Brits pissed at lies US right wingers are telling.

[Bronco Bob]

Britons Outraged Over US Conservatives Criticism of British Health Care

By Sonja Pace
London
14 August 2009


Britons are outraged and speaking out in response to comments among Conservatives in the United States attacking Britain's national health care system as socialist, evil and Orwellian.

Average Britons are usually quite vocal about what they see as the shortcomings of their national health care system, the NHS. But the vehement critique by some conservatives in the United States of the NHS has sparked an outpouring of support here in Britain.

A campaign is underway on the social networking site, Twitter, that even the prime minister and his wife have joined in.

Breaking his usual diplomatic silence about political events in America, Prime Minister Gordon Brown tweeted, "the NHS often makes a difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death. Thanks for always being there."

Leader of the opposition Conservative Party, David Cameron entered the fray on Friday, also in support of the NHS.

"The fact that in this country you can go to a hospital, you can go to a family doctor and they don't ask you how much money is in your bank account or who you are or whether you're a man or a woman, or live in the town or the countryside - I think it's one of our great national institutions," he said.

Cameron had been criticized for not showing enough support for the health care system.

Labor Party minister Peter Mandelson said the NHS compares very favorably to health care in the U.S., which he described as fine if you have money, but not for those who don't.

"That's not what we have in Britain," he said. "We have a national health service which we are very proud of."

Conservatives in the U.S. have sought to portray the NHS as a "socialist" system that is overly bureaucratic and rations out care. And, they say that is what President Barack Obama is now trying to bring to the U.S, with his plans for health care reform.

The NHS was founded in 1948. It's a huge national health care scheme that has been criticized for issues such as long waiting lists for non critical procedures and the cleanliness of hospitals.

But, in general Britons do not want the NHS replaced, they want it improved. Supporters of the NHS are quick to point out that it costs much less than health care in America and that the World Health Organization ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the U.S. is far behind in 37th place.

[~Crash~]

yes el comrade

[Bronco Bob]

yes el comrade

Sieg Heil, you Nazi.

[~Crash~]

lol sure thing ... putz

[Bronco Bob]

lol sure thing ... putz

You got it, a-hole.

[~Crash~]

don't get cancer you will have to travel to New zilen to get the latest drugs . when we go to socialism .

Also you will not see new drugs hit the market drug company's will spend what little profits on them self and not on making new drugs . with little profit they will still be rich but why pore what little they get to keep, into a drug they have to sell at what government tells them .

[Bronco Bob]

don't get cancer you will have to travel to New zilen to get the latest drugs . when we go to socialism .



And just how is a poor, unemployed American with no health insurance
supposed to dig up the money to travel all the way to "New zilen"
(where ever that is) to get the "latest drugs" to treat their cancer?

[SPfloppy]

And just how is a poor, unemployed American with no health insurance
supposed to dig up the money to travel all the way to "New zilen"
(where ever that is) to get the "latest drugs" to treat their cancer?

They won't have the time time nor the money to spend while the red tape takes it's sweet time to clear out and they wait in line for treatment they'll not live to see. So maybe a boatrip to New Zealand would be a faster method.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

don't get cancer you will have to travel to New zilen to get the latest drugs . when we go to socialism .
.Geeezus, no wonder this country keeps slipping down the ladder of the most educated countries.

[tnedator]

And, from the health editor of Britains Daily Telegraph:

Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections

Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned.

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 7:45AM BST 02 Aug 2009

The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.

Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.

Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.

The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million.

But the British Pain Society, which represents specialists in the field, has written to NICE calling for the guidelines to be withdrawn after its members warned that they would lead to many patients having to undergo unnecessary and high-risk spinal surgery.

Dr Christopher Wells, a leading specialist in pain relief medicine and the founder of the NHS' first specialist pain clinic, said it was "entirely unacceptable" that conventional treatments used by thousands of patients would be stopped.

"I don't mind whether some people want to try acupuncture, or osteopathy. What concerns me is that to pay for these treatments, specialist clinics which offer vital services are going to be forced to close, leaving patients in significant pain, with nowhere to go,"

The NICE guidelines admit that evidence was limited for many back pain treatments, including those it recommended. Where scientific proof was lacking, advice was instead taken from its expert group. But specialists are furious that while the group included practitioners of alternative therapies, there was no one with expertise in conventional pain relief medicine to argue against a decision to significantly restrict its use.

Dr Jonathan Richardson, a consultant pain specialist from Bradford Hospitals Trust, is among more than 50 medics who have written to NICE urging the body to reconsider its decision, which was taken in May.

He said: "The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients. It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate."

