against the law in terms of the power of
> > the government.
> >
> I see, of course govt's can always vote themselves some new rights!

That is always true. Our system makes that difficult but the Dems are very
adept at both incremental law change and legislation from the bench (using
the courts to endrun Congress right to make law) and the Reps are good at
using (abusing?) safety fears for greater control.

> >>>>>>>> Redistribution of wealth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Big time. Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmmm. . . . . .could you elucidate please.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Top half of all American Wage Earners Pay almost all Income
> >>>>> taxes. Nope that probably didn't help. Damned IRS moved everything
> >>>>> around again, I'll have to go with this link:
> >>>>> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html
> >>>>>
> >>>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would
> >>>> be expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from
> >>>> both a social and economic perspective.
> >>>
> >>> I don't feel like debating that at the moment. But my point was that
> >>> the Libs are for ever higher rates on the top tax brackets, more
> >>> people on the bottom paying ever lower amounts of taxes, and more
> >>> and more social programs for those unable or unwilling to help
> >>> themselves. So clearly they believe in and are very efficient at
> >>> redistribution of wealth.
> >>>
> >> Out of interest, here low earners pay about 22% income tax and the
> >> top rate is 40% even for millionaires - and everyone gets an annual
> >> tax free allowance of around $8000 before they start paying tax. How
> >> does that compare with the US tax system currently?
> >
> > On a Federal level (state and countries add their own income (and
> > other) taxes which vary enormously from State to State. Alaska
> > actually has a negative tax rate, several states have no state income
> > tax, and some are heavily taxed. massachusetts is currently 6% and
> > rising) the Top rate is 37% (it was a high at 71% under Carter), the
> > bottom rate is 15%, but that really doesn't tell the picture as 37%
> > pay no tax at all, many are actually given money (A wonderful wealth
> > redistribution tool called tax credits), and as I stated before the
> > top 50% pay 96.09% of the taxes. And then several types of income are
> > taxed completely differently, and some are taxed twice. Our system is
> > absurdly complex, mostly to keep the lawyers employeed and make sure
> > everyone feels like a criminal (which makes them easier to control).
> > One interesting aspect of our revenue system is you can ask 50
> > different IRS agents the same question and get upwards of 50 starkly
> > different answers (this has been done and documented). But you can
> > see with this kind of a spread on revenue, NHS on a tax basis, simply
> > is a another aspect of wealth redistribution.
> >
> Yes, that is very complex indeed. I earn twice the national average and
get
> to keep around 70% of it which i consider fair in a physically small
country
> with a large population. Perhaps a national set of tax levels would be a
> good idea over there but would be painful to implement. We have tax
credits
> over here too and they seem to be working well.

Ideally I would favor a national sales tax as the only form of taxation,
with exemptions on the necessities, it would be a boon to everyone and get
government largely out of our life (not to mention the billions saved in
accounting and such). But it would cripple the governments power over us,
and it's ablity to buy favor, so it will never happen.

