View Full Version : The chips are down.
As you know, I run an internationally renowned adult website from the back of a chip shop*, so this story caught my eye.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brown-now-dicking-about-with-fish-and-chips-201003042527/
Which I thought was a random joke. BUT THEN, I realised it wasn't, and googled a bit and found this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7365618/Government-health-crackdown-on-British-fish-and-chips.html
Thats right. skinny chips are ILLEGAL and we, the free people of the UK can't be trusted to decide for ourselves what we eat when confused by a 4 item menu.
*Called the "The Batter Boys" should you which wish to visit our palace of salty fishy bits.
mOBSCENE
03-05-10, 10:11 AM
Jesus they'll be enforcing thicker cock size next :noway2:
strictlybroadband
03-05-10, 10:40 AM
As you know, I run an internationally renowned adult website from the back of a chip shop*, so this story caught my eye.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brown-now-dicking-about-with-fish-and-chips-201003042527/
Which I thought was a random joke. BUT THEN, I realised it wasn't, and googled a bit and found this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7365618/Government-health-crackdown-on-British-fish-and-chips.html
Thats right. skinny chips are ILLEGAL and we, the free people of the UK can't be trusted to decide for ourselves what we eat when confused by a 4 item menu.
*Called the "The Batter Boys" should you which wish to visit our palace of salty fishy bits.
It's political correctness gone mad, MAD I TELL YA!
It's political correctness gone mad, MAD I TELL YA!
What's your point? It actually is. Pointing out doesn't make me the mad one.
wingless
03-05-10, 11:02 AM
i think its a great idea, healthier chipshop chips means i can eat more of them
strictlybroadband
03-05-10, 11:05 AM
What's your point? It actually is. Pointing out doesn't make me the mad one.
You seem to receive your posting orders direct from PC Gorn Mad HQ - isn't there anything else to moan about?
On the point itself - I do believe that adults should be able to eat, drink and smoke whatever they like, but it's different for kids. If people are stupid enough to feed their children into diabetes, heart disease and early death, I don't see anything wrong with the government trying to stop them.
wingless
03-05-10, 11:13 AM
On the point itself - I do believe that adults should be able to eat, drink and smoke whatever they like, but it's different for kids. If people are stupid enough to feed their children into diabetes, heart disease and early death, I don't see anything wrong with the government trying to stop them.
then worry about making it easier for them to provide fresh healthy food, if someones going to feed there kid chipshop chips everynight there fucked, even with the 3% less saturated fat
Thats so silly. Surely people should make up there own minds about they eat??
strictlybroadband
03-05-10, 11:38 AM
then worry about making it easier for them to provide fresh healthy food, if someones going to feed there kid chipshop chips everynight there fucked, even with the 3% less saturated fat
I agree - parts of the food industry have given up selling healthy food and sell addictive, poisonous shit instead which is more profitable. It needs a kick in the nuts from the government - the idea that any shit can be sold as "food" is wrong.
OTOH, the British people are partly to blame. We (and Americans) are prepared to buy and eat crap that most Europeans wouldn't go near.
Ridiculous!
Casinos should be free to use whatever thickness of currency they wish !
As you know, I run an internationally renowned adult website from the back of a chip shop*, so this story caught my eye.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brown-now-dicking-about-with-fish-and-chips-201003042527/
Which I thought was a random joke. BUT THEN, I realised it wasn't, and googled a bit and found this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7365618/Government-health-crackdown-on-British-fish-and-chips.html
Thats right. skinny chips are ILLEGAL and we, the free people of the UK can't be trusted to decide for ourselves what we eat when confused by a 4 item menu.
*Called the "The Batter Boys" should you which wish to visit our palace of salty fishy bits.
Parody come true. Like the onion gilette thing from 2004 http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930
OTOH, the British people are partly to blame. We (and Americans) are prepared to buy and eat crap that most Europeans wouldn't go near.
They are not partly to blame, they are completely to blame.
It is consumer driven.
strictlybroadband
03-05-10, 03:02 PM
They are not partly to blame, they are completely to blame.
It is consumer driven.
Like I said, I think adults should have complete freedom over food, drink and drugs. Pity the children though...
omnivore
03-05-10, 07:04 PM
As you know, I run an internationally renowned adult website from the back of a chip shop*, so this story caught my eye.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brown-now-dicking-about-with-fish-and-chips-201003042527/
Which I thought was a random joke. BUT THEN, I realised it wasn't, and googled a bit and found this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7365618/Government-health-crackdown-on-British-fish-and-chips.html
Thats right. skinny chips are ILLEGAL and we, the free people of the UK can't be trusted to decide for ourselves what we eat when confused by a 4 item menu.
*Called the "The Batter Boys" should you which wish to visit our palace of salty fishy bits.
do you believe everything the daily mail wants you to believe as well?
