The UK Socialised medical and welfare system: How it works.

[Refugee]

In the 40’s, the UK implemented probably the best welfare scheme ever thought of. It was a social insurance scheme, in which you paid a percentage of your earnings to the government in the form of National Insurance contributions, (N.I), for which you received health care free at the point of delivery, a small pension in old age and relief from poverty when you were sick in the form of welfare payments. It was never meant to be ‘free’, you paid for it. The diffence now is that it’s paid for if you work, (no opt out) and free if you don’t. Pay as you earn, (PAYE), the more you earn, the more you pay.


Unfortunately, Beveridge, the man who designed this didn’t take into account mass unemployment, the mad scramble for relative equality, or human greed. Europe also adopted the welfare sysytem and for those who think the Nordic model is something to aspire to, they should take a look at both the tax rates in these countries and the civil unrest, (riots), that have taken place there in the past few years. All that glitters is definitely not gold. The UK and Europe is falling apart at the seams.

The UK defines need and general poverty not on want, but in relative terms, (relative, not absolute poverty); that is, in comparrison to the average salary earned by others. You do not have to be destitute, but poor in relation to society as a whole.


To be fair, the UK government have recently capped welfare benefits at a ceiling of £26,000 – ($ U.S.43,103) per family, tax free, which is the equaivalent for those working of £35,000, ($ U.S. 58,023), plus free medical insurance, whereas previously it was a free for all scramble. All three main UK electable parties now agree that it can’t go on like this as the system is slowly collpsing due to the equality ‘entitlement’ culture.

Conversely many in the west envy you in the U.S. your healthcare. You pay into an insurance policy and if you get sick you go and get treated and if you don’t pay you go to the back of the queue; simplified, is that how it works? Imagine a health care system in which you pay, but stand in a queue behind others that you also pay for and get exactly the same level of service? I personally have no objection to contributing to a welfare system, but it surely can’t be politically ‘far right’ to object to paying not only for yourself and your family, but for everyone else’s to enjoy the same level of prosperity and medical care?

[Peter1469]

Thanks for the assessment of the UK health care system.

[Refugee]

Thanks for the assessment of the UK health care system.

Everything looks good from a distance, unfortunately everything gets corrupted in the end.

[Peter1469]

Everything looks good from a distance, unfortunately everything gets corrupted in the end.

Human endeavors. It happens.

[kilgram]

In the 40’s, the UK implemented probably the best welfare scheme ever thought of. It was a social insurance scheme, in which you paid a percentage of your earnings to the government in the form of National Insurance contributions, (N.I), for which you received health care free at the point of delivery, a small pension in old age and relief from poverty when you were sick in the form of welfare payments. It was never meant to be ‘free’, you paid for it. The diffence now is that it’s paid for if you work, (no opt out) and free if you don’t. Pay as you earn, (PAYE), the more you earn, the more you pay.


Unfortunately, Beveridge, the man who designed this didn’t take into account mass unemployment, the mad scramble for relative equality, or human greed. Europe also adopted the welfare sysytem and for those who think the Nordic model is something to aspire to, they should take a look at both the tax rates in these countries and the civil unrest, (riots), that have taken place there in the past few years. All that glitters is definitely not gold. The UK and Europe is falling apart at the seams.

The UK defines need and general poverty not on want, but in relative terms, (relative, not absolute poverty); that is, in comparrison to the average salary earned by others. You do not have to be destitute, but poor in relation to society as a whole.


To be fair, the UK government have recently capped welfare benefits at a ceiling of £26,000 – ($ U.S.43,103) per family, tax free, which is the equaivalent for those working of £35,000, ($ U.S. 58,023), plus free medical insurance, whereas previously it was a free for all scramble. All three main UK electable parties now agree that it can’t go on like this as the system is slowly collpsing due to the equality ‘entitlement’ culture.

Conversely many in the west envy you in the U.S. your healthcare. You pay into an insurance policy and if you get sick you go and get treated and if you don’t pay you go to the back of the queue; simplified, is that how it works? Imagine a health care system in which you pay, but stand in a queue behind others that you also pay for and get exactly the same level of service? I personally have no objection to contributing to a welfare system, but it surely can’t be politically ‘far right’ to object to paying not only for yourself and your family, but for everyone else’s to enjoy the same level of prosperity and medical care?





