Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
Ok. So you finally figured out that you were talking out of your ass about efficiency. As for the rest of it and your 'conclusion'; do you stop for a second, and think to yourself; "Hang on a sec, this is from the world-class think-tank, from researchers who understand health services much better than your random forum warrior. If they have rated NHS best overall, and they did, even with the 10th place in outcomes that must be more to it that my brain is capable of processing'.
No? Ok. Outcomes are influenced by things like obesity, teenage pregnancy, basic hygiene, early detection of cancers and so on. Researchers, understanding health systems, much, much better than you, take all those into account when they do weighted scores. Then again, it's not like that a proof was needed that you don't understand pretty much anything that you post about.
It's funny how, for someone who doesn't understand what they post about, I manage to get such long rebuttals from you. It's almost like you're butt hurt for being called out as a troll a few months ago..No? Ok. Outcomes are influenced by things like obesity, teenage pregnancy, basic hygiene, early detection of cancers and so on. Researchers, understanding health systems, much, much better than you, take all those into account when they do weighted scores. Then again, it's not like that a proof was needed that you don't understand pretty much anything that you post about.
jjlynne said:
Still funniest and saddest post in the history of PH at the same time.
I'm genuinely impressed that you managed to find a (how many months old is it?) post to be able to quote it for the sake of an insult. Self awareness isn't a strong point for you, is it?As for your previous response, that report is typical of finger in their arse think tanks who set out to prove a point that their target audience already believe. Long analysis about wait times and cost efficiencies, whilst treating the one actual measurement you should care about for a health service - the medical outcome - as a secondary concern.
By their measure, of course the UK health service is more 'efficient' than the US - comparatively, we pay poverty wages and chronically understaff our services. Oh, and we rampantly manipulate wait time statistics by having appointments to make appointments. So yes, our service works miracles for less money compared to a system that has taken medical insurance to extremes. That's what they wanted to 'prove' and middle managers who love spreadsheets will lap it up. Oh, and you, it seems.
I'm glad you think that reading 'world class think tank' reports makes you more informed than people with actual experience of the services being discussed. I'm sorry you can't cope with people expressing different opinions from your own, far more important ones.
Oh... and I'm sorry about the butt hurt. It must sting.
Edited by Tuna on Tuesday 19th June 22:50
jjlynn27 said:
You should join forces with swey, he and buddies can save £30-50Bn a year from NHS budget. With your help, I'd be very disappointed if that figure is not double. Either that or yet another nobody who doesn't have a first clue of what he's on about.
Sway, son, Sway. It shouldn't be that difficult , there's only 4 letters ffs.Tuna said:
jjlynn27 said:
Ok. So you finally figured out that you were talking out of your ass about efficiency. As for the rest of it and your 'conclusion'; do you stop for a second, and think to yourself; "Hang on a sec, this is from the world-class think-tank, from researchers who understand health services much better than your random forum warrior. If they have rated NHS best overall, and they did, even with the 10th place in outcomes that must be more to it that my brain is capable of processing'.
No? Ok. Outcomes are influenced by things like obesity, teenage pregnancy, basic hygiene, early detection of cancers and so on. Researchers, understanding health systems, much, much better than you, take all those into account when they do weighted scores. Then again, it's not like that a proof was needed that you don't understand pretty much anything that you post about.
It's funny how, for someone who doesn't understand what they post about, I manage to get such long rebuttals from you. It's almost like you're butt hurt for being called out as a troll a few months ago..No? Ok. Outcomes are influenced by things like obesity, teenage pregnancy, basic hygiene, early detection of cancers and so on. Researchers, understanding health systems, much, much better than you, take all those into account when they do weighted scores. Then again, it's not like that a proof was needed that you don't understand pretty much anything that you post about.
Tuna said:
On the other hand there were twice as many cases where posters claimed the other side was 'angry', 'upset' or 'frustrated' - all of them accusations by Remain supporters.
Tuna said:
jjlynne said:
Still funniest and saddest post in the history of PH at the same time.