The aim of the pilot project is to produce some targeted advice for businesses which is simple, practical and easy to implement.
''For fish and chip shops this includes advice as simple as choosing the type of oil to cook in or the temperature of the oil and thickness of chips.
''Both can make a big difference to the nutritional value of chips.
''We'd also encourage businesses to offer customers a range of portion sizes, allowing people to choose smaller ones when they wish to.''
but you say `ILLEGAL`
i can image your tight pursed lips right now
strictlybroadband
03-06-10, 02:02 PM
do you believe everything the daily mail wants you to believe as well?
The aim of the pilot project is to produce some targeted advice for businesses which is simple, practical and easy to implement.
''For fish and chip shops this includes advice as simple as choosing the type of oil to cook in or the temperature of the oil and thickness of chips.
''Both can make a big difference to the nutritional value of chips.
''We'd also encourage businesses to offer customers a range of portion sizes, allowing people to choose smaller ones when they wish to.''
but you say `ILLEGAL`
i can image your tight pursed lips right now
Well done for actually reading the article - I admit I was too lazy. As a loyal member of the "PC gorn mad" brigade, Simon has little interest in actual facts. Ever since the Sun's made-up "Baa Baa black sheep banned in Hackney" story in the early 80s, conservatives have enjoyed ranting about "the loony left" and "the nanny state", regardless of the facts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4782856.stm
looks like it's been made up again
"advice" from gov agencies takes on the status of law especially when your food hygiene certs depends on it. But I take your point - it isn't actually illegal. I exagerated for effect. Advice OR law defining chips is nannying.
omnivore
03-06-10, 05:45 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4782856.stm
looks like it's been made up again
"advice" from gov agencies takes on the status of law especially when your food hygiene certs depends on it. But I take your point - it isn't actually illegal. I exagerated for effect. Advice OR law defining chips is nannying.
my father and several members of his family were all typical working class physical labor types
all of them existed long term on the usual diet of fatty food combined with no healthy exercise.
they all have associated heart problems ranging from severe angina to heart attacks
until it was far too late, none of them had any real idea that their lifestyle and eating habits were going to cause them so many problems later on
they all assumed/believed that hearty northern food was the right and proper diet of the working man
they all suffer the repercussions of this misapprehension now and the health service bears the weight of the expense (using our tax money)
if you walk about any town center you will see that a huge proportion of the population are terribly overweight (and in some places it seems to be the majority)
all of these people will suffer increased health problems from early middle age onwards and managing it will all have to paid for with our `free` health service
it amazes me when people start to whinge and whine about the `nanny` state etc when it is clear that ignoring this problem would be socially and financially irresponsible
what suggestions do YOU have to solve this problem?
How would YOU deal with unhealthy lifestyles contributing to increased health service costs in the future?
and i mean ideas that might actually have a chance of working in the real world
or do you just think we should leave it and do nothing and screw the extra costs?
my father and several members of his family were all typical working class physical labor types
all of them existed long term on the usual diet of fatty food combined with no healthy exercise.
they all have associated heart problems ranging from severe angina to heart attacks
until it was far too late, none of them had any real idea that their lifestyle and eating habits were going to cause them so many problems later on
they all assumed/believed that hearty northern food was the right and proper diet of the working man
When was this? 100 years ago? Pretty much EVERYONE has known for the last 50 years what food are good and bad for them. But they CHOOSE to ignore it.
I find it impossible to believe that unless your parents are over 100 that they didnt know. They did, they just CHOSE to ignore it.
redwhiteandblue
03-06-10, 09:11 PM
When was this? 100 years ago? Pretty much EVERYONE has known for the last 50 years what food are good and bad for them. But they CHOOSE to ignore it.
I find it impossible to believe that unless your parents are over 100 that they didnt know. They did, they just CHOSE to ignore it.
You've made the mistake of underestimating quite how stupid many people really are.
omnivore
03-07-10, 12:27 AM
When was this? 100 years ago? Pretty much EVERYONE has known for the last 50 years what food are good and bad for them. But they CHOOSE to ignore it.
I find it impossible to believe that unless your parents are over 100 that they didnt know. They did, they just CHOSE to ignore it.
so what would you do about it?
something or nothing?
When was this? 100 years ago? Pretty much EVERYONE has known for the last 50 years what food are good and bad for them. But they CHOOSE to ignore it.
I find it impossible to believe that unless your parents are over 100 that they didnt know. They did, they just CHOSE to ignore it.
You forget how very painfully stupid most northerners are JT.
There is a very good reason the stupid, fat and ugly are kept north of watford. Let them inbreed all they want and then die out.
Then the sexy svelte southerners can take over and all will be well in the world.
so what would you do about it?
something or nothing?