One in three people are estimated to suffer from lower back pain every year, while one in 15 consult their GP about it. Specialists say therapeutic injections using steroids to reduce inflammation and other injections which can deaden nerve endings, can provide months or even years of respite from pain.

Experts said that if funding was stopped for the injections, many clinics would also struggle to offer other vital services, such as pain management programmes and psychotherapy which is used to manage chronic pain.

Anger among medics has reached such levels that Dr Paul Watson, a physiotherapist who helped draft the guidelines, was last week forced to resign as President of the British Pain Society.

Doctors said he had failed to represent their views when the guidelines were drawn up and refused to support the letter by more than 50 of the group's members which called for the guidelines to be withdrawn.

In response, NICE chairman Professor Sir Michael Rawlins expressed outrage over the vote that forced Dr Watson from his position, describing the actions of the society as "shameful". He accused pain specialists of refusing to accept that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support their practices.

A spokesman for NICE said its guidance did not recommend that injections were stopped for all patients, but only for those who had been in pain for less than a year, where the cause was not known.

Iris Watkins, 80 from Appleton, in Cheshire said her life had been "transformed" by the use of therapeutic injections every two years. The pensioner began to suffer back pain in her 70s. Four years ago, despite physiotherapy treatment and the use of medication, she had reached a stage where she could barely walk.

"It was horrendous, I was spending hours lying on the sofa, or in bed, I couldn't spend a whole evening out. I was referred to a specialist, who decided to give me a set of injections. The difference was tremendous",

Within days, she was able to return to her old life, gardening, caring for her husband Herbert, and enjoying social occasions.

"I just felt fabulous – almost immediately, there was not a twinge. I only had an injection every two years, but it really has transformed my life; if I couldn't have them I would be in despair".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html

[Spider]

And, from the health editor of Britains Daily Telegraph:

So with this post you are telling me that the US government pays for our injections here for this ?
Be damn careful how you answer , cause you already know I know ...........I just want ot see how willing you are to lie

[gunns]

And just how is a poor, unemployed American with no health insurance
supposed to dig up the money to travel all the way to "New zilen"
(where ever that is) to get the "latest drugs" to treat their cancer?

Hell, talk to the people that have insurance that get cancer. Getting the "latest drug" for your cancer might not work with insurance because that drug may not be on their "list". People still pay out their asses, and then the company drops them. I would think medical care would be so much better when you lose that excellent insurance than none at all. This whole thing is about the insurance companies. They are in a panic and the right wants to make sure they keep taking our money. One way or another we're all paying.

[tnedator]

So with this post you are telling me that the US government pays for our injections here for this ?
Be damn careful how you answer , cause you already know I know ...........I just want ot see how willing you are to lie

Yes, sir, I will do my best to be careful...

The article I posted is about rationing of steroid injections. It was a response to the first article, which mentions how "Conservatives in the U.S. have sought to portray the NHS as a "socialist" system that is overly bureaucratic and rations out care."

The article I posted states "The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known."

Rationing watchdog. They are going to save 30 million pounds, by not giving anyone a shot, unless there is a clear diagnoses or the person has suffered in pain for one year. Often, with chronic pain, there is no clear diagnoses, so that means a person has to suffer for a year, before getting a steroid shot to ease the pain. This decision was made by the 'rationing watchdog' to save money.

The original article in this thread was about British NHS, and also how it is being 'portrayed' by conservatives, which includes the fact that NHS rations drugs and procedures.

The article I posted was an example of that.

Was that careful enough for you, Spidey?

[Rohirrim]

Here's the funny part: Nobody in the U.S. has ever talked about installing a British type health care system in the U.S. Nobody. Once again, the rightards go berserk over something that doesn't exist, like a dog chasing its own tail. The only thing we were trying to do was cover the uninsured, because they are dragging down the entire system with their ER visits, and providing some actual competition to the health industry cabal which now acts in collusion to fleece the American people. The main thing should be to attack corruption and fraud in the system, which is rampant. Anyway, it's a moot point. Once again, the fear mongering campaign of the industry has induced the rightard stooges to come out squealing against their own interests, so sound and fury have won out over reason. Same as it ever was.

This health care "debate" has really made one thing abundantly clear: We really need to work on the education system in this country. A lot of people are very stupid.

[tnedator]

Here's the funny part: Nobody in the U.S. has ever talked about installing a British type health care system in the U.S. Nobody. Once again, the rightards go berserk over something that doesn't exist, like a dog chasing its own tail. The only thing we were trying to do was cover the uninsured, because they are dragging down the entire system with their ER visits, and providing some actual competition to the health industry cabal which now acts in collusion to fleece the American people. The main thing should be to attack corruption and fraud in the system, which is rampant. Anyway, it's a moot point. Once again, the fear mongering campaign of the industry has induced the rightard stooges to come out squealing against their own interests, so sound and fury have won out over reason. Same as it ever was.

