Should overall budget even matter?

We find enough money for any random wars that crop up and we decide to take
part in and get into debt accordingly.

Ultimately we go to war apparently to continue our way of life and to
preserve the lives of our citizens, so essentially, the budget of the NHS
and military budgets are fixed on the same supposed shared goal.

So I think that we should forget the burden to the tax payer, after all, the
tax payer at some point most probably will be the patient requiring help so
it makes sense just to forget about the associated debt and carry on
spending regardless.
Otherwise I can see what will happen. Services will continue to be cut-back
and some form of system will be politically formulated if you take budgeting
through its natural course. Citizens who have paid more into the system via
tax will get more treatment. If you've not paid enough in, effectively you'd
be left to die, but the wording in the letter won't read like that (but no
doubt many of you would agree with this, in principle anyway).

But that's unneccesarily harsh. We could 'afford' to look after everyone, if
we got into debt and just ignored the cost. We do it all the time with other
things. Bank bailouts for example and we certainly don't care about capping
military budgets, so why should we care about capping NHS budgets? Chill
out! Let's stay healthy and keep spending.

The real problem is the culture of dependency that the welfare state 
encourages.

They encourage us to be ill, stupid and lazy, they need to , if we were 
healthy, educated and had a good work ethic, we wouuld not need to go to 
hospital, adult education or the local dole office. There would be mass 
redundencies amongst the civil service. All they would be able to help would 
be the genuine unfortunates in society, the ones they were meant to help, 
the genuinely sick or unemployed.

Go to your local sink hole estate and see what the welfare state has grown, 
pteri dish like out of this process. Even better, come to Fife, to Bozzo 
browns own constituency, places like ballingery, buckhaven or burntisland 
and see wht the future holds for us all.

We need to learn to stand up for ourselves by our own efforts, not be 
rlialnt on the civil service to give us hand outs.

Well that's a peculiar response, I can only presume that as you're in
Scotland you must be drunk already. What do you mean? If you get ill, you
should just deal with it yourself? Maybe I'm just a suft-suthurn-busturd,
but I'd rather get treatment for ill-health somewhere more likely to know
what's wrong with me than I would...

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:43:24 +0100, <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Should overall budget even matter?
>
>We find enough money for any random wars that crop up and we decide to take
>part in and get into debt accordingly.
>
>Ultimately we go to war apparently to continue our way of life and to
>preserve the lives of our citizens, so essentially, the budget of the NHS
>and military budgets are fixed on the same supposed shared goal.
>
>So I think that we should forget the burden to the tax payer, after all, the
>tax payer at some point most probably will be the patient requiring help so
>it makes sense just to forget about the associated debt and carry on
>spending regardless.
>Otherwise I can see what will happen. Services will continue to be cut-back
>and some form of system will be politically formulated if you take budgeting
>through its natural course. Citizens who have paid more into the system via
>tax will get more treatment. If you've not paid enough in, effectively you'd
>be left to die, but the wording in the letter won't read like that (but no
>doubt many of you would agree with this, in principle anyway).
>
>But that's unneccesarily harsh. We could 'afford' to look after everyone, if
>we got into debt and just ignored the cost. We do it all the time with other
>things. Bank bailouts for example and we certainly don't care about capping
>military budgets, so why should we care about capping NHS budgets? Chill
>out! Let's stay healthy and keep spending.
>

It's a long time since I read such an ill thought out jumble of generalized
nonsenses paraded in the one place for discussion. It shows a complete failure
to grasp even a modicum of heath economics, a total misunderstanding of public
health issues let alone an understanding of the influences on the political
process. As far as structuring your argument, identifying and developing central
points backing them up with rational argument ...........bowel of spaghetti held
together with knitted mince come to mind!

So I am going to take your advice and chill out with Ham eggs pork sausages
fried bread black pudding washed down with a MacKewans Export, two or three
pints.

Bill.

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:46:42 +0100, <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Well that's a peculiar response, I can only presume that as you're in
>Scotland you must be drunk already. What do you mean? If you get ill, you
>should just deal with it yourself? Maybe I'm just a suft-suthurn-busturd,
>but I'd rather get treatment for ill-health somewhere more likely to know
>what's wrong with me than I would...
>

Oat meal poultices, leeching, cupping to take the pus out of him. No doubt
he has his own laparotomy set. He has probably used his leucotomy set on
himself already. The wonders......!

> It's a long time since I read such an ill thought out jumble of
generalized
> nonsenses paraded in the one place for discussion. It shows a complete
failure
> to grasp even a modicum of heath economics, a total misunderstanding of
public
> health issues let alone an understanding of the influences on the
political
> process. As far as structuring your argument, identifying and developing
central
> points backing them up with rational argument ...........bowel of
spaghetti held
> together with knitted mince come to mind!

Nah mate you got it all wrong. The point is if the Government want to spend
the money they will, whether the money's there or not, so for once, let's
spend the money on...well...all of us even though there is no money. There's
not many better ways to spend it on the common good is there?

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Wq6xk.329270$ah4.268301@newsfe15.ams2...
> Should overall budget even matter?
>
> We find enough money for any random wars that crop up and we decide to 
> take
> part in and get into debt accordingly.
>
> Ultimately we go to war apparently to continue our way of life and to
> preserve the lives of our citizens, so essentially, the budget of the NHS
> and military budgets are fixed on the same supposed shared goal.
>
> So I think that we should forget the burden to the tax payer, after all, 
> the
> tax payer at some point most probably will be the patient requiring help 
> so
> it makes sense just to forget about the associated debt and carry on
> spending regardless.

It doesn't make sense at all. If the budget is not capped, all that will 
happen is the bureaucracy will go crazy.

> Otherwise I can see what will happen. Services will continue to be 
> cut-back
> and some form of system will be politically formulated if you take 
> budgeting
> through its natural course. Citizens who have paid more into the system 
> via
> tax will get more treatment. If you've not paid enough in, effectively 
> you'd
> be left to die, but the wording in the letter won't read like that (but no
> doubt many of you would agree with this, in principle anyway).

You can see what has happened already. Labour has poured billions extra into 
the NHS in the last ten years. Have we got value for OUR money? I don't 
think so. The quacks have done ok though, 5 days a week, no call-outs, meet 
a few targets by measuring our height and weight and BP, gives them £120k. 
Not bad!

>
> But that's unneccesarily harsh. We could 'afford' to look after everyone, 
> if
> we got into debt and just ignored the cost. We do it all the time with 
> other
> things. Bank bailouts for example and we certainly don't care about 
> capping
> military budgets, so why should we care about capping NHS budgets? Chill
> out! Let's stay healthy and keep spending.

We could "afford" to look after everyone if we looked after the sick rather 
than the hypochondriacs. Time for me to answer PW's post.

You've stirred it up with this one. Good for you!

"Porridge Wog" <Porridge Wog @ Wherever.co.ck> wrote in message 
news:iZudnR7fS8H2ZlnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
>
> The real problem is the culture of dependency that the welfare state 
> encourages.
>
> They encourage us to be ill, stupid and lazy, they need to , if we were 
> healthy, educated and had a good work ethic, we wouuld not need to go to 
> hospital, adult education or the local dole office. There would be mass 
> redundencies amongst the civil service. All they would be able to help 
> would be the genuine unfortunates in society, the ones they were meant to 
> help, the genuinely sick or unemployed.
>
> Go to your local sink hole estate and see what the welfare state has 
> grown, pteri dish like out of this process. Even better, come to Fife, to 
> Bozzo browns own constituency, places like ballingery, buckhaven or 
> burntisland and see wht the future holds for us all.
>
> We need to learn to stand up for ourselves by our own efforts, not be 
> rlialnt on the civil service to give us hand outs.


How right you are with most of this. There is a culture of "don't feel too 
good, go to the doctors. He will give you something for it".

Didn't someone post a few months back that when doctors went on strike 
somewhere for a couple of months fewer people died? These quacks defy belief 
sometimes with what they prescribe. Sometime ago a doctor told my wife she 
should go on HRT. She refused. The quack said "suit yourself, you will knock 
5 years of your life if you don't". Now they say, take HRT and you will die 
10 years earlier of something nasty.