The same as what I would do for people who get drunk, drive the wrong way around a motorway and kill themselves.
Nothing.
I wouldn't spend millions of pounds of tax payers money to widen the roads so they don't kill themselves.
Why should I pay for them to do what the fuck they want without any consequence to their actions?
It seems to me this is just another reason to get rid of the socialist dream the NHS. Let people pay for their own health care, it will soon make people worry about what they eat, those that still don't learn can either pay for their own treatment, or not, their choice.
I never understand people constant need to try and change natural selection. Fat people eating to much shit and dying is natures way of removing the stupid and week from nature. Why do I have to pay to keep the fat and stupid alive?
Adding to that, the state virtually never changes anything, all they do is waste billions on nothing, on so called good ideas that will never work.
Offering people smaller portions because they are to stupid to stop eating when they are full, will work as much as only selling paracetamol in 25's because people who want to kill themselves are thought to be to stupid to buy 2 packets.
Throwing my tax payers money trying to solve the problems of the stupid and lazy people in this country, only achieves one thing. Less money in my pocket
wingless
03-08-10, 11:11 AM
tis a good point, how much are they going to waste on what at the end will be telling chip shops they should make there chips bigger, they obvously allready have the info so send them all a letter and be done with it, those that will do it will and those that wont wont and wouldent even if you pumped more money into telling them they should
It seems to me this is just another reason to get rid of the socialist dream the NHS. Let people pay for their own health care, it will soon make people worry about what they eat, those that still don't learn can either pay for their own treatment, or not, their choice.
Damn fucking right. My STUPID grandfather should have FUCKING LEARNED not to get cancer. Then the cunt wouldn't have been wasting YOUR TAX MONEY on cunting chemotherapy. What a selfish twat.
And don't get me started on the twat of a child that broke his leg playing football in the park. His parents are poor and if only he had THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT HE WAS DOING he would not be wasting cash on a broken leg.
Look at America if you want to see how private healthcare systems work. They don't. The NHS may be currently fucked up with shitty administrators and management making bad decisions but the "socialist dream" (humanitarian possibly?) of having a society where it doesn't matter how poor you are, your cancer and broken bones will be fixed is inherently A Good Idea. Only a totally selfish cunt would be happy to see the poor die for the crime of being fucking poor.
imho.
Damn fucking right. My STUPID grandfather should have FUCKING LEARNED not to get cancer. Then the cunt wouldn't have been wasting YOUR TAX MONEY on cunting chemotherapy. What a selfish twat.
And don't get me started on the twat of a child that broke his leg playing football in the park. His parents are poor and if only he had THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT HE WAS DOING he would not be wasting cash on a broken leg.
Look at America if you want to see how private healthcare systems work. They don't. The NHS may be currently fucked up with shitty administrators and management making bad decisions but the "socialist dream" (humanitarian possibly?) of having a society where it doesn't matter how poor you are, your cancer and broken bones will be fixed is inherently A Good Idea. Only a totally selfish cunt would be happy to see the poor die for the crime of being fucking poor.
imho.
Nothing governments run ever works. Nationalization, just simply doesn't work. You are happy to see your grandfather get a substandard level of care, because of a belief you have in a political ideal?
You are happy that someone else didn't get the treatment your granddad did and died because he lived in a different postcode also I take it?
You are VERY naive if you think everyone with cancer, broken bones or anything else in this country gets the health care they need. They don't.
The NHS doesn't work because it is based on a political dream and not on economic reality. Only a totally selfish cunt would be happy to see people die for a socialist political dream that "they have" and that has never worked and never will.
omnivore
03-08-10, 02:23 PM
The same as what I would do for people who get drunk, drive the wrong way around a motorway and kill themselves.
Nothing.
I wouldn't spend millions of pounds of tax payers money to widen the roads so they don't kill themselves.
Why should I pay for them to do what the fuck they want without any consequence to their actions?
It seems to me this is just another reason to get rid of the socialist dream the NHS. Let people pay for their own health care, it will soon make people worry about what they eat, those that still don't learn can either pay for their own treatment, or not, their choice.
I never understand people constant need to try and change natural selection. Fat people eating to much shit and dying is natures way of removing the stupid and week from nature. Why do I have to pay to keep the fat and stupid alive?
Adding to that, the state virtually never changes anything, all they do is waste billions on nothing, on so called good ideas that will never work.
Offering people smaller portions because they are to stupid to stop eating when they are full, will work as much as only selling paracetamol in 25's because people who want to kill themselves are thought to be to stupid to buy 2 packets.
Throwing my tax payers money trying to solve the problems of the stupid and lazy people in this country, only achieves one thing. Less money in my pocket
hmmm
so have you never had any benefit in any way from any kind of state intervention or support?
and if so what was it and what did you think about it?
hmmm
so have you never had any benefit in any way from any kind of state intervention or support?
and if so what was it and what did you think about it?
