Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted
3 hours ago, JWB said:

 

I'm not surprised. Labour was just about done catching up with repairing the roads that were neglected in the 1980s, when they left office in 2010. Then the Conservatives got in, and in 13 years turned the roads to wreckage again.

Posted
25 minutes ago, Rick said:

I would say it is due to the U.S. being younger, larger, and more isolated than Great Britain. More willing to dream big dreams and take big chances for big rewards with the geographical room to engage in this, especially before the horrors of big government.

Oh, we dreamt big dreams all through the 1980s. London Docklands attests to it. And if you think Conservatives believes in big Government, you are wrong. The Conservatives are basically reaganite in that regard.

I'm sorry to say, I think it's America stultified from taking any chances today.

34 minutes ago, Rick said:

It has been my reading experience that when the word "theocracy" is used, it is used in a grotesquely false and negative way by those willfully ignorant into believing Christians ravenously desire to impose their values on others and these same authors further extrapolate their views that all religions are the same. Are then all political parties the same? I can tell you this, all governments who desire to be totally secular are spectacular failures. 

 

Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I,Charles II, King William I, all pretty much meet those terms of reference, if you were a Catholic at any rate. Read up on how Monarchial France treated their Protestants. Incidentally, one of my relatives came from what is now Germany in the 17th century. They were a religious sect that were run out of Germany. Eventually after cooling their heels here, they went to your country.

The point was not that there still are Christian theocracies. But there certainly has been, and could yet be again.

Posted
On 12/30/2023 at 3:05 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, we dreamt big dreams all through the 1980s. London Docklands attests to it. And if you think Conservatives believes in big Government, you are wrong. The Conservatives are basically reaganite in that regard.

I'm sorry to say, I think it's America stultified from taking any chances today.

Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I,Charles II, King William I, all pretty much meet those terms of reference, if you were a Catholic at any rate. Read up on how Monarchial France treated their Protestants. Incidentally, one of my relatives came from what is now Germany in the 17th century. They were a religious sect that were run out of Germany. Eventually after cooling their heels here, they went to your country.

The point was not that there still are Christian theocracies. But there certainly has been, and could yet be again.

Pretty much all European rulers and the Byzantine Empire were Christian theocracies from Constantine to Louis XVI with rulers who were committed Christians.  Nicolas II of Russia was devout enough that he was counted as a martyr when the Bolsheviks murdered him - a good Christian man who was a terrible ruler.

The biggest problem with theocracies, even Christian ones, is that when the people in charge turn out to be corrupted by power or just bone stupid, replacing them becomes an attack on God because they say God has ordained that they rule.

Posted
13 hours ago, R011 said:

Pretty much all European rulers and the Byzantine Empire were Christian theocracies from Constantine to Louis XVI with rulers who were committed Christians.  Nicolas II of Russia was devout enough that he was counted as a martyr when the Bolsheviks murdered him - a good Christian man who was a terrible ruler.

The biggest problem with theocracies, even Christian ones, is that when the people in charge turn out to be corrupted by power or just bone stupid, replacing them becomes an attack on God because they say God has ordained that they rule.

Yeah, you are right to include Russia, I keep forgetting them and they were by their own admission a Christian theocracy (and one that laid claim to being the Third Rome no less) Still are a theocracy, at least if you accept the idea the Church is independent and that Putin is a Christian, which I personally dont.

Well yes, exactly.

Posted
9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, you are right to include Russia, I keep forgetting them and they were by their own admission a Christian theocracy (and one that laid claim to being the Third Rome no less) Still are a theocracy, at least if you accept the idea the Church is independent and that Putin is a Christian, which I personally dont.

Well yes, exactly.

The official Church is an ally or creature of the government, as they were in Soviet times.  Putin uses the Church, but doesn't claim himself that he and his regime are  consecrated by God like the old Empire.

Posted (edited)

Stuart Stuarting, nothing new here.

Hint - a Theocracy needs the religious power commanding the temporal power. How anyone could thing that is happening in current Russia does amaze me.

Not the Holy Roman Empire, for sure, and then the Pope and the Emperor had different scopes of power.

Edited by sunday
Posted
6 hours ago, sunday said:

...Holy Roman Empire...

