>Other than that, I agree with you that the UK system is superb. For some value of superb, yes. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good things about the NHS, and a lot of people in it work very hard for our benefit, but it is incredibly badly run, incredibly inefficient, and provides terribly bad value for money.
>Replacing it with a system whereby one can actually purchase health care in some way would be just plain silly. Err...I can only assume that you're either not working, or working for a really stingy employer that doesn't provide private healthcare. You can, and do, and indeed often have to, purchase health care in the U.K.
> As for the rates of tax, for me, when I look at my tax bill, I can at least look at where it's being spent and think - yeah, that's worth it.
Funny, I look at my tax bill(well, actually I look at the PAYE tax on my payslip; then I look at the "National Insurance" tax on my payslip; then I look at the 17.5% VAT that I pay on everything (pretty much) that I buy, then I look at the fact that I pay humongous tax on things like alcohol, compared to our socialist pals in France,...), and then I look at the hospitals in the U.K. and I think - where the hell is all that money going?;(
Universal healthcare is great. Or rather, it would be, if it worked. I mean, waiting for a replacement knee is fine, but when you need that bypass, you need it NOW. A friend of mine had to have a bypass, and had to go private (£6000 or so) since he didn't want to wait for two years(!).
Well, claiming that Indian doctors are just as good as American ones is of course an assertion; but so is claiming that they are not. Unless backed up by evidence, either are just assertions (or opinions, if you prefer).
Lots of people see the problem with education in the U.S., and lots of other countries as well. Just not necessarily the people who could do something about it. Note that by "the people who could do something" I don't necessarily mean politicians; if enough ordinary people cared enough, things would change.
>But the current situation is while some countries work towards solving these problems, many others don't, instead they get exemptions because they are poor countries. Worse yet, some industrialised nations exempt themselves from the effort because they just don't give a fuck, and would rather drive a separate hummer for each member of the family;)
>The Public was conned into believing that privatisation would benefit them in some way.... You tell me with a straight face that you honestly believe that the privatisation of, e.g., BT, has not benefitted the British people, and I'll buy a copy of Socialist Worker off of you. When I've stopped laughing, which will take a while.
> Why did people buy these shares anyway? To make money on the investment? Capitalism 101.
>... that the British blood in your veins... Oooohh, Nationalist and Socialist, nice;)
> After seven years of Blair, the nation's wealth is distributed less equitably than when he started, I'm not sure the focus on wealth distribution is entirely healthy; you should look instead at the levels of poverty. If everyone has enough to eat, and a roof over their head, access to services and education - why should they worry that someone else has more?
> and fox hunting is still legal. And let's hope it bloody well stays that way!
Coming on to the real failures of the Blair administration: * Completely fucked up the reform of the house of lords, achieving the seemingly impossible by making it less democratic. * Huge increases in tax, nicely hidden away where it's not too obvious to the feebleminded. * No visible progress on improving the things that actually need fixing - NHS, transport, education. But time to protect cuddly foxes. * Still no Freedom of Information Act. Funny how they dropped THAT manifesto promise once they got their grubby hands on power. * Continuing erosion of civil liberties. Come on, Blunkett makes Howard (previously universally reviled as the most repressive home secretary in history) look like a bleeding heart liberal in comparison. Let's look at some examples:
* RIP act - the government, the council, and any tom dick and harry has the right to snoop your email. And of course this will not catch a single criminal.
* Phone taps don't need judicial oversight anymore
* Foreigners (like me, in theory) can be locked up indefinitely without trial, charge, or any disclosed evidence
* Biometric ID cards - lots of government invasion into your life, huge costs, zero actual benefit.
Let's not even get into the mess of the pension system (admittedly that was a mess beforehand, but he's not done anything to improve it), or the fundemental injustice of meanstesting.
In Germany, fines are calculated as day rates. So you might be ordered to pay 10 day rates as a fine - and if you make EUR 100 a day, you pay EUR 1000; if you make EUR 1000 a day, you have to pay EUR 10000.
Small correction: I believe it's actually foreign nationals that can be held indefinitely without trial (actually, even without being charged).
Of course, as someone who lives, works and pays taxes in the UK without actually being a subject of her majesty, that makes me feel soooo much better;(
I keep on hearing (well, mainly on/.) about this left-leaning US media. Just to clarify the debate for the non-American's who've not had the privilege of exposure to large amounts of US media: "Left Leaning" in the U.S. is generally understood to be anyone who's not to the right of say Pat Robertson, Ashcroft, and Fox's O'Reilly.
To put some European reference points on the map: The UK conservative party, including good old Maggie, would be considered "Left Leaning", the German CDU/CSU would be considered left leaning, and the French are practically all communists in comparison anyway. So the only "major politician" in Europe that wouldn't be considered leftish in US terms is maybe Berlusconi.