No
My dad does though, since his (self inflicted due to years of smoking and eating crap food) stroke, he gets about £250 a week, most of it is a mobility allowance. Of which never a penny has been spent on getting anywhere. The only place he goes is the betting shop. Which he walks to.
Of course he has an almost free council house. So after he pays for his sky TV, a bit of electric and various fast foods every night. Fish & chips, pie mash, wimpy etc. It gives him enough to spend all day in the betting shop gambling our tax money. Well he has to spend it on something, they give it to him faster than he can spend it. With the current rules he cant bank it, because you cant have more than £6k in the bank and still get his virtually free rent. So he gambles it on the dogs.
omnivore
03-08-10, 02:45 PM
No
My dad does though, since his (self inflicted due to years of smoking and eating crap food) stroke, he gets about £250 a week, most of it is a mobility allowance. Of which never a penny has been spent on getting anywhere. The only place he goes is the betting shop. Which he walks to.
Of course he has an almost free council house. So after he pays for his sky TV, a bit of electric and various fast foods every night. Fish & chips, pie mash, wimpy etc. It gives him enough to spend all day in the betting shop gambling our tax money. Well he has to spend it on something, they give it to him faster than he can spend it. With the current rules he cant bank it, because you cant have more than £6k in the bank and still get his virtually free rent. So he gambles it on the dogs.
ok
so you don't like your dad much
but are you REALLY sure you haven't received any benefit from state support or intervention?
and if you have, did you deserve it?
or if you became aware that you had, would you conclude you did not deserve it and give it back?
ok
so you don't like your dad much
lol, what makes you think that? What I told you are facts, not my opinion on anything
but are you REALLY sure you haven't received any benefit from state support or intervention?
It's irrelevant either way.
and if you have, did you deserve it?
I doubt it
or if you became aware that you had, would you conclude you did not deserve it and give it back?
100% not, not a single penny.
Nothing governments run ever works.
So we should never bother trying to do something good, because for 90 something years a few twats have ballsed it up?
You are happy to see your grandfather get a substandard level of care, because of a belief you have in a political ideal?
I would prefer him to get some care rather than none. He couldn't afford chemo if it was private. So given the choice between him some chemo or none, I will take some.
You are VERY naive if you think everyone with cancer, broken bones or anything else in this country gets the health care they need.
Oh right, so don't help anyone at all then? We can't help everyone so fuck it, let's pack up shop. You poor people, please die quietly. Thx.
The NHS doesn't work because it is based on a political dream and not on economic reality. Only a totally selfish cunt would be happy to see people die for a socialist political dream that "they have" and that has never worked and never will.
A free healthcare system works perfectly well. In many countries. Funilly enough, like everything else, the UK fucked it up a bit. To suggest that taking tax money and making a public healthcare system is never going to work just silly.
Yes, the NHS is currently mismanaged and a cock up. Obviously. But I would prefer that than my grandpa dying because he couldn't afford some drugs he needed.
I would prefer him to get some care rather than none. He couldn't afford chemo if it was private. So given the choice between him some chemo or none, I will take some.
Funny enough your prandpa isn't the only person who needs health care, lots have not been as lucky and they don't get what they need to live. But thats OK because your grandpa is ok is it?
So we should never bother trying to do something good, because for 90 something years a few twats have ballsed it up?
Thats exactly what you are suggesting. Keep with the same old shit, that isn't working for many many people, because you personally think thats the best thing for your grandpa and his chemo.
Problem is, you have it in your head that their is two choices, this shitty socialist dream we are all made to pay for or your grandpa dying. It isn't.
There are lots of different options we can explore, but it never gets past the emotional, my grandpa willy and fluffy bunny arguments in this country.
Socialists, want everyone to be bought down to the same shitty level, as long as we are all equal. Where as I would rather everyone was bought up to a higher level, and that means not having our health care controlled by a government.
You think nationalization is the best thing for our health care. I don't. It's that simple really.
Funny enough your prandpa isn't the only person who needs health care, lots have not been as lucky and they don't get what they need to live. But thats OK because your grandpa is ok is it?
So because the current management cocked up some admin that means no one poor is allowed free healthcare?
Seems a tad extreme to me...
Thats exactly what you are suggesting. Keep with the same old shit, that isn't working for many many people,
Please quote where I said that.
I said that dismissing public health care as something that can never work is very silly. As it is working in other countries. I never said it was a perfect system that needed no attention.
Problem is, you have it in your head that their is two choices, this shitty socialist dream we are all made to pay for or your grandpa dying. It isn't.
There are lots of different options we can explore, but it never gets past the emotional, my grandpa willy and fluffy bunny arguments in this country.