Which was neither Holy, Roman or Empire :) 

Posted
10 hours ago, sunday said:

Stuart Stuarting, nothing new here.

Hint - a Theocracy needs the religious power commanding the temporal power. How anyone could thing that is happening in current Russia does amaze me.

Not the Holy Roman Empire, for sure, and then the Pope and the Emperor had different scopes of power.

It is just the liberal way of painting any non-liberal regime as evil.

Posted
6 hours ago, bojan said:

Which was neither Holy, Roman or Empire :) 

Well, mostly, yes.

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, sunday said:

Stuart Stuarting, nothing new here.

Hint - a Theocracy needs the religious power commanding the temporal power. How anyone could thing that is happening in current Russia does amaze me.

Not the Holy Roman Empire, for sure, and then the Pope and the Emperor had different scopes of power.

Because, and this may shock you, Putin aspires to be the Tsar. And if Tsarist Russia was a theocracy (or at the very least had the facade of one), it should be no surprise that Putin is doing precisely the same thing. After all, its not the only thing Putin pretends Russia is. He pretends its a Democracy too.

But if you want evidence, just do a trawl for images.

1136_000_par1309590.jpg

And my particular favourite.

OIP.nGgzIbv6paA1NbfyKpQhQgHaE-?rs=1&pid=

Religion is just one more tool in the Putin regime equipment box. Why wouldnt he use it?

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted

This is a tricky thing. All health professionals know, that patients will suffer in a strike, but after years of wages not going up with inflation they have been left with no choice but to go on strike. Senior doctors went on strike last year and eventually got a massive wage increase. The juniors want that as well.

Posted (edited)

You have a nationally controlled system that controls all aspects of health care. From costs, to pay, to how many beds are where, to what procedures are done. OF COURSE PAY IS GOING TO BE CONSTRAINED. It's what you bloody well asked for by putting the control of the system into the hands of a bunch of B-Arkers to run. 

Edited by rmgill
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, rmgill said:

You have a nationally controlled system that controls all aspects of health care. From costs, to pay, to how many beds are where, to what procedures are done. OF COURSE PAY IS GOING TO BE CONSTRAINED. It's what you bloody well asked for by putting the control of the system into the hands of a bunch of B-Arkers to run. 

Which sounds great, right up till the point when you read the scare stories in your country where people either get refused treatment (and yes that does happen. I read Sole Survivor) because they have no money, or they get bankrupted because your healthcare costs so much (which one of our bretherhan suffering from cancer complained about on this grate site some 5 years or more ago)

There is and was nothing basically wrong with the NHS, if you look at what the origintal inent of it was. To offer a basic level of care to everyone. Now if you want, you can go and source privately. That has been a standing right since the 1980's, though you continue to pretend it is not the case. However its noticeable how often that you could go for private treatment, and if it got really complicated, they often dumped you back on the NHS to fix. Which says something about how basically competent the organization is.

There is nothing wrong with the NHS that basic funding wouldnt solve. Its been starved of funds for 13 years. We have a Government in love with low taxation as a means of boosting economic growth, which has flatlined (at best) for 13 years. Now ask yourself this question. Could it possibly be that the mania of NOT taxing to a degree comensurate with a 21st Century European economy, may in fact be buggering up multiple functions of the state? The Justice ministry is buggered. The MOD Is buggered. And the NHS is buggered. The local councils are buggered. Even the Border Agency is buggered. And what do they all have in common? They were all starved of funding for 13 years, because we were run by people full of ideological crap, whom believed you could cut their way to economic recovery.

But no, lets just judge one facet of English society in exlusion to all over events, so we can looks smug at how superior America is. Yes, that will work.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted

Germany's healthcare system is certainly closer to the UK's NHS than to the US's shark pool cosplaying as healthcare, though it's not state-run, just heavily regulated, with an additional private element. Unlike the UK, it's received sufficient funding, and it largely works. By contrast, the US system is the most expensive of the world, and provides adequate care to only a part of the population.

Germany's rail system isn't quite as bad as the UK's, but ails from the same problem, an ideologically motivated push for privatization - that has also ruined the US rail system for passenger travel in favor of bulk goods transportation; I'll admit that for a while I was on board with the privatization, but it's undisputable that trimming down everything in pursuit of elusive profitability as made the system a lot less resilient against disruptions. Switzerland's rail is picture perfect (but spends four times as much per capita to keep it working).

