chicot

I'm not the one advocating non-violence here. There are some things that should be fought against and, as far as I'm concerned, apartheid certainly falls into that category. If you're going to limit the definition of "statesman" to include only those who have used and advocated non-violent means then you going to be left with a very short list indeed.

No, I live in the UK. Ok, fair point. I can't recall a time but I certainly wouldn't have taken you for an advocate of non-violence either. I'll rephrase that to "if I find you cheerleading some US military action"

As I possess neither the power of time-travel nor the ability to resurrect the dead that may be somewhat difficult. I never realised you were such a passionate advocate of non-violence but I'll remember it the next time I find you cheerleading some US military action.

Perhaps it is but my knowledge of American revolutionary history is somewhat less than yours so I chose Washington as an obvious example of someone who I would expect many to describe as a statesman but resorted to violence to force change.

In that case, was George Washington a statesman?

Are you a pacifist? If no, then I have two further questions: 1) Do you agree that apartheid was an evil oppressive system that it was right to fight against? 2) Please enlighten us as to how exactly you would have managed to combat apartheid without anyone getting hurt?

1) This is definitely becoming an issue with costs needing to be cut due to the economic situation. Procedures that are needed urgently are still carried out asap but there is becoming an issue with things that are deemed not so pressing such as cataracts and hip-replacements. 2) Certainly accident and emergency can get very busy and I can remember having to wait for a couple of hours to be seen when I went in with a dislocated shoulder. However, I think the nurses do a pretty good job of prioritising so if your condition is serious you will be seen right away. A few years ago I was mugged walking home from a nightout - I woke up on the pavement to find my jaw broken in 3 places and a few of my teeth swimming around in my mouth. Despite it being Saturday night (a very busy time in A&E!) I was seen right away. I don't think this is a big issue. 3) No issue at all here. Registering with a doctor is a piece-of-cake. Check your local directory, go along with your bottle of urine for the initial checkup and that's it. Getting an NHS dentist is another thing though... 4) I don't think many people opt for private care. Certainly some may do so if they have problems as regards point 1) but I've never had to (except for dental work) and I don't know of many people who have had to either. Overall, I would say that the system over here is nowhere near as bad as you describe in Canada and I doubt that the Canadian problems are an inevitable consequence of a universal healthcare system but more to do with problems that are specific to Canada but you'd know a lot more about that than I do. A recent survey showed a record fall in satisfaction from 70% to 58%. However, things were always going to get difficult with cutbacks having to be made and 90% of patients would describe their care as being good to excellent. NHS satisfaction

I think, if pressed, most people would correctly answer that it was paid for by taxation. I think the confusion is that people often refer to their treatment as being free. Technically that is correct inasmuch as you pay for the system and not the actual treatment you receive. Someone who is ill all their life and whose treatment costs a small fortune would pay no more than someone who is healthy all their life and whose treatments cost far less (assuming they were in the same tax bracket). As I understand the US system, insurance rarely covers the entire cost of treatment so you do have to pay something for the treatment you receive. Is that not the case?

I preferred your earlier funnier posts.

The rich ass hole will actually pay more towards it than those less well off as he will pay more tax and if you were poor enough that you were under the tax threshold you would technically get it for free. Yes, you relinquish control over your coverage but, on the other hand, you know that however bad your financial situation gets you will still have access to healthcare. And maybe the line is just plain wrong and should be done away with altogether. I very much doubt that anyone save the very stupid is unaware that the NHS is paid for by taxation. There are other reasons for the preference which I've attempted to explain to you but for some reason you choose to ignore in favour of your snappy one-liner.

I thought I just explained that it's not free. Oh well...

