User talk:Hauskalainen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page

Contents 1 Girobank 2 Anti-Europeanism 3 Finland "Ruled by Sweden" or "Part of Sweden" 4 British Isles & Ireland 5 Hauska tutustua! 6 European 7 Northern Rock 8 Health care and cultural attitudes 9 Socialized Medicine Article 10 3rr 11 National Health Service 12 Edits to socialized medicine 13 Your recent edits 14 Socialized Medicine 15 Speedy deletion of Risk equalisation 16 Little context in Risk equalization 17 Freeview 18 DoopDoop/Freedomwarrior/Kborer 19 article on health care 20 Socialized medicine 21 February 2008 22 Health care politics and health care reform merge discussion 23 Health care paper 24 Speedy deletion of Lauri Tähkä 25 Thanks for the message 26 Elonkerjuu

[edit] Girobank

You added a lot of good information to the Girobank article. I am updating articles on banking at the moment and would very much like to know the source of your info. simonthebold 08:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Europeanism

(The following paragraph has been copied from User:Daniel Chiswick's talk page because the user has since deleted the discussion there and I have therefore moved it to this page).

You removed my request for a citation that confirms that Americans hold the sterotype of Europeans as being "effeminate, dirty, cowardly, lazy and condescending towards other cultures". I have been many times to the US and have never heard this. I also have relatives living in the US and they also tell me that this is not so. That does not make my understanding correct but neither does it justify the reference in the article. You asked me to improve the article and the addition of a citation request was one way of trying to get others with more knowledge than I to do this. Your removal of the request has done the opposite. Stereotypes have to be widely held to be a "stereotype" otherwise they are just a "personal opinion". Two very different things. I am annoyed that you removed this request for citation without discussing this first. Please justify your actions. --Tom 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, those are common stereotypes about Europeans in North America. Do you think stereotypes about Europeans do not exist? Also the stereotypes mostly apply to continental Europeans, like the French, Germans, Italians, Spaniards ect. Since you are British and your American relatives are most likely British I doubt you have heard these common stereotypes, also Americans tend not to speak about certain things around certain people in order to not offend them. User:Daniel Chiswick 15 June, 2007.

Sorry Daniel "trust me" is not good enough. I have seen the complaints about you and the way you attempt to remove any criticism of your edits from the record in Wikipedia. I will undo your change and the reference to the stereotype in the main article. If they are put back, whether under your name or an anonymous IP (actually they are often traceable) I will raise a formal complaint against you. I am quite happy for the reference to be put back if there is real evidence from credible research that proves that such a stereotype exists. --Tom 21:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How dare you, I am well respected by many other users and I only delete certain things on my talk page that are really petty that can be told to me in an edit summery. I do not use anonymous IPs, so how dare you assume that I would use one to add something in such unimportant article. Those are real stereotypes of Europeans, go on google and type up smell or dirty europeans and I am sure you will come up with something. Do you actually believe no stereotypes of europeans exist? On the anti-americanism article there are all sorts of unscources stereotypes about Americans but there are not deleted because it is common knowledge that they are common stereotypes. User:Daniel Chiswick 22:10, 15 June 2007

Daniel, You must distinguish between opinion and stereotype. You can find almost anything using google as I have pointed out already. Of course stereotypes exist of particular cohesive groups and as I have said before on the article's discussion page, Europeans are far from being a cohesive group in the way that people from nation states of long standing are. And I am not saying that you are wrong that Americans may have stereotypical views of Europeans as a whole. But if that is so, someone, somewhere will have researched it and documented it. All I am asking for is evidence. You will find many google hits for things like "Alien Abduction" but that does not mean that "Alien Abduction" is a true and undisputed phenomenon. Stereotypes have to be widely held otherwise the things you refer to are personal opinion. I asked on the article talk page for a citation for the assertion and none was forthcoming. So I deleted the statement. That is not unreasonable. If you are so knowlegeable about the truth of the assertion then you should at least be kind enough to provide one. I am going to let this rest for a day or so and ask you to revert your recent deletion of my recent edit. By the way, I have not said that you are not a worthy editor. I can see that you have written many worthy things. But it is also true that many of the historic complaints about your edits are deleted from your talk page and those complaints could not have been put in the edit summary. I will not comment about the Anti-Americanism article as I am not interested in the subject. You may be right in what you say, but IMHO that is no justification for your action on the Anti-Europeanism article. Clearly we are in dispute and you are the first editor I have been in dispute with. You may have more experience at this kind of thing. Can you suggest how you would like us to resolve this? --Tom 22:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am find and adding scources. I was not the one who added those stereotypes and I personally have nothing against Europeans, but I have heard those stereotypes countless times so I am adding scources. User:Daniel Chiswick 22:10, 15 June 2007

