ChezGiven

Saw a progreamme about it healthcareboy. Parky saw a progreamme on it. That's Chez telt. Think i may have to resign.

I don't think you've thought that through This might help him.

This is the crux about it like, forget any equitable notions, the US spends almost twice as much as their GDP on healthcare as we do and don't receive anywhere near twice the quality of care (using just about any indicator available). It has to change or the country will bankrupt themselves. Which I would find quite amusing were it not for the millions who have almost no healthcare there. Is total healthcare spend being reduced or the federal deficit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_r...ional_proposals Exactly. Total spend is going UP. Of course it is, to cover millions of more people. It has to. Rather than subsidise it by raising taxes, providing a government run alternative or imposing meaningful restrictions on insurers or big pharma, the deficit is being shifted to the poorest 40 million consumers by holding a gun to their head and forcing them to pay. Anyway, this all gets away from the point. What's on the table is better than nothing. It covers millions of people that wouldn't be covered. Small mercies and that. But the fact that it benefits big business financially and only costs the poorest citizens (the poorest just above the popverty line) is what Obama was aiming for all along. Thats called 'raising taxes'. How else do you think these curves cross the negative for the long-temr budget impact?

This is the crux about it like, forget any equitable notions, the US spends almost twice as much as their GDP on healthcare as we do and don't receive anywhere near twice the quality of care (using just about any indicator available). It has to change or the country will bankrupt themselves. Which I would find quite amusing were it not for the millions who have almost no healthcare there. Is total healthcare spend being reduced or the federal deficit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_r...ional_proposals What does 'demand' for a product mean when it cant be prescibed unless it is "indicated" under FDA regulation? You could cite Bextra and Pfizer but the real impact of that case on patients was minimal. If you are 'indicated' for a treatment that means there is a real medical condition and a real medical need. Advertising the drugs just gets patients off their arse or asking for a treatment which they have an exisitng need for. Generics take up more of the drugs bill than branded, we've been over this before though.

Part 1, photo 13

And its irrelevant.

No they dont.

Its been snowing for the last couple of days here. For those who complain about Britain 'grinding to a halt' when we get a smattering of snow, you'll be pleased to hear that Paris was at a standstill yesterday. My mate spent 5 hours in the car, 3 trying to get to work and 2 giving up and going home. Trains cancelled, metros on random service, gridlock on the roads. We had about 2 inches if that.

Whoa there tiger. Someone's been listening to a bit too much angsty teen rock this morning! Fuck you i wont do... etc etc.

Eh? Her point is vaild, why should US consumers determine our no.1? If this facebook group is US based they can all fuck off, i'll be buying the x-factor single out of protest.

"Fuck you i wont tidy my bedroom!"

You'd like to think it was a fight he couldn't win and backed down on. Unfortunately there's no backdown involved. The point of the article is this is what Obama has aimed for from the get go....and that's not an idea that the author has just concocted after the fact, it's what he's been saying since all the evidence suggested it back in August. He assumes that there has been no strategy to overcome republican filibustering, which is just stupid. Through this prism, Obama looks like he has wanted his solution all along. In fact, thats an incredibly facile argument and there is absolutely no way that that blogger has been predicting the economic content of the final bill that eventually passes. Details within it will reveal changes in incentive mechanisms which will have predicted downstream financial consequences, some good, some bad, some neutral. He doent know what impact they will have yet. "The legislation, which was outlined in a 2,074-page document, is said by Democratic aides to reduce deficits by $127bn (£76bn) over a decade and by as much as $650bn (£389bn) in the 10 years after that." The real point of healthcare reform is to support the insurance and pharma companies as they employ millions of americans whilst at the same time introduce financial reform to cut costs whilst at the same time, try to increase coverage for americans. The impetus for reform was not the increased coverage, it was the basic financial/economic forecast that showed if the US system didnt change, 1 in 3 of every dollars spent in the US would be on healthcare. Thats disastrous for everyone. However, all this is academic as at present we still have two separare bills (as far as i am aware, i've been off work for 10 weeks) which still have to be amalgamated before it gets in front of Obama.

I'm going to wait until the full details are public but it being the status quo is only the view of one man as far as i can see.

