mountainclmbr
New member
Romney just started saying he is a Washington outsider who is the candidate for change.
Plans to eliminate excessive waiting times in the National Health Service stand no chance of succeeding, an independent think-tank claims today.
In a serious blow to Gordon Brown's credibility, Civitas says the target of a maximum 18-week delay from GP referral to treatment by December is an "impossibility".
Its report, Why are we waiting?, comes as the Prime Minister signals his intention to press ahead with a constitution for the NHS.
James Gubb, of Civitas, said this was completely unrealistic. Labour had tried to deal with massive waiting lists by imposing targets on all levels of the service - including a 48-hour maximum wait for a GP appointment by 2004, and a four-hour maximum wait in A&E.
By April 2006, 203,114 people were waiting longer than 13 weeks for a proper diagnosis, of whom 96,416 were waiting longer than 26 weeks.
The figure included 12,648 waiting for longer than 13 weeks for MRI scans and 2,488 for CT scans.
Since then improvements have been made, and virtually no one is waiting longer than 13 weeks for a CT scan and just 169 were waiting longer than this for an MRI scan. But in October 2007, there were still 30,832 patients waiting longer than 26 weeks for diagnostics, of which 16,551 were waiting over a year.
The Government committed itself to reducing the time between seeing the GP and going into hospital to 18 weeks by the end of 2008. There is an interim target of 85 per cent to be achieved by the end of March 2008, but Civitas claims it is "sure to be missed".
Britons wanting to be treated by England's National Health Service may have to qualify to receive free care under a new plan, a report said Tuesday.
Smokers or people who are chronically overweight may have to agree to exercise or to other changes in their lifestyles in return for NHS treatment. Moreover, patients who miss or chronically arrive late for hospital appointments may have penalties imposed on them, The Times of London reported.
Bruxley said:The use of sophistry and seemingly subtle condescension work more against persuading others then toward it. Continued use reflects on the entire ideology and undermines the future ability to influence. A strong, truthful, valid premise needs no such support.
So either you were suggesting that popular opinion here should convince me to rethink my positions, or ignoring the fact that it's not nearly as unanimous elsewhere. Either way, more than a little silly.
FIFTH GRADE
Did I just go to a particularly fantastic school system or something?
I mean, when I hear short remarks on things like "change," "security," "family values," "the children," or a handful of other popular buzzwords (and again, both sides have them, and they share many of them) I know I can generally just disregard whatever is being said. Not always, of course...there is that rare moment when somebody actually has something of substance to say in regards to one of these. But most of the time.
The point that change is a buzzword was made right off the bat in more colloquial terms. The realization of that in post 70 something isn't a result of a superior education or the more colloquial posts inferior intellect.
Sophistry AND condescension WITH some fabrication of assertions not made....
The ACTUAL point made wasn't popular opinion but rather the strong, true, and valid rebuttal. Those silly things that get glossed over and instead addressed with insults and/or veiled condescension such as:
Are you elevating posts 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 in this thread to the status of "rebuttals?" Also you might consider, just for a moment, that rather than the responses here being evidence of some universal truth that perhaps it's just evidence that in some respects and on some issues (aside from guns, which would be expected) that this subforum is often nothing more than an echo chamber. That it has more to do with who frequents this forum than with what's right or true. You know, just maybe.If Democrat's positions bring such a response there are 2 courses of action. First is of course to re-evaluate honestly and examine if the pre-conceived notion remains valid considering the rebuttal(s). The second would be to present the premise further by expounding on why it IS in fact valid. Responding by fabricating assertions not made, or by simpleton insults instead just re-enforces the weakness of the position and frankly re=enforces the need to re-evaluate the position.I'd say the same goes for the entire suborum. At least anytime any aspect of the Democratic Party/platform is brought up or any Democratic candidates are discussed. I wonder just how far back you'd have to go to find three such threads that didn't turn into a Democrat-bashing circle-jerk within the first ten posts or so.
Change at the price of family..no.
No actual rebuttal to the assertion made but plenty of emotion. No pointing out any valid rebuttals just sarcasm. No depth just splash.
As to equal protection under the law, it again takes equating monogamous sodomy with marriage to argue equal protection. And as it isn't nearly the same (again unless marriage is reduced to legal status) so there ain't equals to protect equally.
The First Amendment argument is perilous at best. Unless monogamous sodomy is a religion I don't see the application. I know no religion that doesn't recognize marriage anyway.
I was typing when you posted Meek, the discussion goes to the topic of change. And as you pointed out, some change is just buzzword and some is to actully change the social paradigm in a negative way.
I'm still waiting for the attributes of monogamous sodomy that are as beneficial to society as marriage to justify equal recognition.
This is not the correct way to make or revise law, that is the job of legislature, not the court.