American Health Care versus NHS

The British NHS (National Health Service) is something every person in the UK is proud to be a part of. It is a travesty now in the US there is no equivalent. At this moment there rages a debate in America which has got pretty nasty, the debate is whether they should introduce a health service to their own country. This is on president Obama's agenda. In the mean time to discredit the notion of a national health system the Republican party are going full out in advertising and publicity. They emphasise the negative aspects of our own NHS service making it appear, decrepit, bureaucratic, inefficient and a service of assisted suicide rather than one of social morality. But the worse stark fact of America is there are 50 million people in the country who are unable to afford any type, even the most basic, health insurance. Now seeing as the UK has a population of approximately 60 million people, this is equivalent to an entire country where no one can see a doctor or go to a hospital because the system is based on monetary means. I heard one advert on their TV in which it emphasised how patients in the UK were unable to get help because of waiting lists however, in the US many people can't even be put on a waiting list.

I heard one story of a man who was British and living in New York, who had become ill with a stomach complaint. He knew it was serious as it had occurred before, but rather than go to an American hospital, he got on a plane travelled back to the UK and then walked straight into an A & E department of a hospital in London. He had health insurance in the US but because he had experienced their hospitals in action before he'd rather travel back thousands of miles to the UK. This is a counter arguement which does not have any airing on American TV and I'm sure if they did understand the full extent of what the NHS has done then the Republicans and any other misguided individual would know they had got it very wrong.

If America is such a religious country which believes in moral values, then why is it they are blind to the value of health care in the community? To understand it is immoral not to help people because they can not afford health care is a no brainer. Health care should not just be for those who have money, it should be extensive to help anyone who is ill, we are at our most vulnerable when sick and yet in America when you are sick then it will screw the most it can out of you financially. In the UK we have specialist hospitals, I am particularly thinking of Great Ormand Street Hospital. This is a NHS hospital which gives treatment to children and babies. It is geared up especially for this group. It is funded by the NHS and by charitable donations which in my mind it should not really have to ask for. In America if your baby is ill and you have inadequate or no health insurance then your baby is not going to be treated. Your baby may well die. The most vulnerable in society are the young, the old and the disabled, but it does not mean they are of no value. America's health care system is so financially based it has actually put a value on life, where on the the rich or those who by some serendipity have health insurance through their work or privately purchased are going to get help. In reality, the way I see it, America does not value life, it values money.

Blind justice

While pulling out an old newspaper to guard against paint falling on the floor, I noticed an article about a man who had lost sight in one eye. He had been attacked by a gang of youths. One of the youths was arrested with perseverence the victim went to court to help the police get a conviction. However, the judge did not convict because he could not be sure the accused was actually the one who had thrown a bottle at the victim. So the accused was let free. There were about 20 youths in this gang. Then I decided to do a search on the internet about men being blinded by bottle attacks. Unfortunately it is not a rare thing. However there are some common factors.

Usually it is a bottle of some kind which is thrown although on occaision it will be a glass, perhaps one used to drink out of. Further the attack is focused from a group. Whether a gang or a gathering. A gathering is not the same as a gang, a gathering being any group of people who congregate together, whereas a gang is a group who have some kind of allegiance with each other. Another identifying factor though not always is, alcohol has been consumed. Alcohol being a substance which usually lowers inhibitions, however lets add in the group element because in groups there is a group mind set. Psychological studies have proven this (see Le Bon's book called The Crowd). Also people in a crowd like to be the centre of attention so by being roudy or 'having a laugh'. Rational thought at this point goes out of the window and the lowering of I.Q. comes in, with a Group Mindset. The victim will be an innocent bystander or individual who decides to take some form of action the group does not like. Such as remonstrating with them, this happened in one article I read where the victim's car was having snow balls thrown at it. In another case it was a bystander witnessing another victim being beaten up by five youths. The victims in all cases may be trying to be outspoken, but any outspoken action is seen to the group as a policing action. One which is meant to bring them back into civility and they do not want to hear it. As a group, these persons lose their individuality to the extent there is no limitation, or should I say no conscience of when to stop.

For justice to be done, every individual who is in the group be this gang or gathering should be identified as liable for violent behaviour, even if they did not take part in the actual event. This is because when someone is in a group the very nature of being there and being a witness makes them part. If they do nothing they are condoning the actions. Some individuals would have also jeered or be vocally abusive, they to are equally liable to the results of any violence. So for real justice, each and every member where known should then be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is not an excuse to say they did not throw the bottle or take part in the fight, if they are there, they are liable.

