Privatise the NHS

[Guest alex]

Basically if society has come anywhere (it hasn't) then healthcare should be free. End of story.

Sounds nice but is essentially meaningless in the real world. Absolutely nothing of this nature is 'free', nor can it be.

[Fop 1]

I'm more interested in the wild ramblings of nutters than informed opionion.

Stating the obvious tbf.

 

It's good to have some core to a debate ie Chez's well founded knowledge of the drugs industry or HP on IT or whatever....But after that let's throw the plates at the wall yeah...

 

He's good at the PR , but then he should be.

 

But basically most of it is just pulled out of his ass (as most PR and much economic forecasts are - hence our current situation), as the "example" of a HIV quite clearly vaccine shows.

 

 

Basically if society has come anywhere (it hasn't) then healthcare should be free. End of story.

Well it can't be free, of course, but free at the point of need yup. There's no reason an NHS model can't or shouldn't be able to work in the right circumstances, which (with similarities to Singapore) probably needs to go right down to the basics of the UK welfare model for a good sort out and remodel.

[manc-mag 1]

Aimed at Rob, Leazes or both?

Leazes is class when he comes on pissed anyway and calls everyone a 'cunt'.

 

Spot on. It was deliberately left as an 'open letter', but you can add Fop to the list too.

 

Hilarious how they profess some of the strongest opinions on here but time and again fold under cross examination from someone with any actual expertise in a subject.

 

No coincidence either that these are all too scared to admit what they do in their professional life.

 

what does "what they do in their professional life" have to do with who is making a correct comment and who isn't ?

 

Fact is that Renton is a dick for the simple reason that anybody who disagrees with him is instantly deemed to "lack intelligence/be a thick cunt/uneducated.....blah blah, delete as appropriate.

 

Most of us have been around a bit, some have their heads in the sand, some don't.

 

FOP appears pretty confident he knows more than rent boy regarding what is being discussed in this thread, so who's to say he is wrong ?

 

What is indisputable is that Renton knows fuck all about football, especially compared to me.

 

The reference to professional credentials was to do with the fact that Fop and Rob purposely omit to answer that question when it is directly asked of them. They do this because they feel that it allows them to pontificate anecdotally on subjects they don't have any real forensic knowledge of.

 

To answer your question more specifically however, on (to give an example) healthcare, Fop freely disputes clinical issues with a qualified doctor (Luke) and non-clinical/funding issues of pharmaceutical companies with someone who is dirctly employed in the sector (Chez). Now that's not determinative of who is right in a debate, but lets just say if I was relying on someone's judgment as a layperson, I know who it would be in either scenario. To put it simply, it would be fucking idiotic to do otherwise.

 

PS Leazes, nowt personal and I'm not being funny or owt, but you're a grown man (50 as I understand) who's spat his dummy and 'left' the forum on several occasions when your logic has been shown to be defective in various arguments, so this is all a bit rich coming from you.

 

 

 

Like I said I'm sure I've mentioned it.

 

However these days it:

 

1. annoys a load of the usual suspects immensely.

 

2. would only be used as a bludgeon no matter what I do and have done, so Sun Tzu would approve.

 

 

So basically;

 

it just makes you look a bit sad tbh.

[Happy Face 29]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree).

 

 

But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with.

 

I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view.

 

Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

[Fop 1]

Aimed at Rob, Leazes or both?

Leazes is class when he comes on pissed anyway and calls everyone a 'cunt'.

 

Spot on. It was deliberately left as an 'open letter', but you can add Fop to the list too.

 

Hilarious how they profess some of the strongest opinions on here but time and again fold under cross examination from someone with any actual expertise in a subject.

 

No coincidence either that these are all too scared to admit what they do in their professional life.

 

what does "what they do in their professional life" have to do with who is making a correct comment and who isn't ?

 

Fact is that Renton is a dick for the simple reason that anybody who disagrees with him is instantly deemed to "lack intelligence/be a thick cunt/uneducated.....blah blah, delete as appropriate.

 

Most of us have been around a bit, some have their heads in the sand, some don't.

 

FOP appears pretty confident he knows more than rent boy regarding what is being discussed in this thread, so who's to say he is wrong ?

 

What is indisputable is that Renton knows fuck all about football, especially compared to me.

 

The reference to professional credentials was to do with the fact that Fop and Rob purposely omit to answer that question when it is directly asked of them. They do this because they feel that it allows them to pontificate anecdotally on subjects they don't have any real forensic knowledge of.

