Happy Face

Omar's reading material of choice is out here in paperback soon http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...1/mffindbook-21

An Omar moment is when he goes out to get the breakfast cereal in his dressing gown and without a gun and people throw the stash out the window when they see him... Can't remember what series it's in. it's in 4 "I don't even want this shit!" "They didn't have the honey nut?" "naa" ...when you walk through the garden...

Source

I never thought I'd be as compelled to keep watching second time around...but even knowing exactly what happens I've still been up till 2am on school nights saying to myself "just one more" rather than waiting. Great stuff.

Been watching Series 4 over the past week. Episode 10 - Misgivings - must be the best episode of them all. "This ain't the guy who came up with 62 kinds of nut" "why don't you just suck on a dick and get it over with" ....and chris stomping the shit out of michaels step-dad. ouch.

See page 15. It's a myth that pharaceutical companies only earn a fair profit on their investment if the vast majority of the investment is being pumped into research by private companies from the taxpayer.

It's not a question of either/or though. Third email asking. Thanfully the EU has more stringent employment laws than the US where people were told to like it or lump it.

I'm getting confused as to what's being discussed here. Don't we all agree something needs to change in the US? Am i right to assume you think someone who can afford treatment, however expensive, should get it via whichever super duper all inclusive coverage they can afford? I'm happy with that, and that's the way I thought the UK were heading with the story from the OP. I don't think you believe those that can't afford much should take whatever treatment they can afford on the most basic plan (even if it means no cover whatsoever - because you know people will always pay for food ahead of health coverage) either. But that everyone should have a basic level of cover that omits only the most expensive, short term remedies. Right? So isn't the question not whether a 'choice' needs to be made, as it's clear that whoever makes the provision for healthcare will have a choice to make on that score and will investigate the parameters as you say. Isn't the question who makes that choice...the government/indepentent non-profit organisation to ensure maximum coverage and affordability for the taxpayer, or a private insurer looking to ensure maximum profits and minimum costs? Well the US system isn't really a system its legalised death to the poor. 40% or summat with no cover whatsoever and if hanging around major cities with little money don't kill you they'll farm you off to some war zone or other to finish you off. I can hear them now in the Pentagon "If only the poor weren't so darn healthy"...etc... Hasn't the private/public partnership fucked up the water, trains, and underground?? Hasn't the free market fucked up the banks and education?? Hasn't our so called democracy led us into a pointless long term war commitment on two fronts costing 1billion a week?? Aren't politicians, bankers and insurance companies born liars and criminals?? Let's stop talking shit and this pretense of educated middle class coffee morning wanking this thread is turning into and buss some caps. I concur. "Needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk -- at least until the riots grow too large". That "until" provision never seems to be triggered, which is why the behavior continues unabated. I asked a few people at work on Friday if they fancied a bit of a riot. Having received a third email asking us to take a paycut and being the day after AIG announced their record breaking profits I thought I'd get more support than was forthcoming.

I'm getting confused as to what's being discussed here. Don't we all agree something needs to change in the US? Am i right to assume you think someone who can afford treatment, however expensive, should get it via whichever super duper all inclusive coverage they can afford? I'm happy with that, and that's the way I thought the UK were heading with the story from the OP. I don't think you believe those that can't afford much should take whatever treatment they can afford on the most basic plan (even if it means no cover whatsoever - because you know people will always pay for food ahead of health coverage) either. But that everyone should have a basic level of cover that omits only the most expensive, short term remedies. Right? So isn't the question not whether a 'choice' needs to be made, as it's clear that whoever makes the provision for healthcare will have a choice to make on that score and will investigate the parameters as you say. Isn't the question who makes that choice...the government/indepentent non-profit organisation to ensure maximum coverage and affordability for the taxpayer, or a private insurer looking to ensure maximum profits and minimum costs?

Understandable that a bloke who gets hate mail for not crediting God for the nature on display in his shows advocates a cull. No great surprise you think the solution is a cull, Chris.

It argued from the specific to the general, as many medical articles do as it happens (i.e. what evidence is there to support the best management of patient X). I'm getting confused as to who is arguing with what now tbh. No doubt. Just saying i initially thought the same as Parky until this paragraph at the end of page 2. "When the media feature someone like Bruce Hardy or Jack Rosser, we readily relate to individuals who are harmed by a government agency’s decision to limit the cost of health care. But we tend not to hear about — and thus don’t identify with — the particular individuals who die in emergency rooms because they have no health insurance. This “identifiable victim” effect, well documented by psychologists, creates a dangerous bias in our thinking. Doyle’s figures suggest that if those Wisconsin accident victims without health insurance had received equivalent care to those with it, the additional health care would have cost about $220,000 for each life saved. Those who died were on average around 30 years old and could have been expected to live for at least another 40 years; this means that had they survived their accidents, the cost per extra year of life would have been no more than $5,500 — a small fraction of the $49,000 that NICE recommends the British National Health Service should be ready to pay to give a patient an extra year of life. If the U.S. system spent less on expensive treatments for those who, with or without the drugs, have at most a few months to live, it would be better able to save the lives of more people who, if they get the treatment they need, might live for several decades." Which in a nutshell is spot on afaic.

Understandable that a bloke who gets hate mail for not crediting God for the nature on display in his shows advocates a cull.

I thought the article relied on anecdotal views too...though I did realise having read past the first page it does recognise this as a major flaw in the whole debate itself. Surely the point of the article is that the high price paid for treatment in the US is itself a ration. This is the opposite of the idea that a high price is what must be paid to avoid rationing. And wasn't the original thrust of this thread that treatments in the UK are to be less forcibly rationed, and made available to those that can afford them? Both countries would hopefully converge somewhere between the two current systems.

I think the article makes the perfectly valid point that working age immigrants contribute to the welfare bucket to a degree that they don't in other countries and people responding here won't have it.

Aye. I remember Politically Incorrect. It got took off the air after Maher made criticisms of the American way of life following 9/11. Thankfully HBO don't rely on their advertising paymasters like ABC did so he's able to say what he thinks...and he gets twice as long to do it. The whole show is available as a podcast on Itunes. it's always good. EDIT: he said "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly".

because he wants the job. See the shit Keegan got for stropping off?

http://www.gigwise.com/blog/51760/The-2009...e-The-Worst-Yet

Tim Elsenburg from Sweet Billy Pilgrim said: "I was at work, fitting a toilet seat in Farnham, when I heard about the nomination". Quality.

its not to hard, if you're going through a laptop/pc on vista network and sharing centre> manage network connections disconnect from the internet and you hould have "local area connection" and "wireless network connection" highlight them both and right click then bridge connections turn your wireless conn back on and you should be in business I'm an XP man. My archos used to occasionally pick up my PC's hard drive wirelessly, but was VERY temperamental.

eh? I'm going to have to look at this. I've held off buying an adaptor cos it's a jib...my ethernet connection won't pick up the wireless network though. Do I need to activate UPnP or something?

I think the 360 will only pick up your PC wirelessly won't it? ....like the Wii. Not to say you can't go on xbox live without wireless like, but it's handy to to watch movies and that on your 360 with wifi.

I thought they were going to resign before the season started.

Have a nose around here. http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/the-medi...-everyday-life/ Yes....that book. Always happy to have a new blog to read. Ta