The latest wheeze is to check your BP when you visit them. If it is high, as 
it is likely to be after sitting in a waiting room full of coughing and 
spitting misfits for half an hour, he will persuade the poor sod  to go on 
"blood pressure tablets". Then he will check your cholesterol, if that is 
one percent about "government guidelines" he will put you on statins. After 
having those tablets for a few months, you go back to the doctor complaining 
of headaches. He says to stop you having a stroke you had best go on 
Warfarin and also a diuretic to compensate for the BP tablets. Don't have a 
tooth out he warns or cut yourself or you might bleed to death! This 
actually happened to a friend of mine, he didn't bleed to death, just 
swallowed a mouthful of tablets every day and he only visited the doc 
initially because he had pulled something in his back.

It's all a load of bollocks. Doctors have created this myth, rather like 
economists, that they know what is good for you. The truth of the matter is 
they rely very largely on what the pharmaceutical sales rep tells them. I've 
only been to the doctors three times in the last ten years. Each time a 
"patient" who came out of a "surgery" before me clasped in their hands, with 
an expression of mixed joy and relief, a "prescription" for what ever 
ailment they perceived they had. I suppose it enabled the doctor to get rid 
of them quickly and kept the poor sod happy. That the drugs prescribed were 
more likely to kill him seemed not to have occurred to either the patient or 
the doctor. I do not consider antibiotics to be a drug by the way.

In the majority of cases, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart 
disease, depression (not clinical depression) and lung cancer are life style 
diseases and could either be prevented or cured by a change of lifestyle and 
diet and exercise. In the States they are even thinking of putting children 
on statins.Ffs!

All this unnecessary  prescription issuing is draining the NHS of money that 
could be used for serious conditions such as cancer, genetic abnormalities, 
alzheimers, strokes, macular degeneration, accidents, etc. Using the NHS as 
a place to go when you feel "fluey" and under the weather is bleeding it 
dry. People's expectations have got to be changed as to what the NHS can do. 
Get rid of flu vaccines for a start, totally ineffectual and a con yet must 
cost millions. The final joke of the NHS is if you don't go very often and 
have a complaint, while not life threatening needs to be sorted quickly, the 
doctor advises going private if you can afford  it. What a farce!

And if I should snuff it in the near future my life style will be 
transparent to all by the illness that takes me out. lol

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:iK2dnXXYc6gmzljVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com...
 > The latest wheeze is to check your BP when you visit them. If it is high, 
as
> it is likely to be after sitting in a waiting room full of coughing and 
> spitting misfits for half an hour, he will persuade the poor sod  to go on 
> "blood pressure tablets". Then he will check your cholesterol, if that is 
> one percent about "government guidelines" he will put you on statins. 
> After having those tablets for a few months, you go back to the doctor 
> complaining of headaches. He says to stop you having a stroke you had best 
> go on Warfarin and also a diuretic to compensate for the BP tablets.

Take some advice, if your doctor thinks you have high BP, take his advice. 
Trust me, you really don't want a stroke. I had one 2 and a bit years back. 
Not something I wish to try again.

Brian

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:iK2dnXXYc6gmzljVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Porridge Wog" <Porridge Wog @ Wherever.co.ck> wrote in message 
> news:iZudnR7fS8H2ZlnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> The real problem is the culture of dependency that the welfare state 
>> encourages.
>>
>> They encourage us to be ill, stupid and lazy, they need to , if we were 
>> healthy, educated and had a good work ethic, we wouuld not need to go to 
>> hospital, adult education or the local dole office. There would be mass 
>> redundencies amongst the civil service. All they would be able to help 
>> would be the genuine unfortunates in society, the ones they were meant to 
>> help, the genuinely sick or unemployed.
>>
>> Go to your local sink hole estate and see what the welfare state has 
>> grown, pteri dish like out of this process. Even better, come to Fife, to 
>> Bozzo browns own constituency, places like ballingery, buckhaven or 
>> burntisland and see wht the future holds for us all.
>>
>> We need to learn to stand up for ourselves by our own efforts, not be 
>> rlialnt on the civil service to give us hand outs.
>
>
> How right you are with most of this. There is a culture of "don't feel too 
> good, go to the doctors. He will give you something for it".
>
> Didn't someone post a few months back that when doctors went on strike 
> somewhere for a couple of months fewer people died? These quacks defy 
> belief sometimes with what they prescribe. Sometime ago a doctor told my 
> wife she should go on HRT. She refused. The quack said "suit yourself, you 
> will knock 5 years of your life if you don't". Now they say, take HRT and 
> you will die 10 years earlier of something nasty.
>
> The latest wheeze is to check your BP when you visit them. If it is high, 
> as it is likely to be after sitting in a waiting room full of coughing and 
> spitting misfits for half an hour, he will persuade the poor sod  to go on 
> "blood pressure tablets". Then he will check your cholesterol, if that is 
> one percent about "government guidelines" he will put you on statins. 
> After having those tablets for a few months, you go back to the doctor 
> complaining of headaches. He says to stop you having a stroke you had best 
> go on Warfarin and also a diuretic to compensate for the BP tablets. Don't 
> have a tooth out he warns or cut yourself or you might bleed to death! 
> This actually happened to a friend of mine, he didn't bleed to death, just 
> swallowed a mouthful of tablets every day and he only visited the doc 
> initially because he had pulled something in his back.
>
> It's all a load of bollocks. Doctors have created this myth, rather like 
> economists, that they know what is good for you. The truth of the matter 
> is they rely very largely on what the pharmaceutical sales rep tells them. 
> I've only been to the doctors three times in the last ten years. Each time 
> a "patient" who came out of a "surgery" before me clasped in their hands, 
> with an expression of mixed joy and relief, a "prescription" for what ever 
> ailment they perceived they had. I suppose it enabled the doctor to get 
> rid of them quickly and kept the poor sod happy. That the drugs prescribed 
> were more likely to kill him seemed not to have occurred to either the 
> patient or the doctor. I do not consider antibiotics to be a drug by the 
> way.
>
> In the majority of cases, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart 
> disease, depression (not clinical depression) and lung cancer are life 
> style diseases and could either be prevented or cured by a change of 
> lifestyle and diet and exercise. In the States they are even thinking of 
> putting children on statins.Ffs!
>
> All this unnecessary  prescription issuing is draining the NHS of money 
> that could be used for serious conditions such as cancer, genetic 
> abnormalities, alzheimers, strokes, macular degeneration, accidents, etc. 
> Using the NHS as a place to go when you feel "fluey" and under the weather 
> is bleeding it dry. People's expectations have got to be changed as to 
> what the NHS can do. Get rid of flu vaccines for a start, totally 
> ineffectual and a con yet must cost millions. The final joke of the NHS is 
> if you don't go very often and have a complaint, while not life 
> threatening needs to be sorted quickly, the doctor advises going private 
> if you can afford  it. What a farce!
>
> And if I should snuff it in the near future my life style will be 
> transparent to all by the illness that takes me out. lol


Here's a good drug:

http://www.cialis.com/index.jsp

"As with any ED tablet, in the rare event of an erection lasting more than 4 
hours, seek immediate medical help to avoid long-term injury."

"U.S. drug regulators recently approved revisions to the prescribing labels 
for three anti-impotence drugs to reflect reports of sudden, temporary 
memory loss in users. The rare condition is called "transient global 
amnesia."

So you take the damn thing and immediately forget what you're supposed to do 
with the erection.

Nigel Brooks

No, what i meant was we are encouraged to be ill, we are encouraged to be 
unemployed and helpless by the system, so we need the system and need to 
sign on.

You've heard of the poverty trap where it is not worth working because you 
get less for working than you do for signing on? This is it, the DWP want 
you signing on so you sign on and keep them in jobs.

people needing medical treatment for being too fat?
people needing cosmetic surgery?
people needing bigger breasts?
people needing sex changes?

You are having a laugh at the tax payers expence!

