Re: My V-10 kicks enviromentalist butt!

Same way the US Govt defines it.

None are knockoffs, the UK is one of the worlds leading pharmaceutical developers, not some 3rd world sweat shop copying US drugs. US Giant Pfizer is the worlds biggest pharmaceutical co. with 7.5% of the world market share. GlaxoSmithKline in the UK have 7.0% of the world market and none of the other US companies comes close. Bear in mind that 53% of the worlds patents are registered to UK individuals or companies and a significant part of that is pharmaceutical.

Of course you do, but I suspect political dogma gets in the way of a fair assessment of whether a NHS would help or hinder your country.

Inherently unworkable because the prime motivator for most prople to achieve is personal gain and 'the good of the state' doesn't often cut it. Still there are bits of it worth stealing, painting red, white and blue and running up the flagpole.

When *I* say liberal it is usually perjorative because so many of their beliefs are an anathema to me, and as one relegated to being on the losing end of those beliefs (ie: one capable of obtaining a lifestyle worth stealing from), a certain resentment builds up. I don't the word is perjorative on it's own. The beliefs (and moreso the execution of those beliefs) are abhorent to me, that doesn't mean that if one believes those things, they should mind being called a Liberal. I am a conservative, and proud of that fact. I bristle slightly at being called (falsely) a Republican because that has all the religious baggage that has nothing to do with what I am. If those ideals were mine though, I'd embrace the label happily. I think liberals don't like being called liberals in much the same way a thief hates being labeled a thief.

Oddly I would embrace NHS if it were truly for everyone and not the way it would be set up here, which is to say on the backs of those that produce. But to my way of thinking someone has to pay for it. Either everyone equally (which is essentially a huge forced insurance policy - ie: the healthy pay for the sick), or it is taxed based (the rich pay for the poor) or is socialized (the companies forced to produce for way less than market value). None of these options work for me, however the first option is how we handle car insurance in my State, and these the lesser of three evils. The best alternative (personal responsiblity - everyone handling their own bills - is completely out of favor and seen as grossly unfair to those not personally responsible)

-- "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

I see, of course govt's can always vote themselves some new rights!

Yes, that is very complex indeed. I earn twice the national average and get to keep around 70% of it which i consider fair in a physically small country with a large population. Perhaps a national set of tax levels would be a good idea over there but would be painful to implement. We have tax credits over here too and they seem to be working well.

I certainly wouldn't criticise what is clearly your experience, perhaps I am too much the optimist.

The unemployed here get what is called 'Job seekers allowance' which is only paid if you can prove you are actively seeking a job and not excluding any offers unreasonably. It seems pretty effective along with our reasonably robust economy keeping unemployment down to 5%.

It is rather enlightening isn't it?

ISTR getting the world market share figures for Pfizer and GSK from their respective websites and the reference to 53% of the worlds patents being British was actually calculated by the Japanese Ministry Industry in 1996, though I can't find the link currently. Shame we are not as good at selling them as we are at inventing them.

On the other hand, you might get really ill and have several hundred others paying for your medical bills! :)

See I would go for that, but you'd never ever see that happen here. Rich and poor paying the same rate? The libs would hemorrage.

When I was poorer I saw private insurance as a necessary evil that I was happy to pay, as I was paying for peaceof mind. When I got richer, I began to insure myself. A bond, the interest on which more than pays for my health needs each year (fingers crossed). If something catastrophic happens the bond will cover those bills. I set it up as entity and it is billed by the hospital. I don't have to worry about being turned down for flimsy reasons and am much more in control than with an HMO. and because it is still my money I am much more conscious of health decisions on both ends (preventative and medical). At both stages on my life I lived by the motto of self-reliance to the levels at which I could manage it.

But a fair system like you say you have, I'd go for that, but if the Reps ever proposed it, they'd be lionized in the press and class envied out of office. Expect them to pay their fair share? Where would it end?

Tell me, does one have the option not to part of your NHS (pay his own way)? That's usually the first litmous test in my mind. If somethings mandatory it is usually rigged.

That is always true. Our system makes that difficult but the Dems are very adept at both incremental law change and legislation from the bench (using the courts to endrun Congress right to make law) and the Reps are good at using (abusing?) safety fears for greater control.

Ideally I would favor a national sales tax as the only form of taxation, with exemptions on the necessities, it would be a boon to everyone and get government largely out of our life (not to mention the billions saved in accounting and such). But it would cripple the governments power over us, and it's ablity to buy favor, so it will never happen.

Oh tell that to the thousands of degreed professionals who are now jobless. Is absolute zero the temperature of your heart?

(BTW we don't have any widget jobs anymore; just Wart Mart greeters)

My "ethical code" is similar to yours; my financial code is more like that of the U.S. budget (and I can't print more money to stay afloat). Nevertheless, I would spend $3000 to defeat $100....

That's a broad assumption. I'm sure an employer is going to hire someone with 25 years professional experience over those hordes of dumb unskilled teenagers (who will work for anything) to flip burgers or sack groceries. Of course, we have so many stores closing here that point is moot.

would spend $3000 to

I try never to spend what I don't have. One of the "secrets" of my success has been to always live well below what I could afford, certainly never more than 1/2 what my income would allow. I feel I'm here to secure myself and my families well being, not to impress someone else. Neither myself or my family has ever been at risk through good times and bad times. I am neither greedy on the making or spending end. I see so many people with so much uncertainty in their life, but rather than bank as much of their paycheck as possible to build for a stable future (or be poised to take advantage of better times or weather harder times) they are driving cars they can't afford and living in houses they can barely make the payments for, and then complaining about how too little is left of theor paycheck for the essentials.

Garth

-- "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

Sure they do, perhaps if you would like to move to Mexico, Taiwan, or China, you can get a job making them too.

of course they do; they all live in China. I love those cheep cheesy Chinese made amerikan flags....

Unfortunately in this case I have no choice. Now to see what happens tomorrow

Chinese made amerikan

Too many people feel that quality is less important than price, and that's what you get.

-- "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner>

Sorry, I was sort of continuing an earlier rant. I, in no way, meant to imply that you shouldn't spend money to uphold your principles or convictions. Our values and ways must be upheld at all costs.

-- "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

Hehe - we've all got the same body parts - seems fair to all apy the same!

Oh good grief no! Of course it's not optional, it's a tax, but I don't think it's fair to say it's rigged.

The funny thing is, although it is said that 40 million Americans don't have any medical cover, in reality they do. The NHS doesn't only offer free healthcare to the British, it offers free healthcare to everyone including all Americans. A friend of mine from Chesapeake was visiting and broke his ankle falling off my Land Rover and was taken to Accident & Emergency and treated. Next day on being discharged he approached the matron and started sorted through his credit cards, much to her amazement! All you've got to do is catch a flight next time you feel ill! :)

Politicians will always be politicians.

Hmmm. . . . .shame but anyone who really put their back into making it change would be worth a vote.

Bit less fussy here - you get a little time to find your preferred line of work, if not it's whatever pays the bills.

I think the values held by most Britons of a strong work ethic and belief in self responsibility are also common in the Americans I meet.