> >>>>>>>> State provision of services.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Don't know how strongly they feel about publicizing everything,
> >>>>>>> but they show do go ballistic whenever talk of privitizing
> >>>>>>> something comes up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> So what public services are provided by the democrats that aren't
> >>>>>> by the republicans?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing parties
> >>>>>>>> neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them in the
> >>>>>>>> face! ;-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OK, we'll just call em 4/5 socialists then....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not even 5% socialists - must try harder.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wow, if that's 5% then they must whip most kids straight out of
> >>>>> the delivery room into a bubblewrap crate designed for safety and
> >>>>> health, while pushing the few producers to breaking point to keep
> >>>>> society going. No, too far from one of my concepts of hell.
> >>>>> What's good side for the non-leeches?
> >>>>
> >>>> You seem somewhat dogmatic - a nations success surely must not only
> >>>> be measured in dollars, but also how it looks after it's less
> >>>> fortunate citizens and I say this a right wing Conservative.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Where as I believe that a country is only as strong as the intregity
> >>> of it's people.
> >>> And intregity I measure by the individuals belief in personal
> >>> reponsiblity. And that I see (by which I mean I observe it happening
> >>> in this country) as undermined by the entitlement mindset.
> >>
> >> We both believe similar things then, but my belief in my fellow
> >> Englishmen leads me to trust that their self-respect will allow them
> >> only to use entitlement as a last resort, whereas you seem to think
> >> many Americans will immediately give up trying if they can get the
> >> basics for free.
> >
> > Forty years of experience has shown me that it works that way here.
> > The more that is given the more they not only want, but they more
> > that they feel they deserve.
> > Pick a random person around my parts, and on one hand they are proudly
> > milking the system for what it's worth and decrying the rich as
> > selfish, greedy and not paying their fair share. It's both insane and
> > maddening. Of cpurse it doesn't help that the entitlements here are
> > designed to make you more dependant. For instance: Unemployment
> > discourages working by making it largely an all or nothing deal. You
> > can't work a little and build your way up with slowly reduced
> > benefits, because that would lead too many people off the roles and
> > not dependant on the government. The system wants to be milked.
>
> I certainly wouldn't criticise what is clearly your experience, perhaps I
am
> too much the optimist.
>
> The unemployed here get what is called 'Job seekers allowance' which is
only
> paid if you can prove you are actively seeking a job and not excluding any
> offers unreasonably. It seems pretty effective along with our reasonably
> robust economy keeping unemployment down to 5%.
>
> --
> Julian.
> ----------
> General Melchett from Blackadder describing
> his regiments coat of arms:
> ". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
> of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."
>
>


 

> >> We both believe similar things then, but my belief in my fellow
> >> Englishmen leads me to trust that their self-respect will allow them
> >> only to use entitlement as a last resort, whereas you seem to think
> >> many Americans will immediately give up trying if they can get the
> >> basics for free.
> >
> > Forty years of experience has shown me that it works that way here.
> > The more that is given the more they not only want, but they more
> > that they feel they deserve.
> > Pick a random person around my parts, and on one hand they are proudly
> > milking the system for what it's worth and decrying the rich as
> > selfish, greedy and not paying their fair share. It's both insane and
> > maddening. Of cpurse it doesn't help that the entitlements here are
> > designed to make you more dependant. For instance: Unemployment
> > discourages working by making it largely an all or nothing deal. You
> > can't work a little and build your way up with slowly reduced
> > benefits, because that would lead too many people off the roles and
> > not dependant on the government. The system wants to be milked.
>
> I certainly wouldn't criticise what is clearly your experience, perhaps I
am
> too much the optimist.
>
> The unemployed here get what is called 'Job seekers allowance' which is
only
> paid if you can prove you are actively seeking a job and not excluding any
> offers unreasonably. It seems pretty effective along with our reasonably
> robust economy keeping unemployment down to 5%.

Oops, hit reply prematurely.
Technically they have to looking for work, but the enforcement on this comes
and goes depending on who is in power.
And they only have to "looking" within their speciality.
Our unemployment has reached the 10 year high of 6.4% which has caused
almost orgiastic joy amoungst the press and anti-conservatives.

And perhaps your countrymen give you reason to be more optimistic.
Ours is ladden with a growing number of social leeches. It should be pointed
out (by me) that this country still has a strong backbone of incredible
hard-working caring ethiced people as well.


 

"David L. Moffitt" <moffitcl@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:qAdOa.345$CV6.170@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> news:DU6Oa.2245$7e.2076@fed1read07...
> :
> :
> : you sure are setting your sights high. I think Chimpyboy should be
> flipping the burgers.
> : It's closer to his skill level. Of course he'd have to compete with all
> those teenagers
> : looking for work so his chances would not be good. 'Getting an education"
> doesn't mean
> : **** if your company moves to Taiwan.
>
> %%%% Yes it does. You need to be able to do more than just glue widgets
> together or run a column of figures.
>


Oh tell that to the thousands of degreed professionals who are now jobless. Is absolute
zero the temperature of your heart?