UK socialised medical system? The biggest problem of UK is that the medical system has been pretty privatized. For this reason English old people came to Spain (purely socialised medical system) to receive treatments, because ours was and is (for now) much better than the English.

The unrest in Scandinavian countries is 0, compared to other countries with leser public services. I've been living for a year in a Scandinavian country, Finland, and I can tell you that everybody defended their system until death.

[Peter1469]

The UK has privately and publicly funded health care. I am not sure you can blame that (alone) on why English may go overseas for treatment.


UK socialised medical system? The biggest problem of UK is that the medical system has been pretty privatized. For this reason English old people came to Spain (purely socialised medical system) to receive treatments, because ours was and is (for now) much better than the English.

The unrest in Scandinavian countries is 0, compared to other countries with leser public services. I've been living for a year in a Scandinavian country, Finland, and I can tell you that everybody defended their system until death.

[The Sage of Main Street]

In the 40’s, the UK implemented probably the best welfare scheme ever thought of. It was a social insurance scheme, in which you paid a percentage of your earnings to the government in the form of National Insurance contributions, (N.I), for which you received health care free at the point of delivery, a small pension in old age and relief from poverty when you were sick in the form of welfare payments. It was never meant to be ‘free’, you paid for it. The diffence now is that it’s paid for if you work, (no opt out) and free if you don’t. Pay as you earn, (PAYE), the more you earn, the more you pay.


Unfortunately, Beveridge, the man who designed this didn’t take into account mass unemployment, the mad scramble for relative equality, or human greed. Europe also adopted the welfare sysytem and for those who think the Nordic model is something to aspire to, they should take a look at both the tax rates in these countries and the civil unrest, (riots), that have taken place there in the past few years. All that glitters is definitely not gold. The UK and Europe is falling apart at the seams.

The UK defines need and general poverty not on want, but in relative terms, (relative, not absolute poverty); that is, in comparrison to the average salary earned by others. You do not have to be destitute, but poor in relation to society as a whole.


To be fair, the UK government have recently capped welfare benefits at a ceiling of £26,000 – ($ U.S.43,103) per family, tax free, which is the equaivalent for those working of £35,000, ($ U.S. 58,023), plus free medical insurance, whereas previously it was a free for all scramble. All three main UK electable parties now agree that it can’t go on like this as the system is slowly collpsing due to the equality ‘entitlement’ culture.

Conversely many in the west envy you in the U.S. your healthcare. You pay into an insurance policy and if you get sick you go and get treated and if you don’t pay you go to the back of the queue; simplified, is that how it works? Imagine a health care system in which you pay, but stand in a queue behind others that you also pay for and get exactly the same level of service? I personally have no objection to contributing to a welfare system, but it surely can’t be politically ‘far right’ to object to paying not only for yourself and your family, but for everyone else’s to enjoy the same level of prosperity and medical care?






All this destruction is by the design of jihadist OPEC, which is protected by their fellow price-gouger British Petroleum. But go ahead, believe what the enemies of democracy are paid to tell you to believe.

[Refugee]

UK socialised medical system? The biggest problem of UK is that the medical system has been pretty privatized. For this reason English old people came to Spain (purely socialised medical system) to receive treatments, because ours was and is (for now) much better than the English.

The unrest in Scandinavian countries is 0, compared to other countries with leser public services. I've been living for a year in a Scandinavian country, Finland, and I can tell you that everybody defended their system until death.

They’ve had to introduce privatisation, it’s bankrupt. Privatisation for those in the U.S. doesn’t mean a choice, it means services being put out to tender by bids from private companies. The UK would also defend it’s health system, there is nothing to put in it’s place. My point is that it was never intended to be an ‘entitlement’ but a paid for social insurance scheme. It’s collpasing because it’s now free for those that don’t pay as well. Immigrants, tourists, whoever, roll up it’s free. They’re trying to tighten up on it, but the problem is medical aid remains free at the point of delivery so it’s difficult. I think if Finland had the amount of immigration that the UK has it too would have major problems.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The UK would also defend it’s health system, there is nothing to put in it’s place. My point is that it was never intended to be an ‘entitlement’ but a paid for social insurance scheme. It’s collpasing because it’s now free for those that don’t pay as well. Immigrants, roll up it’s free. I think if Finland had the amount of immigration that the UK has it too would have major problems.

