Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

what gov run healthcare gets you

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

    You started this topic with the sole intention of slating the NHS and claiming this incident was the result of socialised healthcare. You did put in that you welcomed good news stories but but it was such a thin veneer of good will that most missed it.
    Do you deny this was just an attack on the NHS and that the title of the topic is rather revealing in that regard?

    Again if I made a topic that was entitled "This is the British Army" and then talked about the guys who executed a downed Taliban fighter who was unconscious and then said I welcome good news stories which part of that do you think people would post about?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

      Originally posted by reality View Post
      Governing the NHS. So yes.

      Great. So now a COURT didn't bother to appoint a lawyer. Cause thats SOOOOOOOO much better.

      No, by the assessment of the great gazoo. Who else would I be speaking for here?

      Not appointing counsel to a person being jammed in a psych ward SHOULD be punishable under law. If its not, you've got a problem.

      They (baby and mother) should have been in the care of their respective counsels.

      and it used to be common practice. Or must I quote the scotus case "3 generations of imbeciles is enough"?

      She was held for 5 weeks. She should've been stabilzed and arrangements made with her embassy/family to get her home SUPERVISED.

      Which is what I'm bitching about. It WASN"T necessary UNTIL she was PAST due or the childs health was in danger. which it wasn't when the mother was medicated. You telling me they couldn't get her back on her meds in 5 weeks? But the NHS is so great I thought?

      A) she HAD the meds with her and FORGOT TO TAKE THEM ONCE. It is my suggestion that they pass her to the italian embassy or her family. There werre multiple opitons all of them cheaper and less intrusive.
      b) see A.

      Shes not a resident! She had outstayed her VISA! Its not deportation if she WANTS TO LEAVE.

      WOrld view hun. Think big picture.

      Its stigmatized for good reason, all of which a) are not cogent to this thread and b) you would'nt find that terrible considering your views.

      I would say in spite of. If that procedure hadn't gone off without a hitch yall would be FARTHER up shit creek. Go ahead and look up the failure rate of c sections.

      No the meds her italian dr gave her and she took WITH her to the UK. The ones the cops could've BROUGHT WITH THEM when they picked her up.

      The daughter CHOOSES and shes an ADULT. The MOTHER and the REST of the family applicable for guradianship live in italy by CHOICE. He's an italian citizen, so YES I would be marginally less pissed off if they would return him to the care of his own nation.

      (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ



      Holy fucking shit. It must be a disease! THATS why none of you can read what I write! Look like I'm getting a nobel prize soon. Who wants to touch me?


      I seriously doubt they will be granting you a Nobel Prize anytime soon; this doesn't even qualify as fiction.

      The last time I looked respect was earned, and this case needs to be earned through the simple act of posting credible evidence of your claims.

      As none is forthcoming then the natural conclusion one must draw is that the entire thread is a simple troll - attention getting device with alarmist claims amid disingenuous claims and base fear mongering.

      There are no Nobel categories for that, however you might qualify for a job in the Obama White House.
      Last edited by FearandLoathing; 12-03-2013, 10:03 AM.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

        Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
        Well, if you have evidence that there are death panels, post it.

        But you can ratchet down the rant, especially since you don't know the difference between the Social Services system, which in the UK is a total disaster from all accounts and the Health Care system.

        If you claim such expertise on the British Health Care, Social Services system, perhaps you can post your CV without the vitriol and let us see the "evidence" of all that you claim so we can examine it for ourselves. As I find myself telling American socialist, you saying it don't make it so.

        Oh and please post where you got all those details. having some experience with mental illness and its treatment I would like to see the original documentation to see if it was just a panic attack and not something else, like full onset schizophrenia, as the symptoms are almost identical, as is the case of a half a dozen other possibilities.
        I did. They ration care. That would be exactly what a "death panel" is.

        So you're saying their system is so vastly different that they don't have drs sign off on major medical procedures like non emergency c sections, or commitment to a mental institution doesn't take a headshrinkers signiture? Do their drs not also have the same sort of ethics that ours and indeed every medical dr around the world has? The hippocratic oath etc? Cause if thats what youre saying then you see why I don't like the NHS so much.
        If what you're saying is that that is NOT true, that drs DID have to sign off on her medical chart and approve things like treatment, assessments etc. then my points stand.
        So which is it?

