Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html en-gb 30 Tue 21 Apr 2015 12:21:11 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html U14429273 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=98#comment57 This post has been Removed Sun 23 May 2010 02:29:53 GMT+1 crash2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=96#comment56 I am assuming you are one of the mindless hoard that runs around reading the guardian,worrying about the global warming hoax,health care scam being floated by the socialists.Medical care is far more exspensive in the UK then it is here that is a fact,and for the incredible amount of red tape that goes along with getting anything done is why the government has no place in the health care system. Mon 04 Jan 2010 20:39:17 GMT+1 U14270171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=94#comment55 crash I still stand with any assertions I made against you;)So you moved from The UK and like the health care system here?So you are being paid well by someone or think that you will not pay but when you get sick in the end you like a few poorer republicans I know who admit that " when I need it I'll get it "so tight /so tight.Never assume I assume you are american for being a shill. I know there are plenty of very republican(bad sort not nice ones) that move to america I think they have had a remarkably bad effect on the republican party. they hate big gov and europe etc they love american"freedom" because it allows them to screw people over. you either left too early in life to make a credible judgement because hospitals there seem to keep people alive for longer and more of them. that is a raving success. take it away you would have a collapse of government. whittle it down you can stay in power while profiting at the peoples long term expense . did you run away from bad doctors or your conscience.I have a question. Do you like the daily mail? Sun 03 Jan 2010 21:49:40 GMT+1 crash2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=93#comment54 Moron or shill ? To the man who gladly forks over,what 60% of his check to a government that will not let the general public vote on the Lisbon treaty for fear they will loose!whose country is rapidly spinning to a 2nd world country(along with the USA),through fiscal madness hyper inflation is on it's way.When this happens go a head and hug your local MP,because he's there help when did the government ever lead people astray ! Sun 03 Jan 2010 04:10:13 GMT+1 crash2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=91#comment53 Well i love it when people make assumptions,cheesefuller,i grew up in east sussex.I remember those fine hospitals over there,which by the way were dirtier then most mall restrooms over here.You most likely watch the BBC news and gloat on your sophisticated British ways,compared to our crass America.The people of Europe have steadily had their freedom of choice eroded through taxation and massive government regulation.In the UK you can hardly go anywhere with out cctv recording your movements and apparently now you road tax is going to assessed through tracking devices to record your mileage.Business is not the enemy Government takeover of everyday life is the enemy, time to wake up and look around you,i just hope this country is not about to head down that path. Sun 03 Jan 2010 03:53:20 GMT+1 U14270171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=89#comment52 Crash survival rates for cancer . that old hat has been shot down many times.Yet again the blog is going to be filled with lies from an industry shill or a moron.Mary the Over paid fed employees is just another pam Idea from the spamminator.It is ridiculous, next he will be going on about the overpaid kitchen attendants in the school system. My father worked for the UK gov. sure he was doing well by the time he retired, he was good at his job, but like you say he could have got a lot richer going into the private sector. He was indeed offered several very well paid jobs from the private sector ( he was a fairly high ranking diplomat;)unlike me though I am high.);)He didn't believe that the people paid him to make himself rich so he stayed and the gov kept the experience.48 JMM I think we can assume that crash is a fraud. Sat 02 Jan 2010 18:13:50 GMT+1 mary http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=87#comment51 One other point I would like to mention- all though I am as confused about the bill as everyone else I thought that in a least one version people would be allowed to sign up for one of the same federal plans as we have . Sat 02 Jan 2010 17:25:19 GMT+1 mary http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=86#comment50 One thing thAT I would like to point out: Federal government employees are not over paid- most federal employees could make more money doing the same job in a non federal area. Also our "gold plated" health insurance while good is not exceptional, in fact I know of others who work for large corporations who actually have better coverage. Our coverage is paid out of our paychecks with our employer picking up half the tab -not unlike priavate employee insurance. We have deductibles and co pays etc. One of the job benefits which most of us accept as a trade off for lessor salaries is that if we work for 30 years we can retire at 55 with our pension ( also taken from payroll deductions) and still keep our insurance- however we still pay our premiums ourself. CONGRESS on the other hand does have the practically free gold plated plan as well as a huge retirement fund etc. Sat 02 Jan 2010 17:01:17 GMT+1 crash2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=84#comment49 You really believe those government employees don't lie to the public ! Sat 02 Jan 2010 03:16:31 GMT+1 crash2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=82#comment48 JMM you miss the point completely,the bottom line is an insurance companies have to make a profit to exist,a government bureaucrat can mess things up over and over again and the taxes keep rolling in.Make enough mistakes then raise them taxes and hire some more bureaucrats!!!!!! Sat 02 Jan 2010 03:13:19 GMT+1 McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=81#comment47 Crash2Please explain to me the logic of entrusting your health care to someone who profits from NOT taking care of you? How is it rational to entrust your healthcare to bureaucrats [that's how insurance company employees act, you know] who get paid bonuses for reducing expenses [i.e. denying claims] and boosting company profits [not to mention CEO salaries, stock options, and bonuses]?It is true that the post office and some other services are hardly examples of efficient governance [then there is the Katrina debacle]. But government employees are NOT actually paid to DELIBERATELY cheat the public the way the insurance company employees are. Sat 02 Jan 2010 03:03:13 GMT+1 crash2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=79#comment46 