That also is the fault of the petrocrats and the outsourcers. In order to commit their economic treason, the robber barons have to agree to let in these parasites as part of trade deals to drill for oil or set up sweatshops in the sleeper cells' base countries. "The base" in Arabic is Al Qaida.

[Refugee]

That also is the fault of the petrocrats and the outsourcers. In order to commit their economic treason, the robber barons have to agree to let in these parasites as part of trade deals to drill for oil or set up sweatshops in the sleeper cells' base countries. "The base" in Arabic is Al Qaida.

?

[nic34]

Conversely many in the west envy you in the U.S. your healthcare. You pay into an insurance policy and if you get sick you go and get treated and if you don’t pay you go to the back of the queue; simplified, is that how it works?

You talking about before or after Obamacare?

Before O-care if you got real sick, the insurance could throw you off and not pay a dam thing no matter HOW long you paid. If you had a pre-existing condition, too bad, you aren't getting it covered.

Not much better than the days of your Mr. Dickens....

[Peter1469]

Insurance could "throw you off?"


You talking about before or after Obamacare?

Before O-care if you got real sick, the insurance could throw you off and not pay a dam thing no matter HOW long you paid. If you had a pre-existing condition, too bad, you aren't getting it covered.

Not much better than the days of your Mr. Dickens....

[The Sage of Main Street]

? Obviously, you only believe what you're told to believe. The truth is unfunded. Free Traders are traitors.

[Refugee]

Obviously, you only believe what you're told to believe. The truth is unfunded. Free Traders are traitors.

I don't believe, I question.

"Traders are traitors". To who?

[Peter1469]

I don't believe, I question.

"Traders are traitors". To who?

Good question. Let use know if you get an answer. :smiley:

[Refugee]

UK treatment is free at the point of delivery. All that glitters is not gold and ‘NICE’ (National Institute for health Care Excellence), may refuse ongoing treatment for expensive medication, or to put it bluntly, if you’re thought not to be worth the cost. Another way of ‘getting thrown off’, but in a socialized system.

[Peter1469]

Say again? Expensive treatment can be withheld - how is "not worth it" defined?


UK treatment is free at the point of delivery. All that glitters is not gold and ‘NICE’ (National Institute for health Care Excellence), may refuse ongoing treatment for expensive medication, or to put it bluntly, if you’re thought not to be worth the cost. Another way of ‘getting thrown off’, but in a socialized system.

[Refugee]

Say again? Expensive treatment can be withheld - how is "not worth it" defined?

It’s up to them. Age, (a big factor), the cost of medication, a variety of variables . . . smoking or obesity, (seen as self inflicted). It’s been going on for years, but there’s been a sudden surge of interest lately as the population gets older. Do those in the U.S. think it's an open bottomless funded system? :smiley:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cancer-patients-too-old-for-treatment-charity-warns-9081866.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cancer-patients-too-old-for-treatment-charity-warns-9081866.html)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10588291/Lottery-of-NHS-drugs-punishes-the-dying.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10588291/Lottery-of-NHS-drugs-punishes-the-dying.html)

[Peter1469]

I think that many do.


It’s up to them. Age, (a big factor), the cost of medication, a variety of variables . . . smoking or obesity, (seen as self inflicted). It’s been going on for years, but there’s been a sudden surge of interest lately as the population gets older. Do those in the U.S. think it's an open bottomless funded system? :smiley:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cancer-patients-too-old-for-treatment-charity-warns-9081866.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cancer-patients-too-old-for-treatment-charity-warns-9081866.html)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10588291/Lottery-of-NHS-drugs-punishes-the-dying.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10588291/Lottery-of-NHS-drugs-punishes-the-dying.html)

[Refugee]

I think that many do.

In the end, the criteria seems to be, are you worth keeping alive and that’s not your decision to make. If you’re suddenly diagnosed with cancer at 60, live in a deprived area, are unemployed . . . I’d start worrying. Treatment is guaranteed free at the point of delivery, but that doesn’t include expensive medication. All courtesy of NICE, a non-government body funded by the government, if that makes sense?

