No Healthcare for Smokers,Drinkers,Fat,Old..

Agreed!:bravo: VERY admirable!
Hmmm, I wonder how I can get my husband knocked up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which is the epitome of the greed. I'll address this stupid notion in the Religion forum sometime soon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

but, but, what!?!! that means I can kill, torture, steal, etc and as long as I accept Jesus as my lord and savior as I sit in the electric chair, I'm ok.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let it be, Orleander. Please? I said I'll get to it in the Religion forum, and we can all have it out there. While I agree with your point, it invites a theological debate that is off-topic and better suited for the religion forum. I mean, while I think that particular outlook on religious faith is unethical, long experience at Sciforums suggests that the discussion of those points cannot be contained strictly to the ethical, so I'd prefer keep this topic working in the realm of its original subject. My official opinion, were I to put on my green cap is that Avatar's post is valid, although mistaken as I noted, and that while people are welcome to disagree with my assessment of the fundamental nature of redemptive monotheistic faith, the particular theological fallacy offered is useless at best. While there is only one truly unforgivable sin, belief in Jesus (according to the famous John 3.16, for instance) means much more than Sandy's puerile retort. For that reason, the issue is best saved for its own discussion in the Religion forum.

And don't think anyone has to wait for me on that. I just don't feel like writing the argument right now.

 

according to the NHS you have to try to stop smoking at least 8 times before you actually succeed.

and has far as me now knowing about drinking, you are so wrong there, i have alcaholics in my family, and i know first hand what it is like to live with them and watch them break the habit of drinking, my father was a very very bad drunk, and i myself have been warned about how much i drink just in case i get addicted, (not that i will because i dont drink all the time), so please before you pass assumptions about me now knowing about alcaholism i know it well, and perhaps you should bear in mind that you shouldnt accuse people of not knowing about things

 

Even when 'He' demonstrated basic socialism, dividing up the loaves and fishes, and commanded that his followers sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor?

Rich people have as much chance of getting into heaven, as a camel does passing through the eye of a needle, 'Sandy', so you aren't getting in.

Anyway, like I keep saying, give up the persona, and claim prize as the longest running SF sockpuppet. You must be tired of coming up with all the bile.

Mod Note — I had forgotten all about that crack of hers. If someone wants to start the topic in the Religion forum, great. Meantime, let's leave it be. I didn't tack that theological balbutive to the wall in here because I'm not wasting this topic on that part of the discussion.

Oh, right ... um ... yeah. About the sock-puppet thing? C'mon, man. It's waaaaay off-topic, y'know?

 

How can the sock puppet thing be off topic, when I am convinced 'Sandy' is a sock puppet? Every post is inflammatory, and 'Sandy' knows the reaction it will receive. That is the very definition of trolling, and trolling is most often done by sock puppets, so they can later reveal how clever they were at fooling us.

 

Mod Hat - Response

Mod Hat — Response

Because this topic is about healthcare, not sock-puppets. Well, that's the simple answer.

Another point worth making up front is relates to Fraggle's response. Look, you think she trolls, I think she trolls, and as Fraggle notes, "plenty of trolling is done by members in bare feet". Perhaps in this case, a word like "marionette" would be more suitable for your intentions; "sock-puppet" has a fairly specific definition around here.

And while you or I might find at least a bit scary the idea that, again as Fraggle expresses, "she is pretty close to who she says she is", that really is a discussion for another day, another context, another topic.

I would encourage subtlety. Especially as I'm given to the notion that folks on your side of the Pond are better-acquainted with it than my American neighbors.

You don't have to like her. I don't.

You don't have to think she's smart. I don't.

You don't have to think she's honest or genuine. I certainly don't.

You can believe she's sinister, retarded, pathological, whatever. But those points all fall beyond the bounds of relevant discussion. And, yes, our rules do prohibit the establishment of a "Sandy is a moron" topic. Life goes on. Find another way to take your jabs. Given what she will complain about as a "personal" attack, there really is no need to be so direct about it. The community generally has our support regarding individuals who go out of their way to be mean, rude, stupid, or otherwise useless and disruptive.

