BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The NHS is undoubtedly in crisis. It has been argued that the standard of treatment for patients is ...

The NHS is undoubtedly in crisis. It has been argued that the standard of treatment for patients is too poor to justify it’s continued existence. What’s more, the population of this country is ageing, and will pose an even bigger burden on state funds as time goes by. This requires immediate solution and immediate investment from the private sector. If this is not achieved, people will be obliged to take out private health insurance anyway, in order to ensure they receive adequate treatment.
The health service at present effectively punishes those who work hard and are involved in individua...

The health service at present effectively punishes those who work hard and are involved in individual enterprise. Hard work should not be punished by the redistribution wealth by a means of high taxes, taking money away from the rich to pay for the ideal utopian health care for all. Those who use private health care already continue to pay tax to finance the NHS and services which they may seldom use.
The Obama Legacy

Obama was the right choice as his position as president broke down racial boundaries have already been challenged and won. For a country so far torn by racism, his election was an important step in History. Atlhough I can appreciate that if he had been a regular white candidate, with the same ideals, principles and rhetoric, he possible would be have won, the fact is he wasnt and that it made history. With this in mind the Obama Administration appears to be focused on these racial benchmarks.
Do not limit this to race...

The above point is correct in one aspect -- that Barack Obama was the right choice. However, the hypothesis that if he was white, with the same ideals and credentials, that he might not have won, is difficult to prove, and certainly much easier to disprove. Esteemed statistics guru Nate Silver shows that "Comparing exit polls from 2004 and 2008 makes the breadth of Barack Obama's victory clear. Obama received a larger share of the vote than John Kerry among voters of all genders, races, education levels, and income classes, and virtually all religions. The only groups with whom he underperformed Kerry were older (65+) voters, and gay and lesbian voters." [http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-outperforms-kerry-among-virtually.html]
Absolutley

Obama has really done things that will better this country for the better. He has been able to make sure that the economy is getting back on it's feet faster than it ever has before. He is trying to appease the American people as promplty as possible. People have been impatient since the first day he came into office; they wanted an ''Over-night-change" AND because that didn't show at the first sight of him in office, people started to question if it would ever appear.
Too early to rush to outright conclusions

I thank Prez Obama because ... This president took office in biggest economic mess any of us have lived thru. Our economy lost over 10 trillion in wealth in 2008. The average household lost $100,000 in housing value and stock. This isn't just rich folks this was money average people were spending and savings and pension and 401k funds. It will be a long long hard slog until we get back to a normal economy. And housing will be slow because we were building 2 million housing a year when we only need 1.2 million fora number of years. That was driven by the demand for mortgage backed securities. In a short 2 years he got a historically giant stimulus passed and even at that size it was just a drop in the bucket compared with what we lost. he saved the American auto industry has been methodically doing everything possible to make sure we recover a previously unbelievable amount of the TARP loans back. All the while passing a piece of health care legistlation that we've been trying to get for a 100 years. Oh and also passed financial reform more extensive than anything since FDR. But the healthcare law - Obamacares - I love Obamacares. Once fully implimented it will provide me and millions like me with a safety net we have never ever ever ever had before. After working and paying into insurance for years but always knowing you could lose the coverage you paid for with a pinkslip -- at long last I can trust I will be covered when I need it. I cannot say how much I appreciate this President making this a priority especially because he risked his political future to do it. What a great President we have!!
Too early to rush to outright conclusions

Barak Obama it can be said has done a lot so far in his first six months in the Presidency and has scored a few decent achievements so far like getting the US to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and having a pretty smooth transition. But it is still too early to draw conclusions about his impact in office partly because there are a lot of unresolved issues in different areas such as Iraq for example where US Forces haven't completly withdrawn yet and it is still hard to tell what will happen in the country by the time they do. Also while he's released memo's about the CIA techniques at Guantanamo which can be described as torture. In short we're only past just over one eighth of his "first" term in office and like Bush at that stage there's no telling what is legacy may ultimatley be.
In the words of a Kashmiri

The National Conference party and the Congress party together won 45 seats, one more than is needed for a simple majority in the 87-seat state assembly. The two parties have started negotiations for an alliance so they can take power. The National Conference party won 28 seats, and Congress won 17. "We are ready to align with the Congress party to form the next government," said Omar Abdullah, president of National Conference. The seven-phased elections began in November, four months after India took direct control after the fall of a coalition government in the state. The elections ended last week, and vote-counting finished Sunday.[[http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/indian.kashmir.vote/]] The poll spoke otherwise, against the point made. India is until this day considered the world's largest democracy, and thus the opinion of every citizen voting in the election counts. The pro-India party thus won in 2008 and are still in power, overpowering over the Pakistani favored league.
In the words of a Kashmiri