It all manages to carry on after a fashion, with the aid of emergency government funding. It’s why it’s slowly being privatized. It’s bankrupt.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202401/NHS-hospital-wards-brink-collapse-number-beds-falls-doctors-struggle-cope-37-rise-patients.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202401/NHS-hospital-wards-brink-collapse-number-beds-falls-doctors-struggle-cope-37-rise-patients.html)

[Refugee]

I think that many do.

In the end, the criteria seems to be, are you worth keeping alive and that’s not your decision to make. If you’re suddenly diagnosed with cancer at 60, live in a deprived area, are unemployed . . . I’d start worrying. Treatment is guaranteed free at the point of delivery, but that doesn’t include expensive medication. All courtesy of NICE, a non-government body funded by the government, if that makes sense?

It all manages to carry on after a fashion, with the aid of emergency government funding. It’s why it’s slowly being privatized. It’s bankrupt.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202401/NHS-hospital-wards-brink-collapse-number-beds-falls-doctors-struggle-cope-37-rise-patients.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202401/NHS-hospital-wards-brink-collapse-number-beds-falls-doctors-struggle-cope-37-rise-patients.html)

[nic34]

In the end, the criteria seems to be, are you worth keeping alive and that’s not your decision to make. If you’re suddenly diagnosed with cancer at 60, live in a deprived area, are unemployed . . . I’d start worrying. Treatment is guaranteed free at the point of delivery, but that doesn’t include expensive medication. All courtesy of NICE, a non-government body funded by the government, if that makes sense?

It all manages to carry on after a fashion, with the aid of emergency government funding. It’s why it’s slowly being privatized. It’s bankrupt.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202401/NHS-hospital-wards-brink-collapse-number-beds-falls-doctors-struggle-cope-37-rise-patients.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202401/NHS-hospital-wards-brink-collapse-number-beds-falls-doctors-struggle-cope-37-rise-patients.html)


That's still better than the private for profit insurance system we have. Don't be fooled into thinking a privatized system will give a dam about considering you a liability too......

[Refugee]

That's still better than the private for profit insurance system we have. Don't be fooled into thinking a privatized system will give a dam about considering you a liability too......

I’m in private insurance schemes now, one paid for by my company and one I pay privately. The difference is I no longer pay the equivalent of $100 a week towards everyone else’s care. What kind of cover could I have bought in the U.S for a $100 a week and not have to stand in a queue behind everybody else who hasn’t paid. My point is that I think you’re always going to get better tailor made, than a mass produced, one size fits all.

I don’t dispute that both social and private have their problems, but I feel a lot safer in a private one. You can also go private in the UK but you still have to pay for the national one, (no opt out) and that’s one way of getting treatment, but having to pay twice is an expensive way of doing it.

Just a thought, but might the answer to greedy medical companies in the U.S. to make employees responsible for their own insurance? Instead of the employer including you on a company policy, you get the money to choose. I’m sure employers currently get a good deal from them and that’s why the service you, the end user get is sometimes rubbish, but if you the individual had the dollars in your pocket and the chance to shop around to get the best deal for you?

So perhaps it’s not your system that’s wrong, but the fault of the politicians in not regulating? I’m all for free enterprise, but I do believe the utilities and issues that affect basic public life require regulation. I'm new to all this private stuff and so possibly off mark here?

[Captain Obvious]

That's still better than the private for profit insurance system we have. Don't be fooled into thinking a privatized system will give a dam about considering you a liability too......

Nobody is fooled. Relax.

Private systems aren't perfect, but the pitfalls far outweigh those in public systems.

Far... outweigh.

[nic34]

I’m in private insurance schemes now, one paid for by my company and one I pay privately. The difference is I no longer pay the equivalent of $100 a week towards everyone else’s care. What kind of cover could I have bought in the U.S for a $100 a week and not have to stand in a queue behind everybody else who hasn’t paid. My point is that I think you’re always going to get better tailor made, than a mass produced, one size fits all.

I don’t dispute that both social and private have their problems, but I feel a lot safer in a private one. You can also go private in the UK but you still have to pay for the national one, (no opt out) and that’s one way of getting treatment, but having to pay twice is an expensive way of doing it.

