Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Isn't the rails nationalised in Switzerland?

But the swiss are different.

I was probably putting the train thing in context of America.
I was probably jumping to conclusions too, as I have absolutely no knowledge of the brit train systems.
Amtrak is not very good, if I'm honest. I guess local governments do better jobs of it. I'm not sure whether it is private or public (I think public), but my experience with services like Metrolink have been brilliant.
 
Isn't the rails nationalised in Switzerland?
They are and always will be by the looks of things (technically it's a special stock corporation with shares split between the confederation and the cantons).

The swiss has this to say about UK rail.
Some observers ? including the head of the Swiss Federal Railways, widely regarded as one of the best railways in the world ? still argue that the whole idea of separating track from train operations in this way is fundamentally misconceived, being based on the model of air transport, where the infrastructure, engineering and operational considerations are entirely different. On this view, the rail/wheel interface is an integral entity at the heart of what makes railways function, and hence the worst possible point at which to make a split, especially on an intensively-worked but multifunctional network such as Britain's.
 
MELISSA BLOCK, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block.

ROBERT SIEGEL, host: And I'm Robert Siegel.

First this hour, some striking results from a survey of how doctors view the health care overhaul. At a time when support for the so-called public option is dwindling, a large majority of doctors say there should be a public option.

NPR's Joseph Shapiro explains.

JOSEPH SHAPIRO: Two researchers from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York conducted a random survey by mail and by phone of more than 2,100 doctors. They collected the results from June right up to early September. Dr. Salomeh Keyhani says what she found shows that the majority of physicians support a public option.

Dr. SALOMEH KEYHANI (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York): Nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance option.

SHAPIRO: Most doctors - 63 percent - say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only. They'd like to see a single-payer health care system. The two groups together add up to 73 percent.

When the American public is polled, anywhere from 50 to 70 percent favor a public option. So that means when compared to their patients, doctors are bigger supporters of a public option.

Dr. ALEX FEDERMAN (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York): We even saw that support being the same whether physicians lived in rural areas or metropolitan areas.

SHAPIRO: Dr. Alex Federman, he's also an internist and researcher at Mount Sinai, is the study's co-author.

Dr. FEDERMAN: Whether they lived in southern regions of the United States or traditionally liberal parts of the country.

Dr. KEYHANI: We found that physicians, regardless, whether they were salaried or they were practice owners, regardless of whether they were specialists or primary care providers, regardless of where they lived, the support for the public option was broad and widespread.

SHAPIRO: Keyhani says doctors already have experience with government-run health care, with Medicare. And she says the survey shows, overall, they like it.

Dr. KEYHANI: We've heard a lot about how the government is standing in between patients and their physician, and what we can see is that physicians support Medicare. So I think physicians have sort of signaled that a public option that's similar in design to Medicare would be a good way of ensuring patients get the care that they need.

SHAPIRO: The survey was published online today by the New England Journal of Medicine and it was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health care research organization that favors health reform. The survey even found widespread support for a public option among doctors who are members of the American Medical Association, a group that's opposed to it. The AMA fears a public option eventually could lead to government putting more limits on doctors' fees.

Keyhani and Federman belong to another smaller group, the National Physicians Alliance. It supports a public option. And Keyhani has spoken publicly about her own support for a public option. Dr. James Rohack is president of the AMA. He says it's hard to know for sure what doctors mean when they speak about a public option.

Dr. JAMES ROHACK (President, American Medical Association): Because when I say public option or you say public option, it means different things to different people. It's kind of like the Rorschach ink blot test - when you look at it, to some people it means one thing, to other people it means the other thing.

SHAPIRO: The AMA's own position on a health overhaul has at times been hard to pinpoint. In July it praised the bill that came out of the House of Representatives. That bill included a public option, but the AMA made it clear that what it really liked was that it eliminated cuts in doctors' fees from Medicare.

Dr. ROHACK: And so I think that's why we have to be very clear about what does the AMA articulate for. It's to make sure that everyone has coverage that's affordable, that's portable and that is quality. That is, it covers the things you need to cover because you've got a medical condition or developed a medical illness.

SHAPIRO: Politicians in Washington turn to the AMA for support and guidance, even though fewer than a third of doctors belong to the lobbying group.

