Tea Party Movement Catching on in England

[jpsmith1cm]

Bottom line they have standards for everybody, they have better results at a lesser cost.

You have repeated this several times.

Problem is that "better results" is subjective.

In order to lower costs, something has to go away. It appears that is going to be quality of care.

You don't get Filet Mignon at Ground Chuck prices.

[jpsmith1cm]

Here is something a little more on topic.

This current Tea Party is a total farce. The original Boston Tea Party was only partly a farce. Here are some facts on the Boston Tea Party.


Boston Tea Party Historical Society

"Boston Tea Party wasn't about taxes, rather than the fact that the British East India Company found a way of importing tea cheaper than John Hancock could smuggle it in to Boston and it was ruining John Hancock's smuggling business."
http://www.boston-tea-party.org/smug...smuggling.html

England wasn't over taxing us, they just wanted us to pay our share of the French-Indian Wars.

The only legitimate point was "taxation without representation."

Ben Franklin wanted to personally pay for the tea dumped into the harbor.

Common sense tells you that John Hancock just went to the "Green Dragon Tavern" and paid a few patrons a few shillings to do his work. I guess things really haven't changed that much.

Paging George Soros.......

Paging George Soros....

[k-fridge]

I was trying to get us more on topic lol. Atleast I had comments on the Boston Tea Party and todays socalled Tea Party. Why didn't you call all the other posters on this?

And it is relevent if you read between the lines.

Maybe I should have talked more about people leaving this country?

I didn't "call" you, just replied to your post.

Relax, that was just me commenting as a regular poster, not a mod.

[pageyjim]

Paging George Soros.......

Paging George Soros....

Oh is he pushing for accurate history books too?

It was all factual with an easy to come to opinion in the end.

[pageyjim]

I didn't "call" you, just replied to your post.

Relax, that was just me commenting as a regular poster, not a mod.

No big deal either way.

[pageyjim]

You have repeated this several times.

Problem is that "better results" is subjective.

In order to lower costs, something has to go away. It appears that is going to be quality of care.

You don't get Filet Mignon at Ground Chuck prices.

This is not a good analogy. The rest of the world does it better than us, it is not that difficult.

[jpsmith1cm]

This is not a good analogy. The rest of the world does it better than us, it is not that difficult.

It is not a good analogy for you because it shoots a HUGE hole in the whole socialized medicine fallacy.

And there you go again with the subjective definition of "better"

Before we begin tearing things apart, we need to agree upon definable and reachable goals rather than lofty political rhetoric.

Once we've decided upon goals, we can act in a manner than will attain those said goals and be able to measure progress.

[pageyjim]

It is not a good analogy for you because it shoots a HUGE hole in the whole socialized medicine fallacy.

And there you go again with the subjective definition of "better"

Before we begin tearing things apart, we need to agree upon definable and reachable goals rather than lofty political rhetoric.

Once we've decided upon goals, we can act in a manner than will attain those said goals and be able to measure progress.

It is all going to be subjective. And in every measurement we are lagging.

[jpsmith1cm]

It is all going to be subjective. And in every measurement we are lagging.

Anything can be objectively measured, it is a matter of deciding upon the proper criteria by which to measure it.

I can improve the overall health of this nation in a week if you let me and I'd donate the costs to do it.

Might get a little messy, though.

[pageyjim]

It is not a good analogy for you because it shoots a HUGE hole in the whole socialized medicine fallacy.

And there you go again with the subjective definition of "better"

Well back up your claims.

BTW we still don't have socialized medicine with the exception of Medicare and the VA etc.

[pageyjim]

Anything can be objectively measured, it is a matter of deciding upon the proper criteria by which to measure it.

It has been time and time again and we are never near the top, especially when you factor cost.

[jpsmith1cm]

Well back up your claims.

BTW we still don't have socialized medicine with the exception of Medicare and the VA etc.

Simple:

If a person has a medical condition that costs more than the current average annual expenditure per person, we cut off their treatment. Basically, we kill them.

This saves us untold healthcare dollars and improves the average health of people by eliminating the unhealthy people in society.


Costs = $0

Yeah, it will suck for a year or so while these people die off, but we'll be better off in the long run.

[pageyjim]

Simple:

If a person has a medical condition that costs more than the current average annual expenditure per person, we cut off their treatment. Basically, we kill them.

This saves us untold healthcare dollars and improves the average health of people by eliminating the unhealthy people in society.


Costs = $0

Yeah, it will suck for a year or so while these people die off, but we'll be better off in the long run.

You ought to apply for one of those "death panel" jobs.