 

To answer your question more specifically however, on (to give an example) healthcare, Fop freely disputes clinical issues with a qualified doctor (Luke) and non-clinical/funding issues of pharmaceutical companies with someone who is dirctly employed in the sector (Chez). Now that's not determinative of who is right in a debate, but lets just say if I was relying on someone's judgment as a layperson, I know who it would be in either scenario. To put it simply, it would be fucking idiotic to do otherwise.

 

PS Leazes, nowt personal and I'm not being funny or owt, but you're a grown man (50 as I understand) who's spat his dummy and 'left' the forum on several occasions when your logic has been shown to be defective in various arguments, so this is all a bit rich coming from you.

 

 

 

Like I said I'm sure I've mentioned it.

 

However these days it:

 

1. annoys a load of the usual suspects immensely.

 

2. would only be used as a bludgeon no matter what I do and have done, so Sun Tzu would approve.

 

 

So basically;

 

it just makes you look a bit sad tbh.

Sad and desperate, what a pair we make eh?

[Fop 1]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree).

 

 

But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with.

 

I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view.

 

Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

But only because you disagreed with him.

[Happy Face 29]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree).

 

 

But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with.

 

I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view.

 

Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

But only because you disagreed with him.

 

 

Perfect example

 

Only what?

 

Disagreed with who?

[Park Life 71]

Basically if society has come anywhere (it hasn't) then healthcare should be free. End of story.

Sounds nice but is essentially meaningless in the real world. Absolutely nothing of this nature is 'free', nor can it be.

[Fop 1]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree).

 

 

But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with.

 

I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view.

 

Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

But only because you disagreed with him.

 

 

Perfect example

 

Only what?

 

Disagreed with who?

 

See chance to start an argument with me and you're all over it no matter how tit for tat and utterly boring. (anyway amuse yourself for a few hours now )

[Park Life 71]

[manc-mag 1]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree).

 

 

But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with.

 

I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view.

 

Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

But only because you disagreed with him.

 

 

Perfect example

 

Only what?

 

Disagreed with who?

 

See chance to start an argument with me and you're all over it no matter how tit for tat and utterly boring. (anyway amuse yourself for a few hours now )

 

By contrast, Fop the picture of restraint by leaving all posts well alone

[Guest alex]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree).

 

 

But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with.

 

I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view.

 

Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

But only because you disagreed with him.

 

 

Perfect example

 

Only what?

 

Disagreed with who?

 

See chance to start an argument with me and you're all over it no matter how tit for tat and utterly boring. (anyway amuse yourself for a few hours now )

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=544117

What a hypocrite.

[manc-mag 1]

I think whatever else (and people can argue til they're blue in the face on here) it's clear that Fop is an incorrigible hypocrite.

 

I say incorrigible quite deliberately, as I think he genuinely doesnt see it himself and speculate that this might be due to some form of mental incapacity.

[Park Life 71]

I think whatever else (and people can argue til they're blue in the face on here) it's clear that Fop is an incorrigible hypocrite.

 

I say incorrigible quite deliberately, as I think he genuinely doesnt see it himself and speculate that this might be due to some form of mental incapacity.

[Happy Face 29]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree).

 

 

But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with.

 

I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view.

 

Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

But only because you disagreed with him.

 

 

Perfect example

 

Only what?

 

Disagreed with who?

 

See chance to start an argument with me and you're all over it no matter how tit for tat and utterly boring. (anyway amuse yourself for a few hours now )

 

You didn't answer the questions.

 

Textbook

[Renton 18068]

Aimed at Rob, Leazes or both?

Leazes is class when he comes on pissed anyway and calls everyone a 'cunt'.

 

Spot on. It was deliberately left as an 'open letter', but you can add Fop to the list too.

 

Hilarious how they profess some of the strongest opinions on here but time and again fold under cross examination from someone with any actual expertise in a subject.

 

No coincidence either that these are all too scared to admit what they do in their professional life.

 

what does "what they do in their professional life" have to do with who is making a correct comment and who isn't ?

 

Fact is that Renton is a dick for the simple reason that anybody who disagrees with him is instantly deemed to "lack intelligence/be a thick cunt/uneducated.....blah blah, delete as appropriate.

 

Most of us have been around a bit, some have their heads in the sand, some don't.

 

FOP appears pretty confident he knows more than rent boy regarding what is being discussed in this thread, so who's to say he is wrong ?

 

What is indisputable is that Renton knows fuck all about football, especially compared to me.

 

See that's quite funny, because in the majority of cases I've agreed with you with regard to what happens on a football pitch, in the past you have even claimed words to the effect that I was the most clued up on the board with the exception of your good self. But because I disagreed with you about Shepherd, suddenly I know nothing. So what does that say about you?