        And if you think this is me ranting you really haven't seen me work up a good froth.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

          Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
          I seriously doubt they will be granting you a Nobel Prize anytime soon; this doesn't even qualify as fiction.

          The last time I looked respect was earned, and this case needs to be earned through the simple act of posting credible evidence of your claims.

          As none is forthcoming then the natural conclusion one must draw is that the entire thread is a simple troll - attention getting device with alarmist claims amid disingenuous claims and base fear mongering.

          There are no Nobel categories for that, however you might qualify for a job in the Obama White House.
          you claim youre a psych professional. can you not recognize scathing sarcasm when you see it?

          the details were in the article in the op. she was checked in for a panic attack and her disorder was "bi-polar" not schizophrenia. Gee maybe if they'd contacted her physician they could've gotten her medical history.


          and again I encourage you to READ the op this time. See what I say there? That i'm open to POSITIVE stories about the NHS and related laws surrounding it. I'm still waiting on ONE positive story to be posted.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

            Originally posted by reality View Post
            you claim youre a psych professional. can you not recognize scathing sarcasm when you see it?

            the details were in the article in the op. she was checked in for a panic attack and her disorder was "bi-polar" not schizophrenia. Gee maybe if they'd contacted her physician they could've gotten her medical history.


            and again I encourage you to READ the op this time. See what I say there? That i'm open to POSITIVE stories about the NHS and related laws surrounding it. I'm still waiting on ONE positive story to be posted.
            I'd have thought that this would have counted.
            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
            Yeah, but have no fear. Didn't the article also say that the child was now 15 months old, and still in the care of Social Services? OK, so they delivered the baby by C-section because the mother was so far around the bend, and would be able to handle natural birth.

            Also, didn't the article also say that the mother was now wanting custody of the baby because she's completely recovered now? I can understand why Social Services would now want to be very careful in assessing the mothers recovery, and present state before doing so.

            I'm not getting the outrage here beyond the headline. Seems that all is being pretty well cared for. Further, I don't think that it's anything particular or peculiar to single payer system or a non-single payer system.

            Am I missing something there?

            Oh geez. Didn't read the last 2 posts. Well, Aww hell. just leave it posted.
            No? Oh well.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

              Originally posted by Chloe View Post
              Likewise, i am not sure Reality knows how to post without ranting!
              Likewise I'm not sure any of yall know how to read a thread title and OP without taking it out of context. Go back and READ what I said and this time remove your knee from the keyboard so when it jerks you don't go off half cocked. I'm more than open to positive stories about the NHS as I stated.
              The title of the thread is ambiguous and meant to attract not only detractors from NHS but its proponents as well in a discussion of just what it will get you. Thats good stories and bad stories. i consider this one a bad story (rampant abuse of authority and an astonishing lack of ethics both medical and legal) why don't you post a good one and then we can discuss that?

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                The NHS?
                Yes. like i said theres a thread around here somewheres

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                  Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                  Err, no...

                  There are some changes that can be made to the law, yes. My interpretation of it may be off but i am just likely arguing the merits of why they did what they did per the statute / laws etc.
                  Which is WHY we are disagreeing. I think it cedes MUCH too much power to the gov. Not notifying the family, not notifying the planitiff or their counsel (which they were not appointed until after the fact I might add another gross abuse) etc. All of those are terrible miscarriages of justice.

                  I get what the law says. I just think it is shit

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                    Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                    The thing is, the longer this goes on, the more accustomed to British ways the child will be, the more it will have adapted to its surroundings etc, so the case for sending him or her back to Italy needs to be made now only the longer this is disputed the less of a case there is to uproot him from his home environment.
                    which is why it a) should not have been going on in the first place and b) should not be up for dispute as to whether it should continue.

                    15months is not THAT accostomed. He hasn't been living there for several years and been adopted etc. He's in SS care and MIGHT just now be starting to walk around and mumble things. He should be with his mother, who by all the evidence i've seen is now recovered, or ITALIAN social services not BRITISH social services. ANything else is a gross abuse of power, arguments from authority not withstanding.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                      I'd have thought that this would have counted.


