Hey guys. I'm about to DM a game of Council of Thieves for my local group, but I have a question about a possible players handout. Namely the Westcrown: City of Twilight Chapter in the Bastards of Erebus. I've had a look through it a few times, and nothing really suggests that it'd be inappropriate for my players to read, other then the brief stat lines of course, but those are easily changeable. So, am I missing something important, or can I give that chapter to my players and not worry about spoilers?
Both are tasteless and absolutely lawful expressions of free speech. The only real difference is that political leaders are turning out in droves to support the mosque but also turning out in droves to condemn the Quran burning.
Yes, burning a holy book with the aim purely of provoking a reaction is exactly the same as converting an old coat warehouse into a place of worship for the many Muslims already living there. And it's several blocks away from Ground Zero anyway.
That said, while burning a book is ALWAYS high dickery and one of the worst things you can do, it's perfectly legal. Will it have an effect in the war on terrorism? Probably. Will get the Taliban more recruits, but the damage has already been done. They'll get more recruits over this, but they would do even if the book wasn't burnt. Local Taliban will just say it was. But still, no reason to put promethium on the fire.
Either way, it's clear this is just being planned to provoke a reaction, and to bring about some PR to a tiny cult with an absurd leader. Sigh.
Good interview. I am happy to see that we are getting a Short Story collection with some Commonwealth characters, as really, I still think they've got stories to tell, especially the long lived ones like Paula, Cat etc. I wouldn't mind seeing some of Sheldon's explorations of another galaxy either.
So, Peter F Hamilton's 'The Evolutionary Void' just came out, and I finished it off over the weekend. First thoughts..
Wow. Exemplary end to the trilogy, with him really showing off his excellent skill at writing epic space opera. More detailed thoughts, and spoilers below!
Spoiler:
I was amazed at how well he wrapped all the plot lines together, with everyone converging in the void. Plot twists, while still surprising, are signposted a tiny bit before hand, so there's no sense of things creeping up out of nowhere. The Deterrence Fleet is just as badass as everyone thought it'd be, but the solution to getting rid of it was equally brilliant.
The Accelerator Faction really proved to be great villains, with thoroughly insane plans and the ability to see them through to fruition, and it really feels like the 'good' guys have to work and sacrifice to get the victory they needed, though they still get a happy ending! Various characters get to be just as awesome as always, with High Angel and Paula Myo taking the cake. We even get little snippets of The Cat's crimes, and jeez.. I really, really shouldn't like her, but she's just too damn charismatic. And I like the bad girls. Plenty of characters from the The Commonwealth Saga pop up for cameos, which is always a nice bit of fan service, but thankfully you don't need to read them to follow along.
So, anyone else got through this one yet? Go get stuck into the Commonwealth Saga if you've not yet!
Tomorrow, so I can send my check in to book my place!
It sounds like this year was a blast, makes me sad to have missed it, but that's half the fun of student life I guess (crippling poverty). The other half being beer. But I'm hoping to be there next time!
At the risk of adding some early sanity to this thread, the article points out that the violence is from drug cartels. What exactly will cracking down on any suspected illegal immigrants do to stop drug cartels, hmm?
If France win, don't go anywhere near any Irish pubs while celebrating. It'd end badly. If there's any justice at all in football, France will go out in utter humiliation.
While England are going to win of course, there are other teams always in with a shot. Spain are very strong, as are Brazil. Germany's lost Ballack, but they should never be underestimated. Argentina have some great players, including Messi, so they've always got a chance, but Maradona isn't much of a manager, and they just scraped through in qualifying. Portugal have Ronaldo, though they are in this years Group of Death, which will make things interesting.
Groups are as follows
Group A: South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France
Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea, Greece
Group C: England, United States, Algeria, Slovenia
Group D: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana
Group E: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon
Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia
Group G: Brazil, North Korea, Ivory Coast, Portugal
Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile
Group D and G look the toughest. In D, Serbia are always a hard side to play, while Ghana is playing for African Pride. Australia have pulled off an upset or two in their time, but Germany should pull through.