The rising stock prices are driven by the same idiots who presided over the financial crisis, these guys arent deep thinkers, the logic goes like this: "No public option! Gumph! Buy Blue Shied!!111!@@21!"

Republican? The anti-Obama agenda isn't controlled by the far left, its the far right that feeds them.

You really do buy into the Republican clap-trap dont you?

That whole article is based on the opinion, expressed in one sentence, of a marginal senator who uses the word 'appears' quite judisciously to conclude that Obama can do what he wants, there is no such thing as filibustering in washington, there is just Obama and his desires. They need Lieberman or all of this will fail. Thats right, the 60-40 senate requirement hands all of the power to Lieberman, not Obama. As Obama says, why let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Get Lieberman onside, get the bill passed and tweak it in the second term when no-one is really watching. The bill will (apparently) prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropping customers who fall ill. Thats not going to help the insurance companies. Nor will opening up exchanges for insurance coverage for those working but not offered health care by the company they work for. Those competitive exchanges will drive down prices and allow people to select basic coverage to meet their needs.

Unfortunately i've not seen enough games at SJP this season to judge him properly on his overall performances across this season. I'll defer to your better judgement on this.

"Fuck you i wont do what you tell me" is as vacuous as the shite that Cowell churns out. Nae offence and all that but it was cringeworthy when it came out for its faux-punk pre-pubescent attitude.

It doesn't work like that though, does it? I don't even think he's been our best performer either. The player that determines who are the best team (defined by league position) is (arguably) by definition, the league's best player. He can run around in circles screaming in swahili for 89 minutes, if he continues to put points on the board and by extension keep us top, he is the best player we have. I wouldnt for one minute argue that he has better technique than Enrique but he is either just very lucky or his movement and finishing are his excellent attributes.

Arguably we wouldnt be top without him which by extension would make him the best player in the league.

U2 - Boy, Adam & The Ants - Kings of the Wild Frontier, The Police -Zenyatta Mondatta - all in 1981 iirc. I also remember buying Like a Virgin too but that was a few years later. I bought some Thompson Twins stuff in the same period, again no idea exactly when, probably a bit later than 81.

One of the most astounding facts about the US economy i ever read (in Tim Harford's first book) was that since something like the beginning of the 1970s, the US economy has last just under 300 million jobs. In that same period, it created just over 300 million jobs. I'll have to check the book to get the exact figures. As Krugman says, Clinton created 20 million jobs in 7 years. The state of panic around the impossibility of the task seems to be perpetuated (like the war, swine flu and Mike Ashley's impending bankrupcy ) to keep us throwing money at the wealthiest people that fucked up in the first place. If you don't keep the wealthy onside you don't win the election. At any other moment I'd completely agree. But Obama had a chance. He won the election at a canter. He had both houses in his back pocket. The entire country was seething at the bailout, job losses, tax reductions for the wealthiest, war profiteering and lack of investment at home. There was overwhelming public support to force the trickle down that capitalism promises but which in practice, it only reduces. Obama has alienated his entire liberal base with his 'bipartisan' approach. That will be more dangerous to him in the next election than alienating Lloyd Blankfein and Glen Beck. EDIT: I realise that a lot of blame has to go to the house that waters down any and every bill presented and Obama absolutley cannot force through anything single handedly.....the problem is with the appointments he's personally made and people he's thrown out and the limits he's imposed on the options he gets to hear. Could it be that his political strategy is to take his time and minmise the amount of artillery he hands his ferocious opponents on the far right during the first 24 months to dispel their idiotic rhetoric of him being a threat to their way of life? Things can get worse in the US and Obama can still make political capital out of this. None of the current economic or military woes are his doing but changing them overnight could be firstly very costly (as there are no quick solutions in reality) and secondly run the risk of him not pulling any reform success through to the next election. He may not be so bi-partisan in a second term in office either. EDIT - that first sentence/question is badly worded.

One of the most astounding facts about the US economy i ever read (in Tim Harford's first book) was that since something like the beginning of the 1970s, the US economy has last just under 300 million jobs. In that same period, it created just over 300 million jobs. I'll have to check the book to get the exact figures.

Double celebration for the lad, his birthday AND his favourite X-factor contestant won. He'll be made up.