Brenpmom check out the survival rates for cancer and then tell me about the GREAT benefits of big brother running your health care systems !! Sat 02 Jan 2010 02:54:39 GMT+1 crash2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=77#comment45 The government take over of health care is a total disaster for the USA.Somebody want to show how the government has ever in the history of this country run anything well?The postal service is incredibly badly run,Social Sercurity is an incredible mess which is going to need billions to sure up(this is looming),medicaid should be frightening enough of a warning shot across our bows to show how the government running a medical benefit for the general public.The reality is we cannot afford it and we are heading towards a second rate health system like they have in the United Kingdom. Sat 02 Jan 2010 02:50:49 GMT+1 brenpmon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=75#comment44 I think what most Americans fail to see is the obvious disadvantage that comes with having insurance companies that are in firm control of the country's healthcare system. Like any business, the objective of an insurance company is to make as much money as possible while keeping costs down. This is clearly incompatible with what should be the objective of a healthcare system, to keep people healthy. It sounds macabre, but insurance companies prefer to not treat you, insurance companies will always try and deny you treatment. Should you come down with a serious illness, the insurance company would prefer for you to die rather than have to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars on treating you.As a US citizen living in Europe for the past 10 years, I would say that the fundamental difference between the US and EU systems is that in the EU, you never have to worry about not getting treated for anything. There are no pre-existing conditions. Private insurance is the norm for the employed middle classes, and it is much more reasonably priced, as it is kept in check by government. If I were to lose my job tomorrow, I could keep my excellent private insurance for 75 EUR per month, no questions asked. If I choose to give up my private insurance, I can always depend on the state.The attitude towards healthcare is also very different in the EU. In the US, the approach is very proactive, the system tries to get you to visit the doctor as much as possible and the patient becomes a pawn, stuck in the middle of two sides that are constantly at war with each other: the doctors and the insurance companies. In the EU, I can go to the pharmacy and just explain to the pharmacist what my symptoms are, and they will give me the medicine I need at a very reasonable cost. In the US, I would have to go to the doctor and spend 500 USD (already inflated due to insurance) on a doctor visit, spend time going to the doctor, get a prescription, and then overpay for the medication. Also, the US system encourages people to go to the doctor for every little thing, whereas in my experiences in the EU, most minor ailments can be sorted out with a quick visit to the pharmacy.Unfortunately, the insurance companies are firmly in control, as demonstrated by the hugely powerful health insurance lobby paying hundreds of millions to US politicians. This means that things will never change.I challenge any one to state, using facts and hard evidence, why the system of having the insurance companies in firm control of the healthcare system is more beneficial than having the government overseeing it. Thu 31 Dec 2009 18:50:00 GMT+1 U14270171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=74#comment43 "competitive mechanisms that are involved in extending a prescription drug benefit to seniors"Lol well there's a joke. as far as I can see the mitch Mc connel was making up all his stuff. but no one thought it worth challenging him.or that post from me.;) Mon 28 Dec 2009 15:15:12 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=72#comment42 This post has been Removed Mon 28 Dec 2009 06:58:25 GMT+1 U14270171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=70#comment41 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t457_h14ftw48 seconds in. there he goes newt the gherkin. easy to see where gherkin gets his facts.Yes newt Muslims terrorists are Muslim terrorists. No kidding.What typical crap. Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:57:19 GMT+1 U14270171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=68#comment40 So today in the Seasonal spirit Newt named appropriately said what Gherkin has for some time. He picked three terrorists of Muslim faith and then used that to justify the comment terrorists are muslims ,but not quite because he does know how to play the game.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn0TsYnPpBc7 minutes in. interesting question and answer."came in 30 % under budget because of the competitive mechanisms that are involved in extending a prescription drug benefit to seniors " then goes on to slag off dems then stumbles with a classic let me cough because I';m about to depart from reality.so by expanding to include all and get competitive bargaining for old peoples drugs is OK. But only to those old folk that had time to save. screw the young. Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:13:55 GMT+1 Philly-Mom http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=67#comment39 33. At 9:13pm on 24 Dec 2009, SaintDominick wrote:'Don't you think it is time to abandon the excuses and simply admit that the bill is being opposed because it is politically and philosophically offensive to conservatives, and because of the need to undermine President Obama's agenda?'Wow. St Dom, I lift my mug of post-Christmas coffee to you. You want some Christmas Cinnamon Rolls? I got some left for ya...____________________36. At 10:57am on 25 Dec 2009, Oxondon wrote:'It is always been a fascination to me, ...that both the media and higher management of the health service here are so focussed on the American Healthcare system! ...I wish Obama well with the bill but at the end of the day American healthcare is a problem for the American people to solve, so why do we care so much?'Interesting - well, at a glance I figure that this blog is by a brit in DC about living in America, so that's we we're hashing it out so much.BUT - if it's hitting headlines abroad (being in the USA, I wouldn't know.) then it may have to do with a few ugly intercultural factors:1) Folks here are frothing that Obama's an UnAmerican Socialist... like those folks in the EU... srsly. This is silly. Is the EU really Socialist? Does the NHS make Britain Communist? Really? So, please - feel free to laugh at our ignorance. NewsFlash: Amurikunz are bein' kinda dumb. [insert laugh track here]2) For better or for worse, our economies and political philosophies are interconnected. When US Markets crash, so will Europe's, Asia's, the MiddleEast's... So EU Folks might want