OK. But be careful to make sure they are stereotypes and not opinions. Opinions of individuals are interesting but not meaningful in any anthropological sense and would have little value here as fact in support of the argument. One can always find someone who has an opinion about anything but it is not meaningful unless it is demonstrably widely held.--Tom 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I need to tell you that those are not my views and I did not add those stereotypes, but I do support keeping them since they do exist as stereotyps and they are very common. User:Daniel Chiswick 17 June, 2007.

Daniel. You are being disingenuous. In my 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC) comment posted on your talk page (which I see you have already deleted) I referred to "your view that N Americans sterotypically view Europeans as effeminate, dirty, cowardly, lazy and condescending towards other cultures". I did not say you held such views. That you may have heard or read one or more persons saying some of these things, I do not no doubt. But that does not make the grade as a stereotype. Despite your distancing yourself from the argument (by making it seem that I have made a false claim about you, and by deleting the argument from your discussion page -which is bad practise in an ongoing dispute- you still have provided no evidence that such a stereotype exists. You deleted my request for a citation and later undid my changes without discussing them with me or other editors. In the light of the above I will revert your edit. If I get contrary indications from the other 2 academics I am awaiting a reply from, I will gladly add it back with a valid citation if they give some.--Tom 01:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am done with this page but I am just going to say one more thing, do not consult "academics" because they too are not good scources and there is not way to make sure you are not pretending to be an "academic", you also should never bring in an outside party into an argument on wikipedia. Also those are very common stereotypes of Europeans, just like it is a common stereotype that Americans are fat and loud or that Mexicans are dirty and lazy. Can you really tell me that you did not know that Europeans are stereotyped as being effeminate, dirty, cowardly, lazy and condescending towards other cultures? I have heard them countless times so that is why I support keeping them. Also do not answer me on my talk page because I will not have such things on there because it will give other users (Pro-EU users that accuse me for being anti-european because I do not like the EU) more things to talk trash about. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 June, 2007.

I edited your talk page again. Sorry. But isn't that where we should direct one-2-one talk with other editors? And I think academics are exactly the right people to consult but we'll just have to differ on that one. --Tom 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also you could very easily find scources that say that those stereotyps exist about certain european countries, the French for instance are often stereotyped as effeminate, dirty, cowardly, lazy and condescending towards other cultures. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 June, 2007.

I don't recognize the "stereotype" about the French, but even if it existed, it would be a sterotype of a single nationality so would not it any case fit the article.--Tom 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also if you are going to delete that sentence (Which talks about stereotypes that exist" because it has no scources then you have to delete the entire article because it only lists two scources. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 June, 2007.

As for the article as a whole, I changed my mind because, the White House/media campaign against Europe pre-Iraq War II (such as is described in the Garton-Ash article) was a form of Anti-Europeanism so I decided not to. I'd rather focus on challenging the stereotype assertion. --Tom 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's fine I guess. I will be away for a few days and I will be able to use my computer because I am moving, so do not talk to me or leave me messages for at least three or four days. As they say, don't call me I'll call you. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 June, 2007.

[edit] Finland "Ruled by Sweden" or "Part of Sweden"

Replied on my talk page. --Drieakko 10:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles & Ireland

Hi Tom - yip, the term is considered fairly politically loaded. It officially objected to by the Irish government, this school year will see it removed from the major school atlas, it is why the British Isles Rugby Team (more commonly called the Lions) was renamed to the British and Irish Lions, etc. The UK government, for its part, avoids the term in British-Irish relations, much to the annoyance of Northern Irish unionists who see it as another sign of betrayal. That's why the euphemism "these islands" is the common way of addressing the archipelago, and the British-Irish Council is called the Council of the Isles, not the Council of the British Isles. Many academics avoid it - near-universally Irish ones, but also increasingly Britain-based ones too who usually explain why they do so (some examples quotes are here). Neither is it a recent thing. It was a British Conservative (of all parties!) who suggested IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic) as a better alternative in 1980.