Group G is much more interesting. Brazil are just awesome, but Portugal have Ronaldo. Ivory Coast will have African pride to play for, along with being a very strong team full of Premiership stars such as Drogba and Kalou. North Korea? Well, no one knows anything about them. They might turn out to be the whipping boys which would make the games between the other three teams that much more important. Or they might spring an upset. Impossible to tell really.
Still, England are going to win, after knocking out France, Germany and Argentina.
They do prefer to be called whinging poms or bloody pommy bastards and then thrashed at every sport that they invented by Australians.
We're also quite fond of 20/20 World Champions, old chap. I believe you'll find cricket is one of ours.
As is football (real football not that silly Aussie Rules stuff you invented to make yourselves feel better). Granted we're not that good, but compared to you convicts...
Check out who won the last soccer game between our two nations... and the Indians invented the 20 - 20 cricket concept.
The ECB created Twenty20 in 2003, a full five years before the IPL. A look on Wikipedia would have enabled you to find that out! ;)
So yeah. Seems my finances aren't as sorted as I'd hoped, and the bank is throwing more obstacles in my way. So, without a credit card, I'll have to sadly cancel the subscription.
Voted first thing this morning, which was fun. As for the exit polls..
Exit poll for BBC, Sky and ITV News predicts a hung parliament with the Conservatives the largest party. The poll puts the Conservatives on 307 seats, Labour on 255, the Liberal Democrats on 59 and others on 29.
Hmm. Well, this is tricky, especially without knowing what sort of genres you like. But I'll throw some recommendations at you.
Firstly, Ghost in the Shell. Now, it's important to note there are two Ghost in the Shells, the movie world (Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence) and the tv series world (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex). They are separate entities, but with the same set of characters. Both are very good and well worth watching, but my personal favourite is the tv series, Stand Alone Complex. The series takes away some of the philosophising and symbolism that's rampant in the two films and creates an excellent post-cyber punk world in which the characters fight crime and conspiracies. I'd say it ranks as one of the best Sci Fi series of all time, not just anime Sci Fi series.
Next, Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann is the other excellent Giant Mecha series. Absurdly over the top but great fun. The guys who made that, Studio Gainax, also made perhaps one of the most important and controversial series of all time, Neon Genesis Evangelion. NGE is meant to be a Giant Mecha show as well, but in the same way that Twin Peaks was a cop show. I still recommend it, as it is very good, but be prepared to not understand anything that happens at the end.
Back to school now, and two series top the list. The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, which has God in the classroom. God, in this case, being Haruhi Suzumiya, who is totally unaware of her powers, yet can just make things happen. Haruhi has come to the conclusion that ordinary humans are, as a whole, utterly boring, and that she would rather hang out with aliens, time travellers, espers, and the like. In her quest to find them, she promptly joins all the clubs in school for exactly one day... and quits them all just as rapidly. One day, her classmate Kyon (the Narrator) unwittingly gives Haruhi an idea: if there aren't any decent clubs, why not make one of your own? Even more unwittingly, the first three other people recruited into the club are an alien, a time traveller and an esper. Not that Haruhi knows this, of course. Really, it's a good excuse for Haruhi to get into wacky hijinks ranging from murder mysteries, sci fi space battles and baseball games. Just be warned, Haruhi can act like a total jerk at the start of the show, but she does get better!
The second series I'd recommend for high school stuff is Azamanga Daioh, which can be quickly described as Seinfeld in Highschool. Nothing happens, other then character development and the day to day life of seven female highschool students. Quite enjoyable and funny.
I'd suggest having a look through this list of one anime sites top 50 anime of the decade, and see what catches your eye. Might find something that really appeals.