keep abreast of significant changes to US internal economic infrastructure - particularly in times of international economic turbulence.3) When I was in Los Angeles 10 years ago, an insurance crisis hit. A Doctor-Friend said that the crisis would hit the North East US in a few years. I then moved to the North East and his prophecy proved true. Might not this trending crisis of 'un-affordable coverage' pass through other nations? Is it not already being felt in certain second/third world countries? We're a global village these days whether we like it or not.'No Worries' as our upside-down friends say. Give it a few weeks and the headlines will change. Promise. It's a change you can believe in. Sun 27 Dec 2009 17:22:30 GMT+1 Philly-Mom http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=65#comment38 Wow. Sounds like you visited my neighborhood, honey. Blessings upon your and your house.'Evet Hill, an outpatient returning after surgery, tells me: "Everybody should have it as a right. They should have insurance because go to a hospital today, and you don't have it, whatever the sickness they're going to turn you down."'Its the truth. Most folks around here are older and havin' a hard time keeping their houses. Aging middle-class folks have a hard time getting insurance and medication. The aging po'folk community is forced to choose between their homes or their treatments. Sometimes they don't have a choice and they just count themselves lucky if their family can care for them. It's sad.'In fact no hospital, and certainly not one dedicated to "serving the under-served", will turn away an emergency patient.' Oh really? A few years back, an overcrowded Los Angeles Hospital was filling up ambulances with under-insured folks who couldn't contact kin, and dropping them off at area homeless shelters. I imagine those same shelters are underfunded and overcrowded these days...'The big fear of some doctors I speak to is that the bill will make people take out insurance, while not providing a cheap way of doing it.' Ho yeah. Thats exactly the fear of some doctors, employers, middle class voters, right-wing nutjobs...Will our fears drive our representative's votes? Well.. can Capitol Hill actually develop a plan that can deliver insurance without confirming our fears?If so - they better do a hard-core 'dog & pony show' once this thing is finished, or people will be angry because they're afraid.We're worried-- that employers could go out of business with additional burdens, -- that insurance industry jobs could be lost to big-gov takover-- that po' folk will have to pay for insurance when they're already too poor to buy food clothing and shelter...'But the view from Howard, taken as a whole, is that they trust the president, but not some of his colleagues on the Hill.'Same goes 'round here, honey. Poli-Ticks. It's a bloody mess.You can't cook a good omelet without a few cracked eggs...but people want to know - 'Where's the beef?' Sun 27 Dec 2009 16:56:35 GMT+1 SaintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=63#comment37 Ref 34, Magic"This bill is being opposed because it is a bad bil"No Magic, considering the fact that the Democrats have met the two most important demands made by conservative Republicans - the removal of the public option and not providing public funding for abortion - there is little that precludes them from embracing legislation and the implementation of a program that would benefit all Americans, as well as our business community (except for the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals). The reason the GOP remains intent in preventing meaningful healthcare reform is because of ideology, political opportunism, and the massive political donations they get from special interests. Their obstinacy suggests the status quo is much more important to them than the welfare of the American people.Regarding the disdain you show for the Democratic leadership, and your insistence that Republican politicians and policies are the best, I suggest you examine the results of the last election and reflect on what you find. Sun 27 Dec 2009 14:51:50 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=62#comment36 ref #35No as usual you can't argue a point Cheese.Nancy Pelosi is underserving of the U.S taxpayer paying for her healthcare yet we do.As I stated earlier the Irish PM took a 20% pay cut, bit none of our lraders are making any financial sacrifices. Fri 25 Dec 2009 12:24:33 GMT+1 Oxondon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=60#comment35 It is always been a fascination to me, as an individual who has both studied and worked in the NHS that both the media and higher management of the health service here are so focussed on the American Healthcare system! Politically it is interesting as Obama needs this victory as the mid term elections approach and other policies both foreign and domestic rise up the agenda! He needs this issue off his desk and into his "done and dusted" file. But as a system the US health system has little to offer the UK (or Europe)! Whereas the French, Swedish and Danish systems have areas of operation and practice that are, in funding or operational terms relevant. I wish Obama well with the bill but at the end of the day American healthcare is a problem for the American people to solve, so why do we care so much? Fri 25 Dec 2009 10:57:02 GMT+1 U14270171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=58#comment34 Any one remember the energy bill that (whatever it was called) that GW and dick cocked... sorry cooked up behind closed doors giving a few minutes for the dems to read it before the vote. That one that the GOP guys didn't have any time to read either.Gop Are bloody lucky to be allowed to read anything after that. The Dems should just hold closed meetings, thrash it out then give it to the gop to read when they have finished deciding. If they behaved like the GOP.That bill I believe could be closer to this one in length, maybe longer.At the behest of the petro industry they tried to get an mtbe producers a limited liability.Glad we still have AnwarGherkin. no I didn't prove your point because as you point out the military are underpaid. the firefighters are mostly volunteer and the pros are under paid.I'd probably go along with the cops are underpaid as well , and I'm no fan of the cops.;)"why not have Federal employees especially "especially the over paid does not exclude the underpaid from your plan.You cannot shift the goal post in the middle of a game. you might leave your goal open when you are busy pushing. Fri 25 Dec 2009 00:10:54 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=56#comment33 ref #33 SaintDominick wrote:Ref 30, MagicThis bill has been in the making for about 8 or 9 months, and moderate Republicans participated in its writing. Versions of this bill have been made available to all members of Congress as it progressed, and it culminated with reading it to the entire Senate for those that seem to have problems reading.