Joseph Shapiro, NPR News.

SIEGEL: And we should note that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which funded the doctors' survey also supports NPR.
 
Last edited:
See, this is why I hate people.

https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blaro/2009/09/15/noname.jpg

Yeah. Yeah. You would think that if you watched the fascist lies of the media that's been fabricated by the military-industrial news corporations. Typical. Open your eyes, sheeple!


Seen on campus at SU, by the library. "'Hope and change' not the same, 9/11 was an inside job."
 
Last edited:
funny....the majority of the doctors here don't seem to approve of it.

Funnily enough, round here, all doctors seem to approve of it, well, the Norwegian version of it anyway.
 
SNIP
Lots of very important information and actual real facts...

But none of that matters because people will just scream...

ITS TEH SOCIALISM THEY ARE FACIST NAZIS AND WANT TO KILL GRANDMAA DEATH PANELS RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

I wouldn't support a single payer system as I think it would stifle medical innovation which is one of the few things the US medical system is actually good at. A public option to provide a floor for people who can't afford the ridiculous prices of individual and small group insurance is a good idea I would support.

The individual and small group insurance pools in this country are hopelessly broken. The regular insurance system is in bad shape, see my posts about my own ongoing battle with my insurance company for details, but the individual/small group market is a complete disaster.
 
But none of that matters because people will just scream...

ITS TEH SOCIALISM THEY ARE FACIST NAZIS AND WANT TO KILL GRANDMAA DEATH PANELS RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

The daft thing is, the really daft thing is that the CEO of one of the healthcare companies pockets $12 million in salary this year. He has a $70 million pension pot. he industry as a whole is spending $1 million a day in funding adverts and supporting people like Joe Wilson.

And these fucking idiots are too stupid to figure out where that money is coming from.

Maybe they'll finally get it when their insurance company refuses to pay out on something.
 
I've been very silly. I've been watching the videos from the G20 protests. It's a pet peve of mine, police violence. I despice it.

But, of course, watching those videos does make you grumpy, and they aren't very objective. So, what I'm asking is just.. is the census in the UK that the police really handled that protests that poorly?
 
But, of course, watching those videos does make you grumpy, and they aren't very objective. So, what I'm asking is just.. is the census in the UK that the police really handled that protests that poorly?

Hell yes.

There was a media furore over it, partly due to the death of one of the protesters and partly due to the police using the 'kettling' technique.
 
Yup, I know of that death, it was relatively widely covered in Norwegian media too.

I've been reading up on what happened, and it would appear like there was peaceful protesters that was baton charged by traffic officers with helmets and shieldes, and the videos seem to show extreme excess of violence. I've read eye witness accounts that described a bunch of good mannered protesters. Until the police arrived and baton charged it.

Ian Hislop remarked in Have I got news for you that, "the police seem to forget that when you put something in a kettle, then boil it, it gets REALLY HOT". He's got his wit, after all.

But I must say it seems a complete disgrace that police can get away with stuff like that. To be honest, I'm not after the individual cops, they're probably just getting into some mob induced adrenaline fueled mentality, one best described by a Swedish cop after the G8 meeting in G?teborg/Gothenburg in 2001, "I just hit anyone without a uniform". Who was behind this strategy? And why the HELL does he still have a job?

And while I'm at it.. please kick anyone who threatens press photographers with arrest if they don't stop taking photos the hell out of the police force. That's sickening.
 
I disagree with Teeb on this - some of these protesters were just trouble makers and had to be controlled - mostly stupid people.

Now on the case of some individual acts of stupidity by the Police _ I can not say how much I feel that these should be stamped upon - allowing Police officers to operate without their numbers displayed - the superintendents should get the sack for that!

The assaults should be pursued vigoursly, to the ultimate conclusion - this is not a Police state, nor is Policing a joke - do it right - you remember like you used to!
 
Yes, there were some jobs, but I haven't really seen any documentation of widespread violence from protesters. It would seem that most of the police action were directed on protesters who didn't act violently. There seems like the protesters charging that bank were left to their own devices (I won't speculate about why), while people who were protesting without violence was kettled, and when they could not move, they were hit with batons by police officers who got grumpy.

Why was that environmental camp baton charged, for instance? Every single observer reported that it was peaceful.