Alternatively, I hear in Iran there have been cases where people are blinded in violent actions and the courts then come down on the attacker. The punishment usually is along the lines of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If an attacker is sentenced and found guilty their eye or eyes could be surgically removed. Although Human Rights campaigners have been active in these instances, you can't help asking whether this form of law has a bit more substance in it than justice which is not done in this country.

Justice is sadly done

The tragic and callous murder of a teenager has now been vindicated in the courts. Shakilus Townsend was murdered in a honey trap, set up by a girl (Samantha Joseph) who he as in love with, but didn't love him. The primary killer was her boyfriend Danny McLean, but Danny didn't do the deed on his own he used his gang. They trapped Shakilus in a warfare maneuver, using bicycles on an estate to chase him down. Shakilus died, sobbing and saying he didn't want to die and he wanted his mommy. There have been 6 convictions and each has received a life sentence, including Samantha Joseph. It would be one sided to paint Shakilus as innocent to knife crime, when he had himself been involved in knives, gangs and assault. This is yet another regretful case of stupidity ruling over common sense.

There is something so sad about teenagers who are throwing away their lives and not understanding the value of life when they carry a knife around. When they say it is for protection, when being a member of a gang and acting like a sheep is cool, they are misguided. It is like they can not see the future, they can not see their teenage years will come to an end and they will grow up and have children themselves. There is blindness. It is only the now which exists, only their need to find respect amongst other teenagers who change their view of the world in more times than a vacilating rodent seeking a food reward from solving a maze. Perhaps it's because they do not have adult guidance, where families are close, uncles, aunts, grandads and nans are there to watch over them. Perhaps it is society as a whole and the poor governance or design of estates. Or maybe it's music which intones hate and glorifies in blood. Even movies may play a part because they set out a fantasy world of reward and violence which makes being bad seem good. There is no single answer to any teenagers death when they have only just began their life, and for now, only proper and true justice plays a balancing hand.

In this case Judge Richard Hawkins has given the appropriate sentence. Maybe it will have a deterent effect on other teenagers out there, unfortunately, one thing teenagers don't like to listen to is the news. So they are likely to carry on in ignorance, worse still the lowest basest ignorance if they just believe a soldier has died.

As a person I know has said to me, "if they think they are soldiers, put them all in a container lorry and ship them to Iraq" drop them off and let them find out what war really is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198346/Honey-trap-girl-faces-life-sentence-luring-smitten-teenager-death-hands-love-rival.html?ITO=1490

Mugabe you can not hold back time

This morning I listened to an article on the radio which made me cry. It was of small children escaping from Zimbabwe into South Africa. Because they had not food and their parents could not feed them. Many were dying on the journey, being robbed and beet up by gangs along the way. Some were so small they were just being abandoned by their parents to fend for themselves. These children were travelling hundreds of miles to find help.

Mugabe may have a wish to live to 100 years in age, but his country will become more destitute and corrupt each and every day he is in power. As he ages, instead of having compassion for his own country he becomes more and more crazed. He clutches onto power like he is clutching onto a life raft. He has a grip of steel. But it is inevitable. For all his wealth and power in this deprived county there is one certainty he can not escape. The one thing which is so obvious. He will die. Not because of a sniper bullet, or the quick swipe of a machete, or even a good kicking from a group of bandits he doesn't know. He will die because he is old. When this happens the lives of each of his family will be at threat as well. Every wife, every one of his own children. When he goes his country may live, but the certainty is there and it is inescapable. If he doesn't die he may become susceptible to an age related illness. Brain clot, Alzheimer's, or some other debilitating illness. His party will fizzle out, and those who remember him will only recall a corrupt, bitter genocidal maniac who ended up shitting his own pants.

Train robbers should never be glamorised

I have been reading an article about Ronnie Biggs. The aged train robber who is about to leave prison to spend the rest of his days in the care of the NHS. A man immortalised in British history for pulling of the Great Train Robbery of 1963. He originally fled to Australia after escaping prison and from there went to Brazil. His life there was described as "indolent" where he lived on his cut of the swag from the robbery. He paid no taxes to the UK and when his health began to fail then decided to return, serve the rest of his sentence and soon now leave jail. He can barely communicate and will need full time care. He will need the full support of the NHS, but his life has been lived abroad. Although no individual died during the train robbery the driver of the train Jack Mills was hit over the head with an iron bar, something which he never recovered from, and never worked again. It was Jack Mills who suffered for the rest of his life while Biggs lived it up in a hot country from money he had stolen.