I'm genuinely impressed that you managed to find a (how many months old is it?) post to be able to quote it for the sake of an insult. Self awareness isn't a strong point for you, is it?Tuna said:
As for your previous response, that report is typical of finger in their arse think tanks who set out to prove a point that their target audience already believe. Long analysis about wait times and cost efficiencies, whilst treating the one actual measurement you should care about for a health service - the medical outcome - as a secondary concern.
By their measure, of course the UK health service is more 'efficient' than the US - comparatively, we pay poverty wages and chronically understaff our services. Oh, and we rampantly manipulate wait time statistics by having appointments to make appointments. So yes, our service works miracles for less money compared to a system that has taken medical insurance to extremes. That's what they wanted to 'prove' and middle managers who love spreadsheets will lap it up. Oh, and you, it seems.
I'm glad you think that reading 'world class think tank' reports makes you more informed than people with actual experience of the services being discussed. I'm sorry you can't cope with people expressing different opinions from your own, far more important ones.
Oh... and I'm sorry about the butt hurt. It must sting.
"I know better about the efficiency of NHS than Commonwealth fund cause I was visiting people in hospital!" By their measure, of course the UK health service is more 'efficient' than the US - comparatively, we pay poverty wages and chronically understaff our services. Oh, and we rampantly manipulate wait time statistics by having appointments to make appointments. So yes, our service works miracles for less money compared to a system that has taken medical insurance to extremes. That's what they wanted to 'prove' and middle managers who love spreadsheets will lap it up. Oh, and you, it seems.
I'm glad you think that reading 'world class think tank' reports makes you more informed than people with actual experience of the services being discussed. I'm sorry you can't cope with people expressing different opinions from your own, far more important ones.
Oh... and I'm sorry about the butt hurt. It must sting.
Tuna - do you still own the classic Lotus Excel SE ? I would really like to know the ins and outs about the car, always promised myself one and feel the time is now. Perhaps you may think about opening a thread on the Yesterday’s Hero’s forum which would be great.
Sorry to interrupt the latest bilge.
Sorry to interrupt the latest bilge.
jjlynn27 said:
Was listening to May today about the increase in NHS funding. So, it'll come from taxation. Does anyone, with more than one O level, is buying 'Brexit dividend' bs?
While I do think that increase in taxation is worthwhile if the money is actually going to be spent on the NHS, trying to dress it up as coming from anything other than the tax increase is just pathetic.
Have to agree. How can it be a Brexit dividend and a tax increase at the same time? They contradict each other.While I do think that increase in taxation is worthwhile if the money is actually going to be spent on the NHS, trying to dress it up as coming from anything other than the tax increase is just pathetic.
She took the electorate for fools during the election campaign, now she's doing it again.
Cobnapint said:
Have to agree. How can it be a Brexit dividend and a tax increase at the same time? They contradict each other.
She took the electorate for fools during the election campaign, now she's doing it again.
Part funded by tax increases and part by brexit dividend.She took the electorate for fools during the election campaign, now she's doing it again.
Brexit dividend wont kick in until 2021 at the earliest by the looks of it though, and then if you add in al the cost we will have by not being in the EU I wouldn't be surprised if 75% of the extra NHS funding comes from increased tax.
SpeckledJim said:
Thorodin said:
wiggy001 said:
So it's 9am. The 9am patient hasn't turned up, so they call the 9.10 patient in. Except the 9.10 patient isn't there because they still have 10 minutes until their appointment. What then? Call the 9.20 in (little Doris that likes to chat and will be in there for 15 minutes). The 9am patient then turns up a minute late....
You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
Yes, really! If it is true there is a financial cost for a missed appointment please explain what that cost is, who levies it and for what purpose and the sources for that. Other than political dogma and blaggardery by a hostile press that is. Or are we now expected to fund wild guesswork without explanation?You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
So it’s 9.00am. The surgery is full. Are they all booked for 9.00am? As I said, for 3 years now every time I’ve been in the surgery it has been full or close to. Your experience is very different to mine!
We pay for a system with a capacity of, say, 100,000 appointments a day. Selfish people waste 20,000 appointments.
So we only only needed to pay for a system that handles 80,000 appointments a day.
20,000 were paid for out of the public purse for no good reason.