McEwen's Export!

Now that is bad shit, you will be ill, drink something nicer, Shepherd Neame 
Spitfire locally springs to mind for you?

> We could "afford" to look after everyone if we looked after the sick 
> rather
> than the hypochondriacs. Time for me to answer PW's post.
>
> You've stirred it up with this one. Good for you!

That is a more succinct way of saying what I meant but.....

they have created the hypochondriacs, they are easier to treat than ill 
people

"Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message 
news:01dxk.183598$6s4.119128@newsfe14.ams2...
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
> news:iK2dnXXYc6gmzljVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com...
> > The latest wheeze is to check your BP when you visit them. If it is 
> > high,
> as
>> it is likely to be after sitting in a waiting room full of coughing and 
>> spitting misfits for half an hour, he will persuade the poor sod  to go 
>> on "blood pressure tablets". Then he will check your cholesterol, if that 
>> is one percent about "government guidelines" he will put you on statins. 
>> After having those tablets for a few months, you go back to the doctor 
>> complaining of headaches. He says to stop you having a stroke you had 
>> best go on Warfarin and also a diuretic to compensate for the BP tablets.
>
> Take some advice, if your doctor thinks you have high BP, take his advice. 
> Trust me, you really don't want a stroke. I had one 2 and a bit years 
> back. Not something I wish to try again.

I'm not saying you should ignore high BP, that would be bloody stupid. I'm 
saying that doctors tend to assume high BP if the patient exhibits it on a 
couple of occasions when we all know that variations in BP occur during the 
day and are closely correlated with exertion, stress and meal times. And 
having diagnosed it correctly, even if it is only slightly high, they launch 
into a regime of drugs to control it when a gentle regime of exercise, 
vitamin B, and sensible diet is likely to do the same job.

Another thing doctors are fixated on is cholesterol and they hand out 
statins like smarties. They rarely mention that the real predictor for heart 
disease is homocysteine levels, not cholesterol.

I'm fortunate, my BP is low for my age.

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:vIqdncrJno519FjVnZ2dnUVZ8tninZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:01dxk.183598$6s4.119128@newsfe14.ams2...
>>
>> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
>> news:iK2dnXXYc6gmzljVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> > The latest wheeze is to check your BP when you visit them. If it is 
>> > high,
>> as
>>> it is likely to be after sitting in a waiting room full of coughing and 
>>> spitting misfits for half an hour, he will persuade the poor sod  to go 
>>> on "blood pressure tablets". Then he will check your cholesterol, if 
>>> that is one percent about "government guidelines" he will put you on 
>>> statins. After having those tablets for a few months, you go back to the 
>>> doctor complaining of headaches. He says to stop you having a stroke you 
>>> had best go on Warfarin and also a diuretic to compensate for the BP 
>>> tablets.
>>
>> Take some advice, if your doctor thinks you have high BP, take his 
>> advice. Trust me, you really don't want a stroke. I had one 2 and a bit 
>> years back. Not something I wish to try again.
>
> I'm not saying you should ignore high BP, that would be bloody stupid. I'm 
> saying that doctors tend to assume high BP if the patient exhibits it on a 
> couple of occasions when we all know that variations in BP occur during 
> the day and are closely correlated with exertion, stress and meal times. 
> And having diagnosed it correctly, even if it is only slightly high, they 
> launch into a regime of drugs to control it when a gentle regime of 
> exercise, vitamin B, and sensible diet is likely to do the same job.
>
> Another thing doctors are fixated on is cholesterol and they hand out 
> statins like smarties. They rarely mention that the real predictor for 
> heart disease is homocysteine levels, not cholesterol.
>
> I'm fortunate, my BP is low for my age.


Me too.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Whoops - almost forgot to take my Labetalol, Benicar and Crestor.

Must have taken too much Cialis.

Nigel Brooks

"Nigel Brooks"  wrote in message 
news:6il4ppFr2gs9U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
> news:iK2dnXXYc6gmzljVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> And if I should snuff it in the near future my life style will be 
>> transparent to all by the illness that takes me out. lol
>
>
> Here's a good drug:
>
> http://www.cialis.com/index.jsp
>
> "As with any ED tablet, in the rare event of an erection lasting more than 
> 4 hours, seek immediate medical help to avoid long-term injury."
>
> "U.S. drug regulators recently approved revisions to the prescribing 
> labels for three anti-impotence drugs to reflect reports of sudden, 
> temporary memory loss in users. The rare condition is called "transient 
> global amnesia."
>
> So you take the damn thing and immediately forget what you're supposed to 
> do with the erection.

Err, what's an erection?

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:16:10 +0100, Porridge Wog slept through:

> The real problem is the culture of dependency that the welfare state 
> encourages.


are you on benefit?
.
http://pages.globetrotter.net/mcordeau/2004/exercice1.swf

This should help you to concentrate more.

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:11:23 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
> news:iK2dnXXYc6gmzljVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>  > The latest wheeze is to check your BP when you visit them. If it is high, 
> as
>> it is likely to be after sitting in a waiting room full of coughing and 
>> spitting misfits for half an hour, he will persuade the poor sod  to go on 
>> "blood pressure tablets". Then he will check your cholesterol, if that is 
>> one percent about "government guidelines" he will put you on statins. 
>> After having those tablets for a few months, you go back to the doctor 
>> complaining of headaches. He says to stop you having a stroke you had best 
>> go on Warfarin and also a diuretic to compensate for the BP tablets.
> 
> Take some advice, if your doctor thinks you have high BP, take his advice. 
> Trust me, you really don't want a stroke. I had one 2 and a bit years back. 
> Not something I wish to try again.
> 
> Brian

This should help to get your message accross.

http://pages.globetrotter.net/mcordeau/2004/exercice1.swf

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:Wq6xk.329270$ah4.268301@newsfe15.ams2...
> Should overall budget even matter?
>
> We find enough money for any random wars that crop up and we decide to
take
> part in and get into debt accordingly.
>
> Ultimately we go to war apparently to continue our way of life and to
> preserve the lives of our citizens, so essentially, the budget of the NHS
> and military budgets are fixed on the same supposed shared goal.
>
> So I think that we should forget the burden to the tax payer, after all,
the
> tax payer at some point most probably will be the patient requiring help
so
> it makes sense just to forget about the associated debt and carry on
> spending regardless.
> Otherwise I can see what will happen. Services will continue to be
cut-back
> and some form of system will be politically formulated if you take
budgeting
> through its natural course. Citizens who have paid more into the system
via
> tax will get more treatment. If you've not paid enough in, effectively
you'd
> be left to die, but the wording in the letter won't read like that (but no
> doubt many of you would agree with this, in principle anyway).
>
> But that's unneccesarily harsh. We could 'afford' to look after everyone,
if
> we got into debt and just ignored the cost. We do it all the time with
other
> things. Bank bailouts for example and we certainly don't care about
capping
> military budgets, so why should we care about capping NHS budgets? Chill
> out! Let's stay healthy and keep spending.
>
>
How about improving  efficiency, and no more increases in funding, or at
least no increases more than the cost of living.

"mike hide"  wrote in message 
news:3qSdnc-9N4YwBljVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Wq6xk.329270$ah4.268301@newsfe15.ams2...
>> Should overall budget even matter?
>>
>> We find enough money for any random wars that crop up and we decide to
> take
>> part in and get into debt accordingly.
>>
>> Ultimately we go to war apparently to continue our way of life and to
>> preserve the lives of our citizens, so essentially, the budget of the NHS
>> and military budgets are fixed on the same supposed shared goal.
>>
>> So I think that we should forget the burden to the tax payer, after all,
> the
>> tax payer at some point most probably will be the patient requiring help
> so
>> it makes sense just to forget about the associated debt and carry on
>> spending regardless.
>> Otherwise I can see what will happen. Services will continue to be
> cut-back
>> and some form of system will be politically formulated if you take
> budgeting
>> through its natural course. Citizens who have paid more into the system
> via
>> tax will get more treatment. If you've not paid enough in, effectively
> you'd
>> be left to die, but the wording in the letter won't read like that (but 
>> no
>> doubt many of you would agree with this, in principle anyway).
>>
>> But that's unneccesarily harsh. We could 'afford' to look after everyone,
> if
>> we got into debt and just ignored the cost. We do it all the time with
> other
>> things. Bank bailouts for example and we certainly don't care about
> capping
>> military budgets, so why should we care about capping NHS budgets? Chill
>> out! Let's stay healthy and keep spending.
>>
>>
> How about improving  efficiency, and no more increases in funding, or at
> least no increases more than the cost of living.