Well you said to close the NHS because of some fat people getting some help they needed.
What are you saying? Pro or against public healthcare? I thought you were against it cos you said it was a socialist pipe dream that would never work.
Socialists, want everyone to be bought down to the same shitty level, as long as we are all equal. Where as I would rather everyone was bought up to a higher level, and that means not having our health care controlled by a government.
And you talk about pipe dreams. Lol.
Face facts. Some people are poor. Some people cannot afford food, let alone healthcare. I think that in 2010 it is wrong to let someone die because they are poor. That is it. Simples. Poverty should not exclude someone from getting healthcare. If you disagree with that premise, then it's a sad day.
You think nationalization is the best thing for our health care. I don't. It's that simple really.
Again, where did I say that?
You do love to assume things I didn't say and knock down straw men I didn't put up. ALL I am saying, and it is VERY simple, is that it's fucking wrong to let someone die who we could help just cos they are broke.
xx
is that it's fucking wrong to let someone die who we could help just cos they are broke.
You think letting other people die, because where they live, or because we have run out of money, or because we cant afford the latest drugs is better?
Doesn't seem any better to me.
It doesn't feel any better to the poor cunt who has worked all his life, paid into the NHS for 40 years and then cant get any treatment, because the money has been spent on someone who has never worked a day in their life, or paid into the NHS, drunk and smoked all their life and have only ever eaten shit has used all the money :twocents:
What about him? Doesn't he deserve to be treated as well?
If we except we cant help everyone, (which if you can't except, then its not worth discussing it anyway) Then how do you propose we decide who gets treated and who doesn't?
Are the people who pay for health care not entitled over those who don't pay for it?
You think letting other people die, because where they live, or because we have run out of money, or because we cant afford the latest drugs is better?
Doesn't seem any better to me.
Again with the straw men. You are better than Excite at them! Where did I say that?
I repeat. ALL I AM SAYING is that it is wrong to let someone die because they cannot afford medicine. Full stop.
If we except we cant help everyone, (which if you can't except, then its not worth discussing it anyway)
Who says?
Of course you can help everyone that needs helping. The stories of people being refused treatment because of a postcode are very Daily Mail, as well you know. Singapore has the best public healthcare. Same in the Netherlands. Finland. Same in France, which is widely recognised to have the best healthcare. And guess what! You can opt out of it like you want to! It's not like you even have to look FAR to see a system working well!
To suggest that universal healthcare is impossible is both wrong and displays an ignorance of other countries who are making it work brilliantly.
Are the people who pay for health care not entitled over those who don't pay for it?
Where did I say that?
Good god you are amusing to argue with as you just keep arguing against points I neither said nor believe! Hehe.
All I think, and you are more than welcome to disagree with this, is that in a first world country in 2010 it's fucking shit to suggest that someone should die because they are poor.
That's all my point is. Feel free to argue why YOU think it's a good idea to let poor people die.
Point. Counterpoint. That's how it goes usually. Or you can carry on arguing against things I didn't say and that were printed in the Daily Mail. Whichever you'd prefer.
Of course you can help everyone that needs helping.
Of course you cant, that's either very naive or very stupid. You can't and no country gives everyone all the treatment they want or need. Some do better and some do worse, but no one can or does give everyone all the treatment they want or need.
The stories of people being refused treatment because of a postcode are very Daily Mail, as well you know.
Thats a different point, but you are wrong if you think it doesn't happen. I know it happens. I have seen it recently, my wifes dad died about 2 months ago from cancer, that he got treated for when he lived in worthing, but couldn't get treated for when he moved to Lincolnshire. He had to pretend to live in Petworth with his sister to get the treatment he needed, and travel down every week from Lincolnshire to get treated. which as you know what chemo is like, your grandad experiencing it, you know what doing a 5 hour journey is like after treatment.
So again. Simple question. Without all the daily mail nonsense. :)
How do we decide who gets the treatment and who doesn't?
If it isn't decided on who pays for it, how do we decide?
Of course you cant, that's either very naive or very stupid.
Of course you can. You tax people and you get money and you create universal healthcare. Loads of people do it. It's not even hard.
Suggesting it is impossible is either very ignorant about the rest of the world, or very stupid.
You can't and no country gives everyone all the treatment they want or need. Some do better and some do worse, but no one can or does give everyone all the treatment they want or need.
And your source for this is what?
Try here http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
PS The Daily Mail will not be accepted.
So again. Simple question. Without all the daily mail nonsense. :)
How do we decide who gets the treatment and who doesn't?
If it isn't decided on who pays for it, how do we decide?
Well, I've looked into how things are done in the other countries like France and I say do it like that.