___________________-No they haven't. Olympia snowe got some input to get out of commitee than they rewrote the entire bill. John Mccain who is a moderate (and who would have been a far greater President)claims he was not allowed no input.I will take hs word over Harry Reid's.This bill is being opposed because it is a bad bil Thu 24 Dec 2009 22:18:13 GMT+1 SaintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=55#comment32 Ref 30, MagicThis bill has been in the making for about 8 or 9 months, and moderate Republicans participated in its writing. Versions of this bill have been made available to all members of Congress as it progressed, and it culminated with reading it to the entire Senate for those that seem to have problems reading.Healthcare reform is not rocket science, and it is an issue that has been debated for almost 100 years. Anyone that claims he/she can not vote in favor of this bill because they did not have enough time to read it and understand it needs to go back to Middle School for a crash course in English comprehension.Don't you think it is time to abandon the excuses and simply admit that the bill is being opposed because it is politically and philosophically offensive to conservatives, and because of the need to undermine President Obama's agenda? Thu 24 Dec 2009 21:13:12 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=53#comment31 ref #31And of course you didn't. Thu 24 Dec 2009 20:47:11 GMT+1 U14270171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=51#comment30 28lol Godalming"hat kind of anti-human neanderthal slack-jawed misanthropic know-nothing could possibly want to do that?"come to the states you can meet some of them. they abound they have a different name here than that longwinded version. they call them"republicans" Gherkin"Give me an example other than military or other life saving areas of a underpaid federal worker."Ah wait don't move the goal posts.You prove my point. Thu 24 Dec 2009 19:52:41 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=50#comment29 ref #26 and 28Obama was breidfed almost right after the elction he had McCrhystal's recomendation in March.compare that to 72 hours for seeing a 2000+ page Senate bill. Thu 24 Dec 2009 18:51:25 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=48#comment28 ref #26Gherkin"And considering how much time was spent on a relativly simple decision like Afghanastan, Obama and the Dems did not want an in depth open discussion."LOLand LOL again.better they snapped at the first Idea going by. that would show in depth thinking;)"But yes why not have Federal employees especially all the overpaid "but you would penalise even the underpaid workers.______________________Give me an example other than military or other life saving areas of a underpaid federal worker. Thu 24 Dec 2009 18:50:08 GMT+1 vagueofgodalming http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=46#comment27 And considering how much time was spent on a relativly simple decision like Afghanastan, Obama and the Dems did not want an in depth open discussion.You cannot be serious. Obama took, what, a month, to think about Afghanistan. The whole damn political class has been obsessing about healthcare reform to the virtual exclusion of anything else since about the beginning of 2008, and you want them to spend more time on it?A cynic might think that tying everyone in knots over healthcare is just a ploy to prevent any progress on reforming Wall Street, addressing global warming, repealing DADT, pulling the economy out of recession, yada, yada...But what kind of anti-human neanderthal slack-jawed misanthropic know-nothing could possibly want to do that? Thu 24 Dec 2009 18:30:55 GMT+1 Gavrielle_LaPoste http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=44#comment26 @MagicIt's not corporate profit I am concerned about its goverment control and inefiency.andI oppose it for several reason and that includes the goverment inefiency i think the private sector does a better job. You wouldn't say that if you'd ever lived under the administration of either, consecutively. I have. Shortly after I moved into public housing in the mid-1990s as rents sky rocketed, HUD was put in charge of Chicago's Housing Authority because of rampant corruption. They centralized everything out of one office in Chicago, rather than out of dozens of small building management offices scattered across the city. No more rents checks disappeared, there was a single number to call for maintenance services and someone was there immediately or the next day. Repairs were made to the properties as needed and the quality of life improved substantially. It was a very, very efficient and cost-effective system.For several years things went well. Then the privatizers, backed by developers like US Equities and Habitat, showed up with their private sector does it better siren song. Private management took over the running of public housing and this time, not only rent checks started disappearing but, just like before, tens of millions of dollars in equipment, like snow plows, refrigerators, stoves, paint, pipes and floor tiles went out the warehouse doors. And you're lucky if a work order to repair a leak or a hole in your ceiling from falling plaster gets a response in less than six months -- again, just like in the old days.When the government mandated that substandard housing be torn down and replaced with mixed income developments - another private developer backed plan - the money flew out the door even faster. Those buildings that weren't torn down, and replaced with - surprise, surprise - two thirds less housing for all those low income people who were displaced - were quickly emptied.And once the tenants were out the door the private management companies changed the rules. It wasn't enough to have lived in housing, never violated any rules and paid your rent on time. No, if you were a single mother with children and didn't have a full time job (you know, the kind of families who really need low cost housing) you couldn't get back in. They even ended programs whereby tenants who couldn't pay the minimum $50 rent (if you were unemployed and receiving no aid) would work cleaning the streets and hallways a certain number of hours a week in exchange until they found jobs. You have to pay at least 30 percent of your income as rent in public housing or market rate if you make above a certain amount. So, naturally, the jobless quickly became the homeless - your problem and mine. All the better to rid the system of pesky poor people, so that the developers could move on their final plan: Stealing millions more from the federal government to rehab the low-rise developments, like mine, at taxpayer expense, to be turned into housing for the well-to-do.And rehab they did. Of course, like I said, only after tossing out two thirds of the residents and shipping them to the suburbs on temporary Section 8 vouchers by claiming