Comments on: A British view of private medicine

By: m

Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:25:49 +0000

hey…I’m ready to work 37.5 hours/week. screw working nights. holidays. weekends…the extra stress is not worth the money

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:34:13 +0000

Heh. No facts, as expected. You could use Brave Sir Robin’s minstrels.

By: arf

arf — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:42:20 +0000

You’re right. You’re not worth it. Adios.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:12:35 +0000

I thought you weren’t responding any more? Or did you mean, you were going to continue to bicker and make stuff up, but you simply weren’t going to post facts?

Because if that’s what you meant, we already knew that.

By: arf

arf — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 03:18:17 +0000

Fully aware of the text of the ballot initiative, as I live in Oregon.

I believe that the voters of the state read the ballot, it is detailed on a voter pamphlet, every voter gets it in the mail, and they exercised common sense when they voted.

That’s what we do in Oregon, what you do in Michigan is your busines.

The personal attack is in the language you used above.

What, precisely, have I “made up”?

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:28:30 +0000

It was a personal insult to point out that you were making stuff up? Heh. I’ll take that as an admission.

By: arf

arf — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:50:15 +0000

Ah, yes, resort to personal insult.

The position of someone who has lost the argument, and has nothing else to say.

Goodbye.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:17:57 +0000

arf, the full text of the ballot initiative is here – http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2002/027text.pdf . You actually expect us to believe that Oregon’s voters read that full text, parsed its meanings, and came you share your doom and gloom interpretation of what would follow? (And of course, they did so for the other six major ballot initiatives as well?) While I am reluctant to accuse you of “making stuff up” to advance a position you are unable to support with actual facts, that certainly seems to be your preferred tack.

Your ignorance of the underfunding of the NHS is, like the rest of your positions, quite underwhelming. Who disputes the fact of woeful underfunding? That is, who who knows something, rather than taking your approach of “making stuff up”?

By: arf

arf — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:40:44 +0000

And the complaint that the NHS is underfunded reminds me of John Cleese and the Ministry of Silly Walks:

MINISTER: It’s not particularly silly, is it? I mean, the right leg isn’t silly at all and the left leg merely does a forward aerial half turn every alternate step.

MR PUDEY: Yes, but I think that with Government backing I could make it very silly.

http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/Ministry_Silly_Walks.html

To rail against two-tiered health care is like trying to stop it from raining.

You are going to get two-tiered health care whether you like it or not. That includes Canada, where Jean Chretien was caught getting his health care at Mayo (King Hussein of Jordan died at an inopportune time, causing Canadians to wonder where Chretien was, why wasn’t he at the funeral).

The key is really to create an adequate bottom tier, not to try to tear down the upper tier.

By: arf

arf — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:11:41 +0000

uh…….they read the bill

The ballot initiative was polling about 50-50 in Oregon through the summer and early fall.

A few weeks before the election, polling on the initiative plummeted, and the final vote was 4-1 against a statewide single-payer system.

The state has a voter pamphlet that comes out several weeks before the election. It has the language of the initiatives, arguments pro and con.

I for one feel the change in polling and the vote itself reflects the public’s feeling of the idea in theory, and how they feel when the real details are presented to them.