Lol! 10/10 for sheer cheek. To post on the day of the biggest US bail-out in 
history, committing the US taxpayer to uncapped hundreds of billions, you 
suggest no more funding for our NHS! Where do we find 'em?

> > I think that we should forget the burden to the tax payer, after all,
> > the
> > tax payer at some point most probably will be the patient requiring help
> > so
> > it makes sense just to forget about the associated debt and carry on
> > spending regardless.
>
> It doesn't make sense at all. If the budget is not capped, all that will
> happen is the bureaucracy will go crazy.

That was kind of my point too - it is already crazy, so let's BE genuinely
'crazy' with the money and try and survive longer by spending all the money
we don't have on health rather than war, for example. War budgets aren't
capped - neither should healthcare budgets be if we are really thinking of
our citizens' ultimate welfare every time we spend money.

> We could "afford" to look after everyone if we looked after the sick
rather
> than the hypochondriacs.

But my point in stirring up this topic is that what the hell is 'affording'
it got to do with anything? We spend endless money on all sorts of spurious
nonsense that when it really comes down to it, we should be "wasting" all
the money we have and all the money we don't have on the stuff to save us
all - healthcare! Feck the banks! Feck war! Feck oil! Let's spend, spend,
spend!

Of course, I am being ironic underneath all this raving nonsense. I guess
what I'm really trying to say is that this Government is a farce when it
comes to taxing and spending and its no small wonder as a country we're
inextricably tied up in this Western (oops, sorry!) global credit crunch.

> You've stirred it up with this one. Good for you!

Well, Mondays ARE boring, so I thought I'd try and show you all how boring
it could get if we all chipped in.

"mike hide"  wrote in message
news:3qSdnc-9N4YwBljVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Wq6xk.329270$ah4.268301@newsfe15.ams2...
> > Should overall budget even matter?
> >
> > We find enough money for any random wars that crop up and we decide to
> take
> > part in and get into debt accordingly.
> >
> > Ultimately we go to war apparently to continue our way of life and to
> > preserve the lives of our citizens, so essentially, the budget of the
NHS
> > and military budgets are fixed on the same supposed shared goal.
> >
> > So I think that we should forget the burden to the tax payer, after all,
> the
> > tax payer at some point most probably will be the patient requiring help
> so
> > it makes sense just to forget about the associated debt and carry on
> > spending regardless.
> > Otherwise I can see what will happen. Services will continue to be
> cut-back
> > and some form of system will be politically formulated if you take
> budgeting
> > through its natural course. Citizens who have paid more into the system
> via
> > tax will get more treatment. If you've not paid enough in, effectively
> you'd
> > be left to die, but the wording in the letter won't read like that (but
no
> > doubt many of you would agree with this, in principle anyway).
> >
> > But that's unneccesarily harsh. We could 'afford' to look after
everyone,
> if
> > we got into debt and just ignored the cost. We do it all the time with
> other
> > things. Bank bailouts for example and we certainly don't care about
> capping
> > military budgets, so why should we care about capping NHS budgets? Chill
> > out! Let's stay healthy and keep spending.
> >
> >
> How about improving  efficiency, and no more increases in funding, or at
> least no increases more than the cost of living.

The problem is, if targets aren't met, no-one's really, really culpable for
all the mess. One day its one minister the next day its someone else. They
can even blame it on previous governments for underfunding, mis-legislating
and altering structures, they can spin their little heads clean off in order
to wriggle off the hook.

I reckon what we need is actually a dictator for a few years to come in,
roll a few heads, get politicians actually doing something other than
talking bullshit all day to media instead of running the country and maybe,
just maybe, then, people might get a little bit scared if they fuck up in
their job.

At the moment, there's no REAL backlash against people who mess up. There's
no stress and pressure from society, there's no fixed stares from
colleagues. The worst is maybe a few columns in the dailies about how they
are really feeling the heat under fire.

In fact, what really happens is quite the opposite to what should, ministers
and decision makers are given others jobs and no doubt, financial deals and
left entirely alone to enjoy their peace and quiet whilst everyone else
suffers from their fucking balls-ups. I'm so pissed off with this bunch of
twats, I really want to emigrate. I just don't know where to!

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
news:md2dnVVBKohMPljVnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "mike hide"  wrote in message
> news:3qSdnc-9N4YwBljVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:Wq6xk.329270$ah4.268301@newsfe15.ams2...
> >> Should overall budget even matter?
> >>
> >> We find enough money for any random wars that crop up and we decide to
> > take
> >> part in and get into debt accordingly.
> >>
> >> Ultimately we go to war apparently to continue our way of life and to
> >> preserve the lives of our citizens, so essentially, the budget of the
NHS
> >> and military budgets are fixed on the same supposed shared goal.
> >>
> >> So I think that we should forget the burden to the tax payer, after
all,
> > the
> >> tax payer at some point most probably will be the patient requiring
help
> > so
> >> it makes sense just to forget about the associated debt and carry on
> >> spending regardless.
> >> Otherwise I can see what will happen. Services will continue to be
> > cut-back
> >> and some form of system will be politically formulated if you take
> > budgeting
> >> through its natural course. Citizens who have paid more into the system
> > via
> >> tax will get more treatment. If you've not paid enough in, effectively
> > you'd
> >> be left to die, but the wording in the letter won't read like that (but
> >> no
> >> doubt many of you would agree with this, in principle anyway).
> >>
> >> But that's unneccesarily harsh. We could 'afford' to look after
everyone,
> > if
> >> we got into debt and just ignored the cost. We do it all the time with
> > other
> >> things. Bank bailouts for example and we certainly don't care about
> > capping
> >> military budgets, so why should we care about capping NHS budgets?
Chill
> >> out! Let's stay healthy and keep spending.
> >>
> >>
> > How about improving  efficiency, and no more increases in funding, or at
> > least no increases more than the cost of living.
>
> Lol! 10/10 for sheer cheek. To post on the day of the biggest US bail-out
in
> history, committing the US taxpayer to uncapped hundreds of billions, you
> suggest no more funding for our NHS! Where do we find 'em?
>
>
I don't quite get the linkage between the two please try and explain. On the
other hand perhaps you should join the US treasury team, obviously your
suggestions have gone unheeded on the UK economy. Well perhaps not.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:Jbixk.135965$f%6.64136@newsfe09.ams2...
>
> "mike hide"  wrote in message
> news:3qSdnc-9N4YwBljVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:Wq6xk.329270$ah4.268301@newsfe15.ams2...
> > > Should overall budget even matter?
> > >
> > > We find enough money for any random wars that crop up and we decide to
> > take
> > > part in and get into debt accordingly.
> > >
> > > Ultimately we go to war apparently to continue our way of life and to
> > > preserve the lives of our citizens, so essentially, the budget of the
> NHS
> > > and military budgets are fixed on the same supposed shared goal.
> > >
> > > So I think that we should forget the burden to the tax payer, after
all,
> > the
> > > tax payer at some point most probably will be the patient requiring
help
> > so
> > > it makes sense just to forget about the associated debt and carry on
> > > spending regardless.
> > > Otherwise I can see what will happen. Services will continue to be
> > cut-back
> > > and some form of system will be politically formulated if you take
> > budgeting
> > > through its natural course. Citizens who have paid more into the
system
> > via
> > > tax will get more treatment. If you've not paid enough in, effectively
> > you'd
> > > be left to die, but the wording in the letter won't read like that
(but
> no
> > > doubt many of you would agree with this, in principle anyway).
> > >
> > > But that's unneccesarily harsh. We could 'afford' to look after
> everyone,
> > if
> > > we got into debt and just ignored the cost. We do it all the time with
> > other
> > > things. Bank bailouts for example and we certainly don't care about
> > capping
> > > military budgets, so why should we care about capping NHS budgets?
Chill
> > > out! Let's stay healthy and keep spending.
> > >
> > >
> > How about improving  efficiency, and no more increases in funding, or at
> > least no increases more than the cost of living.
>
> The problem is, if targets aren't met, no-one's really, really culpable
for
> all the mess. One day its one minister the next day its someone else. They
> can even blame it on previous governments for underfunding,
mis-legislating
> and altering structures, they can spin their little heads clean off in
order
> to wriggle off the hook.
>
> I reckon what we need is actually a dictator for a few years to come in,
> roll a few heads, get politicians actually doing something other than
> talking bullshit all day to media instead of running the country and
maybe,
> just maybe, then, people might get a little bit scared if they fuck up in
> their job.
>
> At the moment, there's no REAL backlash against people who mess up.
There's
> no stress and pressure from society, there's no fixed stares from
> colleagues. The worst is maybe a few columns in the dailies about how they
> are really feeling the heat under fire.
>
> In fact, what really happens is quite the opposite to what should,
ministers
> and decision makers are given others jobs and no doubt, financial deals
and
> left entirely alone to enjoy their peace and quiet whilst everyone else
> suffers from their fucking balls-ups. I'm so pissed off with this bunch of
> twats, I really want to emigrate. I just don't know where to!
>
>
Yea sometimes, it might have been better if the Germans Had won the war
,except I hated Adolph .