(BTW we don't have any widget jobs anymore; just Wart Mart greeters)


 
Papa Smurf wrote:
> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> news:zXgOa.77790$%L.30607@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
>>> news:NcaOa.77017$%L.6314@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%93Oa.76197$%L.68601@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:23:42 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:40:07 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of US political parties as I am
>>>>>>>>>> an Englishman - I take it the democrats are the very right
>>>>>>>>>> wing party and the republicans are the even more right wing
>>>>>>>>>> party?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. You've got it wrong. The Democrats are the socialists
>>>>>>>>> and the Republicans are the liberals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Democrats are socialists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To be a socialist (like Tony Blair or Karl Marx :)) you need to
>>>>>>>> believe in:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> State ownership of big business.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A command economy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Redistribution of wealth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeois is a
>>>>>>>> politcal struggle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> State provision of services.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing parties
>>>>>>>> neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them in the
>>>>>>>> face! ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps you need to look a bit closer. I'm not familiar with
>>>>>>> the phrase "command economy", but everything else you mentioned
>>>>>>> is dead on what the Democrats want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? Which industries have the democrats nationalised
>>>>>> recently?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they were socialists a national health service would be top of
>>>>>> their list, but they don't ssem to have provided one yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We run into a little trouble with that one. Since largely it is US
>>>>> companies fronting the bill for the R&D that provides cheapers
>>>>> better drugs and procedures for the rest of the world it becomes
>>>>> difficult for US to achieve a leechbased healthcare system without
>>>>> putting at least some of the cost on the non-producers.
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid thats not true. Global Trade Information Services show
>>>> that the US exported 8695 and imported 14309 GBP Millions
>>>> pharamceuticals in 2002. The UK by comparison exported 10031 and
>>>> imported 7446. We don't put the costs on the non-producers, so why
>>>> would you need to?
>>>
>>> I'd be very curious to see how pharameceuticals is defined to make
>>> that statistic true.
>>
>> Same way the US Govt defines it.
>>
>>> I'd also be curious to know how many of said drugs are we originally
>>> developed or knockoffs thereof.
>>>
>> None are knockoffs, the UK is one of the worlds leading
>> pharmaceutical developers, not some 3rd world sweat shop copying US
>> drugs. US Giant Pfizer is the worlds biggest pharmaceutical co. with
>> 7.5% of the world market share. GlaxoSmithKline in the UK have 7.0%
>> of the world market and none of the other US companies comes close.
>> Bear in mind that 53% of the worlds patents are registered to UK
>> individuals or companies and a significant part of that is
>> pharmaceutical.
>
> I was completely unaware of this. BTW: I am very much enjoying our
> conversation.
> Do you have any links that I could look into this with? Always like to
> upgrade the worldview where it is flawed.
>
It is rather enlightening isn't it?

ISTR getting the world market share figures for Pfizer and GSK from their
respective websites and the reference to 53% of the worlds patents being
British was actually calculated by the Japanese Ministry Industry in 1996,
though I can't find the link currently. Shame we are not as good at selling
them as we are at inventing them.

>>>> Since this is totally
>>>>> unacceptable to leechvoters and hugely unpopular with those that
>>>>> would end up footing the rest of the bill, it has trouble even
>>>>> being formed to come for a vote. Take recent events where Bush
>>>>> has said "Get me a healthcare bill, I'll sign it" and then the
>>>>> press starts giving out the details that it will (gasp) cost some
>>>>> more than they are getting back (they wanted the magical cow to
>>>>> pay for it all), suddenly they are all up in arms and it probably
>>>>> won't get passed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying you should have a national health service, thats a
>>>> choice for your electorate, but I do suspect the arguments are not
>>>> being fairly assessed.
>>>
>>> I call them like I see them.
>>
>> Of course you do, but I suspect political dogma gets in the way of a
>> fair assessment of whether a NHS would help or hinder your country.
>
> I've posted my reasons in the other half of this thread. I can only
> go on, what my experience shows me, and what observe about similar
> matters. If it is shoved down our throats, and it works, I'll be
> first in line changing my tune. If, as I suspect, that I end paying
> not only for my own medical expressives, but those of several hundred
> others, maybe it will finally be time to admit defeat, and look for a
> freer country.