This health care "debate" has really made one thing abundantly clear: We really need to work on the education system in this country. A lot of people are very stupid.

Well, like with global warming, the "debate isn't over" about whether or not "nobody in the U.S. has ever talked about installing a British type health care system in the U.S."

First, that's a pretty blanket statement, "nobody has ever talked about..."

Second, many Dem congressmen and senators have talked about this initial reform simply being a stepping stone to get to a single payer system. Once you are at a single payer system, much of which will have to be paid for by the near bakrupt states five years after introduction, it is not a big leap to see the single payer system being a stepping stone for an NHS type system. Would it be in two years? No, of course not, but neither would the single payer system that congressman are saying we will get to.

[Dukes]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon081709.gif

[Rohirrim]

Well, like with global warming, the "debate isn't over" about whether or not "nobody in the U.S. has ever talked about installing a British type health care system in the U.S."

First, that's a pretty blanket statement, "nobody has ever talked about..."

Second, many Dem congressmen and senators have talked about this initial reform simply being a stepping stone to get to a single payer system. Once you are at a single payer system, much of which will have to be paid for by the near bakrupt states five years after introduction, it is not a big leap to see the single payer system being a stepping stone for an NHS type system. Would it be in two years? No, of course not, but neither would the single payer system that congressman are saying we will get to.

No. Fear mongers have talked about us moving to a single payer system. Frankly, I don't give a ****. Let the system crash. If, as a country, we are too stupid to see what is coming down the road, then **** it. Let it crash and burn. How many more annual 20% increases in health care costs can this economy sustain? One more? Two? Senator Sanders, who has been at this health care reform game for forty years, said the other day that if nothing is done to stop it, in twelve years health care will take up 50% of your income. Enjoy. ;D

[Garcia Bronco]

[SIZE=3]But, in general Britons do not want the NHS replaced, they want it improved. Supporters of the NHS are quick to point out that it costs much less than health care in America and that the [B]World Health Organization ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the U.S. is far behind in 37th place.

LOL...the WHO ranking is misleading because one of criteria they rate on is free access to healthcare. If it's not free it's not as good.LOL

[Rohirrim]

LOL...the WHO ranking is misleading because one of criteria they rate on is free access to healthcare. If it's not free it's not as good.LOL

Wrong again. It rates "Fairness in financial contribution." That means, does the system (like some Third World countries) simply push the poor out of the system to fend for themselves, or is broad access to health care provided across economic classes? We in the U.S. have chosen the Third World model, which is why we are rated alongside them.

[tnedator]

No. Fear mongers have talked about us moving to a single payer system. Frankly, I don't give a ****. Let the system crash. If, as a country, we are too stupid to see what is coming down the road, then **** it. Let it crash and burn. How many more annual 20% increases in health care costs can this economy sustain? One more? Two? Senator Sanders, who has been at this health care reform game for forty years, said the other day that if nothing is done to stop it, in twelve years health care will take up 50% of your income. Enjoy. ;D

Let me get this straight, you are saying Dems are not talking about this being a stepping stone to single payer? I'm not going to muddy this with other comments, just that question?

[cutthemdown]

Dems getting beat down on healthcare once again.

Looks like they won't be passing a govt run healthcare reform bill.

[Rohirrim]

Let me get this straight, you are saying Dems are not talking about this being a stepping stone to single payer? I'm not going to muddy this with other comments, just that question?

I am, but I'm not a Dem. In fact, they should just open up Medicare to all who want it. Quick and easy. The Right loves to talk big about competition, but they do everything they can to kill it. But no, that's not what the leadership of the Dems are talking about. In fact, they're already getting ready to cut the public option loose as well. There are a few Dems (like Kucinich) who have the guts to bring up single payer, but they're not in the leadership, and are not allowed at the table. I'm guessing that health care reform will pretty much come out the way the giant insurers and big pharma want it to come out. I'll be surprised at any "real" reform in the system.

[Rohirrim]

I think the health care bill we get is going to be the one the health care industry paid Max Baucus to write. It will not contain any public option.

[Garcia Bronco]

Wrong again. It rates "Fairness in financial contribution." That means, does the system (like some Third World countries) simply push the poor out of the system to fend for themselves, or is broad access to health care provided across economic classes? We in the U.S. have chosen the Third World model, which is why we are rated alongside them.

It's still free access to healthcare and they are rating us lower in part because of that. You can dress it up any way you lke, but that's what it is.