Just a thought, but might the answer to greedy medical companies in the U.S. to make employees responsible for their own insurance? Instead of the employer including you on a company policy, you get the money to choose. I’m sure employers currently get a good deal from them and that’s why the service you, the end user get is sometimes rubbish, but if you the individual had the dollars in your pocket and the chance to shop around to get the best deal for you?

So perhaps it’s not your system that’s wrong, but the fault of the politicians in not regulating? I’m all for free enterprise, but I do believe the utilities and issues that affect basic public life require regulation. I'm new to all this private stuff and so possibly off mark here?



At least you have minimum catastrophic public coverage. We do not. At least not until age 65.

BTW, they are not "medical" companies, they are insurance cos. An unnecessary middleman that skims off the top before any "caregiver" gets a penny.

What you are also advocating is a voucher system. That could work for those that prefer it, but don't expect most folks to understand a thing about buying health "insurance", especially some 86/yo grandmother with alzheimers.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I don't believe, I question.

"Traders are traitors". To whom?
To their countrymen. Free men wouldn't let them use their property privileges for deporting our jobs to cheap-labor slave nations. That is cause for confiscation. If they abuse it, they lose it. They lose it all.

[The Sage of Main Street]

In the end, the criteria seems to be, .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202401/NHS-hospital-wards-brink-collapse-number-beds-falls-doctors-struggle-cope-37-rise-patients.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202401/NHS-hospital-wards-brink-collapse-number-beds-falls-doctors-struggle-cope-37-rise-patients.html)


Criteria seem. If you're too lazy to learn English, why should we believe you've made a thorough study of public medicine?

[The Sage of Main Street]

That's still better than the private for profit insurance system we have. Don't be fooled into thinking a privatized system will give a dam about considering you a liability too...... Just think of public healthcare the same way we do about public police protection. The arrogant self-glorifying attitude of the economic fascists is no different from making each of us buy our own police protection.

[nic34]

^^Exactly^^

[Refugee]

Criteria seem. If you're too lazy to learn English, why should we believe you've made a thorough study of public medicine?

Ah, a clever one. I use the plural seems because I was referring to hospital beds, which is the subject. The criterion would be the singular, criteria the plural. The criteria (plural) therefore seems (plural) not seem.

It depends which way you would phrase the statement and then use seem/seems in context.

Hospital beds seem full
It seems the hospital beds are full

My posts are 99% from the top of my head. You’ve been googling again, haven’t you. You’re qualified to give me lessons in English grammar? :smiley:

[Newpublius]

Criteria seem. If you're too lazy to learn English, why should we believe you've made a thorough study of public medicine?

Oh, oh, please, first off, it's one of those abnormal singular/plural words. And it's one of those instances where the plural use 'criteria' doesn't verbally flow well with the plural 'seem' and 'seems' come off the tongue.

this is the fucking blogosphere, do you have anything substantive to add besides an inane grammar criticism because in my mind that superfluous 's' doesn't change the meaning to me.....

[The Sage of Main Street]

. I use the plural seems because I was referring to hospital beds, which is the subject. The criterion would be the singular, criteria the plural. The criteria (plural) therefore seems (plural) not seem.



. You’re qualified to give me lessons in English grammar? :smiley:


Obviously, those who did teach you to cheat at English were too lazy to do their job. This is not only bad grammar; it is phony grammar. You use a word like criteria because it "sounds educated" and might impress the uneducated, exactly the reason Sarah Palin tried to sneak by "refudiate."

I'm not trying to give you lessons; you are uneducable. I just want to warn the people who know educated English to distrust your opinions, since you have already proved you are sloppy, superficial, and blindly imitative.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Oh, oh, please, first off, it's one of those abnormal singular/plural words. And it's one of those instances where the plural use 'criteria' doesn't verbally flow well with the plural 'seem' and 'seems' come off the tongue.

this is the fucking blogosphere, do you have anything substantive to add besides an inane grammar criticism because in my mind that superfluous 's' doesn't change the meaning to me..... You children is not learning.

[Paperback Writer]

Obviously, those who did teach you to cheat at English were too lazy to do their job. This is not only bad grammar; it is phony grammar. You use a word like criteria because it "sounds educated" and might impress the uneducated, exactly the reason Sarah Palin tried to sneak by "refudiate."

I'm not trying to give you lessons; you are uneducable. I just want to warn the people who know educated English to distrust your opinions, since you have already proved you are sloppy, superficial, and blindly imitative.