On the other hand, you might get really ill and have several hundred others
paying for your medical bills! :)

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."


 

"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
news:lMeOa.32745$U23.20986@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> > >
> >
> > My ethical code means spending $3000 to prove a point; namely that these
> parties are scum.
> >
>
>
> Several times, I have confused lawyers by being willing to spend more than I
> stood to save while fighting something. Too often the legal system is used
> as extortion. If you are in the right, never give in.
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"
>
>

My "ethical code" is similar to yours; my financial code is more like that of the U.S.
budget (and I can't print more money to stay afloat). Nevertheless, I would spend $3000 to
defeat $100....


 

"Ken Finney" <kenneth.c.finney@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:HHo10o.K2t@news.boeing.com...
>
> "David L. Moffitt" <moffitcl@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:XM5Oa.175$MA3.119@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > news:Vl4Oa.2198$7e.2064@fed1read07...
> > :
> > : "Paul Jensen" <pjensen@gnt.net> wrote in message
> > news:vghj1gn00vaq98@corp.supernews.com...
> > : > "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> > news:0f1Oa.76182$%L.60422@news-
> > : > > Well we could stop providing free health care for everyone and then
> > remove
> > : > > the duty from petrol with the money we've saved.
> > : > >
> > : > > But my American friends pay more per onth for Healthcare than I do
> for
> > : > > petrol, so I guess I'd be worse off! :)
> > : >
> > : > Most of us Americans get ourselves a skill or an education, then go
> out
> > and
> > : > get jobs and get our own health care
> > :
> > : taken a look at the unemployment stats lately? I didn't think so.....
> >
> > %%%% Why not? The Mexicans are able to do it!! I haven't been out of a job
> > in 36 years! I have multiple skills from flippin burgers to medicine
> > including farming and building houses.
> >
> > :
>
> Quite a few "help wanted" signs around here. But in order to see them, a
> person has to be willing to stop playing video games for a while.


That's a broad assumption. I'm sure an employer is going to hire someone with 25 years
professional experience over those hordes of dumb unskilled teenagers (who will work for
anything) to flip burgers or sack groceries. Of course, we have so many stores closing
here that point is moot.


 


"Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
news:%piOa.77802$%L.61128@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Papa Smurf wrote:
> > "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> > news:zXgOa.77790$%L.30607@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Papa Smurf wrote:
> >>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:NcaOa.77017$%L.6314@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>> Papa Smurf wrote:
> >>>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:%93Oa.76197$%L.68601@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:23:42 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:40:07 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of US political parties as I am
> >>>>>>>>>> an Englishman - I take it the democrats are the very right
> >>>>>>>>>> wing party and the republicans are the even more right wing
> >>>>>>>>>> party?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nope. You've got it wrong. The Democrats are the socialists
> >>>>>>>>> and the Republicans are the liberals.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Democrats are socialists?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To be a socialist (like Tony Blair or Karl Marx :)) you need to
> >>>>>>>> believe in:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> State ownership of big business.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A command economy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Redistribution of wealth.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeois is a
> >>>>>>>> politcal struggle.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> State provision of services.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing parties
> >>>>>>>> neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them in the
> >>>>>>>> face! ;-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps you need to look a bit closer. I'm not familiar with
> >>>>>>> the phrase "command economy", but everything else you mentioned
> >>>>>>> is dead on what the Democrats want.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Really? Which industries have the democrats nationalised
> >>>>>> recently?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If they were socialists a national health service would be top of
> >>>>>> their list, but they don't ssem to have provided one yet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We run into a little trouble with that one. Since largely it is US
> >>>>> companies fronting the bill for the R&D that provides cheapers
> >>>>> better drugs and procedures for the rest of the world it becomes
> >>>>> difficult for US to achieve a leechbased healthcare system without
> >>>>> putting at least some of the cost on the non-producers.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm afraid thats not true. Global Trade Information Services show
> >>>> that the US exported 8695 and imported 14309 GBP Millions
> >>>> pharamceuticals in 2002. The UK by comparison exported 10031 and
> >>>> imported 7446. We don't put the costs on the non-producers, so why
> >>>> would you need to?
> >>>
> >>> I'd be very curious to see how pharameceuticals is defined to make
> >>> that statistic true.
> >>
> >> Same way the US Govt defines it.
> >>
> >>> I'd also be curious to know how many of said drugs are we originally
> >>> developed or knockoffs thereof.
> >>>
> >> None are knockoffs, the UK is one of the worlds leading
> >> pharmaceutical developers, not some 3rd world sweat shop copying US
> >> drugs. US Giant Pfizer is the worlds biggest pharmaceutical co. with
> >> 7.5% of the world market share. GlaxoSmithKline in the UK have 7.0%
> >> of the world market and none of the other US companies comes close.
> >> Bear in mind that 53% of the worlds patents are registered to UK
> >> individuals or companies and a significant part of that is
> >> pharmaceutical.
> >
> > I was completely unaware of this. BTW: I am very much enjoying our
> > conversation.
> > Do you have any links that I could look into this with? Always like to
> > upgrade the worldview where it is flawed.
> >
> It is rather enlightening isn't it?