[Rohirrim]

It's still free access to healthcare and they are rating us lower in part because of that. You can dress it up any way you lke, but that's what it is.

Yeah, you and I have gone round and round on this. I finally realized that you are so out there on the Right that you would support the basic, Third World model of health care: If you can't afford it, go die. :thumbs:

[Rohirrim]

I read an interesting article about the evolution of health care systems some months ago in the New Yorker. It showed how each country creates its own model in accordance with the culture and politics of its people. The English system was really a product of the war. During the war, they set up a system to help people who were basically getting bombed by the Germans. People got used to it. It stuck, and was pretty much installed permanently shortly after the war. As much as they complain about it, the English won't allow anybody to mess with it. In France, their system is much different, kind of a hodgepodge of different programs, as it is different in Germany and Canada. As much as the rightards like to squeal and scream about socialism, these are democratic countries who have created health care systems they like and that they are, for the most part, happy with.

Of course, one key issue in those countries across the board, nobody can be ruined and bankrupted just because they get sick.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yeah, you and I have gone round and round on this. I finally realized that you are so out there on the Right that you would support the basic, Third World model of health care: If you can't afford it, go die. :thumbs:


That exists everywhere regardless of socio-economic status or country. It doesn't matter if it's a government or a privately held company paying for it. Guess what....people die. It's not forever boomers. LOL. yeah..I am so ar out there. Nice try

[tnedator]

It's still free access to healthcare and they are rating us lower in part because of that. You can dress it up any way you lke, but that's what it is.

And, when you take nationalisitic pride out of it (Brits getting pissed, because Americans are bashing it), most Brits say there are major problems with the NHS or it needs major overhaul.

[Rohirrim]

That exists everywhere regardless of socio-economic status or country. It doesn't matter if it's a government or a privately held company paying for it. Guess what....people die. It's not forever boomers. LOL. yeah..I am so ar out there. Nice try

Nice attempt at deflection. Who's talking about people not dying? Not me. I'm talking about health care. Let's see how we do when it comes to babies:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/06/health/0407-sci-INFANTSTATS.gif

Gee! Our system works great!

Ooops! We're worse than ****ing Cuba? Cuba?!:rofl:

[Garcia Bronco]

Nice attempt at deflection. Who's talking about people not dying? Not me. I'm talking about health care. Let's see how we do when it comes to babies:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/06/health/0407-sci-INFANTSTATS.gif

Gee! Our system works great!

Ooops! We're worse than ****ing Cuba? Cuba?!:rofl:

Looks to me like we have lower death rates. I think you might want to connect the entire source to make your point.

[Rohirrim]

Looks to me like we have lower death rates. I think you might want to connect the entire source to make your point.

Hey! You're right. Good for us. Hilarious!

[Garcia Bronco]

Hey! You're right. Good for us. Hilarious!

I didn't think you could. Our IMR or infant death rate is roughly 600 per 100,000 children. and according to your chart it's gone down since 1960. Thank you.

[tnedator]

I didn't think you could. Our IMR or infant death rate is roughly 600 per 100,000 children. and according to your chart it's gone down since 1960. Thank you.

I think our rank among other naions has gone down, meaning there are more nations with a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Meaning, either they have decreased their infant mortality rate and passed us, or our IMR has gotten worse (or combination of the two).

[Dukes]

No. Fear mongers have talked about us moving to a single payer system. Frankly, I don't give a ****. Let the system crash. If, as a country, we are too stupid to see what is coming down the road, then **** it. Let it crash and burn. How many more annual 20% increases in health care costs can this economy sustain? One more? Two? Senator Sanders, who has been at this health care reform game for forty years, said the other day that if nothing is done to stop it, in twelve years health care will take up 50% of your income. Enjoy. ;D

If it's going to crash, why was Obama saying we could keep our current healthcare plans if we choose to?

[Dukes]

Nice attempt at deflection. Who's talking about people not dying? Not me. I'm talking about health care. Let's see how we do when it comes to babies:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/06/health/0407-sci-INFANTSTATS.gif

Gee! Our system works great!

Ooops! We're worse than ****ing Cuba? Cuba?!:rofl:

Yeah, I'm sure you'll be the first one on a flight to Singapore when you get sick. Right.

[Garcia Bronco]

I think our rank among other naions has gone down, meaning there are more nations with a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Meaning, either they have decreased their infant mortality rate and passed us, or our IMR has gotten worse (or combination of the two).

Maybe. But that would assume those other nations were up to snuff to being with. Simple education has fixed this problem. Not government takeovers.

[cutthemdown]

Pulling out the infant mortality rates again huh Rho? Sorry but every country reports different. Don't go thinking those numbers you read are even that accurate. Many countries fudge numbers to avoid fallout. Many countries don't count babies that are still born, usa does.