But, to borrow one last phrase from Fraggle, we do resent "constantly having to spring to her defense because people keep derailing threads in order to rag on her".

One of the reasons I haven't gotten around to actually starting the Religion topic is that I keep hoping someone else will. Perhaps it sounds arrogant, but I really don't enjoy dwelling on such balbutive. While such stupidity is, in fact, detrimental to our communities both online and in life, it feels pointless to take up over and over such theological minutiae. To the one, the people who spout such moronic summaries of religious faith don't actually care how wrong, how contradictory, they are being. To the other, beating a dead horse is at once useless and perverse, and eventually it gets really, really boring.

Like I said once upon a time, I don't care if you have to think of it in terms of, "At what point would I actually beat up the retarded kid?"

So please, please, please ... we don't like protecting agitators. So make your slings and arrows a bit more subtle.

Thank you.

 

I personally am convinced, and I have asked 'Sandy' if it's time to claim her prize. Note how she has not denied she is a sock puppet, she just avoids the thread.

Assertion? Saying I am convinced, and asking 'Sandy' if it's time to come clean? OK, so the second time I said it, I wasn't asking so much, but if you read the thread, it's all in context, and 'Sandy' has not denied she is a sock puppet.

Does it? I thought it was cold hard fact that the USA is ranked #37 in the WHO healthcare rankings, and that socialised systems ranked higher. Those are facts, not emotions. Facts 'Sandy' avoids, btw.

 

Mod Hat - Oh, for fuck's sake!

Mod Hat — Oh, for f@ck's sake!

:wallbang:

Phlog?

Come on, man. We know. We're aware. Let it go.

If you want to send me the details of your theory (namely whose sock-puppet she is), by all means do so.

In the meantime, the moderators of this community are aware of her conduct. And no, it's not always clear why we put up with such behavior. But this is the way it's worked out, and I'm going to postulate that we're simply not willing to rewrite the rules because one person has searched long and hard enough to find a way to tiptoe around without directly insulting any individual member. That she aims to be inflammatory is obvious, and the moderators have, indeed, discussed the situation before. And as near as I can tell, the truth of the matter seems to be that she's not worth it.

That's all there is to it. If it is so important to her to be spiteful, that's her business. There are plenty of two-bit hatemongers in the world, and if we let someone like this get so far under our skin, then we never stood a chance from the outset. Again, I urge subtlety. As you well know, it is not impossible to skewer hearts and souls around here. But there is nothing subtle about a bludgeoning.

So let it go for now. There will be plenty of opportunities for driving the nails. She provides them almost daily. But this is neither the time nor the place. Your method is definitively flawed. So I must ask you to cease and desist this particular attack, so that I do not find myself obliged to escalate my defense of this second-tier, washed-up, cheerleader shill.

Got it?

Wonderful.

Thank you.

 

I don't know what year the world health organization (WHO) rated this, but here is its ratings on health care, in case nobody has posted it yet.
Way to go health care in america!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You might notice all the countries with "socialized" medicine that rank higher.
That being said Australia isn't much higher, however a lot of the

25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei

 

Huwy

Unfortuantly thats for three reasons

Reason 1 the Apaling life expectancy of the aborigional population
Reason 2 the fall in FEDERAL funding for the health care system under Howard (hopefully this will pick up now)
Reason 3 the lack of universal dental, preventive care, ect that all the other countries have

Unfortanly we are stuck to close to the american model because of a goverment who admires the US WAY to much

We SHOULD be modling on the french system.

The good news is some of those things will be fixed (we hope), preventive care is getting the exposure it needs, the Rudd goverment is re introducing the comonwealth dental scheam, as of yesterday there is going to be a large focus of indigionous health and the states wont let Rudd ignore the hospital funding either

Hopefully in a few years we climb back up that list