Despite mass objections from telecoms, citizens,
electronics experts, law enforcement officials, and members of the
minority conservative and socialist parties, Labour Party officials
have blazed ahead with a framework to allow the legislation to be
According to Labour Party leaders, the government is
planning on handing the expense of the Digital Economy Bill down to
taxpayers. That expense is estimated to be approximately £500M
(approximately $800M USD). On average, that works out to more
than £25 more a year ($40 USD/year) per internet connection.
that's considering that the government is counting on the bill
reducing piracy enough to increase media revenues by £1.7B ($2.72B
USD), leading to £350M ($560M USD) extra in VAT tax revenue.
If that increase isn't realized, British taxpayers could find
themselves on the hook for over $1B USD in enforcement expenses.
writing campaign is predicted to cut off 40,000 citizens from the
internet and cost £1.40 ($2.20 USD) per subscription. The
government appears to have purposefully neglects to include possible
economic losses based on citizens being taken offline in its
Charles Dunstone, chief executive of Carphone
Warehouse, whose subsidiary TalkTalk is the biggest consumer provider
of broadband in UK, is flabbergasted at how the punitive bill is
gaining so much traction. He states, "Broadband consumers
shouldn’t have to bail out the music industry. If they really think
it’s worth spending vast sums of money on these measures then they
should be footing the bill; not the consumer."
media industry is cheering the British government's decision to obey
their commands, despite the taxpayer expenses and objections.
Writes the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, an
industry trade group, "The overall benefits to the country far
outweigh the costs."
They argue that movies like X-Men
Origins: Wolverine and Star Trek have been pirated
millions of times, amounting to millions in lost revenues.
it certainly helps their argument that in the UK, like in the U.S.,
the media industry spends enormous sums on legal representation and
government lobbying efforts. As the growing conflict in Britain
is proving, if there's one lobbyist power in the UK and U.S. that's
perhaps greater than telecommunication firms, it's the media industry
quote: Keep in mind that in Canada, you get free (or cheap) health care, you just have to wait months to get it. Thats why I prefer how the US syatem is, it may be expensive without health insurance, but you get instant health care if needed. If you have a headache, you can get a doctor to look at it for you instantly. This may be biased, but this is what I've seen in the USA
quote: by those that don't agree with health-care reform.
quote: Of course this also doesnt take into account that in places like Canada, you cannot be denied care.
quote: Everyone always praises the US for their 'low' wait times, yet most studies being released don't show this as being true. US wait times are on or below par of many other industrialized nations which currently employ socialized medicine.
quote: Socialized Medicine does cost more
quote: P.S Do people really believe that you will be waiting on considerable longer amount of time to see a doctor about a headache in Canada over US?
quote: You apparently just don't get it. The Canada system is just like the European system. It's government RATIONED health care. Not provided, but rationed.
quote: There are MANY better way to reform health-care than by destroying 1/6 'th of our private economy by having the government take over health-care. Key word ; reform. Reform implies it will be made better. Fact is, yes FACT, for the huge majority of the United States citizens, this type of "reform" will lead to worst health care than we already have.
quote: 1. More expensive - WRONG2. Less choice- TRUE (Can't argue here, but if less choice means more overall coverage for more people, then I'm all fore it)3. Less accessible - WRONG/TRUE (More accessible for most, less accessible for those that had/have more money to pay for it)
quote: You cannot be denied care in the United States either. What was your point ?
quote: Canada has, what, some 30 million odd citizens ? And you spent 170 billion last year on health-care. The United States has 330+ million citizens. Do the math.
quote: So I called my doctor and the next day, the NEXT friggin day, had an appointment to see him so we could try a different medication. I had NO wait time, I walked in a few minutes before my scheduled time and was promptly seen by my doctor. No wait. And I paid 20 bucks and my insurance, as usual, picked up the rest.
quote: It's this simple. I'm glad, overjoyed, that you like your system. That's great. But I live HERE, and I have to deal with how this so called health-care "reform" will effect me and my family. So don't hand me this shit sandwich and tell me it tastes great. How dare you preach to me about it.
quote: Lets make this simple, Canada's current health structure = 10.1% of GDP (or 16% government revenue), existing US health care, 16% of GDP (or 18.5% government revenue). So yes, please, do the math..
quote: Don't you get it? It should have never been 1/6 of your private economy in the first place.
quote: FACT is, health-care reform will result in reduced care for a small percentage of people in exchange for much better care for a heck of a lot more people.
quote: oh and guess how much I paid...
quote: In fact, you are being completely dismissive of the massive financial burden your system places on it's population to cover such a small number of people.
quote: Now I freaking dare you to look me in the face and tell me that's how it works in Canada on the public system.
quote: This is real health care in Canada, not what gets fed to so many on some horribly biased commercials and news programs. It's by no means a perfect system (FAR from it), but a lot of the supposed problems either don't actually exist or, at best, are blown horribly out of proportion.
quote: There are MANY better way to reform health-care than by destroying 1/6 'th of our private economy by having the government take over health-care. Key word ; reform. Reform implies it will be made better. Fact is, yes FACT, for the huge majority of the United States citizens, this type of "reform" will lead to worst health care than we already have.1. More expensive2. Less choice3. Less accessible
quote: Excuse me ?? I think this needs clarification. You must be comparing walk-in hospital wait times. Because when I make an appointment with my doctor, I most certainly have no wait time. Same with my dentist, chiropractor, optimoligist, etc etc.
quote: Canada has, what, some 30 million odd citizens ? And you spent 170 billion last year on health-care. The United States has 330+ million citizens. Do the math.Again, let me repeat, Americans are NOT against health-care reform. The problem is, what's being proposed is NOT reform. The premise of your argument is idiotic. If our health care is so shitty, why would we be against it being made better ?
quote: Funny you should mention it. Recently a medication I was put on by my doctor started causing long and severe headaches. It was listed as a potential side effect and the drug information said to call my doctor if it happened. So I called my doctor and the next day, the NEXT friggin day, had an appointment to see him so we could try a different medication. I had NO wait time, I walked in a few minutes before my scheduled time and was promptly seen by my doctor. No wait. And I paid 20 bucks and my insurance, as usual, picked up the rest.
quote: Really? and yet with a much larger GDP we pay a higher % of that GDP for our health care.