their homes were unfit for human habitation and needed to be torn down. Except, those are the only apartments they've rehabbed! If you live in housing and want your apartment rehabbed, as the government mandated, you have to take your private management company to court. Because unless your cabinets are falling off the wall or the ceiling is caving in, you can live like a rat for all they care. Oh, and if you make any repairs at your own expense, you can be evicted.And this is not just happening where I live. It is happening all over the country. The private sector gets its greedy for-profit hands into government money and you can forget about seeing any returns for the people they are supposed to be serving. At least when the government is in charge, the people who implement the plans do their best, because they know if they do well they will get promoted and earn more money. Private management isn't interested in promoting employees who spend appropriate amounts of money while doing their jobs. They're interested in promoting the people who spend nothing and give the least amount of services in exchange for lining their corporate bosses pockets with your taxpayer dollars. Thu 24 Dec 2009 18:27:55 GMT+1 U14270171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=43#comment25 6 lovely post.Gherkin"And considering how much time was spent on a relativly simple decision like Afghanastan, Obama and the Dems did not want an in depth open discussion."LOLand LOL again.better they snapped at the first Idea going by. that would show in depth thinking;)"But yes why not have Federal employees especially all the overpaid " but you would penalise even the underpaid workers. Thu 24 Dec 2009 17:11:26 GMT+1 U14270171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=41#comment24 MA hip replacements are not given to people who would possibly die from the surgery. Have pneumonia bronchitis real bad and they will say "best to wait""for your health" unlike my friend in the states who was quadriplegic and had a kidney stone that could have been passed with the right drugs, but instead the Surgeon decided he HAD to operate, she suffered a fractured hip during the operation and several other complications. needless to say that doc was dropped.Should she sue?I know we would both agree that "tort" reform is a pile of herring gone off. the torts are there for a reason and they are not as problematic as the insurance industry for mal-pracitce insurance.I like much of your second paragraph but disagree about the training of other Doctors from other countries. Them French seem to have an excellent bunch trained at home. same in the UK. Thu 24 Dec 2009 16:56:38 GMT+1 oldnat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=39#comment23 19. pciii"#12 MAII: Seriously posted this as an argument: "I've been watching the old Rumpole of the Bailey TV series made in the 1980s.""His post reminded me of the practices of the former Soviet Union - who represented the world of Charles Dickens being representative of the West in the 1970s!These ideological imperialists are all the same! :-) Thu 24 Dec 2009 15:42:31 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=37#comment22 ref #22, PartTimeDon wrote:ref#21 MagicYou think ambulance chasing law suits could cause more of a hike in insurance policies than institutional price fixing?!? As for federal worker's healthcare, you're already funding it. That implies that you oppose this bill solely on the grounds that its not fair or that it's not everything you wanted? In post #13 it was because you were ideologically opposed to big government. That's inconsistent. Make your mind up.Can't say I like you picking on Pelosi and Reid in particular. I'd say they're a lot better than most, but overall I view all politicians as a necessary evil - even republicans. If we didn't have them, we'd really miss them.______________I oppose it for several reason and that includes the goverment inefiency i think the private sector does a better job. But yes why not have Federal employees especially all the overpaid ones pay their healthcare out of their own pockets? Right now they get a Cadillac plan.You can like Pelosi and Reid all you like but even when Bush was in office they were less popular than him Thu 24 Dec 2009 15:08:29 GMT+1 PartTimeDon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=36#comment21 ref#21 MagicYou think ambulance chasing law suits could cause more of a hike in insurance policies than institutional price fixing?!? As for federal worker's healthcare, you're already funding it. That implies that you oppose this bill solely on the grounds that its not fair or that it's not everything you wanted? In post #13 it was because you were ideologically opposed to big government. That's inconsistent. Make your mind up.Can't say I like you picking on Pelosi and Reid in particular. I'd say they're a lot better than most, but overall I view all politicians as a necessary evil - even republicans. If we didn't have them, we'd really miss them. Thu 24 Dec 2009 14:44:23 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=34#comment20 ref #18 PartTimeDon wrote:ref#13 MagicP.S. My premise was that the bill would restrict pay offs for the healthcare corporations. In what world is it right that companies that make that much money should be exempt from anti-trust and price fixing laws?________________-I am moree concerned about predatory ambulance chasers wo caused the insurance rates to go up. I am still waiting to see sacrfices from goverment employees. Let them all pledge to be on the single payer option that the public gets. I resent paying for thier healthcare when I have to pay for mine. And I contribute (as do more workers in the private sector) alot more to the economy than Reid or Pelosi have in their entire lives. Thu 24 Dec 2009 14:02:27 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=32#comment19 trf #14First I know something about Howard University, I did voluntair work for several of their PBS fundraisers.Part of my understanding with them was they would continue to have a wide range of offerings. They broke their word and offered a very limited radical agenda. so yes I don't find Howard represetative of the country.You seem think that I and others that object to this bill don't want universal healthcare. I do but I don't want at the expense of everything else. And considering how much time was spent on a relativly simple decision like Afghanastan, Obama and the Dems did not want an in depth open discussion.Since everyone knows I have no sympathies for unions one of the losers are workers whose cadillac plans are to be heavily taxed. Thu 24 Dec 2009 14:00:03 GMT+1 pciii http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=31#comment18 #12 MAII: Seriously posted this as an argument: "I've been watching the old Rumpole of the Bailey TV series made in the 1980s."Excellent! Pure gold! You could not make this up if you tried. Please keep up the