Why do you think their system is failing?
omnivore
03-08-10, 07:00 PM
lol, what makes you think that? What I told you are facts, not my opinion on anything
It's irrelevant either way.
I doubt it
100% not, not a single penny.
you avoided the crucial question
what would you suggest is done about the situation that would have a real world chance of working?
or are you only able to say everything is shit whilst having no clue as to what could be done about it yourself?
you avoided the crucial question
what would you suggest is done about the situation that would have a real world chance of working?
or are you only able to say everything is shit whilst having no clue as to what could be done about it yourself?
He's already said. No free health care for anyone. He is ok so him and his family will be sorted on BUPA.
Fuck anyone poor though.
Of course you can. You tax people and you get money and you create universal healthcare. Loads of people do it. It's not even hard.
If you honestly believe you can run a system where everyone can get any treatment they want or need, regardless of cost, always. Then there really is no point discussing that tbh.
Well, I've looked into how things are done in the other countries like France and I say do it like that.
The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits for the last 30 years. You can't carry on running up debts forever. Their deficits are huge. People are getting the benefit today for something that will have to be paid by someone else tommorow.
France has very well publisised out of control health care inflation. Which Im sure you will know about having looked what other countries do. Which has meant huge tax rises and France is now considering the U.S.system of health care maintenance to help control costs.Which again I'm sure you know.
Again having looked at their system Im sure you know, but its worth bringing up again.Not everyone gets the same health care in France, the more you pay, the better the treatment you get. They dont have universal healthcare that is the same for everyone. They can add to their basic contributions. Plus the French buy supplemental health care insurance, similar to Medigap, which gets them better care and treatments, like glasses, dental care etc.
So yes, their treatment for things like cancer is better than ours, but they pay a hefty price for it and it certainly isn't perfect.
But much more importantly they can't afford it. So how long will this nationalized utopia last?
you avoided the crucial question
what would you suggest is done about the situation that would have a real world chance of working?
or are you only able to say everything is shit whilst having no clue as to what could be done about it yourself?
I havnt avoided anything. I have already stated what I would do, you must have missed it. Read again
The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits for the last 30 years. You can't carry on running up debts forever. Their deficits are huge. People are getting the benefit today for something that will have to be paid by someone else tommorow.
France has very well publisised out of control health care inflation. Which Im sure you will know about having looked what other countries do. Which has meant huge tax rises and France is now considering the U.S.system of health care maintenance to help control costs.Which again I'm sure you know.
Again having looked at their system Im sure you know, but its worth bringing up again.Not everyone gets the same health care in France, the more you pay, the better the treatment you get. They dont have universal healthcare that is the same for everyone. They can add to their basic contributions. Plus the French buy supplemental health care insurance, similar to Medigap, which gets them better care and treatments, like glasses, dental care etc.
So yes, their treatment for things like cancer is better than ours, but they pay a hefty price for it and it certainly isn't perfect.
But much more importantly they can't afford it. So how long will this nationalized utopia last?
And your citations are?
Yes I love the French system. Tax the rich. They then help the poor. The system everyone gets for free is basic, but you can pay more if you want and then can chose your Doctor, etc. Or you can totally opt out and just go private.
The iller you are, the less you pay. So drugs for terminal illnesses are much less than something short term. Makes perfect sense.
And here is my citation from BusinessWeek:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
And here is my citation from BusinessWeek:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it's still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion.
Might be a great system, but as your article has just pointed out, they can't afford it.
As this interesting comment on your article points out
Europe's systems are all bankrupt. That is an unsustainable situation whether you feel it is just or not.
omnivore
03-08-10, 09:55 PM
I havnt avoided anything. I have already stated what I would do, you must have missed it. Read again
no thanks
bored now
Might be a great system, but as your article has just pointed out, they can't afford it.
As this interesting comment on your article points out
OK, so let's let the poor people die then. FUCK THEM. Stupid idiots, they shouldn't be so GOD DAMNED POOR then they might be able to afford the chemo.
http://www.adultaffiliate-adultwebmaster.com/images/smiley1.jpg
.
OK, so let's let the poor people die then. FUCK THEM. Stupid idiots, they shouldn't be so GOD DAMNED POOR then they might be able to afford the chemo.
So now you finally realise that no system can afford to give everyone the treatment they want or need and now you finally realise the one country who has the health service you think is how you want ours, can not afford to run it and that there is no nationalized utopia or bottomless pit (your about 20 years behind all the other socialists but we got there in the end)
How do you propose who gets the treatment? I have said I think those that pay should get the treatment over those that dont. That seems the fairest system to me. How do you think we should pic who gets the treatment and who doesnt?