[kappys]

Pulling out the infant mortality rates again huh Rho? Sorry but every country reports different. Don't go thinking those numbers you read are even that accurate. Many countries fudge numbers to avoid fallout. Many countries don't count babies that are still born, usa does.

That's been debated back and forth, stillbirths don't count for those drops.

The US has a number of high risk groups that are generally much larger than their counterparts
1) Immigrants who receive no prenatal care, deliver in US. Okay I'm in Texas so its a rather inordinately large number here but still.
2) Teen pregnancies
3) Drug Addicts

The latter 2 often have prenatal care but even if they do access it the chances for the newborn are much slimmer than for healthy adult not drug addicted women.

[Garcia Bronco]

Pulling out the infant mortality rates again huh Rho? Sorry but every country reports different. Don't go thinking those numbers you read are even that accurate. Many countries fudge numbers to avoid fallout. Many countries don't count babies that are still born, usa does.

I wouldn't say he posted the rates. He posted a picture, but the actual rates aren't there. The difference between us and Japan for example is 3 points.. Huge difference.

[Rohirrim]

If it's going to crash, why was Obama saying we could keep our current healthcare plans if we choose to?

Because if we had a system to insure the uninsured, costs would drop for the insured. For instance, somebody brought up an interesting point last week. I think it was Senator Sanders of Vermont. If we had not installed Medicare back in the 60s, the system would have already crashed because a very large percentage of those seniors on Medicare would have joined the ranks of the uninsured. The health care system could not have withstood the numbers. With the unemployment rate going up and more people dropping their insurance every day, expect the rates to climb even more - IF we don't do something about it.

[Garcia Bronco]

Because if we had a system to insure the uninsured, costs would drop for the insured. For instance, somebody brought up an interesting point last week. I think it was Senator Sanders of Vermont. If we had not installed Medicare back in the 60s, the system would have already crashed because a very large percentage of those seniors on Medicare would have joined the ranks of the uninsured. The health care system could not have withstood the numbers. With the unemployment rate going up and more people dropping their insurance every day, expect the rates to climb even more - IF we don't do something about it.

The only way to decrease insurance rates and cost is to limit what hospitals and doctors can charge.

[Bronx33]

Geee i wonder why....


http://www.neoperspectives.com/britishhealthcare.htm

[Bronco Bob]

Well, like with global warming, the "debate isn't over" about whether or not "nobody in the U.S. has ever talked about installing a British type health care system in the U.S."



The debate over whether the earth is round or the earth is flat isn't over
yet either. But the general consensus by most scientists is the earth
is round. So what are you trying to say? Just because you have
a gaggle of naysayers proves there is no Global Climate Change?
Or because a gaggle think Health Care Reform is socialized medicine
it makes it true?

[Bronco Bob]

And, when you take nationalisitic pride out of it (Brits getting pissed, because Americans are bashing it), most Brits say there are major problems with the NHS or it needs major overhaul.

Everybody likes to have things better no matter how perfect a system.
Doesn't mean they want to scrap it and go with the American system.
Just means they want to make their current system better.

[Bronco Bob]

Yeah, I'm sure you'll be the first one on a flight to Singapore when you get sick. Right.

You ever been to Singapore? Makes the US look like some 3rd work country.
So in answer to your question, hell yes, if I could afford the plane ticket
and they'd take me.

[tnedator]

Everybody likes to have things better no matter how perfect a system.
Doesn't mean they want to scrap it and go with the American system.
Just means they want to make their current system better.

How many examples can you present of Americans that went to Britain for a medical procedure that they couldn't get in America?

How many examples can you present of Brits that have come to America for a medical procedure that they couldn't get in Britain?

Yea, the Brit system is clearly superior.

Rhetoric alone does not superiority make.

[Dukes]

You ever been to Singapore? Makes the US look like some 3rd work country.
So in answer to your question, hell yes, if I could afford the plane ticket
and they'd take me.

Good luck with that. I hear they're the worlds innovator in medical procedures.

[Bronx33]

Iam judging public healthcare based on information coming out from countries that have already implemented it, it's kinda like reading a consumers report.

[Bronco Bob]

How many examples can you present of Americans that went to Britain for a medical procedure that they couldn't get in America?

How many examples can you present of Brits that have come to America for a medical procedure that they couldn't get in Britain?

Yea, the Brit system is clearly superior.

Rhetoric alone does not superiority make.

You're assuming the British will let just anyone in who isn't
a British citizen. That's like asking how many people will
a golfing club let in that aren't members and how many
of the golfing club members can play at the city park.