entertainment Thu 24 Dec 2009 13:36:06 GMT+1 PartTimeDon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=29#comment17 ref#13 MagicP.S. My premise was that the bill would restrict pay offs for the healthcare corporations. In what world is it right that companies that make that much money should be exempt from anti-trust and price fixing laws? Thu 24 Dec 2009 13:27:26 GMT+1 PartTimeDon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=27#comment16 ref#12 MAII: Forgive me for being a stickler, but I don't think a 20 year old episode of Rumpole of the Bailey counts as reasonable evidence of waiting lists of the NHS. The country has moved on from that and now most people have to wait to get onto a waiting list. This helps keep the waiting lists short and the government looks like it has met its targets. This doesn't bother me though as I have private health insurance (yes it is still available in the UK), which means I can get surgery very quickly.ref13# Magic: Quite honestly, I'm willing to pay for a public service in case I need it one day. I would not be comfortable with the idea that one small accident would condem me and my family to poverty as soon as my insurance limits were reached. I'm happy that this service is extended to everyone else including the poor who I'm subsidising. It makes the poverty trap a little bit easier to escape in the UK and certainly doesn't condemn more people to it. In fact I regard it as a mark of civilisation and hope that the US public concsiousness will one day develop to aspiring towards it. Thu 24 Dec 2009 13:25:07 GMT+1 Mike Smith http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=25#comment15 Regardless of the ethics involved - most everyone would give a hand to those in need, even(gasp)Republicans - it's the cost which is the deciding factor. If the government weren't already over $12 trillion in debt -say, a mere four or five trillion - and the unemployment was at Bush levels(5-6 %), maybe the country could afford this expensive foray into universal health care. But adding to the financial burden of a society with over ten percent (and climbing) unemployment is just asking for bankruptcy. And where, fair readers, do you think this world will be if America declares bankruptcy? Will England save the world? Will China? Will ANYONE? No! Because without the nasty consumers in America, the world falters and fails financially. Thu 24 Dec 2009 13:07:59 GMT+1 shiveringofforgottenenemies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=24#comment14 My brother recently had a motorcycle accident. As a retired federal employee he had excellent health insurance. His relatively minor accident cost the insurance company $80,000. The 25 mile ambulance ride was billed to the insurance company for $2500, that is, $100 a mile. The American health care system does not require "reform" but a complete restructuring. This will never happen in the United States due to the unique system where there are only 2 viable political parties creating a power elite with tentacles reaching deep into the economic base. Politicians in the past used to be able to retire into comfortable positions in the military industrial complex but today, they will be able to move onto the boards of health related companies and you are going to see more and more back room politics in health care, and the American citizen never benefits from these sleazy dealings.The fact that Michelle Obama herself had tapped into the rich vein of hospital administration is indicative of how the Democrats view the health field..as a ripe plum for the picking.The fact that no one can afford hospital care without health insurance is NOT an argument that everyone must then buy health insurance. Rather it is an indication that the system is horrendously flawed. All this bill does is create mandatory unaffordable health insurance.Obama sold Americans a big slice of pie-in-the-sky, by telling them they had a right to affordable health care. Hillary Clinton was peddling pie-in-the-sky that every American deserved to own their own home and have a college education....ooops, that pie got burned. Now, Obama's pie-in-the-sky is smaller, nastier, and a lot less tasty than the picture on the box...time to get the propaganda machine cranked up to high! Thu 24 Dec 2009 12:58:14 GMT+1 SaintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=22#comment13 Ref 8, MagicSomehow, what you insinuate does not surprise me. Why bother with the nuances of a Bill so important to our society when the answer for the reasons some welcome it and others oppose it are, in your opinion, based on whether the supporters reside in predominantly African American communities and the opponents live in predominantly white areas. I am not among those that believe opposition is fueled by racial prejudice, but your post certainly suggests just that.I believe it is an embarrassment to be the only developed nation that refuses to provide healthcare to all its citizens, and one that allows a segment of its industry to abuse clients by denying them coverage when they have a serious chronic illness, and forces those that can ill afford it to pay exhorbitant premiums, co-pays, out of pocket expenses and other forms of extortion with absolute impunity.This bill is far from perfect and too many concessions have been given to the right wing who continue to oppose it, not because of its merit, but because of financial and political considerations. Nevertheless, it is better than nothing and it may pave the way for further improvements as time goes by.Hopefully the House of Representatives will have the courage to stand up against pressure from the right wing and the insurance industry and send a bill to the White House that makes us all proud. Thu 24 Dec 2009 12:54:26 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=20#comment12 ref #112009, PartTimeDon wrote:The way I see it, if you see the welfare of the American people as a priority, this bill is better than nothing.If you see the welfare of corporate balance sheets as a priority, then the bill is a bad thing.As I don't believe "trickle down" theory of wealth creation will result in more lives being saved than by just providing healthcare to people directly, I think the bill needs to pass.If anyone disagrees, please explain why in a way that doesn't make me think you are prepared to exchange lives for coprporate profit, or even worse just to see Obama fail.