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:iK2dnXXYc6gmzljVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Porridge Wog" <Porridge Wog @ Wherever.co.ck> wrote in message 
> news:iZudnR7fS8H2ZlnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> The real problem is the culture of dependency that the welfare state 
>> encourages.
>>
>> They encourage us to be ill, stupid and lazy, they need to , if we were 
>> healthy, educated and had a good work ethic, we wouuld not need to go to 
>> hospital, adult education or the local dole office. There would be mass 
>> redundencies amongst the civil service. All they would be able to help 
>> would be the genuine unfortunates in society, the ones they were meant to 
>> help, the genuinely sick or unemployed.
>>
>> Go to your local sink hole estate and see what the welfare state has 
>> grown, pteri dish like out of this process. Even better, come to Fife, to 
>> Bozzo browns own constituency, places like ballingery, buckhaven or 
>> burntisland and see wht the future holds for us all.
>>
>> We need to learn to stand up for ourselves by our own efforts, not be 
>> rlialnt on the civil service to give us hand outs.
>
>
> How right you are with most of this. There is a culture of "don't feel too 
> good, go to the doctors. He will give you something for it".
>
> Didn't someone post a few months back that when doctors went on strike 
> somewhere for a couple of months fewer people died? These quacks defy 
> belief sometimes with what they prescribe. Sometime ago a doctor told my 
> wife she should go on HRT. She refused. The quack said "suit yourself, you 
> will knock 5 years of your life if you don't". Now they say, take HRT and 
> you will die 10 years earlier of something nasty.
>
> The latest wheeze is to check your BP when you visit them. If it is high, 
> as it is likely to be after sitting in a waiting room full of coughing and 
> spitting misfits for half an hour, he will persuade the poor sod  to go on 
> "blood pressure tablets". Then he will check your cholesterol, if that is 
> one percent about "government guidelines" he will put you on statins. 
> After having those tablets for a few months, you go back to the doctor 
> complaining of headaches. He says to stop you having a stroke you had best 
> go on Warfarin and also a diuretic to compensate for the BP tablets. Don't 
> have a tooth out he warns or cut yourself or you might bleed to death! 
> This actually happened to a friend of mine, he didn't bleed to death, just 
> swallowed a mouthful of tablets every day and he only visited the doc 
> initially because he had pulled something in his back.
>
> It's all a load of bollocks. Doctors have created this myth, rather like 
> economists, that they know what is good for you. The truth of the matter 
> is they rely very largely on what the pharmaceutical sales rep tells them. 
> I've only been to the doctors three times in the last ten years. Each time 
> a "patient" who came out of a "surgery" before me clasped in their hands, 
> with an expression of mixed joy and relief, a "prescription" for what ever 
> ailment they perceived they had. I suppose it enabled the doctor to get 
> rid of them quickly and kept the poor sod happy. That the drugs prescribed 
> were more likely to kill him seemed not to have occurred to either the 
> patient or the doctor. I do not consider antibiotics to be a drug by the 
> way.
>
> In the majority of cases, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart 
> disease, depression (not clinical depression) and lung cancer are life 
> style diseases and could either be prevented or cured by a change of 
> lifestyle and diet and exercise. In the States they are even thinking of 
> putting children on statins.Ffs!
>
> All this unnecessary  prescription issuing is draining the NHS of money 
> that could be used for serious conditions such as cancer, genetic 
> abnormalities, alzheimers, strokes, macular degeneration, accidents, etc. 
> Using the NHS as a place to go when you feel "fluey" and under the weather 
> is bleeding it dry. People's expectations have got to be changed as to 
> what the NHS can do. Get rid of flu vaccines for a start, totally 
> ineffectual and a con yet must cost millions. The final joke of the NHS is 
> if you don't go very often and have a complaint, while not life 
> threatening needs to be sorted quickly, the doctor advises going private 
> if you can afford  it. What a farce!
>
> And if I should snuff it in the near future my life style will be 
> transparent to all by the illness that takes me out. lol

Hmmm getting my BP retested tomorrow as it's too high.  Last time I had to 
sit and wait, like you say, in a surgery waiting room full of screaming 
kids, people coughing and spluttering and also she was running 15 mins late 
so no wonder my BP was up!!!!!

Have to say am due to have an Op soon and my GP smiled gleefully when I said 
I had private healthcare, she said by the time I got a referral to see 
someone I could have had the op done privately and she'd be happy to write a 
letter to healthcare company.  Thankfully I get mine cheaply through my 
partner's job (firefighter) and although i've yet to use the company I've 
heard they're good.  Fingers crossed!

JB
x

"JB"  wrote in message 
news:r_WdnY_-P5JerlvVRVnyigA@bt.com...

> Hmmm getting my BP retested tomorrow as it's too high.  Last time I had to 
> sit and wait, like you say, in a surgery waiting room full of screaming 
> kids, people coughing and spluttering and also she was running 15 mins 
> late so no wonder my BP was up!!!!!


I was wondering, isn't it a bit odd that now you are living a life of 
domestic peace and harmony your BP has gone up? I don't recall your BP being 
high a few years ago when to say the least peace and harmony was not an 
every day occurrence. Maybe you are like me, when everything is running 
smoothly and you have everything normal people desire, you crave excitement 
or danger. Do what I do in such circumstances, do something reckless and 
irresponsible. If you are wondering what, I can give you a few pointers. You 
never know your BP might go down :-)

"mike hide"  wrote in message 
news:UPWdnbLODbx-aFjVnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
> news:md2dnVVBKohMPljVnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "mike hide"  wrote in message
>> news:3qSdnc-9N4YwBljVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >

>> > How about improving  efficiency, and no more increases in funding, or 
>> > at
>> > least no increases more than the cost of living.
>>
>> Lol! 10/10 for sheer cheek. To post on the day of the biggest US bail-out
> in
>> history, committing the US taxpayer to uncapped hundreds of billions, you
>> suggest no more funding for our NHS! Where do we find 'em?
>>
>>
> I don't quite get the linkage between the two please try and explain. On 
> the
> other hand perhaps you should join the US treasury team, obviously your
> suggestions have gone unheeded on the UK economy. Well perhaps not.

It's called irony. The irony of a right wing Republican government landing 
the tax-payer with the biggest liability ever to bail-out failing 
corporations. That is called socialism! Something judging by your other 
posts is anathema to you. So it's a bit cheeky to advise others to be 
prudent in their financial affairs.