[tnedator]

You're assuming the British will let just anyone in who isn't
a British citizen. That's like asking how many people will
a golfing club let in that aren't members and how many
of the golfing club members can play at the city park.

Nice job evading the question, Mr. Gibbs.

The point is that people don't go to Britain for surgeries or cutting edge treatments, not as a general rule. HOwever, people from all around the world come to America for such procedures.

Does that mean there is nothing wrong with our system? No, of course not, but you are someone who clearly has never been a part of the NHS system based on your comments, nor talked extensively with people that have been.

P.S. There is a lot more than a 'gaggle' of naysayers when it comes to the debate about man made global warming. Wake up and get off the liberal party line.

[Bronco Bob]

P.S. There is a lot more than a 'gaggle' of naysayers when it comes to the debate about man made global warming. Wake up and get off the liberal party line.

No one legitimate. Wake up and get off of the Exxon-Mobil party line.

[tnedator]

No one legitimate. Wake up and get off of the Exxon-Mobil party line.

I'm not on that party line, I'm in touch with reality. Give it a shot.

How about answering my previous question Mr. press secretary?

[Bronco Bob]

Nice job evading the question, Mr. Gibbs.

The point is that people don't go to Britain for surgeries or cutting edge treatments, not as a general rule.

Says who? Sometimes I cruise over to the Discovery Health Channel
on cable TV and there have been several articles about people
coming to Britain for treatment they couldn't get in their own country.
Who convinced you the US is the only country with advanced medical
procedures? The same folks screaming "We don't want socialized medicine"

[Bronco Bob]

I'm not on that party line, I'm in touch with reality. Give it a shot.

How about answering my previous question Mr. press secretary?

Who's reality?

[tnedator]

Says who? Sometimes I cruise over to the Discovery Health Channel
on cable TV and there have been several articles about people
coming to Britain for treatment they couldn't get in their own country.
Who convinced you the US is the only country with advanced medical
procedures? The same folks screaming "We don't want socialized medicine"

So, in other words, you have never been in the NHS system for treatment or talked to many people that have been. Thanks for the non-answer. You should be on the White House staff.

[Bronco Bob]

So, in other words, you have never been in the NHS system for treatment or talked to many people that have been. Thanks for the non-answer. You should be on the White House staff.

Anything you say, Karl Rove.

I haven't talked to anyone from any foreign countries that have come
here to the US for treatment either. So I guess by your logic they
don't exist either.

[tnedator]

Anything you say, Karl Rove.

I haven't talked to anyone from any foreign countries that have come
here to the US for treatment either. So I guess by your logic they
don't exist either.

Ok, then you aren't aware that nearly everyone in the UK that has the means to do so, now purchases private health insurance and go to doctors that are splitting their practice between NHS and fee-for-service, or have opted out of NHS completely, and are only fee-for-service practices. That except in the most dire circumstances, they don't go to the NHS hospitals, only the private hospitals, which they use their 'private' insurance to gain access to.

That if you are hiring a mid-to-upper level manager (and in some cases non-managers), and don't offer a private health insurance option, then that person likely won't work for you.

I'm guessing these are among many of the things you don't know about the British NHS system and how 'happy' the Brits are with it, since you are basing your opinions on what the liberal media, bloggers and Pres/Congressman have told you.

[Dukes]

Says who? Sometimes I cruise over to the Discovery Health Channel
on cable TV and there have been several articles about people
coming to Britain for treatment they couldn't get in their own country.
Who convinced you the US is the only country with advanced medical
procedures? The same folks screaming "We don't want socialized medicine"

Who's they? Africans?

[Spider]

Yes, sir, I will do my best to be careful...

The article I posted is about rationing of steroid injections. It was a response to the first article, which mentions how "Conservatives in the U.S. have sought to portray the NHS as a "socialist" system that is overly bureaucratic and rations out care."

The article I posted states "The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known."

Rationing watchdog. They are going to save 30 million pounds, by not giving anyone a shot, unless there is a clear diagnoses or the person has suffered in pain for one year. Often, with chronic pain, there is no clear diagnoses, so that means a person has to suffer for a year, before getting a steroid shot to ease the pain. This decision was made by the 'rationing watchdog' to save money.

The original article in this thread was about British NHS, and also how it is being 'portrayed' by conservatives, which includes the fact that NHS rations drugs and procedures.

The article I posted was an example of that.

Was that careful enough for you, Spidey?
As to your private message to me ...any time you want to back up that tough talk , I can arrange it ........... in the mean time ****er , learn to god damn read ............http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2509726&postcount=13
I didnt call you anything you simple minded bastard , all I said was I was wanting to see if you were willing to lie .......... What in the **** is it with you bedwetters and reading ?