I can understand that it would be shocking to someone from the Great Britain, but British identity was never very welcome in Ireland - even among unionists - and so "British Isles" was abrasive to everyone always. Protestants in Northern Ireland have only in the last 30 years started to identify themselves as "British", since the Troubles (see Briton) and even then, quite openly, as a reaction to Republicianism. (Since the peace process "Northern Irish" is starting to race up in popularity, to the detriment of "British.") Before then, they were Ulstermen and -women, and before then Irish plain-and-simple. Even the Anglician elite never identified as British, preferring Anglo-Irish, even while calling Britain the "mainland".

A Daniel O'Connell quote from 1832, I think, is telling: "The people of Ireland are ready to become a portion of the Empire, provided they be made so in reality and not in name alone; they are ready to become a kind of West Briton if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again." Ready to become a "kind of West Briton"? Not even a "kind of" Briton?! And that long ago - during our séjour actually in Britain! (Its a nice reminder too that effectively the same issue was raised back then and, if I can infer from O'Connell's reply, opinion is pretty much the same - albeit that the option on "West Briton" is now closed.)

It always bemusing to meet people from Britain who tell me or other Irish people that "you're British, though, really." Not so much because it offensive, but because such a drastically different understanding of a word can exist between people that have both known it all their lives. (Not offensive, I said, because in fact its quite funny for that very reason.) It's obvious that on Britain its seen as a pan-island, we're-all-the-same-in-the-end kind of thing. The meaning to on Ireland is pretty much the opposite: "A British person is someone from Britain. That's a different island. I'm not from Britain, therefore I'm not from British." And that's the crux of the "British Isles" thing: nobody's really too pushed that you call it that - we get what you mean - but we're not going to because, by what we mean by "British", its simply not an acceptable term.

As for your remark whether "Ireland" is not the same - yeh, it has that potential and is irksome on occasion. There is one differences, though: "Ireland" is deliberately a 'misnomer.' Remember that until 1999 the Republic claimed territory over the whole island (see Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland). Since then, in agreement with unionists and the UK government, this claim has been reduced to the "nation" being the whole island. This has the strange result that people from Northern Ireland are simultaneously British and Irish citizens. Yes, Ian Paisley is, whether he likes it or not, a citizen of the Republic. Hence, "Ireland." --sony-youth^pléigh 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I did find some things ÿou say as somewhat strange, such that you get people from the UK saying things to you like "you're British, though, really." Is that because you have connection to N Ireland? Clearly, there is a long issue that arises because the Union of England and Wales with Scotland resulted ín the use of the term Great Britain and of course N Ireland got caught up in that. I don't know any people who would really think that people living in the Republic could be thought of as British. Here is the crux of the matter. Whereas as you say, the Irish seem to regard "British" as to what is on the other side of the Irish Sea, the mainland Brits see it differently. In geographic terms British (for the British) is a locatitive issue, but in political terms it refers to a different area. I am confident I know the difference and I think most British do so too, but of course that does mean that there are the ignorant few out there who do not know better. And I can very easily see how foreigners get confused (many here in Finland understand the difference between the nations of the UK but then don't really understand when to use UK, Britain or Great Britain and all that that entails. And despite that, they still refer to England when they mean the UK which upsets the Scottish and Welsh and no doubt the Northern Irish too. So probably there is a good reason for changing the nomenclature, and it would be a good idea if the governments agreed a way to do this otherwise its going to be a real hotch-potch of terms that emerge in competition with each other, during which time, nobody really understands what the speaker/writer really means.

Names can be a funny thing. Of course the very word Britain is not unconnected to the French word Breton, from where many original Britons migrated! And as the British and the French 'supposedly' (and I stress 'supposedly' because I do not fall for all the stuff pumped up by the press) as antipathetic to each other as you imply the Irish are 'supposedly' antipathetic to the British, its a wonder that we are happy to cling to the term British. Time, as they say, is a great healer. The Irish made a significant move with the change to their constitution and I am sure it played a big part in defusing tensions between the communities. And the UK position of viewing the position of N Ireland as being not territorial but free choice for the residents was its counterpart. And of course with us all being locked into a European Union with shared values it was a very sensible move. I sincerely hope that the people that live on the Island of Ireland can learn to celebrate their different shades of Irishness without resort to the bomb or the bullet. I live in Finland where there is a minority (5.5%) of Finns whose mother tongue, for historic reasons, is Swedish (reflecting the history that Finland was once an integral part of Sweden). They live in harmony and I hope that the Irish with different traditions will learn to do the same. It would help if the marches would stop and if "British" was not somehow a dirty word in the South, but I guess (and hope) that in time this will change.