                      No? Oh well.
                      They took a woman who was supposed to be in town only a few days, then kept her there without notifying her family either in england (daughter) or in italy (the rest) for over 5 weeks. They then performed an admittedly, according to the medical professionals in the article I posted, "unprecedented" involuntary and un-medically necessary c section, without so much as consulting the patient much less aquiring informed consent or consent through her counsel that also SHOULD have been appointed to her. ALL of those things are miscarriages of justice and should never have taken place. If the law provides for it there guess what : I'm calling it unethical and not something I'd like to have here, and as discussed this was not SOLELY involving SS but also the NHS on multiple levels as well as a high court. EVERY SINGLE PERSON involved in this decision had a duty to make sure the woman could TRY to defend her position or have someone TRY to do it for her. Not to mention that as soon as they sent the mother home they should've sent the kid to ITALIAN social services because he's an italian citizen not a british citizen as chloe so helpfully pointed out earlier. It would then be up to ITALIAN social services to determine the fitness of their own citizen. Imagine that.
                      Instead we've got people like chloe saying that now its in question whether they should even give up the child cause you know he's all acclimated to britain now and that totally overrides a mother's right to her own fucking blood.
                      I wouldn't call that a POSITIVE story. If you HAVE a positive story about the NHS that would be lovely. Do you have one?

                      Also: You're only not frothing mad cause both of them survived. If one hadn't you'd be here with me, but bitching even louder.
                      Also: He's not a citizen of their nation. Yet he's being held by SS and had a procedure performed upon his mother ostensibly on his behalf, all of which cost tax payers money. He nor she is a tax payer for that nation. Why are you for giving foreign nationals payouts from government services meant for tax payers? You some sort of liberal?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                        You started this topic with the sole intention of slating the NHS and claiming this incident was the result of socialised healthcare. You did put in that you welcomed good news stories but but it was such a thin veneer of good will that most missed it.
                        Do you deny this was just an attack on the NHS and that the title of the topic is rather revealing in that regard?

                        Again if I made a topic that was entitled "This is the British Army" and then talked about the guys who executed a downed Taliban fighter who was unconscious and then said I welcome good news stories which part of that do you think people would post about?
                        Yes I do deny that. As I have said. Repeatedly. This disease of not reading what someone posts multiple times in plain fucking english must be some sort of new cybertransmitted disease I've just discovered. Like I said, looks like I'm up for a nobel prize B)

                        The title is "what gov run healthcare gets you" which is completely NEUTRAL. I said "here's a bad story I found, and I generally oppose the idea and its things like this that lead me to do so. I wish SOMEONE would post SOMETHING that showed my fears were UNFOUNDED, perhaps a happy feel good story about the NHS. " And all I get is folks like you skipping over it entirely and instead of trying to allay my fears or educate me out of what you claim is my ignorance, getting all frothy and going off halfcocked. Seriously I've seen it alot on this forum lately and it seems to transmit from poster to poster. They don't read whats written and generally proceed from their own preconceptions about another poster. Its happened in multiple threads and it is not limited by political ideology. You, fearandloathing, jet, good_1, OMD, chloe. Others. All of you have been guilty of it at one point or another. Its like watching the spread of the plague, or socialism. Scary stuff.


                        As to the my good will being a "thin veneer" I was not aware you were telepathic and able to reach worldwide. How's it going professor X? Don't worry, next time I will be sure to get down on my knees and fellate the concept of the NHS properly. Will that help?

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                          Originally posted by reality View Post
                          Yes I do deny that. As I have said. Repeatedly. This disease of not reading what someone posts multiple times in plain fucking english must be some sort of new cybertransmitted disease I've just discovered. Like I said, looks like I'm up for a nobel prize B)
                          No this is just blatant academic dishonesty ; plain and simple. No disease about not reading, the title of this thread is just worded wrong, by any objective measure.

                          The title is "what gov run healthcare gets you" which is completely NEUTRAL.