Always. It is nearly impossible to have a nice reasoned political arguement
any more. Both sides are so charged, so ****ed, so wary of being lead it a
trap, and neither side really listening, that mostly it rapidly breakdowns
into ridiculous statements and personal attacks. And I'm just as guilty as
this, coming in with as much baggage as I have. It's been very pleasent to
have a discussion that hasn't hasn't imediately been reduced to the: "I'm a
dickhead? No, you're a dickhead." level.

> ISTR getting the world market share figures for Pfizer and GSK from their
> respective websites and the reference to 53% of the worlds patents being
> British was actually calculated by the Japanese Ministry Industry in 1996,
> though I can't find the link currently. Shame we are not as good at
selling
> them as we are at inventing them.
>
> >>>> Since this is totally
> >>>>> unacceptable to leechvoters and hugely unpopular with those that
> >>>>> would end up footing the rest of the bill, it has trouble even
> >>>>> being formed to come for a vote. Take recent events where Bush
> >>>>> has said "Get me a healthcare bill, I'll sign it" and then the
> >>>>> press starts giving out the details that it will (gasp) cost some
> >>>>> more than they are getting back (they wanted the magical cow to
> >>>>> pay for it all), suddenly they are all up in arms and it probably
> >>>>> won't get passed.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not saying you should have a national health service, thats a
> >>>> choice for your electorate, but I do suspect the arguments are not
> >>>> being fairly assessed.
> >>>
> >>> I call them like I see them.
> >>
> >> Of course you do, but I suspect political dogma gets in the way of a
> >> fair assessment of whether a NHS would help or hinder your country.
> >
> > I've posted my reasons in the other half of this thread. I can only
> > go on, what my experience shows me, and what observe about similar
> > matters. If it is shoved down our throats, and it works, I'll be
> > first in line changing my tune. If, as I suspect, that I end paying
> > not only for my own medical expressives, but those of several hundred
> > others, maybe it will finally be time to admit defeat, and look for a
> > freer country.
>
> On the other hand, you might get really ill and have several hundred
others
> paying for your medical bills! :)

Unlikely to happen here. Since the government doesn't view me as poor,
should I spend all my money I will still be kicked out on my ass rather than
helped.
Even so, most HMO and insurance policies have caps lower than my bond.
And it serves me right if I haven't planned properly. :)


 


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"
"John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
news:OOiOa.2352$7e.1996@fed1read07...
>
> "David L. Moffitt" <moffitcl@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:qAdOa.345$CV6.170@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > news:DU6Oa.2245$7e.2076@fed1read07...
> > :
> > :
> > : you sure are setting your sights high. I think Chimpyboy should be
> > flipping the burgers.
> > : It's closer to his skill level. Of course he'd have to compete with
all
> > those teenagers
> > : looking for work so his chances would not be good. 'Getting an
education"
> > doesn't mean
> > : **** if your company moves to Taiwan.
> >
> > %%%% Yes it does. You need to be able to do more than just glue widgets
> > together or run a column of figures.
> >
>
>
> Oh tell that to the thousands of degreed professionals who are now
jobless. Is absolute
> zero the temperature of your heart?
>
> (BTW we don't have any widget jobs anymore; just Wart Mart greeters)

That's right, nobody actually makes the things that Wal-Mart sells after
all....