[edit] Hauska tutustua!

In Finnish language, you have changed the idiom for "Nice to meet you" from Hauska tutustua to Hauska tavata. In principle, you are correct, as tutustua means "get to know". However, the term Hauska tutustua is, in my opinion, used when an Anglosaxon says: "Nice to meet you". --MPorciusCato 10:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I changed it because there are many foreigners referencing these pages to understand how Finnish works and idiomatic translations can be confusing to them. That was the reason I changed it. I was not being pedantic.--Tom 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European

Hi. I just made a suggestion there [1] and I'd like your opinion but since that page is so inactive, I felt like notifying you here...KarenAER 12:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a mistake to assume what European meant. I therefore support the creation of a disambiguation page. I see that has now happened anyway.--Tom 23:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh that was fast...KarenAER 17:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Rock

Hello. Just a note to explain why I changed your edit to the Northern Rock article in which you implied that Northern Rock was insolvent. There are actually two different meanings of insolvent, but the one that is usually used in the financial sector is the balance sheet meaning i.e. a firm is only insolvent if its assets no longer exceed its liabilities. By this definition, Northern Rock was never insolvent, or even close to insolvency - FSA chairman Callum McCarthy said "To be absolutely clear, if we believed that Northern Rock was not solvent, we would not have allowed it to remain open for business" [2]. Gandalf61 09:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that definition of insolvency?? I only know one definiton. Its not the definition in the insolvency legislation or the dictionaries. Insolvency means not being able to meet your obligations as they fall due, so it is related to liquidity. There are companies that are insolvent by your definition and happily trading and legally so. The law says you must meet your obligations as they fall due or else you either go into bankrupty or voluntary arrangement (as a person) or into administration and possibly liquidation (if what is insolvent is a company). Northern Rock was insolvent by this defintion because it could not repay its money market borrowing without getting replacement funds and few would lend to it. So it was indeed INSOLVENT. I am buy professional training a qualified banker so I know what I am talking about. I did notice thar McCarthy used the word that way, but he is just wrong. He may have used the term deliberately that way to avoid raising alarm, but that is no reason to change the defintion.--Tom 12:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health care and cultural attitudes

Michael Moore appeared on Oprah last week -- I thought you would find it of interest considering our earlier discussion of U.S. attitudes towards health care. Here's a clip -- Sfmammamia 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for sending me that. Its quite humbling to hear some of the arguments I have been banging on about being repeated almost word for word by these people. I think they've been reading a few of these Wikipedia articles lately! I think Uwe Reinhardt says really what is the fundamental problem here, and I have said it myself on WP, that is that Americans have a terrible phobia about letting their government do anything for them. Europeans do not have that hang up. And as I said here on WP (and it was repeated on the program) Americans do not get hung up about roads or the police or the fire service arguing that they are a socialized menace! They accept it as a normal state of affairs, just as Europeans do about health care. The case of the steel worker and his wife was very moving. She absolutely should not have had health care denied by the bankruptcy of his company and his own ill health and should indeed have got her health care as moral right not and not through a charitable act of an individual, however honorable that may have been in the circumstances. I suspect its actually a very common story. Thanks again for the link. --Tom 12:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socialized Medicine Article

I apologize for not having responded sooner, however, I've been extremely busy. I am going to respond to some of the points that you have raised now, and some of them when I get some more time (hopefully, by tomorrow). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomwarrior (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

Tom, in the interests of fairness, I'm reminding you as well as Freedomwarrior about the 3rr rule with regard to recent changes on Universal health care I've made a bold edit and deleted that particular "pro" argument entirely. There are already two other arguments in the "pro" that address the drawbacks of the profit motive in health care. --Sfmammamia (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Health Service

• See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#National_Health_Service. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to socialized medicine