[tnedator]

As to your private message to me ...any time you want to back up that tough talk , I can arrange it ........... in the mean time ****er , learn to god damn read ............http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2509726&postcount=13
I didnt call you anything you simple minded bastard , all I said was I was wanting to see if you were willing to lie .......... What in the **** is it with you bedwetters and reading ?

No thanks, I'm not an Internet tough guy like you, nor real life thug (which you portray yourself as). I'm more likely to go to the police or FBI when threats are made against me that I believe are real.

Well look at your post and then say, "damn, it's amazing they can understand a fraction of what I post." Get it now?

As to the other, you insinuated that I do or would lie, which I have never done. I didn't PM you, I sent you a positive rep and said something to the effect of "don't call me a ****ing liar" I can't see it, so I don't know exactly what it was.

Get some damn manners, and talk to people in a civil manner, rather than constantly berating them and threatening to physically harm them.

You sound like the union thugs they sent to the peaceful Town Hall meetings, which then turned them violent with the union thugs beating the crap out of innocent people.

No wonder unions and far left people have a bed rep in the country.

[Spider]

No thanks, I'm not an Internet tough guy like you, nor real life thug (which you portray yourself as). I'm more likely to go to the police or FBI when threats are made against me that I believe are real. do what you got to do ........

Well look at your post and then say, "damn, it's amazing they can understand a fraction of what I post." Get it now? the only thing I get is you jumped the gun goof ...

As to the other, you insinuated that I do or would lie, which I have never done. I didn't PM you, I sent you a positive rep and said something to the effect of "don't call me a ****ing liar" I can't see it, so I don't know exactly what it was.

Get some damn manners, and talk to people in a civil manner, rather than constantly berating them and threatening to physically harm them.

You sound like the union thugs they sent to the peaceful Town Hall meetings, which then turned them violent with the union thugs beating the crap out of innocent people.

No wonder unions and far left people have a bed rep in the country.
you ****ing hypocrite ..........
I don't ****ing lie, you dirt bag. I state my opinion, which might not always be right, just as your's is not always right, but don't call me a liar, scum bag.
Is this the manners you speak of asshole ?

[Spider]

well is it boy ? are those the manners you speak of ? Now you show me in my post were I went off on you like that ? No different then the other bedwetters around here , dish it out , but cant take it ........

[tnedator]

well is it boy ? are those the manners you speak of ? Now you show me in my post were I went off on you like that ? No different then the other bedwetters around here , dish it out , but cant take it ........

As I have said, I don't always react the best to you. You called/insinuated I am a liar, rather than simply discussing the issue. Then, you threaten to come beat the **** out of me. What the ****, dude? That's just a little out there, to threaten to beat the **** out of someone, because you disagree with them on an Internet message board, or politically. I know that is happening around the country with the union enforcers, but surely you realize that isn't the way that normal people deal with their problems.

I'm sorry you don't like that I don't post pro Obama propaganda, stick to the liberal talking points, but calling me a liar and threatening to beat the **** out of me is not civilized debate.

[Spider]

As I have said, I don't always react the best to you. You called/insinuated I am a liar, rather than simply discussing the issue. Then, you threaten to come beat the **** out of me. What the ****, dude? That's just a little out there, to threaten to beat the **** out of someone, because you disagree with them on an Internet message board, or politically. I know that is happening around the country with the union enforcers, but surely you realize that isn't the way that normal people deal with their problems.

I'm sorry you don't like that I don't post pro Obama propaganda, stick to the liberal talking points, but calling me a liar and threatening to beat the **** out of me is not civilized debate.

see there you go again , making **** up . I didnt threaten to beat the **** out of you Dip**** , I just let you know , you want to back that talk up , i can arrange it ......... And for the last time ****stick , I didnt call you a liar asshole , I said , I was wondering if you will lie ....... Now about those ****ing manners you got on your soap box and started preaching to me about ......... Dirt bag , scumbag ?? .......Is that them boy ?

[tnedator]

see there you go again , making **** up . I didnt threaten to beat the **** out of you Dip**** , I just let you know , you want to back that talk up , i can arrange it ......... And for the last time ****stick , I didnt call you a liar a-hole , I said , I was wondering if you will lie ....... Now about those ****ing manners you got on your soap box and started preaching to me about ......... Dirt bag , scumbag ?? .......Is that them boy ?

Anytime you want to debate a subject civily, without resorting to childish names, cursing, threats of meeting me somewhere and kicking the **** out of me, or giving me a blowjob or whatever it is you want to do when you 'meet me' in some dark place, then I am all for it.

Until you grow the hell up and start acting you age, rather than like a 14 year old internet punk, why don't we just agree that we disagree and keep our seperate ways.