So now you finally realise that no system can afford to give everyone the treatment they want or need and now you finally realise the one country who has the health service you think is how you want ours, can not afford to run it and that there is no nationalized utopia or bottomless pit (your about 20 years behind all the other socialists but we got there in the end)
How do you propose who gets the treatment? I have said I think those that pay should get the treatment over those that dont. That seems the fairest system to me. How do you think we should pic who gets the treatment and who doesnt?
What about the socialist postcode lottery? Isn't that working?????
I'd like a system that spent more money on patients and less on worrying about the size of chips.
As for blaming people for their illnesses and then giving them reduced treatment based on intelligence or whatever, fine lets go there. Anyone here smoke? Anyone here a high functioning alcoholic? Anyone here have unprotected sex with as many partners as they can find/afford? And what about pointless extreme sports that break limbs and spines? Will you still expect treatment for the problems that these life choices WILL cause, based on the fact you've already paid for it, via your taxes? Absolutely. So that settles that - treatment needs to be good, available to all and non judgemental. Whats so special about fatness that gives any of you the right to judge them in a way totally unacceptable if they were, for example gay?
Especially when I bet some of you are FAT too. Find out here :- http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx?Tag=
Borderline obese? yeah, me too.
As for Omnivore - you have a family with heart disease, which probably means its to a very large degree genetic, not chip based which means YOU are also in the firing line. Has your doc ever suggested a cholesterol test? Thought not. How about more cholesterol testing to identify at risk people and less chip fiddling?
So now you finally realise that no system can afford to give everyone the treatment they want or need
I don't think that. I think the rich should be taxed to pay for universal healthcare. Simples.
I'd like a system that spent more money on patients and less on worrying about the size of chips.
As for blaming people for their illnesses and then giving them reduced treatment based on intelligence or whatever, fine lets go there. Anyone here smoke? Anyone here a high functioning alcoholic? Anyone here have unprotected sex with as many partners as they can find/afford? And what about pointless extreme sports that break limbs and spines? Will you still expect treatment for the problems that these life choices WILL cause, based on the fact you've already paid for it, via your taxes? Absolutely. So that settles that - treatment needs to be good, available to all and non judgemental. Whats so special about fatness that gives any of you the right to judge them in a way totally unacceptable if they were, for example gay?
Especially when I bet some of you are FAT too. Find out here :- http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx?Tag=
Borderline obese? yeah, me too.
As for Omnivore - you have a family with heart disease, which probably means its to a very large degree genetic, not chip based which means YOU are also in the firing line. Has your doc ever suggested a cholesterol test? Thought not. How about more cholesterol testing to identify at risk people and less chip fiddling?
Damn right. Less chip fiddling. Less homeopathy. Less bullshit, more - you know - medicine.
adultbusiness
03-09-10, 11:21 AM
I don't think that. I think the rich should be taxed to pay for universal healthcare. Simples.
So, the rich (you know, the people who work hard and put the least strain on the system) should pay for everyone else!?
mOBSCENE
03-09-10, 11:30 AM
I'd like a system that spent more money on patients and less on worrying about the size of chips.
As for blaming people for their illnesses and then giving them reduced treatment based on intelligence or whatever, fine lets go there. Anyone here smoke? Anyone here a high functioning alcoholic? Anyone here have unprotected sex with as many partners as they can find/afford? And what about pointless extreme sports that break limbs and spines? Will you still expect treatment for the problems that these life choices WILL cause, based on the fact you've already paid for it, via your taxes? Absolutely. So that settles that - treatment needs to be good, available to all and non judgemental. Whats so special about fatness that gives any of you the right to judge them in a way totally unacceptable if they were, for example gay?
Especially when I bet some of you are FAT too. Find out here :- http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx?Tag=
Borderline obese? yeah, me too.
As for Omnivore - you have a family with heart disease, which probably means its to a very large degree genetic, not chip based which means YOU are also in the firing line. Has your doc ever suggested a cholesterol test? Thought not. How about more cholesterol testing to identify at risk people and less chip fiddling?
I am a healthy weight.
I think we need suggestions on what should be done with people who are poor, gay, fat, and ethnically challenged :noway2:
Though I do always wonder how those living on the "breadline" manage to get so fucking fat...
So, the rich (you know, the people who work hard and put the least strain on the system) should pay for everyone else!?
The people that can afford it should pay for the people that can't afford it.
IMHO.
The people that can afford it should pay for the people that can't afford it.
IMHO.
Yes...
http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/shameless460.jpg
omnivore
03-09-10, 08:24 PM
arguing about system A or B for managing health care is nether here nor there
arguing about if cholesterol tests or providing health education are better or not are neither here nor there
the central issue is
should the better off should try to help the less well off
and the answer can only be `yes`
you can't say you won't help them because some people think they are lazy and stupid.
we all stand to get health care above what we could afford.
could anyone one here really expect to pay the cost of brain surgery if they crashed their own car and went through the windscreen?
if you did that in the uk, the health service would step in and do that for you
because the principle is everyone gets the benefit
postcode lottery issues etc are just arguments about one management technique over another
ps: damian...i saw jerry sadowitz in the street in golders green twice this week. does he live there?
smoothballs
03-09-10, 08:46 PM
Guess what Damian is trying to say is share the wealth...