Just played and finished on the Realistic difficulty. Really good. My only real complaint is that the last few levels turn towards third person shooter territory, and that the main campaign is short. Hopefully they'll release some new maps for the various co-op modes soon so I can get more fun out of the game.
I do have to say, Mark and Execute makes you feel like a total badass. Dropping off a pipe to take out some poor mook then shooting his four friends in the head? Yes please.
Eh, despite the promise, that episode sadly wasn't too good.
Spoiler:
The mystery regarding the Daleks and why they were there was resolved way too quickly. 10 minutes in, with the main threat resolved after 30. Pacing was off, sadly. Still, the Spitfires in Space were awesomely fun.
Oh, and did anyone else notice Amy Pond..
Spoiler:
Not knowing about the Daleks? Kinda odd for a supposed 21st Century Girl, eh?
That's a lot of books. But anyway, I now exist in the world of the financially solvent, so in addition to finally processing these orders, can I get them combined somewhat to minimise the shipping costs? I think combining 1294477 and 1320898 might be possible, but 1335331 is already rather large.
Aaaaah. Now that's a story! Seriously. If Michael Steele admitted to being there and enjoying the show, he'd be awesome. Maybe he could spin it as an outreach programme?
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Some Americans think that we should be a nation of laws and that the political ruling class should have to obey those laws.
Another problem arises when the Constitution, which was written at a time when the US population was 3,929,326 and Barack Obama would have counted as 3/5's of a person, is still the supreme law today, when the US has a population of 308,918,000 and is a very, very different country. The Constitution is also very hard (but not impossible) to change.
What I'm saying is that it's not reactive to changes in what the United States is.
a piece of paper written before the invention of the freaking Steamboat is held to be utterly perfect and relevant for 2010..
Says the guy whose country is based on the Magna Carta.
Basing your country on a founding document is quite fine. (Of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was founded by the Act of Union in 1800, not the 1215 Magna Carta). The problem arises when one goes back to those documents to argue problems that are coming up now, and when the founding document is treat with a disturbing level of reverence. Treating it as the be all and end all of debate is a problem, given that it belongs to a different time entirely, and was the product of fallible human beings.
I am well aware that the US Constitution can be changed, but as Pres Man also said, it is very hard to do so.
It wasn't your fight and it isn't your Constitution so please refrain from opening your yammerhole trying to discuss something you do not and cannot understand.
As far as understanding fascism or communism again your ignorance and banality shows through. Both my parents were born and lived in Communist Russia, and with my father living under Nazi control and for some time in Germany before they both got the hell out of that sht-hole Europa. I had one uncle who was sent off to a gulag to never be seen again and another who was force conscripted into the Red Army. While I don't have first hand knowledge of living under European (and apparently UK) political systems, I have seen the effects it had had on all my surviving older relatives so spare me the "Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like", your gas is getting old.
Oooh, personal attacks. And apparently Europe is a 'S$%@-Hole'. Cute.
Also, it seems that Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like, and your continued cries of 'This is Fascist/Communist/Socialist' are as wrong as they are amusing.
Perhaps you would be wise to quit stereotyping Americans.
Will do, once Americans on this board stop calling things Fascist, Communist or Socialist, when they clearly aren't. It's emotive language designed to provide an emotional response, and shut down discussion.
Also, it seems that Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like, and your continued cries of 'This is Fascist/Communist/Socialist' are as wrong as they are amusing.
A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama's Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton's in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton's 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Quote:
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government...
...So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.
Good, so we can agree that government is force, correct?
A state is an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a geographical area. (Max Weber) This is not a bad thing, of course. When you lack the state, you get a situation like Somalia.
And as an aside, the Nazis weren't socialist. Men like Gregor Strasser were, until 1934, the most Socialist part of the party, and even found some commonground with the Marxists in Germany. This view is known as Strasserism, and ended when Gregor Strasser was killed in the Night of the Long Knives. He was an ideological rival to Hitler, and a possible alternative leader.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face— forever."
So much for our vaunted Constitution, might as well be toilet paper.