 

"John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
news:iQiOa.2354$7e.1936@fed1read07...
>
> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
> news:lMeOa.32745$U23.20986@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> > > >
> > >
> > > My ethical code means spending $3000 to prove a point; namely that
these
> > parties are scum.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Several times, I have confused lawyers by being willing to spend more
than I
> > stood to save while fighting something. Too often the legal system is
used
> > as extortion. If you are in the right, never give in.
> >
> > --
> > "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"
> >
> >
>
> My "ethical code" is similar to yours; my financial code is more like that
of the U.S.
> budget (and I can't print more money to stay afloat). Nevertheless, I
would spend $3000 to
> defeat $100....

I try never to spend what I don't have. One of the "secrets" of my success
has been to always live well below what I could afford, certainly never more
than 1/2 what my income would allow. I feel I'm here to secure myself and my
families well being, not to impress someone else. Neither myself or my
family has ever been at risk through good times and bad times. I am neither
greedy on the making or spending end.
I see so many people with so much uncertainty in their life, but rather than
bank as much of their paycheck as possible to build for a stable future (or
be poised to take advantage of better times or weather harder times) they
are driving cars they can't afford and living in houses they can barely make
the payments for, and then complaining about how too little is left of theor
paycheck for the essentials.

Garth
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"


 
"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
news:GZjOa.3$78.1@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"
> "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> news:OOiOa.2352$7e.1996@fed1read07...
> >
> > "David L. Moffitt" <moffitcl@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:qAdOa.345$CV6.170@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > > news:DU6Oa.2245$7e.2076@fed1read07...
> > > :
> > > :
> > > : you sure are setting your sights high. I think Chimpyboy should be
> > > flipping the burgers.
> > > : It's closer to his skill level. Of course he'd have to compete with
> all
> > > those teenagers
> > > : looking for work so his chances would not be good. 'Getting an
> education"
> > > doesn't mean
> > > : **** if your company moves to Taiwan.
> > >
> > > %%%% Yes it does. You need to be able to do more than just glue
widgets
> > > together or run a column of figures.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oh tell that to the thousands of degreed professionals who are now
> jobless. Is absolute
> > zero the temperature of your heart?
> >
> > (BTW we don't have any widget jobs anymore; just Wart Mart greeters)
>
> That's right, nobody actually makes the things that Wal-Mart sells after
> all....
>

Sure they do, perhaps if you would like to move to Mexico, Taiwan, or China,
you can get a job making them too.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



 

"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
news:GZjOa.3$78.1@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"
> "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> news:OOiOa.2352$7e.1996@fed1read07...
> >
> > "David L. Moffitt" <moffitcl@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:qAdOa.345$CV6.170@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > > news:DU6Oa.2245$7e.2076@fed1read07...
> > > :
> > > :
> > > : you sure are setting your sights high. I think Chimpyboy should be
> > > flipping the burgers.
> > > : It's closer to his skill level. Of course he'd have to compete with
> all
> > > those teenagers
> > > : looking for work so his chances would not be good. 'Getting an
> education"
> > > doesn't mean
> > > : **** if your company moves to Taiwan.
> > >
> > > %%%% Yes it does. You need to be able to do more than just glue widgets
> > > together or run a column of figures.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oh tell that to the thousands of degreed professionals who are now
> jobless. Is absolute
> > zero the temperature of your heart?
> >
> > (BTW we don't have any widget jobs anymore; just Wart Mart greeters)
>
> That's right, nobody actually makes the things that Wal-Mart sells after
> all....


of course they do; they all live in China. I love those cheep cheesy Chinese made amerikan
flags....