Edit: And oh, for what possible reason would a police inspector threathen press photographers with arrest if they didn't move away for 30 minutes? Would that not indicate a quite stupid attempt on giving the officers better freedom to assault protesters without the chance of being photographed?

Some of the tactics that were used did not differ in any way from football hooligans, and I would say one should start to think weather it's time one reasess the way the police force acts in situations like these.
 
Last edited:
And another thing - Mrs Thatcher never existed!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/19/forbes-powerful-women-list

and another entry. ...

"Harriet Harman's officials have been forced to change a government fact sheet celebrating "women in power" which did not name Margaret Thatcher.
The Equalities Office "milestones" list names Labour politicians like Diane Abbott and Baroness Scotland.
But it did not mention Lady Thatcher by name, saying only: "1979: UK's first woman prime minister".
An Equalities Office spokesman said: "We have acknowledged the oversight and have taken steps to amend it."
He said Lady Thatcher's name would be added to the document, one of a number of fact sheets produced by officials in Ms Harman's Government Equalities Office celebrating the achievements of women and ethnic minorities.
Asked whether the "Women in Power: Milestones" list, which is on the Equalities Office website, was an example of party political bias in a government document, he said: "There really isn't much more to say about this."
The fact sheet begins in 1907 with "First woman councillor elected in Britain - Reina Emily Lawrence" through to modern firsts for women such as Labour peer Baroness Uddin becoming the "first Muslim woman in the House of Lords" in 1998 and Labour's Baroness Amos becoming the first black woman Cabinet member in 2003.
In addition to being the first female prime minister, Lady Thatcher was also the first woman to lead a British political party when she took over the Conservatives in 1975 and the 20th century's longest serving prime minister, winning three general elections.
Here is the full un-amended list of "women in power" that was published on the government website:
Women in Power: Milestones
1907 First woman councillor elected in Britain - Reina Emily Lawrence
1918 Women over 30 have the right to vote
1918 Parliamentary Qualification of Women Act passed - enabling women to stand as a Members of Parliament
1919 First woman to take a seat in Parliament - Nancy Astor
1928 Vote given to women on same terms as men
1958 Life Peerages Act entitles women to sit in House of Lords Lady Reading and Baroness Barbara Wooton first to take seats
1960 First female Head of Government - Sirimavo Bandaranaike,
Prime Minister of Sri Lanka
1970 Equal Pay Act
1975 Sex Discrimination Act
1976 Shreela Flather elected first Asian woman councillor in Britain
1979 UK's first woman Prime Minister
1981 Baroness Young becomes first woman Leader of the House of Lords
1984 Britain's first black female mayor - Lydia Simmons, Slough
1987 Diane Abbott elected first black woman MP
1990 Baroness Flather is the first female Asian peer
1997 First BME female government Minister - Patricia Scotland
1997 Proportion of women MPs doubles to reach 18%
1998 Baroness Uddin is the first Muslim woman in the House of Lords
1999 UK's first Asian female MEP - Neena Gill
2002 Introduction of Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act
2003 Baroness Amos is the first black woman appointed to Cabinet
2003 Baroness Amos is first black woman Leader of the House of Lords
2006 Work and Families Act
2007 Baroness Scotland is first black woman Attorney General
2007 100 years since first woman councillor appointed
2008 90 years since women over age of 30 secured the vote"
 
Last edited:
Maggie Thatcher's a woman?
 
Until she dies, I'm not convinced she's human.
 
"She has the lips of Madonna, her eyes are Caligula."

- Fran?ois Mitterrand, president of France 1981-95.


(He also ordered his chauffeur to rev his car when the Iron Lady was bladdering on about "my money" at a EU summit. When he died, his three mistreses stood beside Madam Mitterand at the funeral. Gotta love the French.)
 
I'm tempted to judge Mrs. Thatcher in the same way the current Chinese regime judges Mao.

She was 30 % good, 70 % bad. Though, with Mao, the current Chinese regime does it the other way around, respectably 70-30.

That said, Mao was a dick, but he did unite China, we westerners seem to forget that. The Iron Lady was a crazed neo-conservative *******, but she did reform Britain in a way only Clement Attlee did before her. And we who's not neo-conservatives seem to forget that.

But that's just me..

:)
 
Top