Apologies that my change to the socialized medicine article may have inadvertently lost an edit of yours. I was rather livid at the other changes, removing portions that were well referenced and to the point of this definitional question.--Gregalton (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Hey, no problem! I guessed it was something like that. I had not realized that he was back from his vacation and editing again with a vengence. It was only after I looked at the history page that I realized what had actually happened. --Tom (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom, for the text you reinserted (most) the quotes are there. If these (insert expletive here) want another citation on the same fact, just cite those same works again.--Gregalton (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I will be out of pocket, have to leave urgently. It is my view that Kborer has violated 3RR in spirit and possibly in letter today and yesterday.--Gregalton (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I have never got to this point before but I am close to finding out what can be done to block this editor for a while. Also to seeing if there is a tie in between this editor and FreedomWarrior. I notice that neither of them actually denied the allegation I made.--Tom (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not sure what you meant by out of pocket but having looked it up I assume you mean that you are spending too much time here instead of working. I have a suspicion that the other editor(s) we have been working 'with' today are hired hands. Nobody can be this persistent to force through changes on a subject that they probably have little personal experience of (assuming they are in the US). I'm semi retired so I can spend all day at this ;)--Tom (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that, just expect to be "out of contact" for several days.--Gregalton (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have raised some formal objections to the POV pushing and reversions by those two editors and raised my suspicion that they are the same editor. I probably did not do this in the right way as I am relatively new as an active editor to WP and its the first time I have ever done it. I am not sure what will become of it. But as I suspected earlier, I think there are other user names that have been created in the last 6 months or even sooner that will emerge and start editing here that are probably ´the same person or directed by the same mind. It will be interesting to see what happens.--Tom (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socialized Medicine

Hi. I'm was just now writing a message on the Socialized Medicine talk page about the POV Disputes and general cleanup when I got your message. I'll have the note posted shortly. Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Risk equalisation

A tag has been placed on Risk equalisation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gromlakh (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little context in Risk equalization

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Risk equalization, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Risk equalization is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Risk equalization, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freeview

I'm interested by your comments regarding my recent edits to Freeview. I accept that the information is useful, but it is the only channel about which such information is displayed. We should either add the relevant details about the other channels which aren't broadcast for their full hours on Freeview, or leave it out. Personally, I'm going to remove it again so that the article is standardised, and start a discussion on the talk page. Please feel free to contribute there with your views. Thanks Paul20070 (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now put it back because, like you say, the information is useful. I've also added details on the other channels which do not broadcast fully on Freeview. Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DoopDoop/Freedomwarrior/Kborer

Huomenta! Please repeat your accusations at the pages of Freedomwarrior and Kborer. I'm afraid they do not read my userpage. Kiitos, --Doopdoop (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

it is just a 3RR counting--Doopdoop (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WHat is? I think you are losing it!--Tom (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Losing what? --Doopdoop (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Losing your mind! You just reverted your own argument having made a passioned argument for making the opposite statement! What 3RR counting? If you are alluding to my own edits I will allude to your own abuse of sockpuppetry... I think there is ample evidence in the record. And despite the reluctance of other editors to support me previously, it is now patently obvious what is happening and I think I will garner sufficient support from fellow editors to rebuff any challenge you may be thinking of making. --Tom (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You might have violated 3RR in Socialized_medicine (Diffs [3], [4], [5], [6]). WP:3RR recommends you to self-revert. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was already aware. But the matter was settled before you started challenging it. I'll take my chances. I have no intention of reverting. We have been down this route before umpteen times before so the issue is already settled. See the archive. One cannot in logic prove a negative but one can call for proof positive in the other direction. So far nobody has attempted to do so. Hence I'll not revert it. Indeed I'm sticking to my guns. See my recent edit at talk/Socialized medicine. If you can prove that the Brits, the Spanish, and the Finns for example refer to their systems as socialized medicine I'll quit editing here. I'm so confident that you cannot do so that I'll stick by that challenge.--Tom (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article on health care

This may interest you: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/358/6/549.pdf --Gregalton (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The more I read about this subject the more incredible it seems that people still cling to ideas that capitalism is working to peoples advantage in health care. Clearly it isn't. That article ends with the statement "Sometimes, we Americans do the right thing only after having exhausted all other alternatives". In fact this is a slant on the same observation by a famous half-American, a certain Winston Churchill (his mother was American) who said "The United States invariably does the right thing, only after having exhausted every other alternative" (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill). What is also interesting is that despite the bleating of certain people in the US about too much government dollars going into Medicare and Medicaid, the private hospitals and pharmaceutical companies would be scared shitless of losing that revenue if the government stopped paying it. It's no wonder Bush signed in the prescription drug plan recently. These companies are, in effect, milking the state's coffers, and I have little doubt that the politicans somewhere along the line are getting paid off for it because so far there is little sign of drug costs actually coming down in the U.S.