Just consider this a public service announcement;)
What really upsets me more than anything about this whole Iraq affair is that all media are happily portraying Saddam as an evil monster since he invaded Kuweit, without ever mentioning that he was up until that point very much an ally of the west.
It was well known throughout the 80s that killings and torture were widespread in Iraq - and the west supported him.
It was well known that he launched invasions against neighbouring countries (Iran) - and the west still supported him.
It was well know that he possessed poison gas, and used it both against the Iranian military, and his own civilian population - and the west still supported him.
The fact that the U.S. and Europe stood by for so long and watched him shows the real hypocrisy.
> Being able to get books for free is not a right.
So if I wanted the Bible banned from my library, it should be banned? I object to Melville, Shakespeare, Dickens,... they should all be removed from the library?
Not much point to having a library that's completely empty, is it?
Hell, the government spends MY money on all sorts of shit I don't like, half a dozen books aren't going to make a difference. Any idea how many books you could buy if you stopped farm subsidies?
Agreed, agreed, agreed, but I still can't think of any good reason why Madonna's "Sex" should be available in a school or school library (2328 and 2227 of the challenges between 1990 and 2000), although I can see why it should be available in public libraries (1561 challenges, ibid.), if only to show that she should stick to music.
>It's been said before that Hitler was among the best orators in the history of the world. That's always baffled me. I've seen lots of his speeches, and - to me - they are awful. Awful. Unpleasant voice, rambling, shouting... no idea how people listened to him.
Now Goebbels is another story, he was a good speaker. Mad as hell, but a good speaker. "Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg?" must be one of the most amazing speeches ever, in terms of getting the crowd into frenetic approval of something obviously wrong...
> But I don't think the majority of Nazis were geniuses. That would be mathematically impossible anyway, but I don't think Hitler was a Genius anyway. He was certainly a crap painter;)
Slashdot Mirror
>Other than that, I agree with you that the UK system is superb.
For some value of superb, yes. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good things about the NHS, and a lot of people in it work very hard for our benefit, but it is incredibly badly run, incredibly inefficient, and provides terribly bad value for money.
>Replacing it with a system whereby one can actually purchase health care in some way would be just plain silly.
Err...I can only assume that you're either not working, or working for a really stingy employer that doesn't provide private healthcare. You can, and do, and indeed often have to, purchase health care in the U.K.
What IS silly is things like PFI.
> As for the rates of tax, for me, when I look at my tax bill, I can at least look at where it's being spent and think - yeah, that's worth it.
...), and then I look at the hospitals in the U.K. and I think - where the hell is all that money going? ;(
Funny, I look at my tax bill(well, actually I look at the PAYE tax on my payslip; then I look at the "National Insurance" tax on my payslip; then I look at the 17.5% VAT that I pay on everything (pretty much) that I buy, then I look at the fact that I pay humongous tax on things like alcohol, compared to our socialist pals in France,
Universal healthcare is great. Or rather, it would be, if it worked. I mean, waiting for a replacement knee is fine, but when you need that bypass, you need it NOW. A friend of mine had to have a bypass, and had to go private (£6000 or so) since he didn't want to wait for two years(!).
Dick might have shipped his heart abroad, but he sure as hell didn't get it back!
> And will be socially inept in American culture. :)
And that would be a bad thing why exactly?
Well, claiming that Indian doctors are just as good as American ones is of course an assertion; but so is claiming that they are not. Unless backed up by evidence, either are just assertions (or opinions, if you prefer).
Lots of people see the problem with education in the U.S., and lots of other countries as well. Just not necessarily the people who could do something about it. Note that by "the people who could do something" I don't necessarily mean politicians; if enough ordinary people cared enough, things would change.
>But the current situation is while some countries work towards solving these problems, many others don't, instead they get exemptions because they are poor countries. ;)
Worse yet, some industrialised nations exempt themselves from the effort because they just don't give a fuck, and would rather drive a separate hummer for each member of the family
>The Public was conned into believing that privatisation would benefit them in some way....
... that the British blood in your veins... ;)
You tell me with a straight face that you honestly believe that the privatisation of, e.g., BT, has not benefitted the British people, and I'll buy a copy of Socialist Worker off of you. When I've stopped laughing, which will take a while.
> Why did people buy these shares anyway?
To make money on the investment? Capitalism 101.
>
Oooohh, Nationalist and Socialist, nice
> After seven years of Blair, the nation's wealth is distributed less equitably than when he started,
I'm not sure the focus on wealth distribution is entirely healthy; you should look instead at the levels of poverty. If everyone has enough to eat, and a roof over their head, access to services and education - why should they worry that someone else has more?
> and fox hunting is still legal.
And let's hope it bloody well stays that way!
Coming on to the real failures of the Blair administration:
* Completely fucked up the reform of the house of lords, achieving the seemingly impossible by making it less democratic.