Because private care is seen as unnecessary and, in most cases, it is. If you are ill or are injured in an accident then you can receive pretty decent treatment from the NHS. Sure, you can go private and get a nicer bed and better food (maybe hotter nurses ) but there won't be that much difference in the actual treatment. The NHS is not all things to all men - given the rising costs of healthcare and medical advances it can't possibly cover absolutely everything and for things that are deemed to be not a priority you will have to wait, but for the purpose it was designed for, that is to provide a certain level of care to the entire population, it does a pretty good job. There's also the fact that we all pay for the NHS via taxation. Why pay extra for something that you don't actually need? You could argue that but you could also use that same argument about resistance to changing the US system. Over here, healthcare is seen very much as a basic human right and that everyone should be entitled to a certain level of care whether they live in a cardboard box or a mansion. Any attempt to move away from that basic principle would encounter massive resistance. Of course there are problems. There are always going to be problems with every healthcare system in the world. However, you said it yourself - people are comfortable with the way things are. Why are they comfortable? If lots of people were encountering these problems then you would expect them to be less comfortable. The fact is that most people find that the NHS meets their needs and also fits their view of what a healthcare system should be.

Which one - regarding the British population preferring the NHS to the US system or that there are plenty of people over here who can afford private care but choose not to? As I've lived in the UK for virtually all of my life I'm probably closer to this issue than most on this board (just like you'd know far more than I do about how Americans feel about gun ownership). As to the first point, there's really no question - poll after poll show that the population most definitely do not want creeping privatisation of the NHS and all the major parties go out of their way to reassure the public that the NHS is "safe in their hands". Any party that went into an election offering to replace the NHS with the US system would be wiped out. As to the second, I know plenty of people who can afford private medicine but choose not to. Hardly a wide sample I know, but sufficient I think to refute the claim that everyone who can afford private care does so, which was the point I was replying to.

Actually there are plenty of people who can afford private care who don't bother. I was offered private health insurance with my last job. Didn't need it, didn't want it and didn't take it.

No, opening ceremony's are not a gauge of national opinion but he is correct in his assertion that most Brit's would rather have the NHS than a US-style system.

Even if you believe that garbage what you were proposing was different to that. You were suggesting to coat munitions in pigs blood prior to use (might be difficult for the Israeli's to use such an imaginative tactic). Call me sceptical but I really don't believe that the Iranians are going to run screaming from the battlefield at the prospect of facing bombs or bullets smeared in pigs blood as opposed to the conventional kind that will just blow them to pieces. I'm no Islamic scholar but I suspect you might actually get a free pass on the pigs blood thing if your exposure to it came as a result of waging a jihad. The Pershing story is pretty dubious at best. urban legends

You seem to have some sort of weird fascination with pig's blood. Do you go to bed at night dreaming about it?

Since these sort of mass killings often (though not in this case) end in the death of the perpetrator I'm not sure that the death penalty would make any difference.

I don't know about you but I'd prefer to take my chances with someone with an axe or a chainsaw rather than multiple firearms. I think I'd have a far better chance of getting away from someone armed with something that he needs to get up close and personal to use rather than something that can drop me from a distance.

The first few seasons of Peep Show were absolute genius but I think it's gone on a bit too long now (what are they on now - 7? 8?). It's still funny but it feels like they've done everything now and are starting to repeat themselves.

If only you Americans could do something about your obesity epidemic then you'd all be completely perfect. I'm not sure that your perfect teeth and superb bodily hygiene will be the first thing to get noticed when you're 20 stone overweight

Juslims? The sanitary justification is debatable. There are plenty of doctors who believe it to be unnecessary in most cases. I'm not much of a judge of pecker aesthetics so I'll defer to your expertise on the second point.

... to fight for their right to mutilate children. German circumcision ruling A pox on both their houses. As far as I'm concerned, the Germans are right about this. If someone decides they want to chop bits off themselves to uphold some millenia-old tradition then fair enough, but it should not be decided for them long before they are capable of making such decisions.

I think it was just a game too far for the Italians. That and the fact that they were playing probably one of the greatest ever international sides at the top of their game. Still, just making the final is a considerable achievement for Italy considering how dismal they were at the last World Cup.

Well, it's pretty hard to know exactly what DaveInElma was arguing since all he did was link to the article with the single statement "Europe will never learn".