Or viewed the other way: we paid for 20,000 useful appointments for people who needed them, but some selfish fellow citizens threw them in the bin.
Either way it’s a big waste of time and money, for no good reason.
Do you book time with doctors each week, just in case you might need it? Why not? There’s no cost to the system, apparently?
Cat stuck up a tree? Call a fire engine... it's free!
Stubbed your toe? Pop to A&E... it's free!
Got a sofa to get rid of? Dump it on the road and let the council collect it... for free!
So here's a controversial idea. Every year I get a letter through the post (wish it was an email...) with a breakdown of my tax and ni, listing everything it is spent on. I'd like to see this extended to include a list of my costs to the state.
3x GP Appointment: £120
1x Fire engine callout: £400
etc etc
And with tongue firmly in cheek, there could then be a line in bold at the bottom:
YOU ARE A BURDEN ON THE STATE. PLEASE TRY TO EARN MORE OR USE LESS SERVICES NEXT YEAR. TA.
But seriously, as already mentioned, if there is no invoice then people don't see the value. It's time that was changed. At the very least, print up the numbers and stick them prominently in GP reception areas. It might make those that can read think at least.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Part funded by tax increases and part by brexit dividend.
Brexit dividend wont kick in until 2021 at the earliest by the looks of it though, and then if you add in al the cost we will have by not being in the EU I wouldn't be surprised if 75% of the extra NHS funding comes from increased tax.
Given the history of May/Hunt tag team, I wouldn't be surprised if 100% comes from recycled commitments, 'efficiency savings' and increased taxation. Brexit dividend wont kick in until 2021 at the earliest by the looks of it though, and then if you add in al the cost we will have by not being in the EU I wouldn't be surprised if 75% of the extra NHS funding comes from increased tax.
Sway said:
As some will recall, I was a fairly big advocate of the flexcit approach as a risk mitigating mechanism for an orderly withdrawal (fundamentally - overcoming the f
king ridiculous timescales within the Treaty of Lisbon) prior to the ref.
That changed within a week of the result.
For two reasons:
The general lack of trust amongst the populace that the popular vote would be respected - which hasn't exactly been mitigated since.
The intransigence of the EU's approach to negotiations and agreement. Can't help but think if we asked for Flexcit, we'd have been told 'all or nothing'.
This is one of those scenarios where technically it's clearly the correct approach (although many current proponents argued stridently against it pre-Ref) however politically and pragmatically it's almost certainly the wrong thing to do. Far from a structured, long term process of disentanglement that everyone buys into and supports, every election would be a re-run of the Ref. Remain supporters would never come to acceptance, Leave voters would never trust that the end state would ever be achieved, businesses would never have any certainty, etc.
Agree fully, which is also why many will be intensely suspicious of so called "back stop" agreements. king ridiculous timescales within the Treaty of Lisbon) prior to the ref.That changed within a week of the result.
For two reasons:
The general lack of trust amongst the populace that the popular vote would be respected - which hasn't exactly been mitigated since.
The intransigence of the EU's approach to negotiations and agreement. Can't help but think if we asked for Flexcit, we'd have been told 'all or nothing'.
This is one of those scenarios where technically it's clearly the correct approach (although many current proponents argued stridently against it pre-Ref) however politically and pragmatically it's almost certainly the wrong thing to do. Far from a structured, long term process of disentanglement that everyone buys into and supports, every election would be a re-run of the Ref. Remain supporters would never come to acceptance, Leave voters would never trust that the end state would ever be achieved, businesses would never have any certainty, etc.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Brexit dividend wont kick in until 2021 at the earliest by the looks of it though, and then if you add in al the cost we will have by not being in the EU I wouldn't be surprised if 75% of the extra NHS funding comes from increased tax.
May will just find another money tree, it's all good.JagLover said:
Sway said:
As some will recall, I was a fairly big advocate of the flexcit approach as a risk mitigating mechanism for an orderly withdrawal (fundamentally - overcoming the fking ridiculous timescales within the Treaty of Lisbon) prior to the ref.
That changed within a week of the result.
For two reasons:
The general lack of trust amongst the populace that the popular vote would be respected - which hasn't exactly been mitigated since.
The intransigence of the EU's approach to negotiations and agreement. Can't help but think if we asked for Flexcit, we'd have been told 'all or nothing'.
This is one of those scenarios where technically it's clearly the correct approach (although many current proponents argued stridently against it pre-Ref) however politically and pragmatically it's almost certainly the wrong thing to do. Far from a structured, long term process of disentanglement that everyone buys into and supports, every election would be a re-run of the Ref. Remain supporters would never come to acceptance, Leave voters would never trust that the end state would ever be achieved, businesses would never have any certainty, etc.
Agree fully, which is also why many will be intensely suspicious of so called "back stop" agreements. king ridiculous timescales within the Treaty of Lisbon) prior to the ref.That changed within a week of the result.
For two reasons:
The general lack of trust amongst the populace that the popular vote would be respected - which hasn't exactly been mitigated since.
The intransigence of the EU's approach to negotiations and agreement. Can't help but think if we asked for Flexcit, we'd have been told 'all or nothing'.
This is one of those scenarios where technically it's clearly the correct approach (although many current proponents argued stridently against it pre-Ref) however politically and pragmatically it's almost certainly the wrong thing to do. Far from a structured, long term process of disentanglement that everyone buys into and supports, every election would be a re-run of the Ref. Remain supporters would never come to acceptance, Leave voters would never trust that the end state would ever be achieved, businesses would never have any certainty, etc.
Cobnapint said:
jjlynn27 said:
Was listening to May today about the increase in NHS funding. So, it'll come from taxation. Does anyone, with more than one O level, is buying 'Brexit dividend' bs?
While I do think that increase in taxation is worthwhile if the money is actually going to be spent on the NHS, trying to dress it up as coming from anything other than the tax increase is just pathetic.
Have to agree. How can it be a Brexit dividend and a tax increase at the same time? They contradict each other.While I do think that increase in taxation is worthwhile if the money is actually going to be spent on the NHS, trying to dress it up as coming from anything other than the tax increase is just pathetic.
She took the electorate for fools during the election campaign, now she's doing it again.
Tax increase on the way, ignoring all the surrounding waffle from Number Ten press office. Government believe that the electorate are ready to pay extra tax to add funds to the NHS.
crankedup said:
May was badly advised, those that got sacked shortly after the GE. The PM has a huge team around her that offer political advise, wrong team. May was warned that her advisors were offering poor advise, she did choose to ignore that advise.
Tax increase on the way, ignoring all the surrounding waffle from Number Ten press office. Government believe that the electorate are ready to pay extra tax to add funds to the NHS.
As labour have already said they will match the extra spending on the NHS and spend an extra £2 billion it really is a no brainer and politically clever. The choice is not between paying more in tax for the NHS just how much... Tax increase on the way, ignoring all the surrounding waffle from Number Ten press office. Government believe that the electorate are ready to pay extra tax to add funds to the NHS.
wiggy001 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Thorodin said:
wiggy001 said:
So it's 9am. The 9am patient hasn't turned up, so they call the 9.10 patient in. Except the 9.10 patient isn't there because they still have 10 minutes until their appointment. What then? Call the 9.20 in (little Doris that likes to chat and will be in there for 15 minutes). The 9am patient then turns up a minute late....
You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
Yes, really! If it is true there is a financial cost for a missed appointment please explain what that cost is, who levies it and for what purpose and the sources for that. Other than political dogma and blaggardery by a hostile press that is. Or are we now expected to fund wild guesswork without explanation?You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
So it’s 9.00am. The surgery is full. Are they all booked for 9.00am? As I said, for 3 years now every time I’ve been in the surgery it has been full or close to. Your experience is very different to mine!
We pay for a system with a capacity of, say, 100,000 appointments a day. Selfish people waste 20,000 appointments.
So we only only needed to pay for a system that handles 80,000 appointments a day.
20,000 were paid for out of the public purse for no good reason.
Or viewed the other way: we paid for 20,000 useful appointments for people who needed them, but some selfish fellow citizens threw them in the bin.
Either way it’s a big waste of time and money, for no good reason.
Do you book time with doctors each week, just in case you might need it? Why not? There’s no cost to the system, apparently?
Cat stuck up a tree? Call a fire engine... it's free!
Stubbed your toe? Pop to A&E... it's free!
Got a sofa to get rid of? Dump it on the road and let the council collect it... for free!
So here's a controversial idea. Every year I get a letter through the post (wish it was an email...) with a breakdown of my tax and ni, listing everything it is spent on. I'd like to see this extended to include a list of my costs to the state.
3x GP Appointment: £120
1x Fire engine callout: £400
etc etc
And with tongue firmly in cheek, there could then be a line in bold at the bottom:
YOU ARE A BURDEN ON THE STATE. PLEASE TRY TO EARN MORE OR USE LESS SERVICES NEXT YEAR. TA.
But seriously, as already mentioned, if there is no invoice then people don't see the value. It's time that was changed. At the very least, print up the numbers and stick them prominently in GP reception areas. It might make those that can read think at least.
SpeckledJim said:
Really really?
We pay for a system with a capacity of, say, 100,000 appointments a day. Selfish people waste 20,000 appointments.
So we only only needed to pay for a system that handles 80,000 appointments a day.
20,000 were paid for out of the public purse for no good reason.
Or viewed the other way: we paid for 20,000 useful appointments for people who needed them, but some selfish fellow citizens threw them in the bin.
Either way it’s a big waste of time and money, for no good reason.
Do you book time with doctors each week, just in case you might need it? Why not? There’s no cost to the system, apparently?
So you suggest that a perceived overspend (to fund 20,000 appointments (nationwide with no regional variation or targeting) is remedied by imposing an increase in general taxation that every tax-paying citizen has to pay. Brilliant. Perhaps tail wagging the dog? And your solution relies on the propaganda about NHS doctors’ surgeries being abused and bearing an unspecified cost where no additional expense is payable by the surgery. We pay for a system with a capacity of, say, 100,000 appointments a day. Selfish people waste 20,000 appointments.
So we only only needed to pay for a system that handles 80,000 appointments a day.
20,000 were paid for out of the public purse for no good reason.
Or viewed the other way: we paid for 20,000 useful appointments for people who needed them, but some selfish fellow citizens threw them in the bin.
Either way it’s a big waste of time and money, for no good reason.
Do you book time with doctors each week, just in case you might need it? Why not? There’s no cost to the system, apparently?
In treating this problem, perhaps a remedy that seems to be invisible to NHS organisers might be appropriate. How about addressing the root problem and prescribing relevant treatment? Might that stop the screaming for additional funds at every opportunity? There are so many institutional problems in the NHS that never, or rarely, get aired.
NHS is not underfunded, it is over-managed and ill-governed by partisan politicians at every general election. The current misdirection is purposely to avoid facing difficult issues around privatisation-led dogma. The only beneficiaries of additional funding will be the private groups that run it. I give you an example. On the news yesterday, a habit of young people glued to computer gaming has now been formally recognised as a disease to be categorised and treated on the NHS! That, along with using faux treatments such as Reiki along with others, is just plain stupid and an expansion of useless treatments that are funded.
Thorodin said:
SpeckledJim said:
Really really?
We pay for a system with a capacity of, say, 100,000 appointments a day. Selfish people waste 20,000 appointments.
So we only only needed to pay for a system that handles 80,000 appointments a day.
20,000 were paid for out of the public purse for no good reason.
Or viewed the other way: we paid for 20,000 useful appointments for people who needed them, but some selfish fellow citizens threw them in the bin.
Either way it’s a big waste of time and money, for no good reason.
Do you book time with doctors each week, just in case you might need it? Why not? There’s no cost to the system, apparently?
So you suggest that a perceived overspend (to fund 20,000 appointments (nationwide with no regional variation or targeting) is remedied by imposing an increase in general taxation that every tax-paying citizen has to pay. Brilliant. Perhaps tail wagging the dog? And your solution relies on the propaganda about NHS doctors’ surgeries being abused and bearing an unspecified cost where no additional expense is payable by the surgery. We pay for a system with a capacity of, say, 100,000 appointments a day. Selfish people waste 20,000 appointments.
So we only only needed to pay for a system that handles 80,000 appointments a day.
20,000 were paid for out of the public purse for no good reason.
Or viewed the other way: we paid for 20,000 useful appointments for people who needed them, but some selfish fellow citizens threw them in the bin.
Either way it’s a big waste of time and money, for no good reason.
Do you book time with doctors each week, just in case you might need it? Why not? There’s no cost to the system, apparently?
In treating this problem, perhaps a remedy that seems to be invisible to NHS organisers might be appropriate. How about addressing the root problem and prescribing relevant treatment? Might that stop the screaming for additional funds at every opportunity? There are so many institutional problems in the NHS that never, or rarely, get aired.
NHS is not underfunded, it is over-managed and ill-governed by partisan politicians at every general election. The current misdirection is purposely to avoid facing difficult issues around privatisation-led dogma. The only beneficiaries of additional funding will be the private groups that run it. I give you an example. On the news yesterday, a habit of young people glued to computer gaming has now been formally recognised as a disease to be categorised and treated on the NHS! That, along with using faux treatments such as Reiki along with others, is just plain stupid and an expansion of useless treatments that are funded.
Answer me this one though.
Q1. Your shiny and very expensive new surgery (build cost £3m) has 10 doctors (£100k per year each) and each doctor can see 30 people a day.
Of the 300 appointments made each day, 60 go to waste.
How many doctors did you actually need to employ if you stop this waste?
[6 marks]
SpeckledJim said:
Thorodin said:
wiggy001 said:
So it's 9am. The 9am patient hasn't turned up, so they call the 9.10 patient in. Except the 9.10 patient isn't there because they still have 10 minutes until their appointment. What then? Call the 9.20 in (little Doris that likes to chat and will be in there for 15 minutes). The 9am patient then turns up a minute late....
You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
Yes, really! If it is true there is a financial cost for a missed appointment please explain what that cost is, who levies it and for what purpose and the sources for that. Other than political dogma and blaggardery by a hostile press that is. Or are we now expected to fund wild guesswork without explanation?You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
So it’s 9.00am. The surgery is full. Are they all booked for 9.00am? As I said, for 3 years now every time I’ve been in the surgery it has been full or close to. Your experience is very different to mine!
We pay for a system with a capacity of, say, 100,000 appointments a day. Selfish people waste 20,000 appointments.
So we only only needed to pay for a system that handles 80,000 appointments a day.
20,000 were paid for out of the public purse for no good reason.
Or viewed the other way: we paid for 20,000 useful appointments for people who needed them, but some selfish fellow citizens threw them in the bin.
Either way it’s a big waste of time and money, for no good reason.
Do you book time with doctors each week, just in case you might need it? Why not? There’s no cost to the system, apparently?
98elise said:
Agreed....its as simple as that. Missed appointments cost money.
If there were no missed appointments you would just be waiting longer to see a doctor. The very idea that doctors are sitting twiddling their thumbs during the 10 minutes appointment time is just ludicrous. When was the last time anyone got to see their GP less than 10min late...
jjlynn27 said:
"I know better about the efficiency of NHS than Commonwealth fund cause I was visiting people in hospital!"
Just to help you out, I'm not the only one critical of the Commonwealth Fund report: https://iea.org.uk/blog/the-envy-of-the-world-a-cl...You might also want to check the stated goals of the Commonwealth Fund, which is to promote universal healthcare access to the US. In that context, a report that sings the high praises of the NHS is not quite so surprising.
Here's a nice article for you to read: https://www.weeklystandard.com/david-gratzer-and-m...
Article said:
Typical of the Commonwealth Fund is a recent study claiming that the U.S. health care system ranks last when compared with seven industrialized countries. It’s just the latest in a string of policy studies from organizations that want to see a European-style, government-run health care system brought to these shores. Democratic politicians and their allies then use those studies to bolster the case for dramatic reforms.
But you seem to find it hard to get your head around the idea that reading a report written in the US about a healthcare system that you don't appear to have any personal experience of does not make you an expert on the matter. The fact that you appear blissfully unaware of the background of that report only reinforces the idea that you're either trolling or ignorant.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff