Conquer Club

spurgistan wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Anarchy is no longer possible post-Agricultural Revolution.

You are entering the Zapatista Rebel Territory!

To the best of my reasonable amount of knowledge on EZLN, they have an organized central authority that governs their decisions (the "Buen Gobierno" referred to in the sign above) Does the fact that no other government recognizes this authority make it anarchy? I don't think that Zapatistas would call it that.

/edited for rogue quotation mark

Aradhus wrote:
We have governments.

Aradhus wrote:We made government, its our idea.

Aradhus wrote:I meant we made government

Aradhus wrote:I wasn't involved in making aids.

Aradhus wrote: Anyway, I believe you were saying something about having no responsibility for government, cus we got aids

Aradhus wrote:Oooooooooooooh, zinga!

However do you come up with these piercing responses..

Because you didn't create government you are claiming that you have no responsibility for how it is now.

You brought up Aids. Not my fault it wasn't funny.

Aradhus wrote: jibber jibber,
jabber jabber,
jibber,
jabber,
jibber,
jabber

words words,
many words,
filling up the screen with words

British Prime Minister David Cameron says he plans to open up the National Health Service to competition.

Cameron's plans to shake up Britain’s universal health care system-- known as NHS -- will transfer much decision making authority to general practitioners, and thus bypassing administrators to cut out bureaucracy.

“We need modernization on both sides of the equation," he said in a major speech defending public sector reforms. "Modernization to do something about the demand for public health service, and modernization to make the supply of health care more efficient, which is about opening up the system, making it more competitive, cutting out waste and bureaucracy.”

According to Cameron, it’s not, in these times of austerity, that “we can’t afford to modernize. It’s that we can’t afford not to modernize.”

Skeptics are already accusing him of taking a “wrecking ball” to one of the finest institutions in the country. Some doctors, nurses and union leaders wrote a letter to the editor of the London Times. Among the concerns expressed, was that bringing in competition could mean bringing down quality, because, doctors would, presumably, go for the cheapest service options in order to save money.

Gail Cartmail, assistant general secretary of Unite, Britain's largest union doesn't agree with the reform.

“A great number of people are telling us that they think these untested, expensive health care reforms are very unwise and very, very risky,” said Cartmail.

But in another editorial in the Times of London, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said that is "a myth that our plans have come out of the blue."

"They are in fact a logical evolution of tried and tested policies initiated by governments of all parties over the past two decades,” he wrote.

The NHS has set a target of cutting $31 billion from its budget over the next few years.

Already, certain types of operations—hernia, hip replacement, and tonsils, to name a few -- are being downgraded to “elective” surgeries.

John Black, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons cautioned that saving comes with costs.

"By reducing elective surgery, you can immediately save money, but at the cost of pain, reduced quality of life, and deterioration of health.”

Cameron said the centerpiece of his government’s policy is upgrading and modernizing all public services to keep Britain competitive.

He points to where it is falling behind.

“In Shanghai, the average child is two years ahead of a child here. In Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, or, interestingly, Poland, you are les likely to die once admitted into hospital after a heart attack than you are in the U.K.”

The government’s flagship health and social care bill will be published Wednesday.

Night Strike wrote:The highly praised British NHS is going to become more competitive and allow doctors to make more decisions to cut out bureaucrats. Yet the US wants MORE government control? Maybe we should actually look across the pond and figure out big government DOES NOT WORK!

GreecePwns wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The highly praised British NHS is going to become more competitive and allow doctors to make more decisions to cut out bureaucrats. Yet the US wants MORE government control? Maybe we should actually look across the pond and figure out big government DOES NOT WORK!

Please explain the difference between the health care system resulting in the yellow line on this graph and those that result in the others.

Phatscotty wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The highly praised British NHS is going to become more competitive and allow doctors to make more decisions to cut out bureaucrats. Yet the US wants MORE government control? Maybe we should actually look across the pond and figure out big government DOES NOT WORK!

Please explain the difference between the health care system resulting in the yellow line on this graph and those that result in the others.

Greed, for more profits as well as for free health care, abuse of the system, by the consumers and the providers, as well as insurance companies, malpractice abuse, malpractice insurance, non competition/lack of free market principles, severe gov't intervention, Availability, (where ever the money is, the prices rise. See "gold rush economies")I could go on

Night Strike wrote:The highly praised British NHS is going to become more competitive and allow doctors to make more decisions to cut out bureaucrats. Yet the US wants MORE government control? Maybe we should actually look across the pond and figure out big government DOES NOT WORK!

Aradhus wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The highly praised British NHS is going to become more competitive and allow doctors to make more decisions to cut out bureaucrats. Yet the US wants MORE government control? Maybe we should actually look across the pond and figure out big government DOES NOT WORK!

It is prudent to judge actions on results, not assumptions.

GreecePwns wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The highly praised British NHS is going to become more competitive and allow doctors to make more decisions to cut out bureaucrats. Yet the US wants MORE government control? Maybe we should actually look across the pond and figure out big government DOES NOT WORK!

Please explain the difference between the health care system resulting in the yellow line on this graph and those that result in the others.

Aradhus wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The highly praised British NHS is going to become more competitive and allow doctors to make more decisions to cut out bureaucrats. Yet the US wants MORE government control? Maybe we should actually look across the pond and figure out big government DOES NOT WORK!

It is prudent to judge actions on results, not assumptions.

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The highly praised British NHS is going to become more competitive and allow doctors to make more decisions to cut out bureaucrats. Yet the US wants MORE government control? Maybe we should actually look across the pond and figure out big government DOES NOT WORK!

Please explain the difference between the health care system resulting in the yellow line on this graph and those that result in the others.

Easy: The US has the most innovative and effective care in the world, especially when it comes to specialized treatments. Socialized systems might work better for routine care for all people, but no other country in the world can match the specialized practices we have here in the US. That's why people come TO the US for treatments rather than go to other countries.

Aradhus wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The highly praised British NHS is going to become more competitive and allow doctors to make more decisions to cut out bureaucrats. Yet the US wants MORE government control? Maybe we should actually look across the pond and figure out big government DOES NOT WORK!

It is prudent to judge actions on results, not assumptions.

So the results are that relatively simple procedures for non-life threatening issues are too expensive for socialized medicine, so the government has to cut them and force the "insured" to live their lives with more pain and suffering that could cause other long-term issues. Sounds great!