* Huge increases in tax, nicely hidden away where it's not too obvious to the feebleminded.
* No visible progress on improving the things that actually need fixing - NHS, transport, education. But time to protect cuddly foxes.
* Still no Freedom of Information Act. Funny how they dropped THAT manifesto promise once they got their grubby hands on power.
* Continuing erosion of civil liberties. Come on, Blunkett makes Howard (previously universally reviled as the most repressive home secretary in history) look like a bleeding heart liberal in comparison. Let's look at some examples:
* RIP act - the government, the council, and any tom dick and harry has the right to snoop your email. And of course this will not catch a single criminal.
* Phone taps don't need judicial oversight anymore
* Foreigners (like me, in theory) can be locked up indefinitely without trial, charge, or any disclosed evidence
* Biometric ID cards - lots of government invasion into your life, huge costs, zero actual benefit.
Let's not even get into the mess of the pension system (admittedly that was a mess beforehand, but he's not done anything to improve it), or the fundemental injustice of meanstesting.
That might come as a surprise to the swiss who've believed for a century that they had a swift, efficient, clean and reliable rail system.
In Germany, fines are calculated as day rates. So you might be ordered to pay 10 day rates as a fine - and if you make EUR 100 a day, you pay EUR 1000; if you make EUR 1000 a day, you have to pay EUR 10000.
It can't be much worse than tequila and redbull, really, can it?
If your commute is the highlight of your day, it really is time to change jobs! ;)
You can get a slightly cheaper version from http://www.bbcshop.com
I think Linus would object to being called Norwegian. Fins are funny like that ... ;)
Small correction: I believe it's actually foreign nationals that can be held indefinitely without trial (actually, even without being charged).
;(
Of course, as someone who lives, works and pays taxes in the UK without actually being a subject of her majesty, that makes me feel soooo much better
I keep on hearing (well, mainly on /.) about this left-leaning US media. Just to clarify the debate for the non-American's who've not had the privilege of exposure to large amounts of US media: "Left Leaning" in the U.S. is generally understood to be anyone who's not to the right of say Pat Robertson, Ashcroft, and Fox's O'Reilly.
;)
To put some European reference points on the map: The UK conservative party, including good old Maggie, would be considered "Left Leaning", the German CDU/CSU would be considered left leaning, and the French are practically all communists in comparison anyway. So the only "major politician" in Europe that wouldn't be considered leftish in US terms is maybe Berlusconi.
Just consider this a public service announcement
> CNN is biased toward liberals. ;)
For some value of liberal, perhaps
What really upsets me more than anything about this whole Iraq affair is that all media are happily portraying Saddam as an evil monster since he invaded Kuweit, without ever mentioning that he was up until that point very much an ally of the west.
It was well known throughout the 80s that killings and torture were widespread in Iraq - and the west supported him.
It was well known that he launched invasions against neighbouring countries (Iran) - and the west still supported him.
It was well know that he possessed poison gas, and used it both against the Iranian military, and his own civilian population - and the west still supported him.
The fact that the U.S. and Europe stood by for so long and watched him shows the real hypocrisy.
How do you write two languages at the same time? Greek with your left hand, Latin with your right?
;)
Puzzling.... anyway, it's good to know that at least some presidents have some skills
It's because people commute on the train. Have you tried getting a fullsized laptop out on a crowded train?
rdesktop
Like Windows Remote Desktop, but running on Unix. I use it on my home network because I got fed up with all the KVM cables.
> Being able to get books for free is not a right.
... they should all be removed from the library?
So if I wanted the Bible banned from my library, it should be banned? I object to Melville, Shakespeare, Dickens,
Not much point to having a library that's completely empty, is it?
Hell, the government spends MY money on all sorts of shit I don't like, half a dozen books aren't going to make a difference. Any idea how many books you could buy if you stopped farm subsidies?
>the idiot editor who didn't bother to check and correct the submission. ..... ;)
You must be new here
Agreed, agreed, agreed, but I still can't think of any good reason why Madonna's "Sex" should be available in a school or school library (2328 and 2227 of the challenges between 1990 and 2000), although I can see why it should be available in public libraries (1561 challenges, ibid.), if only to show that she should stick to music.
>It's been said before that Hitler was among the best orators in the history of the world.
;)
That's always baffled me. I've seen lots of his speeches, and - to me - they are awful. Awful. Unpleasant voice, rambling, shouting... no idea how people listened to him.
Now Goebbels is another story, he was a good speaker. Mad as hell, but a good speaker. "Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg?" must be one of the most amazing speeches ever, in terms of getting the crowd into frenetic approval of something obviously wrong...
> But I don't think the majority of Nazis were geniuses.
That would be mathematically impossible anyway, but I don't think Hitler was a Genius anyway. He was certainly a crap painter