 

"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
news:L3kOa.15574$Ha.14992@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
> "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> news:iQiOa.2354$7e.1936@fed1read07...
> >
>
> I try never to spend what I don't have. One of the "secrets" of my success
> has been to always live well below what I could afford, certainly never more
> than 1/2 what my income would allow. I feel I'm here to secure myself and my
> families well being, not to impress someone else. Neither myself or my
> family has ever been at risk through good times and bad times. I am neither
> greedy on the making or spending end.
> I see so many people with so much uncertainty in their life, but rather than
> bank as much of their paycheck as possible to build for a stable future (or
> be poised to take advantage of better times or weather harder times) they
> are driving cars they can't afford and living in houses they can barely make
> the payments for, and then complaining about how too little is left of theor
> paycheck for the essentials.
>

Unfortunately in this case I have no choice. Now to see what happens tomorrow


 

"Tbone" <Fatchance@noway.now> wrote in message
news:iKScncbwpvKQRJSiU-KYvA@comcast.com...
> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
> news:GZjOa.3$78.1@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"
> > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > news:OOiOa.2352$7e.1996@fed1read07...
> > >
> > > "David L. Moffitt" <moffitcl@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:qAdOa.345$CV6.170@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:DU6Oa.2245$7e.2076@fed1read07...
> > > > :
> > > > :
> > > > : you sure are setting your sights high. I think Chimpyboy should be
> > > > flipping the burgers.
> > > > : It's closer to his skill level. Of course he'd have to compete
with
> > all
> > > > those teenagers
> > > > : looking for work so his chances would not be good. 'Getting an
> > education"
> > > > doesn't mean
> > > > : **** if your company moves to Taiwan.
> > > >
> > > > %%%% Yes it does. You need to be able to do more than just glue
> widgets
> > > > together or run a column of figures.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh tell that to the thousands of degreed professionals who are now
> > jobless. Is absolute
> > > zero the temperature of your heart?
> > >
> > > (BTW we don't have any widget jobs anymore; just Wart Mart greeters)
> >
> > That's right, nobody actually makes the things that Wal-Mart sells after
> > all....
> >
>
> Sure they do, perhaps if you would like to move to Mexico, Taiwan, or
China,
> you can get a job making them too.
>


That's okay, I'm quite comfortable causing thinsg to be made right here.
Of course by right here, I mean in the US. I am not comfortable with
Massachusetts which is why I am in the process of moving everything to
Florida.
Shut up, put up or get out, I always say, and I'm living by my words.

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"


 
"
"John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
news:MalOa.2384$7e.1636@fed1read07...
>
> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
> news:GZjOa.3$78.1@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"
> > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > news:OOiOa.2352$7e.1996@fed1read07...
> > >
> > > "David L. Moffitt" <moffitcl@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:qAdOa.345$CV6.170@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:DU6Oa.2245$7e.2076@fed1read07...
> > > > :
> > > > :
> > > > : you sure are setting your sights high. I think Chimpyboy should be
> > > > flipping the burgers.
> > > > : It's closer to his skill level. Of course he'd have to compete
with
> > all
> > > > those teenagers
> > > > : looking for work so his chances would not be good. 'Getting an
> > education"
> > > > doesn't mean
> > > > : **** if your company moves to Taiwan.
> > > >
> > > > %%%% Yes it does. You need to be able to do more than just glue
widgets
> > > > together or run a column of figures.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh tell that to the thousands of degreed professionals who are now
> > jobless. Is absolute
> > > zero the temperature of your heart?
> > >
> > > (BTW we don't have any widget jobs anymore; just Wart Mart greeters)
> >
> > That's right, nobody actually makes the things that Wal-Mart sells after
> > all....
>
>
> of course they do; they all live in China. I love those cheep cheesy
Chinese made amerikan
> flags....
>


Too many people feel that quality is less important than price, and that's
what you get.