                          I am glad you had the foresight to put the neutral in caps, it kind of gives off the notion of being confused as to who you are trying to convince more, us or yourself.

                          I said "here's a bad story I found, and I generally oppose the idea and its things like this that lead me to do so.
                          And then you thought "hmmm...what else do i think is bad?" I know, the NHS! In my mind, 2 + 2 = bad government healthcare, i'll make the thread about the NHS!

                          I wish SOMEONE would post SOMETHING that showed my fears were UNFOUNDED, perhaps a happy feel good story about the NHS.
                          No, look there is no need as it has nothing to do with the NHS! Luther and a few others caught on to that real fast ; you are still talking about the NHS! That is like saying the Argentinians and Britain had gone to war over the Falkland Islands and to refute the British role we can say something good about the Argies...doesn't work like that as the Falkland Islands have nothing to do with Argentina in the first place!

                          And all I get is folks like you skipping over it entirely and instead of trying to allay my fears or educate me out of what you claim is my ignorance, getting all frothy and going off halfcocked. Seriously I've seen it alot on this forum lately and it seems to transmit from poster to poster. They don't read whats written and generally proceed from their own preconceptions about another poster. Its happened in multiple threads and it is not limited by political ideology. You, fearandloathing, jet, good_1, OMD, chloe. Others. All of you have been guilty of it at one point or another. Its like watching the spread of the plague, or socialism. Scary stuff.
                          Right, when one person points and says there is something wrong with everyone else, it is definitely everyone else who is at fault...right?

                          Seriously though, if that is how you feel of this forum, you are free to leave...

                          As to the my good will being a "thin veneer" I was not aware you were telepathic and able to reach worldwide. How's it going professor X? Don't worry, next time I will be sure to get down on my knees and fellate the concept of the NHS properly. Will that help?
                          What good will? You started a thread, based on a false claim of linking something where it doesn't belong and now if everyone doesn't agree to your false representation of it, you stomp your feet, have a paddy and claim victim hood to everything you can...

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                            Originally posted by reality View Post
                            which is why it a) should not have been going on in the first place and b) should not be up for dispute as to whether it should continue.
                            So why don't we try doing that instead of you going back and throwing a dart with a blindfold blaming this on something you thought was cute but had no relevance to the discussion. This has nothing to with the NHS.

                            15months is not THAT accostomed. He hasn't been living there for several years and been adopted etc. He's in SS care and MIGHT just now be starting to walk around and mumble things. He should be with his mother, who by all the evidence i've seen is now recovered, or ITALIAN social services not BRITISH social services. ANything else is a gross abuse of power, arguments from authority not withstanding.
                            Which is why Italian authorities (the DCF / social services counter part) have had her mom look after her other two kids, which they determine she is not fit to look after? They are abusing power too, are they?

                            But like you said at the very least it should be Italian authorities so all you do is overlook the fact that the child was born in Britain and it is the role of British authorities to deal with jurisdiction...only really one thing left for you to correct yourself on.

                            (I understand most libertarians like you are quite eager to cede sovereignty so i understand your obsession about attacking British authorities acting on British soil )

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #59
                              Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                              Originally posted by reality View Post
                              Yes. like i said theres a thread around here somewheres
                              But that one is actually to do with the NHS.

                              Not Social services, like this one.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #60
                                Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                                Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                                Yes but the baby became due all those months later so the natural cycle and process of child birth is what made it "imminent". By the time the baby was due it was a matter which pressing and urgent don't even begin to cover.

                                That is why, even in the US labor / pregnant women / expectant women about to give birth etc are always treated. It is something that needs dealing with when the woman is due or goes into labor. It is not imminent at 1 to 3 months, though, is it? At 36 weeks it is a different matter from when she was sectioned at 31.
                                Doesn't that say enough about the NHS though?

                                I mean it just doesn't seem possible that the doctors were so unprepared for a pregnant woman to give birth at some point that it became "imminent" and there just wasn't enough time for any third party advocacy, etc. You would think NHS, Social Services, or whatever doctors would have contacted her personal physician to find out her medical history.
                                Last edited by Whipple; 12-03-2013, 12:26 PM.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X