Perhaps it is karma coming back to Biggs for his actions, the way his is now. However, I can't help think he needed a way out of Brazil back to his home country and he knew his health wasn't going to hold out. But in returning to the UK he could reap the benefits of a free democratic country where the health service will cost him nothing. If Biggs loved Brazil so much he should be sent back there after doing his time in prison. He should be sent back to their state health system. Because here he has not contributed at all. His indolent life style has kept him happy for so long. Never has there been a word of remorse or regret for his actions, he and his gang owe Jack Mills a life, because it was Jack Mills who suffered from their crimes.

Personally I think his name should be removed from the history books. As for Jack he was the real hero for living the rest of his life with the disabilities they gave him.

Lenient sentences for homicide

I have just seen the news and there was an article about a man who got a 4 1/2 years prison sentence for homicide. In this case he wanted to enter a pub but was denied, so in a petulant manner he lobbed a beer bottle in through an open door. The bottle hit a woman, as it did so it somehow managed to slash her neck and she died. The complete ignorance of this man led to an innocent woman's death. But his ignorance paid off because of the leniency of the sentence. This compares to another case which has passed sentencing recently.

A woman queuing up in a supermarket was verbally abused by a teenager, in her upset state she made a phone call to her boyfriend who was sitting outside in the car. He came into the supermarket to console his girlfriend and asked her who it was who had been so obnoxious. She then pointed over towards a que where the teenager had just been served by the checkout staff. The boyfriend, also a body building, strode to the que and hit a man waiting there, the man collapsed and his head struck the floor. It was the wrong person, a completely innocent shopper. The result was homicide, the sentence a mere 4 years. The girlfriend also got sentenced to 18 months.

I can only fathom the judge in each case has decided the deaths were accidental in nature so thought the sentences should be lenient. However, in both cases there was an element of purposefulness. One for revenge of not being let into the pub, the other for revenge of having his girlfriend verbally harassed. Yet someone died, someone who had a family, friends and a useful life. They were murdered by their assailants ignorance. I can't help feel these are examples of excessive leniency. I ask should homicide whether intentional or unintentional begin with the maximum sentence for which murder in the first degree can be given? Then as the case unravels different sentencing regimes become available. We have to ask the question if you intend to hit someone do you understand this act of violence could result in their death? Saying I didn't think he would die has no excuse, understanding people die from head injuries should go without saying. When a man throws an empty bottle into a crowd or enclosed space, you have to ask does he conceivably understand the bottle could actually maim or kill someone if it hits them? If the answer is yes then it is murder. These are cases of ignorance and murder.

Perhaps what the judges did was a bit of mental arithmetic in the accidental murder case, in reality playing a statistical chances. Calculating what is the chance of someone dieing when punched or having a bottle hit them? In addition they would of considered intention and premeditation. I am sure the defence for both accused cases said it was a freak accident and there was no intention to kill, there was no motivation, the murderers didn't know their victims and were not actually gaining from their action. In each case they were insulted and sort action to calm their grievances. So because of their ill feelings an Innocent person dies. Yet we all lose it at times and all manage to contain the monster, or alternatively let out aggression in some other way without committing homicide. Of course with these prison sentences their lives will never be the same, if employed they'd of lost their jobs. They will lose their liberty for a short period and live in a austere environment. But at least they are alive.

The victims will never see their loved ones again, see a sunset, or every have the chance to hug, kiss and love those they so do love. No chance was given to say goodbye. The question is, were the sentences too short and too lenient?

What would your answer be?

25 years on after the miners strike

It has been now 25 years since the miners went on strike, when the most evil of all prime minsters to rule the UK was in power. She was Thatcher, and she took on Scargill resulting in the nation losing badly. Neither personality could contemplate a compromise, neither were prepared to talk. For Scargill it was a matter of keeping every mine open and every miner in a job as this was something which had carried on for eons. Mad Thatcher who had a blue streak the size of a six lane motorway down her spine was motivated by one intention. To break the unions, and in so doing symbolically break her political opponents beyond anything a politician could expect. She was not going to compromise, she was The Woman, doing a job no other woman had done before. Her gender was irrespective, as indeed was her motivation. It was common knowledge no member of her cabinet was able to deter her mind, in her usual style she would bully anyone who stood in her way.

This episode was a demonstration of bloody mindedness and power. It cost the nation sorely. It didn't actually help either Thatcher or Scargill. True politics would of been coming to a compromise, true politics would of meant meeting and talking. Eventually Thatcher's very obdurate attitude to leadership became her downfall. Since her comeuppance the Blue party have never been the same, and as though some divine intervention has now taken place as the Labour party have been ruling longer than any Tory ever has.

The lesson is, listening and compromise are things politicians should take notice of rather than their own personal agenda.