He is utilising the Oxford grammar style guide: http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/ogs.htm

[The Sage of Main Street]

He is utilising the Oxford grammar style guide: http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/ogs.htm

Actually, if I may be so uppity to say so, I could teach this apologist for Diploma Dumbos a thing or two about educated English. In the beginning, when he is talking about permissive dictionaries, what motivates this intellectual-pedophile panderer to lazy students is his profession's own laziness. From high school on, an "English" course becomes practically nothing but a Literature course. The "teachers" are themselves too lazy to go through the difficult and boring chore of actually teaching a verbal skill; they would rather pontificate on the latest fad novels glorifying depressing misfits. The trumpet call leading the Light-Headed Brigade to gibberish was, "You don't really have to learn this. In order to speak Good English, all you have to do is listen to the way educated people speak."

First, you don't learn very well through passive listening. Second, "educated" people don't learn very much; they cram for exams and soon forget most of what they get credit for learning.

[Refugee]

Obviously, those who did teach you to cheat at English were too lazy to do their job. This is not only bad grammar; it is phony grammar. You use a word like criteria because it "sounds educated" and might impress the uneducated, exactly the reason Sarah Palin tried to sneak by "refudiate."

I'm not trying to give you lessons; you are uneducable. I just want to warn the people who know educated English to distrust your opinions, since you have already proved you are sloppy, superficial, and blindly imitative.

An admission: I speak the way I write. It’s not very ‘modern’, I don’t ‘text speak’ and as western education is now so dumbed down, it probably does, “sound educated”. At the risk of sounding elitist, which the use of proper grammar now produces, I am educated and is that something to be ashamed of? It’s not phony to use it; it’s what I also do for a living. Palin is probably the same and I’ve yet to hear a democrat leader begin an address with, ‘Yo, me people, ow is yo doin, y’all’!

My opinions have little to do with my English grammar and I have yet to hear yours about the thread topic? So far you’ve attacked the poster and their use of grammar, any opinions or knowledge to add about the varying types of medical provision?

The grammar I use is UK 1960’s, before dumbing down became fashionable and before the rot of flexible, experimental and self-directed learning took off. The descriptions of sloppiness, superficiality and imitative probably belong more to your generation than they do mine; the generation gap widens.

I admire your revolutionary zeal, but waving a red flag on the barricades will never replace universities for knowledge.

“ . . . whether you are correct in your contention on this forum does not mean those on this forum could answer questions you contend that some unknown entity espouses.” A brilliant example of garbled self-taught grammar, from yourself. :smiley:

[Adelaide]

Every system has it's problems; I have heard good and bad things about the NHS.

Quite frankly, I think Australia has one of the best models of having both private and public health care.

[Refugee]

I’m not necessarily disparaging the NHS, just trying to compare and contrast.

6722

The one excellent thing it did is that on this day, (11 April), many years ago, it produced me! Tributes and goodwill messages have been pouring in from around the world.

6723
Here’s lookin’ at ya kid!


6724
A dashed good innings, old chap!


6725
Congratulations from the Youth communist league.


6726

Another success story. Congratulations from the NHS!

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

[The Sage of Main Street]

western education is now so dumbed down, it probably does, “sound educated”. I am educated and is that something to be ashamed of?

My opinions have little to do with my English grammar and I have yet to hear yours about the thread topic? So far you’ve attacked the poster and his use of grammar, any opinions or knowledge to add about the varying types of medical provision?

The grammar I use is UK 1960s, sloppiness, superficiality and imitative

I admire your revolutionary zeal

. :smiley:


Some irregular plurals and their singular forms:

Children, child
Data, datum
Media, medium
Parentheses, parenthesis
Phenomena, phenomenon
Bacteria, bacterium
Criteria, criterion
Indices, index
Crises, crisis
Analyses, analysis

Your learning deficiency in this area implies you can't learn in other areas. So why should I trust your analysis of the UK's public medicine?

[Refugee]

Some irregular plurals and their singular forms:

Children, child
Data, datum
Media, medium
Parentheses, parenthesis
Phenomena, phenomenon
Bacteria, bacterium
Criteria, criterion
Indices, index
Crises, crisis
Analyses, analysis

Your learning deficiency in this area implies you can't learn in other areas. So why should I trust your analysis of the UK's public medicine?