 

Anyway, you may have noticed this isn't a football thread, so please don't try and derail it. It's also one of the few threads I have bothered to post in in General chat even, precisely because it is relevant to my present career, but also is pertinent to what I want to do in the future. I've stated what I do (pretty much drug evaluation most of the time), yourself and Fop haven't.

 

So, are you seriously saying what a person does for a living should have no bearing on the likelihood of their opinion being at least factually correct, and are you saying a google merchant wum like Fop should be treated seriously, even when it is clear (surely to any 'neutral') he has no knowledge of what he is talking about, and continuously ducks questions whilst accusing others of doing the same (does that sound familiar btw?). Take his response to Chez in post 447 - that would be sad even by your standards.

 

Anyway, your problem always has been you have a massive chip on your shoulder, it seems to be eating away at you and turning you borderline sociopathic. Oh, and once again, you should check who is making the insults in this thread, try and find when was the last time I called someone a thick cunt while you're at it. In a way it's a pity you can't find something to argue about with Fop, you would most probably both disappear in a non-ending circular thread, disappearing up your own arseholes for all eternity.

[ChezGiven 0]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

[Renton 18068]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Perhaps we need a 'Conflict of interest' disclaimer on Toontastic so people like you can be barred from these types of threads, you evil-pharma bastard.

 

I think you got the order wrong mind, pathetic would be at the start of my list.

[manc-mag 1]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

My comments weren't speaking to your salary or commercial allegiances btw, they were speaking to the forensic as opposed to anecdotal knowledge that goes hand-in-hand with membership of a particular profession.

 

Fwiw though, I wouldn't mind your salary.

[ChezGiven 0]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Perhaps we need a 'Conflict of interest' disclaimer on Toontastic so people like you can be barred from these types of threads, you evil-pharma bastard.

 

I think you got the order wrong mind, pathetic would be at the start of my list.

 

True but i'm offended by Parky/fop/Happy Face's insinuation that i'm incapable of independent thought and the frankly absurd notion that i'd spend my time on here posting some sort of 'party line' on this debate. If you step back and think about it, its a really fucking stupid perspective to have regarding an online debate on toontastic.

[manc-mag 1]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Perhaps we need a 'Conflict of interest' disclaimer on Toontastic so people like you can be barred from these types of threads, you evil-pharma bastard.

 

I think you got the order wrong mind, pathetic would be at the start of my list.

 

True but i'm offended by Parky/fop/Happy Face's insinuation that i'm incapable of independent thought and the frankly absurd notion that i'd spend my time on here posting some sort of 'party line' on this debate. If you step back and think about it, its a really fucking stupid perspective to have regarding an online debate on toontastic.

 

Pharma Palmer tbh.

[Renton 18068]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Perhaps we need a 'Conflict of interest' disclaimer on Toontastic so people like you can be barred from these types of threads, you evil-pharma bastard.

 

I think you got the order wrong mind, pathetic would be at the start of my list.

 

True but i'm offended by Parky/fop/Happy Face's insinuation that i'm incapable of independent thought and the frankly absurd notion that i'd spend my time on here posting some sort of 'party line' on this debate. If you step back and think about it, its a really fucking stupid perspective to have regarding an online debate on toontastic.

 

As it happens, I've come across several forums (usually patient ones) where anyone who comes up with some EBM type comments (usually eminently sensible) has been labelled a 'pharma troll'. You'd expect different on toontastic like, still sure HF and Parky didn't mean offence and merely used it as a desperate tactic to downplay your posts.

 

Fop can't even comment without stating what he does imo.

[Renton 18068]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Perhaps we need a 'Conflict of interest' disclaimer on Toontastic so people like you can be barred from these types of threads, you evil-pharma bastard.

 

I think you got the order wrong mind, pathetic would be at the start of my list.

 

True but i'm offended by Parky/fop/Happy Face's insinuation that i'm incapable of independent thought and the frankly absurd notion that i'd spend my time on here posting some sort of 'party line' on this debate. If you step back and think about it, its a really fucking stupid perspective to have regarding an online debate on toontastic.

 

Pharma Palmer tbh.

 

 

Excellent.

[ChezGiven 0]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Perhaps we need a 'Conflict of interest' disclaimer on Toontastic so people like you can be barred from these types of threads, you evil-pharma bastard.

 

I think you got the order wrong mind, pathetic would be at the start of my list.

 

True but i'm offended by Parky/fop/Happy Face's insinuation that i'm incapable of independent thought and the frankly absurd notion that i'd spend my time on here posting some sort of 'party line' on this debate. If you step back and think about it, its a really fucking stupid perspective to have regarding an online debate on toontastic.

 

Pharma Palmer tbh.

 

Face Palm tbh.

 

[Happy Face 29]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views.

 

If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Happy Face