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:vM6dnZ6I8aVn3FvVnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "JB"  wrote in message 
> news:r_WdnY_-P5JerlvVRVnyigA@bt.com...
>
>> Hmmm getting my BP retested tomorrow as it's too high.  Last time I had 
>> to sit and wait, like you say, in a surgery waiting room full of 
>> screaming kids, people coughing and spluttering and also she was running 
>> 15 mins late so no wonder my BP was up!!!!!
>
>
> I was wondering, isn't it a bit odd that now you are living a life of 
> domestic peace and harmony your BP has gone up? I don't recall your BP 
> being high a few years ago when to say the least peace and harmony was not 
> an every day occurrence. Maybe you are like me, when everything is running 
> smoothly and you have everything normal people desire, you crave 
> excitement or danger. Do what I do in such circumstances, do something 
> reckless and irresponsible. If you are wondering what, I can give you a 
> few pointers. You never know your BP might go down :-)

Lol!! Reckless? Me? Never! Well, not for a while! ;-)

JB
x
>
>
>

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
news:pcydnXYV1KeD3lvVnZ2dnUVZ8qTinZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "mike hide"  wrote in message
> news:UPWdnbLODbx-aFjVnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
> > news:md2dnVVBKohMPljVnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com...
> >>
> >> "mike hide"  wrote in message
> >> news:3qSdnc-9N4YwBljVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >
>
> >> > How about improving  efficiency, and no more increases in funding, or
> >> > at
> >> > least no increases more than the cost of living.
> >>
> >> Lol! 10/10 for sheer cheek. To post on the day of the biggest US
bail-out
> > in
> >> history, committing the US taxpayer to uncapped hundreds of billions,
you
> >> suggest no more funding for our NHS! Where do we find 'em?
> >>
> >>
> > I don't quite get the linkage between the two please try and explain. On
> > the
> > other hand perhaps you should join the US treasury team, obviously your
> > suggestions have gone unheeded on the UK economy. Well perhaps not.
>
> It's called irony. The irony of a right wing Republican government landing
> the tax-payer with the biggest liability ever to bail-out failing
> corporations. That is called socialism! Something judging by your other
> posts is anathema to you. So it's a bit cheeky to advise others to be
> prudent in their financial affairs.
>
Perhaps you are unaware of it ,but you are the one living in a so called
socialist Paradise,where everyone despises their leader but does not have
the spine to conduct a simple vote of confidence and oust him..
The UK apparently has similar problems I wonder what your solution will be
.I suppose you think yesterday's surge in the FTSE was due to some UK
initiative.All you need is the UK housing sector to go down the tubes and
the UK stock market, If the truth be known it will be the US taxpayer that
drags you and many others out of your current mire.

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
news:vM6dnZ6I8aVn3FvVnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "JB"  wrote in message
> news:r_WdnY_-P5JerlvVRVnyigA@bt.com...
>
> > Hmmm getting my BP retested tomorrow as it's too high.  Last time I had
to
> > sit and wait, like you say, in a surgery waiting room full of screaming
> > kids, people coughing and spluttering and also she was running 15 mins
> > late so no wonder my BP was up!!!!!
>
>
> I was wondering, isn't it a bit odd that now you are living a life of
> domestic peace and harmony your BP has gone up? I don't recall your BP
being
> high a few years ago when to say the least peace and harmony was not an
> every day occurrence. Maybe you are like me, when everything is running
> smoothly and you have everything normal people desire, you crave
excitement
> or danger. Do what I do in such circumstances, do something reckless and
> irresponsible. If you are wondering what, I can give you a few pointers.
You
> never know your BP might go down :-)
>
>
>
Try using no salt [sodium chloride] or at least cutting down on it,eat more
salads with no fat dressings ,get more exercise.Cut out transfats and get
down to your correct body weight.....

"mike hide"  wrote in message 
news:vcudnXc2vKMQPFvVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
> news:pcydnXYV1KeD3lvVnZ2dnUVZ8qTinZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "mike hide"  wrote in message
>> news:UPWdnbLODbx-aFjVnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
>> > news:md2dnVVBKohMPljVnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> >>
>> >> "mike hide"  wrote in message
>> >> news:3qSdnc-9N4YwBljVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >> >
>>
>> >> > How about improving  efficiency, and no more increases in funding, 
>> >> > or
>> >> > at
>> >> > least no increases more than the cost of living.
>> >>
>> >> Lol! 10/10 for sheer cheek. To post on the day of the biggest US
> bail-out
>> > in
>> >> history, committing the US taxpayer to uncapped hundreds of billions,
> you
>> >> suggest no more funding for our NHS! Where do we find 'em?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I don't quite get the linkage between the two please try and explain. 
>> > On
>> > the
>> > other hand perhaps you should join the US treasury team, obviously your
>> > suggestions have gone unheeded on the UK economy. Well perhaps not.
>>
>> It's called irony. The irony of a right wing Republican government 
>> landing
>> the tax-payer with the biggest liability ever to bail-out failing
>> corporations. That is called socialism! Something judging by your other
>> posts is anathema to you. So it's a bit cheeky to advise others to be
>> prudent in their financial affairs.
>>
> Perhaps you are unaware of it ,but you are the one living in a so called
> socialist Paradise,where everyone despises their leader but does not have
> the spine to conduct a simple vote of confidence and oust him..
> The UK apparently has similar problems I wonder what your solution will be
> .I suppose you think yesterday's surge in the FTSE was due to some UK
> initiative.All you need is the UK housing sector to go down the tubes and
> the UK stock market, If the truth be known it will be the US taxpayer that
> drags you and many others out of your current mire.

Are you living in some isolated ivory tower in the Rockies in a 1950s time 
warp? It's almost impossible to get rid of a US President in between his 
term of office. I can only think of Nixon and he resigned rather than be 
impeached. And impeachment would tear the US apart, the country just 
couldn't handle it. Whereas in the UK, we have got rid of all our Prime 
Ministers before their 5 year term was up including the two most powerful, 
Thatcher and Blair, who were thrown out by their own party. Now contrast 
that with Bush, the most unpopular President in memory, he would have been 
ditched years ago here. The States seems not to have any constitutional 
mechanism for doing the same. You just have to sit it out with a lame duck 
until his term is up.

As for the FTSE, the UK housing market and stock market are in tandem with 
the US housing and stock market, it's evens as to which will crash the 
furthest. And I wouldn't get to cocky too quickly if I were you. The Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac bounce will be short lived. When the euphoria passes and 
reality hits, both markets will continue their downward spiral. Indeed, as I 
type, I'm watching the S&P 500 retrace to almost where it was Friday night. 
I've got to thank Bush, he created a great selling opportunity for day 
traders!

What you fail to appreciate, or can't face up to, is Republican 
administrations are damn hopeless at running a free market economy. They are 
too dominated by monopoly vested interests, lobbyists, and a false belief in 
what was good for the US in the 50s is good for it in the 21st Century. It 
isn't, the economic centre of gravity is shifting to the East.

"mike hide"  wrote in message 
news:4vWdnRJGEt6vOVvVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
> news:vM6dnZ6I8aVn3FvVnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "JB"  wrote in message
>> news:r_WdnY_-P5JerlvVRVnyigA@bt.com...
>>
>> > Hmmm getting my BP retested tomorrow as it's too high.  Last time I had
> to
>> > sit and wait, like you say, in a surgery waiting room full of screaming
>> > kids, people coughing and spluttering and also she was running 15 mins
>> > late so no wonder my BP was up!!!!!
>>
>>
>> I was wondering, isn't it a bit odd that now you are living a life of
>> domestic peace and harmony your BP has gone up? I don't recall your BP
> being
>> high a few years ago when to say the least peace and harmony was not an
>> every day occurrence. Maybe you are like me, when everything is running
>> smoothly and you have everything normal people desire, you crave
> excitement
>> or danger. Do what I do in such circumstances, do something reckless and
>> irresponsible. If you are wondering what, I can give you a few pointers.
> You
>> never know your BP might go down :-)
>>
>>
>>
> Try using no salt [sodium chloride] or at least cutting down on it,eat 
> more
> salads with no fat dressings ,get more exercise.Cut out transfats and get
> down to your correct body weight.....