________________I disagree with your premise first big pharm and big insurance are being paid off in this bill. It's not corporate profit I am concerned about its goverment control and inefiency.And the fact that the middle class is being asked to pay for this and if you live in Nebraska we have to pay for you. Thu 24 Dec 2009 12:52:37 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=18#comment11 The bills in both Houses of Congress seem badly flawed, the process a disgrace and a travesty to our democracy. As is often the case, both political parties are to blame. The current bill in the Senate may be unconstitutional on at least two grounds. It forces every American to buy insurance or break the law. The argument that this is similar to being forced to buy automobile insurance is false. Nobody is forced to buy or own a car. What happens to people who can't afford medical insurance even at the government's reduced rates or simply neglect to buy it, are they going to be sent to prison or fined money they don't have and can't pay? The special treatment Nebraska will get as a political favor for their Senator voting to prevent a Republican filibuster may violate the due process provision of the Constitution. When tested in court, I think if found unconstitutional on either ground the entire law will be invalidated.The Republicans have no answers either. So called tort law reform is a way to protect their rich doctor friends from paying for the consequences of the damage they inflict through professional negligence or incompetence the way anyone else would have to. The Republicans say the market should solve the problem but the supply of acceptable doctors trained in the US is in a state of shortage because doctors themselves have managed to restrict the number of medical schools to assure a shortage. This has always seemed to me a violation of our anti-trust laws. When it became severe in the 1980s, they imported foreign doctors to work under HMO's licenses, financial investments in which they often had a large financial self intrest. These foreign doctors were poorly paid and incompetent by American standards, probably also told to keep costs low or face going back to where they came from. Due to an unintended loophole in the law which allowed HMOs to operate these doctors and their employers could not be sued for the havoc they literally wrecked on so many lives. The one thing we don't want is an American version of the British NHS. British denials to the contrary, their system is also badly flawed. I've been watching the old Rumpole of the Bailey TV series made in the 1980s. In an episode called "Rumpole and the Tap End" in which the initial plot revolves around a man accused of trying to drown his wife as they shared a bath, Rumpole asks his solicitor Mr. Bernard if he shares a bath with his wife. He replies that his wife has "a hip" but is in for a replacement. That seems to mean she's on a waiting list for a hip replacement so the stories of having to wait a year or more for such an operation under the UK's NHS are not only true but long standing, widely known, and accepted. All of the denials we heard earlier this year from Brits who defended their system just points up what bald faced liars Brits like all other Europeans are when it comes to covering up the many deep flaws in their own societies. We ignore and copy their mistakes at our own peril. Thu 24 Dec 2009 12:50:14 GMT+1 PartTimeDon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=17#comment10 The way I see it, if you see the welfare of the American people as a priority, this bill is better than nothing.If you see the welfare of corporate balance sheets as a priority, then the bill is a bad thing.As I don't believe "trickle down" theory of wealth creation will result in more lives being saved than by just providing healthcare to people directly, I think the bill needs to pass.If anyone disagrees, please explain why in a way that doesn't make me think you are prepared to exchange lives for coprporate profit, or even worse just to see Obama fail. Thu 24 Dec 2009 12:27:28 GMT+1 RegalBankie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=15#comment9 From my European "socialist" viewpoint, I'd agree that some reform is better than none. IIRC Ted Kennedy refused to compromise circa 1971 when Nixon was ready to sign a watered down healthcare bill and ended up with nothing. I stand to be corrected on that of course.IMHO the benefits secured by Senators like Ben Nelson for Nebraska in return for their vote show up the US political system at its worst. Thu 24 Dec 2009 10:56:49 GMT+1 vagueofgodalming http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=13#comment8 All the deals, all the money, all the compromise, has not brought round one Republican senator.Not for want of trying, though: Max Baucus wasted all summer trying to get some on board while Sarah Palin had the run of the media.The big fear of some doctors I speak to is that the bill will make people take out insurance, while not providing a cheap way of doing it.Considering the massive subsidies in both House and Senate versions, that seems a strange fear.In an election yearWell, of course, nothing will actually take effect until about 2097, so what will matter is the perception of what has been passed, not the reality. Past experience suggests the Republicans will understand this point better than the Democrats. People will turn up to hospital expecting everything to be different in 2010, and assume healthcare reform has failed, because it won't be. Thu 24 Dec 2009 10:25:35 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=12#comment7 Howard University and the area around it solidly liberal and is not a good barometer of the country.Why not go to say Ohio than South Carolina and than Idaho to get a better representation of the country. Thu 24 Dec 2009 09:55:42 GMT+1 Mark http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=10#comment6 Americans across the political spectrum feel the congress has circumvented a legitimate legislative process in order to ram through an ill-conceived bill to gain a perceived partesan victory.In essence, the democratic party has effectively engineered a coup d'etat setting the stage for subsequent legislative "victories."An avalanche of court challenges will undoubedly follow.Meanwhile, an alienated,infuriated electorate counts the days until the 2010 and 2012 elections. Thu 24 Dec 2009 09:41:13 GMT+1 jiweil http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=8#comment5 Reading and listening to the rhetoric from people who do not support the bill, I am surprised at the selfishness and inconsideration of their voices. To the people that do not support the bill, it comes down to "my current health care", "my taxes", and "my family". I guess that goes with the spirit of a nation where half the people see that there is absolutely no point to pay ANY taxes. That there is just as little benefit in paying taxes to educate ALL kids as is giving those kids health care so they can attend classes. So that those kids are not living in a household that is strapped down by the health care bills (often in the tens of thousands) because they had no insurance. Of course people who oppose the health care bill do not care that the US has one of the worst if not THE worst infant mortality rates in any developed country in the world. Of course, those people do not care. Because they are too busy complaining about the couple hundred dollars that they