Ismail Sloan writes: 'Thus, according to the Indians, India has the right to all of Kashmir. When Pakistan built a road to China known as the Karakorum Highway, India protested to the United Nations and everywhere else that a road was being built across "their territory" without their permission. However, Pakistan has a different view. The "Pathan agitators" were not from Peshawar. Rather, they were local Kashmiris who did not want to be part of India. Furthermore, the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army, because the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler. He was merely a British appointee. There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" prior to British rule. Finally, the agreement was that any areas more than 70% Muslim would go to Pakistan. Kashmir has more than 90% Muslims and therefore clearly should have been part of Pakistan. The main reason why I and most others take the Pakistan side is that numerous polls have been taken of the people of Indian Kashmir. Every one of these polls has had a similar result. Some want an independent Kashmir. Some (usually slightly fewer) want to join Pakistan. Almost none at all want to stay in India. The few who do want to stay in India are recent arrivals, primarily Hindus, who do not have long heredity links to Kashmir. Nobody on the Pakistan side of Kashmir wants to join India, but a few would like to have independence' [[http://www.anusha.com/kashmir.htm]] According to polls the majority of the people of Kashmir want an independent Country. and the rest want to be part of Pakistan. So, I don't entirely agree with Ismail Sloan. The election in Indian administered Kashmir no doubt had a very low voter turnout and anyone opposing the pro-Indian party rule; would most likely have faced violent opposition from televised to be very abusive self-confessed Indian troops. India is the world's most 'populated' democracy(being the 2nd most populated country in the World preceded by non-democratic China; thus largest) not exactly/actually the most effective form of democratic government.
Support for India

What about the war of 1971; When India severed East Pakistan from west Pakistan? Did Pakistani forces not take over part of Kashmir? Is that part not recognized as part of Pakistan by the U.N and the world? Skipping important pieces of history as well as details of the present reality in India seems to be typical of those speaking for the Indian side. The reality today is; the civilians of Kashmir are being battered,injured and killed at the hands of Indian soldiers. The reality today is No citizen of Kashmir supports Indian occupation. "A whopping 77 per cent are firm in their belief that a solution to the Kashmir problem does not lie within the framework of the Indian Constitution and a clear 72 per cent say categorically that it is independence alone which can bring peace in the violence-riven valley."-[[http://www.nancho.net/fdlap/kashmir/outlookf.html]]
Support for India

India has been a hotbed for terrorism because of her neighbor Pakistan. Pakistan was created on the rather ominous grounds of religious conflict. Pakistan sometimes claimed(and still claims) to be secular and at other times Islamic. Copies of Jinnah's speeches archived in various universities in the U.K reflect this dichotomy from the very foundation of the nation. Kashmir was(and is) ruled by Hindu leaders and even though it is/was a Muslim-majority state; she was not given to then east&west Pakistan because the leadership was very popular among the people. The British handed Kashmir over to India and so India feels that Pakistan and China's[[http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/104687/India/china-providing-tacit-support-to-kashmiri-militants-expert.html]] interference in this is unwarranted and only causes violence/bloodshed. India finds the propulsion of terrorism on her soil rather disdainful and feels it must be stopped. [[http://www.google.com/search?q=support+for+India+in+Kashmir&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a]]
Give it to the Roma.

To make it easier, both of them should give it up and give it to the Roma people, who are experiencing the 2nd holocaust in Europe. This time not from the Germans but from the Jews. Jewish leaders such as Sarkozy, Traian Basescu, Silvio Berlusdoni, Petra Edelmannova, Nick Griffin, Angela Merkel, not to mention the Hungarian Jobbik Party with Jewish members. That way no one shell have it and it would stop the anger building.
Pharmaceutical industries make huge profits

Yes, prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies (1). Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% (2). With all these facts, it is without dispute that only overpriced prescription drugs will lead to such a lucrative pharmaceutical industry. (1)CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, [Online], Available: http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf [21 August 2008]. (2)Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, [Online], Available: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf [21 August 2008].
The government/NHS cannot control inflation