Thanks, you saying I'm fat??? ;-)  As for the salt, dont use it, never use 
it in cooking and dont like salty foods or processed foods that much either. 
Ive had high BP for over a year and have followed guidelines but just 
recently lapsed and also had other stresses.  As for excercise, yes have let 
that go a bit but only cos I injured myself doing Yoga on my Wii.... so much 
for being good for you! Still ankle better now so it's back to the yoga and 
walking!

JB
x
>
>

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:i8ydnRM1kcE8M1vVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...

> Are you living in some isolated ivory tower in the Rockies in a 1950s time 
> warp? It's almost impossible to get rid of a US President in between his 
> term of office. I can only think of Nixon and he resigned rather than be 
> impeached. And impeachment would tear the US apart, the country just 
> couldn't handle it. Whereas in the UK, we have got rid of all our Prime 
> Ministers before their 5 year term was up including the two most powerful, 
> Thatcher and Blair, who were thrown out by their own party. Now contrast 
> that with Bush, the most unpopular President in memory, he would have been 
> ditched years ago here. The States seems not to have any constitutional 
> mechanism for doing the same. You just have to sit it out with a lame duck 
> until his term is up.

That's because they are two totally different systems.  You guys don't 
election your PM or Monarch - we do.  The Prez is the main man - but his 
party might not be the majority party.  If the case were the same as in the 
UK we would possibly be changing the Prez every two years when the 
electorate decides who stays in the Congress.

As for not having a means of removing other than impeachment - might I 
remind you of the following:

Abraham Lincoln
James Garfield
William McKinley
John F. Kennedy

Gerald Ford - two attempts


> As for the FTSE, the UK housing market and stock market are in tandem with 
> the US housing and stock market, it's evens as to which will crash the 
> furthest. And I wouldn't get to cocky too quickly if I were you. The 
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bounce will be short lived. When the euphoria 
> passes and reality hits, both markets will continue their downward spiral. 
> Indeed, as I type, I'm watching the S&P 500 retrace to almost where it was 
> Friday night. I've got to thank Bush, he created a great selling 
> opportunity for day traders!
>
> What you fail to appreciate, or can't face up to, is Republican 
> administrations are damn hopeless at running a free market economy. They 
> are too dominated by monopoly vested interests, lobbyists, and a false 
> belief in what was good for the US in the 50s is good for it in the 21st 
> Century. It isn't, the economic centre of gravity is shifting to the East.

Essex?

Nigel Brooks

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
news:i8ydnRM1kcE8M1vVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "mike hide"  wrote in message
> news:vcudnXc2vKMQPFvVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
> > news:pcydnXYV1KeD3lvVnZ2dnUVZ8qTinZ2d@bt.com...
> >>
> >> "mike hide"  wrote in message
> >> news:UPWdnbLODbx-aFjVnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
> >> > news:md2dnVVBKohMPljVnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> "mike hide"  wrote in message
> >> >> news:3qSdnc-9N4YwBljVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >> >
> >>
> >> >> > How about improving  efficiency, and no more increases in funding,
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > least no increases more than the cost of living.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lol! 10/10 for sheer cheek. To post on the day of the biggest US
> > bail-out
> >> > in
> >> >> history, committing the US taxpayer to uncapped hundreds of
billions,
> > you
> >> >> suggest no more funding for our NHS! Where do we find 'em?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > I don't quite get the linkage between the two please try and explain.
> >> > On
> >> > the
> >> > other hand perhaps you should join the US treasury team, obviously
your
> >> > suggestions have gone unheeded on the UK economy. Well perhaps not.
> >>
> >> It's called irony. The irony of a right wing Republican government
> >> landing
> >> the tax-payer with the biggest liability ever to bail-out failing
> >> corporations. That is called socialism! Something judging by your other
> >> posts is anathema to you. So it's a bit cheeky to advise others to be
> >> prudent in their financial affairs.
> >>
> > Perhaps you are unaware of it ,but you are the one living in a so called
> > socialist Paradise,where everyone despises their leader but does not
have
> > the spine to conduct a simple vote of confidence and oust him..
> > The UK apparently has similar problems I wonder what your solution will
be
> > .I suppose you think yesterday's surge in the FTSE was due to some UK
> > initiative.All you need is the UK housing sector to go down the tubes
and
> > the UK stock market, If the truth be known it will be the US taxpayer
that
> > drags you and many others out of your current mire.
>
> Are you living in some isolated ivory tower in the Rockies in a 1950s time
> warp? It's almost impossible to get rid of a US President in between his
> term of office. I can only think of Nixon and he resigned rather than be
> impeached. And impeachment would tear the US apart, the country just
> couldn't handle it. Whereas in the UK, we have got rid of all our Prime
> Ministers before their 5 year term was up including the two most powerful,
> Thatcher and Blair, who were thrown out by their own party. Now contrast
> that with Bush, the most unpopular President in memory, he would have been
> ditched years ago here. The States seems not to have any constitutional
> mechanism for doing the same. You just have to sit it out with a lame duck
> until his term is up

Yes here the term is 4 years thats unless the electorate grant him another
four,which Iin the case of George they did. According to what I read on
sites like this and in the UK press everyone hates Labor in particular dear
Gordon and Tony assuming the vote of confidence still works why havent
enough of your illustrious politicos voted him out?


> As for the FTSE, the UK housing market and stock market are in tandem with
> the US housing and stock market, it's evens as to which will crash the
> furthest. And I wouldn't get to cocky too quickly if I were you. The
Fannie
> Mae and Freddie Mac bounce will be short lived. When the euphoria passes
and
> reality hits, both markets will continue their downward spiral. Indeed, as
I
> type, I'm watching the S&P 500 retrace to almost where it was Friday
night.
> I've got to thank Bush, he created a great selling opportunity for day
> traders!
>
> What you fail to appreciate, or can't face up to, is Republican
> administrations are damn hopeless at running a free market economy. They
are
> too dominated by monopoly vested interests, lobbyists, and a false belief
in
> what was good for the US in the 50s is good for it in the 21st Century. It
> isn't, the economic centre of gravity is shifting to the East.
>
It seems to me they have done pretty well, without you that is .The Dems of
course have their own whizzes of course like Jimmy Carter {interest rates at
20% +},
hardly anyone has used his economic models .Agaiin Hillary missed the boat
this time , The Dems voted for the empty shirt in the primaries, and while
the empty shirt ; picked a career politico rather than Bill's wife. Big
mistake,big mistake. Funny isn't it But she was the very person advocating a
NHS for America and here we are on the same subject except she was going to
go one better than anyone else, probably would have bankrupted the country
even faster.

By the way would you like to bet who will come out of this quicker the US or
the UK ?  For a long time I have thought the problem living in the UK is the
high cost of the basics electricity ,fuel, food etc

