Megrahi had lodged an appeal which was due to be heard by the courts. It is likely there was new evidence which was going to be embarassing for the UK Government, The Scottish Legal System and possibly the US Government. He dropped his appeal and now he has been released on compassionate grounds. There was almost certainly a deal - if he dropped the appeal (saving this evidence from coming to light) he would be realeased. It has nothing to do with compassion. Megrahi is also most likely not responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing. The Scottish and UK Governments know that. This way they don't have to admit they were wrong. The whole saga makes me ashamed of our Legal System here in Scotland, not because he has been released, but because the appeal was never heard, we will never know the truth, and because Megrahi was ever imprissioned in the first place.
Kid-Icarus-'s forum posts
No one would be forced to use the public health care system, those who could afford private health insurance can carry on paying if they believe these nightmare scenarios to be of any merit. However I would say these nightmare scenarios are largely BS. I live in the UK, I know barely anyone with private health insurance, not because they can't afford it, but merely because it is just not necessary. The NHS, contrary to what you might have been led to believe, actually works quite well. I see no reason an American system couldn't work just as well or better.[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
Even if it meant all the naysayer's worst nightmares coming true: the death panels, the rationing of health care, and the long lines to get a life-saving operation? Isn't it more immoral to provide healthcare but deny it to someone for so long that they eventually die because of the government's negligence?
SpartanMSU
You're right, must be why 70% believe the UK's healthcare system needs drastic reform or needs to be completely changed...
Source please? I can assure you, as a resident of the UK, that there is widespread public support for the NHS here. Whatever Fox news might tell you to the contrary.Edit: Obviously you can't take this as a scientific poll of opinion, but I think these comments from a recent debate at the 'Have Your Say' section of the BBC website are a pretty good reflection of public opinion in my experience 'Do You Support the NHS?'.
Because the alternative is so much worse? Because no matter how expensive or how badly performing a public health care system might be it is still better than leaving 20% of your citizens without any access to proper health care at all. Because it is immoral to refuse someone suffering from cancer access to drugs and therapy which might save their life, simply because they could not afford health insurance.[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]why would you want two failing over-expensive programs?....tycoonmike
Even if it meant all the naysayer's worst nightmares coming true: the death panels, the rationing of health care, and the long lines to get a life-saving operation? Isn't it more immoral to provide healthcare but deny it to someone for so long that they eventually die because of the government's negligence?
No one would be forced to use the public health care system, those who could afford private health insurance can carry on paying if they believe these nightmare scenarios to be of any merit. However I would say these nightmare scenarios are largely BS. I live in the UK, I know barely anyone with private health insurance, not because they can't afford it, but merely because it is just not necessary. The NHS, contrary to what you might have been led to believe, actually works quite well. I see no reason an American system couldn't work just as well or better.why would you want two failing over-expensive programs?....Omni-SlashBecause the alternative is so much worse? Because no matter how expensive or how badly performing a public health care system might be it is still better than leaving 20% of your citizens without any access to proper health care at all. Because it is immoral to refuse someone suffering from cancer access to drugs and therapy which might save their life, simply because they could not afford health insurance.
[QUOTE="-ZeRoHouR-"][QUOTE="Tech-Man08"][QUOTE="RedDanDoc"]minimum wage is £5.50p per hour. I earn £15.00 per hour :DSolidSnake35
WOW! That's equal to $26.25 American dollars!
Don't be deceived though. Just think, if they are making 15 pounds an hour, that is like us being paid $15 an hour. They get paid in their own currency, so it's not like they are making more money over there. It is sort of tough to put into words.
Things cost more over here. For example, a new PS3 game can cost £50 ($100). And there's tax to be considered, but I don't understand that.
The tax is the VAT, which is a similar system, though not exactly the same, to the sales taxes they have in US states. VAT is 17.5% which is alot higher than the average sales tax in US states so tax definitely makes a difference to things like video games. There is no VAT on essentials though, so in theory it doesn't make a difference to the actual cost of living.
[QUOTE="Tech-Man08"][QUOTE="RedDanDoc"]minimum wage is £5.50p per hour. I earn £15.00 per hour :D-ZeRoHouR-
WOW! That's equal to $26.25 American dollars!
Don't be deceived though. Just think, if they are making 15 pounds an hour, that is like us being paid $15 an hour. They get paid in their own currency, so it's not like they are making more money over there. It is sort of tough to put into words.
Its not quite equivelant to being paid $15 an hour, as the cost of living isn't as much as double in the UK what it is in the US. But yeah, you're right, although £15 is roughly $30, its not really like being paid $30 an hour as the cost of living is greater here in the UK. It would maybe be like getting paid around $20 an hour? Thats a guess though.
Log in to comment