6731


I'd re-check a couple of those! Pay particular attention to irregular nouns.
It's all getting a bit boring. Stick to the thread topic? For your next assignment compare and contrast the U.S. and British health systems.

[Dr. Who]

Obviously, those who did teach you to cheat at English were too lazy to do their job. This is not only bad grammar; it is phony grammar. You use a word like criteria because it "sounds educated" and might impress the uneducated, exactly the reason Sarah Palin tried to sneak by "refudiate."

I'm not trying to give you lessons; you are uneducable. I just want to warn the people who know educated English to distrust your opinions, since you have already proved you are sloppy, superficial, and blindly imitative.
Oh for goodness sake. Criterion (or its plural criteria) is not a big fancy word, nor does it sound especially educated to anyone with a vocabulary of over 100 words. (I once had a dog with a 100 word vocabulary). The word is especially commonplace in the working world. Yes criteria is often misused as a singular - it is a sound thing. It sounds better than criterion, so it has been misused for the better part of 100 years. Whatever. It is still understood. People also make up words every day. Example: fantabulous -now in the dictionary. If a word is misused long enough and by enough people, it gains standing in the dictionary and acceptance. That is language, always changing and developing. **shrug** No one here is writing an essay for grades. Heck, Americans have dropped the "u"s from many of the original English words i.e. labor vs labour, favor vs favour, color vs colour etcetera. Language changes and people are not all that concerned about perfection. Communication is more than just perfect spelling and grammar, it is about ideas and messages. I am very surprised at your obsession with such things. Generally speaking it is a peccadillo of the upper classes, the wealthy heirheads of whom you speak disparagingly.

[Green Arrow]

Some irregular plurals and their singular forms:

Children, child
Data, datum
Media, medium
Parentheses, parenthesis
Phenomena, phenomenon
Bacteria, bacterium
Criteria, criterion
Indices, index
Crises, crisis
Analyses, analysis

Your learning deficiency in this area implies you can't learn in other areas. So why should I trust your analysis of the UK's public medicine?

You know who else is generally anal about spelling and grammar?

Heirheads.

[Refugee]

Yes, it is getting a bit obsessive. I think its the usual gripe about a self-taught education v a formal one and the elitist thing. You know, the equality thing; I'm as clever as everyone else, I didn't need university, look at me I can spell, it says so on Wikipedia.


The point Sage, is I'm not questioning your education, I'm asking you for an explanation of differing health care systems. Not something you've googled, but your personal opinion and explanation. Now that will determine whether you know anything or not, or whether you're just trolling. If it's something you don't know about, that's fine, but then just say so and move on. There are things, especially American politics that I'm not familiar with and so I don't get involved. It just sounds silly if you slide into a debate with your version of grammar errors and disrupt? Explain or move on. :smiley:

Perhaps you'd like to start a thread of your own on something? That's what they're there for. Fire away.

[Peter1469]

I make up words to describe behavior here: assholery as an example.


Oh for goodness sake. Criterion (or its plural criteria) is not a big fancy word, nor does it sound especially educated to anyone with a vocabulary of over 100 words. (I once had a dog with a 100 word vocabulary). The word is especially commonplace in the working world. Yes criteria is often misused as a singular - it is a sound thing. It sounds better than criterion, so it has been misused for the better part of 100 years. Whatever. It is still understood. People also make up words every day. Example: fantabulous -now in the dictionary. If a word is misused long enough and by enough people, it gains standing in the dictionary and acceptance. That is language, always changing and developing. **shrug** No one here is writing an essay for grades. Heck, Americans have dropped the "u"s from many of the original English words i.e. labor vs labour, favor vs favour, color vs colour etcetera. Language changes and people are not all that concerned about perfection. Communication is more than just perfect spelling and grammar, it is about ideas and messages. I am very surprised at your obsession with such things. Generally speaking it is a peccadillo of the upper classes, the wealthy heirheads of whom you speak disparagingly.

[Refugee]

I make up words to describe behavior here: assholery as an example.

Knowledge is a dangerous thing, don’t encourage it. One day we will all be equal and it will no longer matter. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

6734

[The Sage of Main Street]

Criterion (or its plural criteria) is especially commonplace in the working world. Yes criteria is often misused as a singular - it is a sound thing. It sounds better than criterion, so it has been misused for the better part of 100 years. Whatever. People also make up words every day.