Oh please. The absurdity of some people on these forums is a wonder to behold. One of these days I'll actually understand why a piece of paper written before the invention of the freaking Steamboat is held to be utterly perfect and relevant for 2010.. and why people think a health care bill actually violates it.
Anyway! 10 Immediate Benefits of HCR. Cause I care.
Quote:
1. Adult children may remain as dependants on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage
4. Free preventative care for all
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insured.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7. The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Authorizes early funding of community health centres in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centres provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
10. AND no more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick.
Well, I've got a solution. From now on, everything south of the Mason-Dixon line shall be a soverign tax-free nation, Notaxica. No evil government will impinge on your right to property there. There will be no paved roads in Notaxica, no environmental regulation whatsoever, no schools, no fire department unless you can round up enough volunteers, no building codes, no traffic lights to take away your liberty to seize the right-of-way by force, no regulation of business (your employer is welcome to chain you to a desk and force you to work hundred-hour weeks), and all businesses shall be monopolies that can charge anything they like, and drive competition into the ground by underselling them or buying them outright or by any other means they see fit (I'd say legal or illegal, but the only thing in Notaxica that's illegal is theft).
Hyperbole? Yes, I agree. But there's a fine line between that and some of the arguments on both sides here, so I feel like it's OK to poke a little fun.
I've heard Somalia is a lovely place to live.
Also, HD, care to answer any of my points on Healthcare? I mean, we can keep debating your libertarian fantasies if you want, but I prefer debate on things that actually work in reality. (Psst, if I don't pay taxes, I go to jail too!)
...as it's the government, not individuals, who pays.
This is another disconnect. Government can't pay for anything. Governments do not earn money. They take money from individuals who earn money. Now, if you want to say a bunch of other individuals paid for the service, that's cool, but government didn't pay for jack.
If M.D. Anderson denied admittance to that patient without upfront money, then they had money. M.D. Anderson cannot, by state law (it is a branch of the University of Texas, with a very specific charter) turn away people without the means to pay.
I take it you didn't read the article then? Lisa Kelly shows up at M.D. Anderson, gets told she has to pay upfront for treatment. Going by this article 4,200 out of the 4,900 hospitals in America are requiring the same for non-emergency care. Better hope that insurance policy is up to scratch. Or that you don't get put through Rescission. Cause if you're under insured, those costs will bankrupt you. No wonder you've got people faced with selling their homes to pay for much needed healthcare.
And why has this change happened? Because of uncompensated care, which in 2007 was sitting at $34 Billion. That's quite a bit of money lost from your healthcare system, due to under insurance and the uninsured taking advantage of emergency care, or due to medical bankruptcies. So yeah, Lisa Kelly had the ability to pay some of her health care, but not all. Having to find $60,000 upfront to get Chemotherapy is an abominable situation, and she was turned away until she could find that money.
Finally, Governments do earn money. Through taxation, taking on debts or even Seigniorage. They do also spend that money, through public expenditure. I mean, I'm pretty sure the government paid for the road I'm currently looking at, the street lights to light it up etc, etc, etc.
There is no way I could have afford to pay for private insurance and if we lived in America she would be dead.
Actually, were she in America, there's a good chance she'd be at M.D.
Anderson getting free care, and much superior care than anywhere else in the world, M.D. Anderson being a) the #1 cancer treatment center in the world, and b) required by the state charter that created the center to provide care regardless of ability to pay.
More amazing is how many people from countries with single payer are at M.D. Anderson.
Try arguing something you know about before making blanket statements like that.
Seems that M.D. Anderson is also not treating people unless they pay up front.. which brings me to another reason why our NHS is superior.
You don't have people going to the ER with serious injuries, the hospitals spending a lot of money on helping those people, and then the hospitals discovering that the patient cannot pay at all. This, naturally, means the hospital will lose a lot of money. Emergency Room care like that remains unfunded. A single payer system like the NHS doesn't have that problem, as it's the government, not individuals, who pays.