"Nigel Brooks"  wrote in message
news:6io283FrdgaaU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
> news:i8ydnRM1kcE8M1vVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> > Are you living in some isolated ivory tower in the Rockies in a 1950s
time
> > warp? It's almost impossible to get rid of a US President in between his
> > term of office. I can only think of Nixon and he resigned rather than be
> > impeached. And impeachment would tear the US apart, the country just
> > couldn't handle it. Whereas in the UK, we have got rid of all our Prime
> > Ministers before their 5 year term was up including the two most
powerful,
> > Thatcher and Blair, who were thrown out by their own party. Now contrast
> > that with Bush, the most unpopular President in memory, he would have
been
> > ditched years ago here. The States seems not to have any constitutional
> > mechanism for doing the same. You just have to sit it out with a lame
duck
> > until his term is up.
>
> That's because they are two totally different systems.  You guys don't
> election your PM or Monarch - we do.  The Prez is the main man - but his
> party might not be the majority party.  If the case were the same as in
the
> UK we would possibly be changing the Prez every two years when the
> electorate decides who stays in the Congress.
>
> As for not having a means of removing other than impeachment - might I
> remind you of the following:
>
> Abraham Lincoln
> James Garfield
> William McKinley
> John F. Kennedy
>
> Gerald Ford - two attempts
>
>
> > As for the FTSE, the UK housing market and stock market are in tandem
with
> > the US housing and stock market, it's evens as to which will crash the
> > furthest. And I wouldn't get to cocky too quickly if I were you. The
> > Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bounce will be short lived. When the euphoria
> > passes and reality hits, both markets will continue their downward
spiral.
> > Indeed, as I type, I'm watching the S&P 500 retrace to almost where it
was
> > Friday night. I've got to thank Bush, he created a great selling
> > opportunity for day traders!
> >
> > What you fail to appreciate, or can't face up to, is Republican
> > administrations are damn hopeless at running a free market economy. They
> > are too dominated by monopoly vested interests, lobbyists, and a false
> > belief in what was good for the US in the 50s is good for it in the 21st
> > Century. It isn't, the economic centre of gravity is shifting to the
East.
>
> Essex?
>
> Nigel Brooks
>
>
I love that , no I can see the market being tied to the Chinese market ,and
all the brokers speaking Chinese ...ah so

"Nigel Brooks"  wrote in message 
news:6io283FrdgaaU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
> news:i8ydnRM1kcE8M1vVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>> Are you living in some isolated ivory tower in the Rockies in a 1950s 
>> time warp? It's almost impossible to get rid of a US President in between 
>> his term of office. I can only think of Nixon and he resigned rather than 
>> be impeached. And impeachment would tear the US apart, the country just 
>> couldn't handle it. Whereas in the UK, we have got rid of all our Prime 
>> Ministers before their 5 year term was up including the two most 
>> powerful, Thatcher and Blair, who were thrown out by their own party. Now 
>> contrast that with Bush, the most unpopular President in memory, he would 
>> have been ditched years ago here. The States seems not to have any 
>> constitutional mechanism for doing the same. You just have to sit it out 
>> with a lame duck until his term is up.
>
> That's because they are two totally different systems.  You guys don't 
> election your PM or Monarch - we do.  The Prez is the main man - but his 
> party might not be the majority party.  If the case were the same as in 
> the UK we would possibly be changing the Prez every two years when the 
> electorate decides who stays in the Congress.

I know that, you know that, but does the yank know that? :-)

The downside of the US system is that the head of government is also the 
head of state, not a very satisfactory position in a crisis. Also, if 
Congress is controlled by a different party to the President, it effectively 
leaves the President neutered for 2 years or longer.


>
> As for not having a means of removing other than impeachment - might I 
> remind you of the following:
>
> Abraham Lincoln
> James Garfield
> William McKinley
> John F. Kennedy
>
> Gerald Ford - two attempts

You forgot Ronnie- one attempt.

>
>
>> As for the FTSE, the UK housing market and stock market are in tandem 
>> with the US housing and stock market, it's evens as to which will crash 
>> the furthest. And I wouldn't get to cocky too quickly if I were you. The 
>> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bounce will be short lived. When the euphoria 
>> passes and reality hits, both markets will continue their downward 
>> spiral. Indeed, as I type, I'm watching the S&P 500 retrace to almost 
>> where it was Friday night. I've got to thank Bush, he created a great 
>> selling opportunity for day traders!
>>
>> What you fail to appreciate, or can't face up to, is Republican 
>> administrations are damn hopeless at running a free market economy. They 
>> are too dominated by monopoly vested interests, lobbyists, and a false 
>> belief in what was good for the US in the 50s is good for it in the 21st 
>> Century. It isn't, the economic centre of gravity is shifting to the 
>> East.
>
> Essex?

Essex? That's due north of me. Nah, Margate!

"mike hide"  wrote in message 
news:ib2dnS0wO64wflvVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@comcast.com...

>
> By the way would you like to bet who will come out of this quicker the US 
> or
> the UK ?  For a long time I have thought the problem living in the UK is 
> the
> high cost of the basics electricity ,fuel, food etc

A better question would be which country will sink the lower? It's of little 
consequence anyway, both our governments were and are incapable of running a 
free market. Already there are questions as to what the regulatory bodies 
were up to in the US and UK. Sitting on their arses getting as fat as the 
fat cats they were supposed to be monitoring is the answer to that one. 
Sacking the lot and returning to "moral hazard" is the only solution for the 
future.

> Thanks, you saying I'm fat??? ;-)  As for the salt, dont use it, never use
> it in cooking and dont like salty foods or processed foods that much 
> either. Ive had high BP for over a year and have followed guidelines but 
> just recently lapsed and also had other stresses.  As for excercise, yes 
> have let that go a bit but only cos I injured myself doing Yoga on my 
> Wii.... so much for being good for you! Still ankle better now so it's 
> back to the yoga and walking!
>

You got injured by doing Yoga on your Wii Wii? Do tell us more!!!!!

"Porridge Wog" <Porridge Wog @ Wherever.co.ck> wrote in message 
news:6M-dnf8rUoOWElfVnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>> Thanks, you saying I'm fat??? ;-)  As for the salt, dont use it, never 
>> use
>> it in cooking and dont like salty foods or processed foods that much 
>> either. Ive had high BP for over a year and have followed guidelines but 
>> just recently lapsed and also had other stresses.  As for excercise, yes 
>> have let that go a bit but only cos I injured myself doing Yoga on my 
>> Wii.... so much for being good for you! Still ankle better now so it's 
>> back to the yoga and walking!
>>
>
> You got injured by doing Yoga on your Wii Wii? Do tell us more!!!!!

Lol, no no!! just whilst on my Wii!! Nothing exciting, just overdid the 
Yoga, pulled a ligament and was limping around for a while!  ;-)

JB
x
>

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:14:38 +0100, JB slept through:

> "Porridge Wog" <Porridge Wog @ Wherever.co.ck> wrote in message 
> news:6M-dnf8rUoOWElfVnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>>> Thanks, you saying I'm fat??? ;-)  As for the salt, dont use it, never 
>>> use
>>> it in cooking and dont like salty foods or processed foods that much 
>>> either. Ive had high BP for over a year and have followed guidelines but 
>>> just recently lapsed and also had other stresses.  As for excercise, yes 
>>> have let that go a bit but only cos I injured myself doing Yoga on my 
>>> Wii.... so much for being good for you! Still ankle better now so it's 
>>> back to the yoga and walking!
>>>
>>
>> You got injured by doing Yoga on your Wii Wii? Do tell us more!!!!!
> 
> Lol, no no!! just whilst on my Wii!! Nothing exciting, just overdid the 
> Yoga, pulled a ligament and was limping around for a while!  ;-)
> 
> JB
> x
>>

Half wit! Pulled a ligament doing yoga!! You a woman?

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:ivybo85oh2jm$.dlg@ukgov.criminal.organization...
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:14:38 +0100, JB slept through:
>
>> "Porridge Wog" <Porridge Wog @ Wherever.co.ck> wrote in message
>> news:6M-dnf8rUoOWElfVnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>>> Thanks, you saying I'm fat??? ;-)  As for the salt, dont use it, never
>>>> use
>>>> it in cooking and dont like salty foods or processed foods that much
>>>> either. Ive had high BP for over a year and have followed guidelines 
>>>> but
>>>> just recently lapsed and also had other stresses.  As for excercise, 
>>>> yes
>>>> have let that go a bit but only cos I injured myself doing Yoga on my
>>>> Wii.... so much for being good for you! Still ankle better now so it's
>>>> back to the yoga and walking!
>>>>
>>>
>>> You got injured by doing Yoga on your Wii Wii? Do tell us more!!!!!
>>
>> Lol, no no!! just whilst on my Wii!! Nothing exciting, just overdid the
>> Yoga, pulled a ligament and was limping around for a while!  ;-)
>>
>> JB
>> x
>>>
>
> Half wit! Pulled a ligament doing yoga!! You a woman?

Oh forgive me.... I must be eh???