If a word is misused long enough and by enough people, it gains standing in the dictionary and acceptance. No one here. Language changes and people are not all that concerned Communication is more than just perfect spelling and grammar, it is about ideas and messages. I am very surprised.

Just a comforting excuse for your denial about the dumbed-down education that enabled you to steal your job. If someone in your clique said that Chicago is the capital of Illinois and then got caught at it, he would say, "By capital, I mean most important city." Also by your logic, if enough Diploma Dumbos thought that Chicago was the capital, not just the most important city, then it would become the accepted capital.

There is nothing Off-Topic about exposing someone's dysfunctional education as a criticism of what he posts,

[The Sage of Main Street]

You know who else is generally anal about spelling and grammar?

Heirheads. Except the ones on your side, as usual. They are "just natural guys and don't use all that high-falutin' fancy talk."

[Dr. Who]

Just a comforting excuse for your denial about the dumbed-down education that enabled you to steal your job. If someone in your clique said that Chicago is the capital of Illinois and then got caught at it, he would say, "By capital, I mean most important city." Also by your logic, if enough Diploma Dumbos thought that Chicago was the capital, not just the most important city, then it would become the accepted capital.

There is nothing Off-Topic about exposing someone's dysfunctional education as a criticism of what he posts,

I don't know about having stolen my job - I worked my way up from an entry level position. You do make an awful lot of unfounded assumptions about people.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think its


The point, Sage, is I'm not questioning your education, I'm asking you for an explanation of differing health care systems. your personal opinion and explanation. Now that will determine whether you know anything or not If it's something you don't know about, that's fine, but then just say so and move on. There are things, especially American politics, that I'm not familiar with and so I don't get involved. It just sounds silly if you slide and disrupt? Explain or move on. :smiley:

Fire away.

Kind of bossy, aren't you? In case you forgot, we won the Revolutionary War against your incompetent Heirhead snobs. (Oh yes, I ignore the total lie that Preppies are prepared to parse and punctuate. Dumbo Dubya was the rule more than the exception).

BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS (not the Wiki stats, biased because Andrew Jackson was a "racist")

Patrician-led British dead: 700
Plebeian-led American dead: 7

[Dr. Who]

Kind of bossy, aren't you? In case you forgot, we won the Revolutionary War against your incompetent Heirhead snobs. (Oh yes, I ignore the total lie that Preppies are prepared to parse and punctuate. Dumbo Dubya was the rule more than the exception).

BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS (not the Wiki stats, biased because Andrew Jackson was a "racist")

Patrician-led British dead: 700
Plebeian-led American dead: 7

Seriously off topic. Have you got anything whatsoever to say about healthcare?

[Newpublius]

The point Sage, is I'm not questioning your education

I'm going to go out on a limb here and question it.

[Refugee]

Kind of bossy, aren't you? In case you forgot, we won the Revolutionary War against your incompetent Heirhead snobs. (Oh yes, I ignore the total lie that Preppies are prepared to parse and punctuate. Dumbo Dubya was the rule more than the exception).

BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS (not the Wiki stats, biased because Andrew Jackson was a "racist")

Patrician-led British dead: 700
Plebeian-led American dead: 7

Take me with a pinch of salt, it’s just my style of writing and thought, I’m a big pussy cat really. If I said something that I later found had been a mistake, or had genuinely caused offence to someone, I’d be the first to apologize and have done to one poster by PM. If I really was ‘bossy’, I’d be at the Germanicus or Ransom stage by now cursing everybody, falling out and generally being a nuisance. Don't take yourself so seriously; it’s a British thing, we downplay and often use humour to make a point. I take your angst and class hatred and turn it into this.


When questioned about the colonial wars the present day Queen replied:

6741

Is that clearer? Now, about those health care differences, you were saying . . . . .

[The Sage of Main Street]

Seriously off topic. Have you got anything whatsoever to say about healthcare? It's un-American to listen to what Tories have to say about public duties.

[Refugee]

It's un-American to listen to what Tories have to say about public duties.

Tories are old American, what you’re going into now is an un-American UK type socialism that you think you've suddenly discovered?