have to pay into helping the disadvantaged in their own country because now they can't afford to buy that big screen TV or the vacation in Mexico. Let's have perspective folks, Americans need to see how the world do things and we in the world need to stop copying everything American. Thu 24 Dec 2009 08:25:10 GMT+1 Gavrielle_LaPoste http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=6#comment4 I have to agree with Dr. O'Neill. The final bill, once the two versions are merged, will be the one to look at. There are some very good things in both bills, along with some very bad ones. Luckily, the only decision I have to make at the moment is whether I am going to watch the vote at 7am or track Santa. NORAD has confirmed that Santa and his fully-loaded, reindeer-powered sleigh will take off from the North Pole at 6:00 a.m. EST (5:00 a.m. CST, 4:00 a.m. MST, 3:00 a.m. PST). NORAD radar is tracking Rudolph’s bright red nose, and satellite imagery will be providing minute-by-minute coverage of Santa’s location.Happy Christmas to all! Thu 24 Dec 2009 07:59:43 GMT+1 KScurmudgeon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=5#comment3 One way to reduce the pork might be to return to the original process, of requiring that the entire bill be read out loud on the floor of each house by the primary sponsor, or the leader of the sponsoring party. Another might be to require that the content or purpose of the legislation be stated in one sentence, and extraneous material including amendments be excised by some neutral body like the congressional accounting office, which does such an admirable job of projecting costs - think of it as a board of editorial critics.Yet another might be to require a period of time for the final version to rest under public scrutiny before it could be put to a vote. Perhaps a business day for each 100 pages.Your stories and those of other commentors show that everyone knows how flawed our health care system is today. That would be everyone who does not profit by its cruel excesses. Until there is a clear consensus of the nation demanding that we get our money's worth - which should provide us the finest health care that money can buy - more and more of our economy will pass each year into the hands of the cabal that controls life, death, health and wellness in the richest nation on earth.This bill, as damaged as it is, may be the first incision that opens the whole cancerous industry to the public and the light of day, until it shrinks, or is excised and replaced by a new organ that functions once again to heal and support the rest of the body. Cancer is no fun - this debilitating tumor has given America enough pain.KScurmudgeon Thu 24 Dec 2009 07:53:20 GMT+1 David Cunard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=3#comment2 All the deals, all the money, all the compromise, has not brought round one Republican senator.In 1946, did any Conservative Member of Parliament vote for universal health care - the NHS Act? No, they followed the party whip. Neither was the medical profession enthralled with the concept and actively worked against it, despite WWII only just having ended. Even if the present Senate Bill had the blessing of the Divinity, Republicans would vote against it. Of course, being of the 'do as I say, not as I do' school, they don't want to give up their own, taxpayer-funded care. Voters and citizens deserve the same care as their elected servants and it's high time that the nay-sayers realised that.Somehow, the politics has to be taken out of healthcare.It wasn't in the UK, was it? Even now, the Labour Government has introduced changes without so much as new, primary legislation. Ask any of the elderly how often long-term care is funded; the majority simply do not qualify because their eligibility is under-scored using the "Tool" which goes along with the National Framework. In 1997, Blair, Brown and Harman promised radical changes, but once in power, nada. Now the former PM is a multi-millionaire, so what does he care? Although nominally a Democratic Socialist, he is cut from the same cloth as his Republican pals in Congress. Politics will never be taken out of healthcare, regardless of which side of the Atlantic considers it. Thu 24 Dec 2009 06:59:31 GMT+1 BritInAmerica http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=1#comment1 The problem with the health care bill is that there are just too many vested interests at work. Those senators who managed to get the public option removed should hang their heads in shame - although "shame" and "senator" are mutually exclusive. There has to be SOME way to help the uninsured, though. Given the system as it is, those unfortunate enough to have lost their insurance (or who never had any in the first place) will end up subsidising those who have it. Yes, really. If you don't have insurance you will get massively overcharged compared to those who have it. I was unfortunate enough to end up in an emergency room in New Jersey in 1999. While I was only there a couple of hours, long enough to be checked over and for a couple of tests to be run, there was some confusion over my insurance and the hospital billing thought I was uninsured and sent me a bill for $1,440. I corrected the mistake, they resubmitted the claim, and eventually the hospital was paid less than a TENTH of that amount in full settlement by my insurance company - $139. Yes, a FACTOR of ten larger bill because I had no insurance. The waste in the American system is horrendous. The health companies are trying to screw the medics, in consequence the medical profession overcharges so that they can end up with a reasonable amount after they've been beaten down. How anyone can believe that putting a **FOR PROFIT** set of corporations between the patient and the provider can mean you end up with a cheaper and/or better system is beyond me. Americans have been brainwashed into the idea that socialised medicine is bad - yet if you're really poor (medicaid) or old (medicare) that's exactly what you will end up with. Somehow, the politics has to be taken out of healthcare. I don't believe it will ever happen in the USA, and so we'll always end up with some kind of distorted system whereby it's the patients, or more likely the uninsured, who get screwed by the system. There are just too many vested interests out there, with the big health insurers spending millions of dollars a day on advertising and lobbying to make sure that they keep their (large) slice of the pie. Thu 24 Dec 2009 05:59:24 GMT+1 Edgeofurbania http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/nurses_and_ambulance_men_clust.html?page=0#comment0 I would say the view at Howard is not what most American's are gazing at. They are staring down an administration that is telling, not asking, telling what it feels is best and reaching for their pocket book.A certain King did just that for "noble" cause and look where that led him... Thu 24 Dec 2009 05:46:18 GMT+1