As to how the system actually works against the consumer in the U.S. came up in my digging about MRI usage there. An industry magazine actually admitted that there had been over investment in MRIs and that machines were standing idle far too long and that this was causing prices for examinations to be too high. The US already carries out many more exams per head than any other country bar Japan. The response? Sell them? Mothball them? No. We have to find a way to get physicians to make more referrals. In other words incentivise the doctors to get patients (and the government) to spend more money on MRIs that are probably not needed just so that the investors can get their money back. That, quite frankly, stinks.

What is even more interesting is that I get the sense that the American medical industry is realizing that the game could be up in the U.S. and that the good times could soon be over. What is now happening is that those big US medical companies are now moving into the U.K. sensing that government money is up for grabs in the medical sphere over there after Blair was persuaded to allow private companies to compete with the NHS. The right wing claim that this is a victory for free market medicine. The only problem is that this competition is nothing of the sort. If you read journals like Private Eye which often get insider leaks of information about PFI contracts and these medical outsourcing arrangements, you discover that the private companies are in fact milking the state because the business cases made for allowing private investment rather than public investment are fixed so that the private case always wins. Again, one has the sense that there is a pay-off somewhere for the politicians because the sums of money are so huge. The assumptions made in those business cases are turn out to be wrong and always in favour of the private investors rather than the taxpayer. Even a few percent profit creamed off makes it very profitable business. How long it will be before the U.K. population as a whole wakes up to what is going on remains to be seen. Although Mr Freedonwarrior thinks that I am some form of socialist, I actually do believe in true competition. But what we see in the medical industry on both sides of the atlantic is not always true competition. And the consumer is paying a high price this failure. Hopefully Canada has a grip on this. --Tom (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume that you wrote the majority of the material that I've proposed for merger. I'm not trying to give you a hard time ... hell, if Gregalton's on your case, I know you're getting it rough enough, already. I was reading the article though, and some of it seems that it would be better placed in the "publicly funded" article. Have you considered putting the text there, and defending it in that article? The content of the "socialized medicine" seems fine (on the surface .. haven't dug into the references yet), but some of it does seem to wander from the main subject matter. If your references would stand, then it would get much more exposure/use if included in the primary article (the "publicly funded" article). Just a thought. BigK HeX (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I spy Kborer and I claim my $100.

Err .. I'll assume that the above statement is another insinuation of puppetry. I contacted you because I was interested in helping you, but it seems, perhaps, that you like living on an island. There Is No Cabal but if you alienate enough people, you are certain to stand alone against a mob. BigK HeX (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socialized medicine

In response to your comment on my talk page, I would like to point out that my recent changes were quite small and made no POV claims. I will continue to insist that editors reference claims made in the socialized medicine article. Thanks. Kborer (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Sicko appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health care politics and health care reform merge discussion

Tom, I notice you have been making recent edits to Health care politics. Did you notice that there's a merge proposal on that article -- suggesting it be merged with health care reform. Could you please review the discussion here and comment? The proliferation of debate sections that deal primarily with the U.S. debate is something that has troubled me for awhile, and I'd like to figure out a way, if possible, to consolidate them into one article (perhaps Health care politics in the United States) instead of replicating the same arguments in numerous articles. Thanks, --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support that idea wholeheartedly! "Health care reform in the US" might be better than "health care politics" in the US. It seems certain that there will be reform in the US and I suspect that if the US gets it right, health care could stop being a political football. Although health care is a highly political subject in some countries like the UK this is because democratic processes have made it so.. In practice, in the UK for example and I suspect in many other countries, the structure of the health care system is relatively settled. I haven't read the link you sent but I will do so. It would indeed be helpful if articles on a general subject were not always colored by the parochial debate in the U.S. --Tom (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health care paper

Tom, I have a paper that may interest you. If you contact me through my email (at my user page), I'd be happy to send on to you.--Gregalton (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Lauri Tähkä

A tag has been placed on Lauri Tähkä requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bstone (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the message

Thanks for the message - comments like that are encouraging and certainly foster the co-operative spirit that is needed if we are to work together to improve articles. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elonkerjuu

Started Elonkerjuu - welsome to edit. --Kummi (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hei Thanks!--Tom (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)