Might be a broad brush, but given that Insurance companies have been doing it for years, it's an accurate one.
Quote:
Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of "rescission," whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they've been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. But government regulators and investigators who have overseen the actions of Assurant and other health insurance companies say it is unprecedented for a company to single out people with HIV.
It's entirely understandable that for profit companies would do such a thing. They have to protect profits, after all, and treating people suffering from long term illnesses is quite expensive. The court judgement even said as much.
Quote:
Their motive, according to the judge, was obvious: "The court finds that Fortis wrongfully elevated its concerns for maximizing profits over the rights and interest of its customer." In upholding Nettles' verdict, the South Carolina Supreme Court similarly ruled that "Fortis was motivated to avoid the losses it would undoubtedly incur in supporting Mitchell's costly medical condition."
Much easier to investigate the claim and disqualify the claimant for illegitmate reasons. The insurance companies even have 'Rescission Panels' that decide whether to drop people. Hey.. wait a moment. Health Insurance Companies have Panels that will drop people's insurance if they have life threatening illnesses. That sounds familiar! It's almost as if Sarah Palin was speaking from experience when she condemned our socialist death panels!
Of course, over here in the NHS, we don't drop people who have life threatening illnesses. My auntie was diagonised with Pancreatic Cancer, and given about a year to live. No doubt her American private insurance would have dropped at that point, but as we have Universal Health Care, the NHS provided for her for the two years she had left, right up until the day she died. Maybe the Death Panels we have over here weren't working?
Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell's case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.
Nice to see Insurance Companies doing what they are there for, namely ensuring profits for their shareholders, and not providing health care coverage.
I have a large number of issues with the expansion.
Spoiler:
No returning characters, other then Oghren (yay).
No DLC being imported, other then the Return to Ostagar loot. So that's my characters naked at the start.
Ultimate Sacrifice ending unsupported. You can't be dead, play the Orlesian Warden and have the world state transfer. Instead, if you play as the Orlesian, you get a default world state.
Other then that, it'll probably be a really good game.
I'd expect you to defend the NHS and the Brits in general Uzzy. Just as I defend the US system.
That said, I don't see how your system is better. I mean when's the last time someone fled ~to~ Canada or the UK for treatment? Sure there are some procedures that are better/more accepted in other countries; for example I believe Europe is farther ahead than the US on ceramic spinal replacements, and I think the British 'golden BB' approach to cancer should be adopted here post haste (even better when paired with the US's research in metasitization (sp?) problems).
But it's my understanding the majority of innovation still comes from this side of the pond, and that's a benefit of our 'inefficent' heath care system.
The first point is that the US spends 16% of it's GDP on Healthcare, compared to the OECD average of 8.9%. Interestingly, around 7% of the money spent on healthcare by the US is public money, I.e, spent by the government. The UK spends 8.4% of it's GDP on Healthcare, and can cover everyone.
The US life expectancy is 75.4 years if you're a man, 80.7 years if you're a woman. This compares to the OECD average of 76.3/81.9, or the UK's 77.3/81.7. Infant mortality rates have decreased in the US since the 1970's, but are still above the OECD average.
You have 2.4 Doctors per thousand people in the US, compared to the OECD average of 3.1, or the UK's 2.5. You do have more nurses then the OECD average though, 10.6 per thousand people compared to 9.6 for the OECD, and 10 for the UK.
Not all bad news though. You've got very good cancer survival rates, with a 67% five year survival rate for cervical cancer and a 90.5% rate for breast cancer. You've also got the most MRI and CT scanners per capita, save for Japan. Which is quite impressive really. The UK can do a lot to improve long term survival rates for cancer.
Those are the figures. You spend almost double what we in the UK spend on Healthcare, and we can manage to cover the entire population. Statistics wise, there seems to be very little to seperate the UK or US, save for long term cancer survival rates.
Now, as for innovation, that comes through funding. Is it impossible to up the funding for R&D? Going by overall funding for scientific research, the US spends 2.7% of GDP on R&D, compared to the UK's 2.2%. But there's nothing stopping the UK increasing the funding to health research in particular.
You know what's funny? When Americans tot off a list of the NHS's failings, as if we Brits always think it's perfect, and as if the American medical system never has cock-ups.
Nationalised Health Care isn't perfect, but it is substantially better and cheaper then the current American model.
While what Bitter Thorn says might be true for his local area, it's about as true nationally as David Fryer's 'What Conservatives Believe' OP was. Polling on the Tea Party (PDF) suggests that membership (self proclaimed) mainly consists of rich, white, suburban and rural conservatives. Time and time again, the movement protests government moves towards 'Socialism'.
The idea that these same people were the ones protesting the Iraq War is quite unbelievable. It may very well be true amongst your friends, Bitter Thorn, but people like the Tea Party Nation, who describe their beliefs thusly, "We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!", are unlikely to have been out protesting seven years ago, imo.
Thanks for the information on the second question. BTW how long do these appeals tend to take?
As for the first question your position seems cognitively dissonant. Please help me to understand how you resolve these apparent contradictions.
regarding banning/regulation of recreational drugs:
"I see nothing wrong with the first thing. "
regarding banning/regulation of recreational/unhealthy foods:
"But that would be wrong."
Help me out here please.
Also if it would save hundreds of billions would you support state regulation of food and exercise?
Aren't some European countries banning trans fats and such already like some US states?
Those appeals would take about a year or more, usually. But it's only drugs that are rarely denied to people. If there's some medical treatment that'll save a life, and is medically justified, it'll get done. Might have to wait a bit, but it'll get done.
Regarding drugs, it's important to differ between different levels of harm. Seriously harmful drugs should be banned. If there were a foodstuff that was seriously harmful, then I'd have no issue with them being banned. But a big mac? Or other fatty foods? Unless I'm shown seriously levels of harm that can occur from that, I see no reason to ban them.
Now, if the NHS started mandating that people should eat less fatty foods, smoke less and the like, I'd protest that, as I do have the right to stick whatever I want in my body. The NHS doesn't do that though. It certainly advertises and encourages people to exercise, to quit smoking and reduce alcohol intake, all of which are good things to encourage. I think that'd be the same over in the US. Heck, you don't have Seatbelt Laws in all your states yet, right?
Interesting, your government, like ours already regulates what you do with your body in terms of recreational drugs and what drugs and treatments are approved by the state. How different is that from regulating diet and exercise? If you make life style choices that push your weight up to 500 lbs and smoke you are imposing a burden on your fellow subjects are you not? Some would argue the the state has a vested interest, even a responsibility, to regulate such things for the greater good. Aren't you trying to have it both ways? You want the state to provide your health care, but you don't want them to have a say in how you manage your own health? Is that just? Where should the line be drawn?
If you need a life saving treatment that isn't approved or provided by NHS what are your options?
To answer your first set of questions, I see nothing wrong with the first thing. Sure, the state provides healthcare to all, and it would be much easier if the state could enforce what we eat, how much exercise we do and ban us from taking in dangerous substances. But that would be wrong. The state provides healthcare for all because that's what's best for the country, as a whole.
To answer your second question, you've got several options in the extremely unlikely event of that occurring. You can go private, with BUPA, or appeal the decision. The only thing that's even close to what you're saying is how NICE handles some drugs over here. They are usually things like new and experimental drugs for Alzheimers which only prolong life for a few months. If they are exceedingly expensive, which they often are, NICE might say that it's not cost effective to have them on the NHS. If that happens, then the patient can buy them privately, or appeal the decision. But a true life saving treatment? Those wouldn't be blocked, only perhaps put back due to waiting times. Heck, the NHS has paid for Stephen Hawking's life time care.
Posts