[Spider]

Anytime you want to debate a subject civily, without resorting to childish names, cursing, threats of meeting me somewhere and kicking the **** out of me, or giving me a blowjob or whatever it is you want to do when you 'meet me' in some dark place, then I am all for it.

Until you grow the hell up and start acting you age, rather than like a 14 year old internet punk, why don't we just agree that we disagree and keep our seperate ways.
you Idiot , you started this **** ......
you over reacted , I called you on it .........
And this wasnt over the Issues ****stick , this was over the rep you sent me, or havent you figured that out yet ? Now why in the hell should I debate someone , that cant even keep this argument strait ?
Or do you really think you are taking the high road here ? .......Dirt bag , scumbag ???

[tnedator]

you Idiot , you started this **** ......
you over reacted , I called you on it .........
And this wasnt over the Issues ****stick , this was over the rep you sent me, or havent you figured that out yet ? Now why in the hell should I debate someone , that cant even keep this argument strait ?
Or do you really think you are taking the high road here ? .......Dirt bag , scumbag ???

You could have asked your same question without insinuating I am a liar. There is this thing called discussion, and it doesn't require cursing, tough man internet insults, threats or other nonsense you routinely pull.

There was no need to insinuate I am a liar in order to ask your question, which I freely responded to.

[Spider]

You could have asked your same question without insinuating I am a liar. There is this thing called discussion, and it doesn't require cursing, tough man internet insults, threats or other nonsense you routinely pull.

There was no need to insinuate I am a liar in order to ask your question, which I freely responded to.

Blah , blah , blah ......... you over reacted ......... More of the high road hey ... Dirtbag , scumbag ........ your act wont work with me

[tnedator]

Blah , blah , blah ......... you over reacted ......... More of the high road hey ... Dirtbag , scumbag ........ your act wont work with me

So why don't we agree to disagree and avoid each other, as we are clearly oil and water (even worse than most libs/Consers).

[Spider]

So why don't we agree to disagree and avoid each other, as we are clearly oil and water (even worse than most libs/Consers).

Do what you got to do to cope .......

[epicSocialism4tw]

see there you go again , making **** up . I didnt threaten to beat the **** out of you Dip**** , I just let you know , you want to back that talk up , i can arrange it ......... And for the last time ****stick , I didnt call you a liar a-hole , I said , I was wondering if you will lie ....... Now about those ****ing manners you got on your soap box and started preaching to me about ......... Dirt bag , scumbag ?? .......Is that them boy ?

Uh oh...Spider's done found him a new buddy. ;D

Why dont you guys just make out already?

[tnedator]

With some of the back and forth that went on last night, Bronco Bob might have missed this reponse, so I am repeating it.

Anything you say, Karl Rove.

I haven't talked to anyone from any foreign countries that have come
here to the US for treatment either. So I guess by your logic they
don't exist either.
Ok, then you aren't aware that nearly everyone in the UK that has the means to do so, now purchases private health insurance and go to doctors that are splitting their practice between NHS and fee-for-service, or have opted out of NHS completely, and are only fee-for-service practices. That except in the most dire circumstances, they don't go to the NHS hospitals, only the private hospitals, which they use their 'private' insurance to gain access to.

That if you are hiring a mid-to-upper level manager (and in some cases non-managers), and don't offer a private health insurance option, then that person likely won't work for you.

I'm guessing these are among many of the things you don't know about the British NHS system and how 'happy' the Brits are with it, since you are basing your opinions on what the liberal media, bloggers and Pres/Congressman have told you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Britons Outraged Over US Conservatives Criticism of British Health Care

I don't know if I'd be so much outraged as simply dumbfounded by the staggering stupidity and unbelievable Orwellian double-speak exhibited by the right these days.

Hopefully the Brits understand these kooks are a fringe minority of knuckle draggers and religious kooks who by no means represent the American people as a whole.

[Rohirrim]

I don't know if I'd be so much outraged as simply dumbfounded by the staggering stupidity and unbelievable Orwellian double-speak exhibited by the right these days.

Hopefully the Brits understand these kooks are a fringe minority of knuckle draggers and religious kooks who by no means represent the American people as a whole.

They only say what their bosses in Big Pharma and the insurance giants pay them to say.

[tnedator]

They only say what their bosses in Big Pharma and the insurance giants pay them to say.

To quote one of your leading liberals, Mr. Franks, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."

[Rohirrim]

To quote one of your leading liberals, Mr. Franks, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."

Yep. Glad to see you're coming around to the side of reason. :thumbsup:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yep. Glad to see you're coming around to the side of reason. :thumbsup:

Reason on display?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE