Stephen Hawking Defends Care in the UK

[bodecea]

Yes, he has the right. I am asking why some on this forum want to use him as some kind of political weapon?

Political weapon?

I didn't stutter. If you can't see that, you are blind.

See Erik's post...he took the time to explain something to you that IMO didn't need to be explained.

 

[JakeStarkey]

hey Boot
Boot i understand what your saying but i just find it hard to believe that the "important" people or rich people in any country dont have the best that that country has to offer at their service if need be...thats what i am implying....if Hawkings needed Doctor Who someone would find the good Doctor for him,while Joe the trash man just may not have the good Doctor come 5,000 miles to see him....Joe might be able to see the Doc.....but he would have to go to the Doc....thats what i am saying....money talks in any language...

Yes, but money isn't legal tender in the NHS, Harry. If you want to pay money you're in the private sector. Completely seperate. The guy being treated for, lets say, cancer in the NHS will be served by the same oncologist who also practises in the private sector and treats the paying patient.

ok i get that...so if a rich guy in GB wanted to call on a doc. who lets say was the best there is at treating Lou Gehrig's disease,who was not in the NHS, he would be able to afford him and see the guy.....would the trashman?...and if the answer is no, the trash guy hasnt the money....then the rich guy gets better treatment....

In a two-tier system, of course a monied individual can afford better treatment.

But the fellow in the government tier is not seeing a "trashman" but a real (gasp!) doctor in this speciality.

Almost 50 million Americans don't have the second option other than the emergency room, and that is not what emergency rooms are supposed to be used for.

This is so easy to understand but the nutters keep refusing. They truly don't have a legitimate opposition because the health industry has condemned itself through its own obvious greed and lack of demonstrated caring for their customers. They know it, that is why the are (1) saying their are for some form of reform, while (2) they oppose it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes, but money isn't legal tender in the NHS, Harry. If you want to pay money you're in the private sector. Completely seperate. The guy being treated for, lets say, cancer in the NHS will be served by the same oncologist who also practises in the private sector and treats the paying patient.

ok i get that...so if a rich guy in GB wanted to call on a doc. who lets say was the best there is at treating Lou Gehrig's disease,who was not in the NHS, he would be able to afford him and see the guy.....would the trashman?...and if the answer is no, the trash guy hasnt the money....then the rich guy gets better treatment....

In a two-tier system, of course a monied individual can afford better treatment.

But the fellow in the government tier is not seeing a "trashman" but a real (gasp!) doctor in this speciality.

Almost 50 million Americans don't have the second option other than the emergency room, and that is not what emergency rooms are supposed to be used for.

This is so easy to understand but the nutters keep refusing. They truly don't have a legitimate opposition because the health industry has condemned itself through its own obvious greed and lack of demonstrated caring for their customers. They know it, that is why the are (1) saying their are for some form of reform, while (2) they oppose it.

here we go with that 50 mill number again.....thats kinda overblown Jake....how many of that number are Illegals,and are young people who dont want Ins.....the real number is more in the 15-20 mill range....

 

[Chris]

Yes, but money isn't legal tender in the NHS, Harry. If you want to pay money you're in the private sector. Completely seperate. The guy being treated for, lets say, cancer in the NHS will be served by the same oncologist who also practises in the private sector and treats the paying patient.

ok i get that...so if a rich guy in GB wanted to call on a doc. who lets say was the best there is at treating Lou Gehrig's disease,who was not in the NHS, he would be able to afford him and see the guy.....would the trashman?...and if the answer is no, the trash guy hasnt the money....then the rich guy gets better treatment....

In a two-tier system, of course a monied individual can afford better treatment.

But the fellow in the government tier is not seeing a "trashman" but a real (gasp!) doctor in this speciality.

Almost 50 million Americans don't have the second option other than the emergency room, and that is not what emergency rooms are supposed to be used for.

This is so easy to understand but the nutters keep refusing. They truly don't have a legitimate opposition because the health industry has condemned itself through its own obvious greed and lack of demonstrated caring for their customers. They know it, that is why the are (1) saying their are for some form of reform, while (2) they oppose it.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Rational Man]

The guy who wrote that editorial about Hawking has got to be about the biggest idiot of all time, right up there with Sarah Palin. And where was the editor??

 

[PoliticalChic]

Those on the right have no idea who Stephen Hawking is. Remember, they are anti science.

I guess there is Science, and then there is Science. Wow, we sure are lucky to have you guys showing us the way.

"As the debate over President Obama's socialized healthcare plan heats up, the depth of his radicalism is becoming more evident.

John Holdren, Obama’s recent choice for “Science Czar,” provides the latest and perhaps most troubling example of extremism. In the name of population control, Holdren has advocated both forced abortion and compulsory sterilization through government-administered tainting of the water supply. "
Pro-Abortion Science Czar John Holdren May Forecast Future of "ObamaCare"




[youtube]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZZCoXyQ-vks&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZZCoXyQ-vks&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

This is another case of Reaching. There is a "Christian War on Science" that is going on this country. There is no doubt about that. Just the fact that the right wants to hamstring their children by teaching "mysticism" in place of science is evidence.

John Holdren's book was about "what could happen". And he is probably right. That's the sad part.

Look at China. China has well over a billion people. One of every five people in the world are Chinese. They started a policy of one child only because of massive starvation and poverty. Then, women were aborting their girl babies to have a boy. In some areas there are 20 boys for every girl. That's turns girls into a "natural resource" dehumanizing them and at the same time , creating an enormous military made up of men who, many feel, have nothing to live for, which makes them the most dangerous kind of fighters.

The problem with the religious is they live in the "Land of Milk and Cookies". They believe that magical Jesus will float down from heaven and all the good Christians will rise up into a cloudy sky like helium filled balloons, only, instead of "popping", they will just keep going, going, going.

Look at Mexico. The 11th most populated country in the world. 50% of Mexico lives in poverty. 18% have no idea where their next meal comes from. Yet, the vast majority is Catholic and they are vehemently against birth control. Who knows, one day they might start trying to pour over our borders. What will Republicans say then? WTF? It's already happening. That's right, things that John Holdren said will happen back in 1977 are happening now.

Scientists have always been the "harbingers of doom". It's because they see what is going to happen because they do things like "study" and gather things like "facts".

In the mean time, the same person is taking about Obama's socialism. Mmmm, let's see, in 1993 the US paid 94 billion in health care, in 2008, the US paid 2.5 TRILLION. At this rate, in ten years, one of every five dollars will go to health care. This is what the right is fighting for? Hey, if you want to give your money away to an organization that has no doctors, no nurses, no hospital and no medicine AND, if you get sick, could remove you from even getting care, give it to the church. They'll take your money and you don't hear them fighting for health care for their "flock".

You should get the game of 'Clue' and play it a few time.

When I read posts like yours, I realize that the number of IQ points in the world is static, but must be divided by the ever increasing population to account for your nonsense.

1. "There is a "Christian War on Science" that is going on this country. There is no doubt about that."
I'm sure you have no doubt. Can you name a few of the 'Christians' who have declared war on science? And the school boards who have instituted courses on 'mysticism' in place of science?
Or have you merely smeared the 224,457,000 Christians in the country because you read about some radicals?
Why, that would be as though I thought all Americans were idiots, just because I read your post.

2. "John Holdren's book was about "what could happen". And he is probably right. That's the sad part. "
Yes, he is as right as you are.

"Obama's Science Czar Wrote Book Advocating Forced Abortions, Sterilizing Americans By Poisoning Our Drinking Water "
Ehrlich, Paul R., Anne H. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren; Ecoscience:*... - White House

"He is also one of the main engineers of the Eugenics operation going on right now. A book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population. In this book he wrote that: Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not. The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food. Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise. People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force."

"Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[10] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many"[11]. Currently, the U.S. population is 306,924,000[12]. In 1977 he co-authored (with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich) Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,[13] which discussed the possible role of a wide range of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning at one extreme, to a "planetary regime" of enforced population control at the other extreme."

John Holdren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor? Apparently not, judging by reports from DotEarth and ScienceInsider that Barack Obama will name John P. Holdren as his science advisor on Saturday. [UPDATE: Mr. Obama did indeed pick Dr. Holdren.] "

"In 1980 Dr. Holdren helped select five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — and joined Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Harte in betting $1,000 that those metals would be more expensive ten years later. They turned out to be wrong on all five metals, and had to pay up when the bet came due in 1990. "

"Dr. Holdren’s resistance to dissenting views was also on display earlier this year in an article asserting that climate skeptics are “dangerous.” (You can read about the response to that article at DotEarth.)"

Flawed Science Advice for Obama? - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com

3."The problem with the religious is they live in the "Land of Milk and Cookies". They believe that magical Jesus will float down from heaven and all the good Christians will rise up into a cloudy sky like helium filled balloons, only, instead of "popping", they will just keep going, going, going. "
I can't decide whether it is ignorance or bigotry.

4. "Look at Mexico. The 11th most populated country in the world. 50% of Mexico lives in poverty. 18% have no idea where their next meal comes from. Yet, the vast majority is Catholic and they are vehemently against birth control. "
Have you investigated the possible input due to the political and economic systems?
Oops, sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with.


5. " Mmmm, let's see, ..."
That's great. Almost looks like you were thinking.

6. "... in ten years, one of every five dollars will go to health care. "
I know facts may gum up the works for you, but chomp on this for a while: healthcare costs are actually coming down, not going up.
And, the 'package' of costs that take up the largest part of spendable cash in the US, that would be food-housing-fuel-healthcare, has remained the same for 50 years.

Downgrading Health Care
The administration has warned that soaring health spending threatens the stability of American families and the economy. These doomsday scenarios are untrue. Health care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased 10.5 percent in 1970, 13 percent in 1980, and consistently less than 7 percent in each of the last five years, reaching a low of 6.1 percent a year ago. Each year since 1960, food and energy together have taken up a declining share of Americans' expenditures, while housing has taken up a steady share. This has enabled Americans to spend an increasing share of their budgets on another necessity, healthcare. These four necessities together consume the same share of American spending now (55%) as they did in 1960 (53%). As further evidence, Americans are increasing the share of their spending that goes to recreation. Moderate income families can be helped to buy health coverage with vouchers, refundable tax credits, or debit cards. That's a low risk, "fix what's broken" approach.
Increases in healthcare expenditures:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

For purposes of comparison, education:
Tuition at private colleges and universities has increased anywhere from 5% to 13% every year since 1980. "
The Cost of a College Education

And for primary and secondary school:
"Based on statistics from the US Department of Education, the average cost of educating a student in elementary and secondary schools has risen from $6,200 in 1991 to $11,000 in 2005 an increase of 85%. "
US Education Market | Entourage Systems Inc.

In conclusion, I must say that in the constellation of ignorance, you have attained the magnitude of the North Star.

 

[bodecea]

hey Boot
Boot i understand what your saying but i just find it hard to believe that the "important" people or rich people in any country dont have the best that that country has to offer at their service if need be...thats what i am implying....if Hawkings needed Doctor Who someone would find the good Doctor for him,while Joe the trash man just may not have the good Doctor come 5,000 miles to see him....Joe might be able to see the Doc.....but he would have to go to the Doc....thats what i am saying....money talks in any language...

Yes, but money isn't legal tender in the NHS, Harry. If you want to pay money you're in the private sector. Completely seperate. The guy being treated for, lets say, cancer in the NHS will be served by the same oncologist who also practises in the private sector and treats the paying patient.

ok i get that...so if a rich guy in GB wanted to call on a doc. who lets say was the best there is at treating Lou Gehrig's disease,who was not in the NHS, he would be able to afford him and see the guy.....would the trashman?...and if the answer is no, the trash guy hasnt the money....then the rich guy gets better treatment....

And that is different than what we have here...how?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes, but money isn't legal tender in the NHS, Harry. If you want to pay money you're in the private sector. Completely seperate. The guy being treated for, lets say, cancer in the NHS will be served by the same oncologist who also practises in the private sector and treats the paying patient.

ok i get that...so if a rich guy in GB wanted to call on a doc. who lets say was the best there is at treating Lou Gehrig's disease,who was not in the NHS, he would be able to afford him and see the guy.....would the trashman?...and if the answer is no, the trash guy hasnt the money....then the rich guy gets better treatment....

And that is different than what we have here...how?

thats the point im trying to make here.....read all the posts....not just the last....

 

[Ringel05]

Stephen Hawking Defends Care in the UK

Why should I listen to a person who represents a people who have yet to dicover modern dentistry?

 

[Chris]

Stephen Hawking Defends Care in the UK

Why should I listen to a person who represents a people who have yet to dicover modern dentistry?

Because your boys at the Investors Business Dummies brought him up in the first place!

 

[Diuretic]

Stephen Hawking Defends Care in the UK

Why should I listen to a person who represents a people who have yet to dicover modern dentistry?

 

[Bootneck]

Stephen Hawking Defends Care in the UK

Why should I listen to a person who represents a people who have yet to dicover modern dentistry?

Why am I responding to a post from an uninformed wanker, who probably can't even point to Britain on a map!

Got nothing interesting to say, then leave the thread, numbnuts!

 

[JW Frogen]

I guess there is Science, and then there is Science. Wow, we sure are lucky to have you guys showing us the way.

"As the debate over President Obama's socialized healthcare plan heats up, the depth of his radicalism is becoming more evident.

John Holdren, Obama&#8217;s recent choice for &#8220;Science Czar,&#8221; provides the latest and perhaps most troubling example of extremism. In the name of population control, Holdren has advocated both forced abortion and compulsory sterilization through government-administered tainting of the water supply. "
Pro-Abortion Science Czar John Holdren May Forecast Future of "ObamaCare"




[youtube]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZZCoXyQ-vks&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZZCoXyQ-vks&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

I did not read your post but I do agree with your avatar.

Twice.

 

[Ringel05]

Stephen Hawking Defends Care in the UK

Why should I listen to a person who represents a people who have yet to dicover modern dentistry?

Why am I responding to a post from an uninformed wanker, who probably can't even point to Britain on a map!

Got nothing interesting to say, then leave the thread, numbnuts!

It's here, no wait it's over here, uuummm, it's over there.

Smile for the camera! Well maybe not.

 

[Diuretic]

Stephen Hawking Defends Care in the UK

Why should I listen to a person who represents a people who have yet to dicover modern dentistry?

Why am I responding to a post from an uninformed wanker, who probably can't even point to Britain on a map!

Got nothing interesting to say, then leave the thread, numbnuts!

It's here, no wait it's over here, uuummm, it's over there.

Smile for the camera! Well maybe not.

So it is true, war is God's way of teaching Americans geography

 

[bodecea]

ok i get that...so if a rich guy in GB wanted to call on a doc. who lets say was the best there is at treating Lou Gehrig's disease,who was not in the NHS, he would be able to afford him and see the guy.....would the trashman?...and if the answer is no, the trash guy hasnt the money....then the rich guy gets better treatment....

And that is different than what we have here...how?

thats the point im trying to make here.....read all the posts....not just the last....

Sorry, didn't mean to appear like I was disagreeing with you.

 

[Chris]

Yes, but money isn't legal tender in the NHS, Harry. If you want to pay money you're in the private sector. Completely seperate. The guy being treated for, lets say, cancer in the NHS will be served by the same oncologist who also practises in the private sector and treats the paying patient.

ok i get that...so if a rich guy in GB wanted to call on a doc. who lets say was the best there is at treating Lou Gehrig's disease,who was not in the NHS, he would be able to afford him and see the guy.....would the trashman?...and if the answer is no, the trash guy hasnt the money....then the rich guy gets better treatment....

In a two-tier system, of course a monied individual can afford better treatment.

But the fellow in the government tier is not seeing a "trashman" but a real (gasp!) doctor in this speciality.

Almost 50 million Americans don't have the second option other than the emergency room, and that is not what emergency rooms are supposed to be used for.

This is so easy to understand but the nutters keep refusing. They truly don't have a legitimate opposition because the health industry has condemned itself through its own obvious greed and lack of demonstrated caring for their customers. They know it, that is why the are (1) saying their are for some form of reform, while (2) they oppose it.

Good point.

Key word there is greed.

The healthcare corporations spent $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS to lobby Congress in the last decade.

That is why we don't have a good healthcare system.

 

[PoliticalChic]

ok i get that...so if a rich guy in GB wanted to call on a doc. who lets say was the best there is at treating Lou Gehrig's disease,who was not in the NHS, he would be able to afford him and see the guy.....would the trashman?...and if the answer is no, the trash guy hasnt the money....then the rich guy gets better treatment....

In a two-tier system, of course a monied individual can afford better treatment.

But the fellow in the government tier is not seeing a "trashman" but a real (gasp!) doctor in this speciality.

Almost 50 million Americans don't have the second option other than the emergency room, and that is not what emergency rooms are supposed to be used for.