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner>


 

"John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
news:EblOa.2385$7e.1063@fed1read07...
>
> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
> news:L3kOa.15574$Ha.14992@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> >
> > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > news:iQiOa.2354$7e.1936@fed1read07...
> > >
> >
> > I try never to spend what I don't have. One of the "secrets" of my
success
> > has been to always live well below what I could afford, certainly never
more
> > than 1/2 what my income would allow. I feel I'm here to secure myself
and my
> > families well being, not to impress someone else. Neither myself or my
> > family has ever been at risk through good times and bad times. I am
neither
> > greedy on the making or spending end.
> > I see so many people with so much uncertainty in their life, but rather
than
> > bank as much of their paycheck as possible to build for a stable future
(or
> > be poised to take advantage of better times or weather harder times)
they
> > are driving cars they can't afford and living in houses they can barely
make
> > the payments for, and then complaining about how too little is left of
theor
> > paycheck for the essentials.
> >
>
> Unfortunately in this case I have no choice. Now to see what happens
tomorrow

Sorry, I was sort of continuing an earlier rant. I, in no way, meant to
imply that you shouldn't spend money to uphold your principles or
convictions. Our values and ways must be upheld at all costs.



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"


 
> So they have actually tried a compulsory purchase of a national
> industry which then subsequently failed?
> Julian.

Does the national health care "industry" count? It's about 7% of the
enonomy and they tried to "take" it. Perot (Mr.Medicare himself) was
poised to make a bundle on it too, that's why he helped by throwing
the election! It's plain embarassing to see my country (and family)
so full of Clinton and Perot worshipers. :/ Leaders are just people.

Tried but failed? Nope, just haven't succeded yet, with medicare
raising the total cost of medical care and the drug companies seeing
an opportunity to gouge the public with high prices and hoping for a
back lash with "free" meds for us old farts, supplied by the gov't.

But they haven't learned yet that when you get in bed with the gov't
you only get screwed. They'll learn tho, just a matter of time. :)

Alvin in AZ
 
Papa Smurf wrote:
>> Well someone has to pay for private healthcare too - you might pay
>> your HMO all your life and never get sick. Instead of helping
>> someone who is ill, you simply line the shareholders pockets. At
>> least with the NHS you get a sense of doing right by others. The NHS
>> is paid for by National Insurance which is a small fixed percentage
>> of income that is paid at the same rate by all, rich or poor. I
>> suspect there is a little more community spirit still left over here
>> as I and many others don't begrudge paying national insurance when
>> it means children and the elderly get all the care they need for
>> free. Setting up an NHS now for the USA would however be rather
>> expensive and need a large hospital to be built for every town,
>> several for every city and a clinic for every suburb - might set you
>> back a bit of cash.
>>
>
> See I would go for that, but you'd never ever see that happen here.
> Rich and poor paying the same rate? The libs would hemorrage.
>
Hehe - we've all got the same body parts - seems fair to all apy the same!

> When I was poorer I saw private insurance as a necessary evil that I
> was happy to pay, as I was paying for peaceof mind.
> When I got richer, I began to insure myself. A bond, the interest on
> which more than pays for my health needs each year (fingers crossed).
> If something catastrophic happens the bond will cover those bills.
> I set it up as entity and it is billed by the hospital. I don't have
> to worry about being turned down for flimsy reasons and am much more
> in control than with an HMO. and because it is still my money I am
> much more conscious of health decisions on both ends (preventative
> and medical). At both stages on my life I lived by the motto of
> self-reliance to the levels at which I could manage it.
>
> But a fair system like you say you have, I'd go for that, but if the
> Reps ever proposed it, they'd be lionized in the press and class
> envied out of office. Expect them to pay their fair share? Where
> would it end?
>
> Tell me, does one have the option not to part of your NHS (pay his
> own way)? That's usually the first litmous test in my mind. If
> somethings mandatory it is usually rigged.

Oh good grief no! Of course it's not optional, it's a tax, but I don't think
it's fair to say it's rigged.

The funny thing is, although it is said that 40 million Americans don't have
any medical cover, in reality they do. The NHS doesn't only offer free
healthcare to the British, it offers free healthcare to everyone including
all Americans. A friend of mine from Chesapeake was visiting and broke his
ankle falling off my Land Rover and was taken to Accident & Emergency and
treated. Next day on being discharged he approached the matron and started
sorted through his credit cards, much to her amazement! All you've got to do
is catch a flight next time you feel ill! :)

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."


 
You must log in or register to reply here.