In 2006 the NHS spent more than £8bn on medicines in primary care, representing a 60% real-terms increase in the last 10 years (3). Drug prices are merely increasing with inflation and that is out of the drug companies’ control. The government is merely responding to inflation and cannot do anything to change the economic status of our country and do try to reduce prices as it is. (3) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=2998&edition=1&ttl=20080819174434
The NHS has tried to reduce prices

The NHS has claimed that they have tried to lower the price of drugs and are consistently looking into the issue. Not only has the NHS looked into the issue, but they have also aided it by £100m in driving down the cost of drugs(4) . The NHS cannot be expected to dramatically reduce its prices when the future of the NHS would be at risk due to that. The government care more about the healthcare and means of British citizens and would not want to jeopardise that by putting the NHS out of business. It is a publicly-funded business and relies on the money from things such as prescriptions in order to keep on providing good and reliable healthcare. (4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3511102.stm
People should ask for cheaper alternatives

Instead of moaning about overpriced drugs, people should take responsibility and use their initiative in asking for alternatives. People could go elsewhere for medication when they are absolutely certain that they cannot afford GP prescribed drugs. Alternatives to overpriced drugs of the NHS that cost them less money and can be brought, for example, from the local supermarkets, such as Tescos. It is difficult to qualify the extent of wastage, and that is not in the doctor’s hands. The patients should be encouraged not to waste medication and to give GPs back the remaining pills for example that they did not need to use and this in itself, is a cheaper alternative.
Here I go again. "A "No-Brainer" from 180 degrees

Modern pharmacruticals are a bargain. You can go to Chilis for lunch every day. Have drinks and a nice meal and spend $18.00 plus tip. That's over a hundred bucks a week and you don't even wince when you pull out your wallet. That's just lunch. Your cigarette smoking habit costs you more than $50.00 a week and your stops at the testosterone dripping strip club a couple nights week is another big expense. So what do you do? You whine about the price of your asthma inhalers. They come out to about $50.00 a week. That, my friend, is a "frikkin'" bargain. Fifty years ago, you wheeze yourself to death before pension age. Take off your colored glasses. Medicine that cures a strep infection that left un- treated could become scarlet fever costs $12.00. There are a million similar examples in the naked city. Modern drugs are a bargain. However, look at my "YES" post. I hate it that the drug companies are bald-faced profiteers. They love it that the population of the world is increasing. Like the undertakers, they are in a growth industry. Jim Plagakis at http://www.jimplagakis.com
Students find it hard to pay prescription fees

Students who are at University and are over 18 years of age have to pay for their prescriptions. A lot of students cannot afford, for example £7.10 for eardrops for an ear infection when they have to get loans in order for their maintenance and tuition fees, and also money for food and other resources, such as books. What is more important- studies or medicine? It is awful when you suffer such regular problems as cystitis for instance, and have to get medication in order to treat it. Imagine if this occurs every month. How are you supposed to support yourself? When you ask if you can get support in the form of dentistry appointments, doctor’s prescriptions and eyesight tests, you are usually expected to give half of the money that your parents give you for food on such things; this is ridiculous for the full-time student who barely has the means to support him/herself.
Medication being expensive is extra stress:

A lot of people have hectic lives to live and medication proves to be a problem rather than a cure. If you are a working parent for instance, then how are you meant to keep up with your routines and chores if you have to find an extra £10 for medication every time you get ill? Medication is meant to be a relief for the stresses of daily life and it proves to be more of a problem with increasing prices.
All the evidence shows that prescription drugs cost too much

“It [was] estimated that overpricing is costing the NHS £500 million a year. ” More than this “statistics produced by the Department of Health… show that Britain frequently emerges as the country that spends more than any other in the EU on branded prescription drugs”(1). (1) Pierce A and Quinn B (2007) NHS pays £500m too much for its drugs [online] available; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1543326/NHS-pays-500m-too-much-for-its-drugs.htmlBy Andrew Pierce and Ben Quinn
It's a "No-Brainer". In the USA Big Pharma is enjoying 8 years of "Dubya" by raking in the profits