This is so easy to understand but the nutters keep refusing. They truly don't have a legitimate opposition because the health industry has condemned itself through its own obvious greed and lack of demonstrated caring for their customers. They know it, that is why the are (1) saying their are for some form of reform, while (2) they oppose it.

Good point.

Key word there is greed.

The healthcare corporations spent $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS to lobby Congress in the last decade.

That is why we don't have a good healthcare system.

Those of you who have sucked up the talking points of the left, and the class warfare of the Democrats, I wonder if you would entertain a hypothetical questions:

What benefits should accrue to those who have worked hard and long, and attained the success that you whiners only dream of?

How do we perpetuate a society, imbue ambition, institute a work ethic in our children when all they hear from the left, the media, the schools, is that we must give to those who are either helpless, or in your case, clueless.

It happens we have an excellent healthcare system, as varified by the fact that the vast majority are happy with their healthcare, and most telling, those who have sustained serious healthcare setbacks are over 90% in favor of it.

As for greed, that is the characteristic of those of you who wag your tails and vote for the party that promises to wipe your nose, and fill your paw. You see someone with a bit more, and all you can see is the "rich," the ones who your masters tell you to attack.

You should celebrate success, set your sights on the path of hard work and look to the day when you have achieved what you envy in others.

It is so tiresome to constantly hear the same one note from you lazy covetous slackers.



Wake up. Wise up.

 

[Chris]

In a two-tier system, of course a monied individual can afford better treatment.

But the fellow in the government tier is not seeing a "trashman" but a real (gasp!) doctor in this speciality.

Almost 50 million Americans don't have the second option other than the emergency room, and that is not what emergency rooms are supposed to be used for.

This is so easy to understand but the nutters keep refusing. They truly don't have a legitimate opposition because the health industry has condemned itself through its own obvious greed and lack of demonstrated caring for their customers. They know it, that is why the are (1) saying their are for some form of reform, while (2) they oppose it.

Good point.

Key word there is greed.

The healthcare corporations spent $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS to lobby Congress in the last decade.

That is why we don't have a good healthcare system.

Those of you who have sucked up the talking points of the left, and the class warfare of the Democrats, I wonder if you would entertain a hypothetical questions:

What benefits should accrue to those who have worked hard and long, and attained the success that you whiners only dream of?

How do we perpetuate a society, imbue ambition, institute a work ethic in our children when all they hear from the left, the media, the schools, is that we must give to those who are either helpless, or in your case, clueless.

It happens we have an excellent healthcare system, as varified by the fact that the vast majority are happy with their healthcare, and most telling, those who have sustained serious healthcare setbacks are over 90% in favor of it.

As for greed, that is the characteristic of those of you who wag your tails and vote for the party that promises to wipe your nose, and fill your paw. You see someone with a bit more, and all you can see is the "rich," the ones who your masters tell you to attack.

You should celebrate success, set your sights on the path of hard work and look to the day when you have achieved what you envy in others.

It is so tiresome to constantly hear the same one note from you lazy covetous slackers.



Wake up. Wise up.

I have a hypothetical question for you.

How does a single mother of three with stage three cancer work to pay for her insurance premium?

 

[elvis]

Good point.

Key word there is greed.

The healthcare corporations spent $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS to lobby Congress in the last decade.

That is why we don't have a good healthcare system.

Those of you who have sucked up the talking points of the left, and the class warfare of the Democrats, I wonder if you would entertain a hypothetical questions:

What benefits should accrue to those who have worked hard and long, and attained the success that you whiners only dream of?

How do we perpetuate a society, imbue ambition, institute a work ethic in our children when all they hear from the left, the media, the schools, is that we must give to those who are either helpless, or in your case, clueless.

It happens we have an excellent healthcare system, as varified by the fact that the vast majority are happy with their healthcare, and most telling, those who have sustained serious healthcare setbacks are over 90% in favor of it.

As for greed, that is the characteristic of those of you who wag your tails and vote for the party that promises to wipe your nose, and fill your paw. You see someone with a bit more, and all you can see is the "rich," the ones who your masters tell you to attack.

You should celebrate success, set your sights on the path of hard work and look to the day when you have achieved what you envy in others.

It is so tiresome to constantly hear the same one note from you lazy covetous slackers.



Wake up. Wise up.

I have a hypothetical question for you.

How does a single mother of three with stage three cancer work to pay for her insurance premium?

In canada, she would be at stage three BEFORE she ever saw a doctor. scumfuck.