From these data points, my conclusion is that Stuart's view is more in line with the facts.

Posted

Privatisation made sense, but not how it was done. The actual rail infrastructure should have remained with the government. The actual trains using it, could be private. It was incredibly stupid to have Deutsche Bahn as a private company in control of both.

Posted
3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Which sounds great, right up till the point when you read the scare stories in your country where people either get refused treatment (and yes that does happen. I read Sole Survivor) because they have no money, or they get bankrupted because your healthcare costs so much (which one of our bretherhan suffering from cancer complained about on this grate site some 5 years or more ago)

So you get care, but you're bankrupt from the cost. Or you don't get care because you're on a waiting list and die. Which is better? 

As to refused treatment. When you're told to wait and you die of your condition, how is that not refused treatment. Here, sit in this corner while we ignore you for hours. Does that count as refused treatment? 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is and was nothing basically wrong with the NHS, if you look at what the origintal inent of it was.

It's a closed system with controlled by a coterie of bureaucrats. It's by default going to have problems and monopolies are not a good thing. 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

To offer a basic level of care to everyone. Now if you want, you can go and source privately. That has been a standing right since the 1980's, though you continue to pretend it is not the case. However its noticeable how often that you could go for private treatment, and if it got really complicated, they often dumped you back on the NHS to fix. Which says something about how basically competent the organization is.

Funny thing is that I've seen very clear examples of how the NHS fails in the UK from someone who works for them. Several very clear citations in fact. The US has an analog of the NHS with US government workers. It's the VA Medical System. I'm sure that the members here can tell you how swimmingly that system is. 

I personally don't want that writ large and mandated as a monopoly as Hillary proposed it would when she was First Lady. 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is nothing wrong with the NHS that basic funding wouldnt solve. Its been starved of funds for 13 years. We have a Government in love with low taxation as a means of boosting economic growth, which has flatlined (at best) for 13 years. Now ask yourself this question. Could it possibly be that the mania of NOT taxing to a degree comensurate with a 21st Century European economy, may in fact be buggering up multiple functions of the state?

Hahah. What's the proper level of taxation for a 21st Century European Economy? How's that going to encourage your economic growth? 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The Justice ministry is buggered. The MOD Is buggered. And the NHS is buggered. The local councils are buggered. Even the Border Agency is buggered. And what do they all have in common? They were all starved of funding for 13 years, because we were run by people full of ideological crap, whom believed you could cut their way to economic recovery.

But no, lets just judge one facet of English society in exlusion to all over events, so we can looks smug at how superior America is. Yes, that will work.

Just raise taxes. that's the answer? Not Hire better staff, implement better rules? Get rid of the idiots? 

Posted
2 hours ago, rmgill said:

So you get care, but you're bankrupt from the cost. Or you don't get care because you're on a waiting list and die. Which is better? 

Getting care in time, and not bankrupting yourself in the process. As mind-bending as it may appear, these are not mutually exclusive!

By pretty much any metric, the US system is terrible unless you're several times above the median income so you can afford to pay whatever bill the hospitals are throwing at you. Life expectancy in Germany is higher than in the US, and we're spending just half of the money per capita on healthcare. It's even cheaper in Spain, and still not much worse, and all the rest of Europe except Switzerland falls somewhere between the German and the Spanish spending levels, and all these countries cover a higher percentage of the population and offer a higher life expectancy, lower child and maternity mortality. (Switzerland is maybe 10% more costly than Germany with a slight uptick in life expectancy.)

I'm not saying that I have an idea how to fix the US system. But if you think it's great  in concept and execution, there's no basis for a rational debate here.

Posted

The British NHS isnt even the best system in Europe. Personally Id love us to look at more European systems (or yes, Israel which seems to have a good one) and kitbash something just a little more adaptive and better value for money for the 21st Century. OTOH, our Tories seem dead set on copying the American model, which seems even more expensive, particularly at the point of use, and disastrously failed when it came to Covid, even worse than ours did.

I dont kid myself ours is world standard. But its clear to anyone who stops waving the flag for 5 minutes and looks at it honestly, there are far, far worse out there. And they never cease to brag about them!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...