Not a Telegraph reader but this is a interesting article...especially this line...
90 per cent of the world's wealth is owned by just
10 per cent of its people
link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/7105004/Capitalism-has-forgotten-to-share-the-wealth.html) to article
ps: damian...i saw jerry sadowitz in the street in golders green twice this week. does he live there?
I have no idea, but he works at International Magic on Clerkenwell Road if that helps your stalking. And I think he has a show in the west end at the mo.
adultbusiness
03-09-10, 09:33 PM
I hope all you champagne socialists give healthy discounts to your sites to those on income support.........
:reading:
omnivore
03-09-10, 10:40 PM
I have no idea, but he works at International Magic on Clerkenwell Road if that helps your stalking. And I think he has a show in the west end at the mo.
i saw a previous one a couple of years ago
the first 40 mins were mind boggling (no magic, just an unrelenting stream of rapid fire bitterness and filth)
i tried to get him interested in doing some short films for mobile with 02 but he just told me to fuck off
strictlybroadband
03-10-10, 04:28 PM
Might be a great system, but as your article has just pointed out, they can't afford it.
JT, you do realise that the US system cost far more than any of the European ones right? We pay about 10% of our income for the NHS. Americans pay almost 20% and get worse care. How does that work?
JT, you do realise that the US system cost far more than any of the European ones right? We pay about 10% of our income for the NHS. Americans pay almost 20% and get worse care. How does that work?
Because they are not running at a deficit. They are paying the full cost of their health care, we and all Europeans are borrowing the money to run ours and not paying it back. We can't afford our health care and are borrowing to sustain it. Thats how it works.
So, while it may be better at the moment, our systems are running towards being (or are actually already are) bankrupt. You do realize at some point you have to pay back money that is borrowed? Eventually the interest becomes un-serviceable, let alone paying back the actual loan.
strictlybroadband
03-10-10, 04:59 PM
Because they are not running at a deficit. They are paying the full cost of their health care
No they're not. Their system is at crisis point. Millions don't have healthcare which impacts on the economy when they can't work, and must have an impact on their society in terms of crime, violence and other knock-on effects. Even middle-class Americans with good cover live in terror of getting ill in case their insurance doesn't stretch.
We DON'T know (yet) how to run a perfect healthcare system, but America has given us a lesson on how NOT to run one: for profit.
(PS I'm right so just agree and we'll move on).
strictlybroadband
03-10-10, 05:08 PM
This is interesting: child mortality index by country. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
US has 6.22 per thousand
EU average is 5.72, UK is 4.85, France is 3.33
strictlybroadband
03-10-10, 05:14 PM
Ooh more stats. Life expectancy by country: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
France is 8th, UK is 36 (and that INCLUDES Scotland), US is 49.
Stats are fun.
redwhiteandblue
03-10-10, 05:17 PM
This is interesting: child mortality index by country. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
US has 6.22 per thousand
EU average is 5.72, UK is 4.85, France is 3.33
Ooh more stats. Life expectancy by country: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
France is 8th, UK is 36 (and that INCLUDES Scotland), US is 49.
Stats are fun.
What do these prove?
strictlybroadband
03-10-10, 05:19 PM
What do these prove?
It doesn't prove but strongly hints that state healthcare works better than private.
redwhiteandblue
03-10-10, 05:26 PM
It doesn't prove but strongly hints that state healthcare works better than private.
Not to me, not really. The French probably eat a lot more healthily than we do, I think that goes a lot further towards long life expectancy than the kind of healthcare they have.
strictlybroadband
03-10-10, 05:41 PM
Not to me, not really. The French probably eat a lot more healthily than we do, I think that goes a lot further towards long life expectancy than the kind of healthcare they have.
I've got an idea: how about... the government setting food guidelines that will increase people's life expectancy? :noway2:
redwhiteandblue
03-10-10, 05:51 PM
I've got an idea: how about... the government setting food guidelines that will increase people's life expectancy? :noway2:
Guidelines that are useless and will be ignored, because people in this country are too stupid or lazy to care about their weight or health until it's too late.
strictlybroadband
03-10-10, 06:04 PM
Guidelines that are useless and will be ignored, because people in this country are too stupid or lazy to care about their weight or health until it's too late.
Remember those dumb wankers who pushed chips through the playground fence when the school tried to serve healthy food? Sigh...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article63611.ece
(This is the same Sun that's always giving away McDonalds vouchers)
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.