My first couple decades as a Registered Pharmacist in the United States were from 1965 to 1985. The major pharmaceutical manufacturers were invested in healing, curing disease and ameliorating symptoms that diminished quality of life. They were the "Good Guys". We, in the industry, trusted them. We worked with them. We had relationships with their representatives. They were good times, fine times. The average prescription was around $12.00. Generic equivalents were new to the market. Brand name dispensing was the custom. The manufacturers made money. Now, 2005, there is no doubt that the only mission Big Pharma strives for is to MAKE A PROFIT. As big a profit as they can. The idea that they are interested in curing illness is a laugher. They bring out new drugs for big illnesses "high cholesterol". Lipitor is or was recently the top grossing drug on the planet. As Rhett Buter said, "Frankly, My Dear, we don't give a damn about your little, inconspicuous disease. There's no money in it. Oh, hell, stop it. We know you are going to die, but .. well, there' just NO PROFIT in it." Pfizer then turns to Smith-Kline Glaxo and says, "Let's go get a drink." Jim Plagakis at http://www.jimplagakis.com
Everyone has to pay the same prices

Everyone has to pay for their prescriptions after the age of 18 if they are still in full-time education. It is not like the government/NHS is targeting poorer people, such as students, but adults who can afford to pay. Children are not included with all due reason, but students can find ways of getting their parents for instance to pay for their prescriptions. There are exemptions such as forms (the HC2 and HC3) which allow individuals a reduction on prices or exempt them from paying altogether.
Reducing prices will affect the NHS

Pharmacies are reluctant to reduce prices because their prices have to reflect their costs. A great deal of money is spent in order to get the drugs to the patient and the NHS would be greatly affected if prices reduced because in business terms they would be doomed to failure. A business which relies on public funding is successful and continues if it is and continues to be publicly-funded, and this applies to most industries including the NHS. The general public would surely prefer the NHS with expensive and overpriced drugs to no NHS at all and all private healthcare, which would be extremely expensive anyway.
Students find it hard to pay prescription fees

Show me a student who has not spent more that £7.10 on alcohol during their years of study and then we could have sympathy if they could not afford the cost of an NHS prescription. The money available to students, through loans and grants, is supposed to cover all their living costs; any money needed for prescriptions should be covered in that amount. If students really were so hard up that they could not afford £7.10 for ear drops to treat an infection, I'm sure their university hardship-fund would help them out. Through student loans, and grants and working through the holidays, there's no reason students should be hard up. If they really cannot manage financially, there's no reason why they can't work full-time and do a course with the Open University part-time. Learning to budget is an important life-skill that applies to students as much as anyone else.
Wastage

Because so many people either only have to pay the prescription charge, or in many cases no charge at all for their drugs, the NHS wastes £100m each year on drugs that go in the bin. Doctors should only prescribe drugs when people have serious ailments and the prescription charges should actually be much higher for single treatments meaning people who have chronic conditions can pay less. Basically we're dishing out a whole bunch of subsidised analgesics and anti-histamines that end up in the bin while people cannot get live-saving/prolonging treatments for their cancer.
GPs prescribing cheaper drugs would save the government and the NHS money

Drug importation and establishing drug-buying pools where businesses and companies could intervene and use their combined buying power to reduce the prices of drugs for individuals, could improve the expenditure on expensive drugs for the Average Joe. If drug-prices keep on increasing with inflation then there will be a substantial refusal to purchase these drugs and this will cause problems for both the ill and the drug companies. It is impossible as an individual to buy in bulk and reduce prices generally because when you only need a specific prescription, you will be wasting the drugs that you are buying in bulk. The Government could save more than £300m a year by being more efficient when prescribing drugs. GPs could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed GPs often over-prescribe and £100m at least could be saved by them being more careful in this matter(1). (1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3511102.stm
Medication for serious conditions is the most expensive

The four most common types of medicines that are at a heavy expense are: statins for high cholesterol, renin-angiotensin drugs for high blood pressure, proton pump inhibitors for gastric conditions and clopidogrel for blood clotting, and between them, they account for one-fifth of the entire NHS drugs bill(2) . They are expensive but vital to treat the patient’s conditions. You cannot leave these conditions untreated and the medication therefore needs to be paid for- but with what? If people cannot afford this then surely the condition will only get worse? It would not be as serious for patients if the heavy expenses involved paying for ear infection medication, but these medicines are essential for their care. A lot of these conditions, such as blood clotting and gastric conditions in particular, are extremely uncomfortable to live with and highly painful, and the reasonable person in those situations will pay for anything the doctor tells them in order to recover, rather than asking for the cheaper alternatives perhaps available. (2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6666805.stm
19 out of 50 U.S states have not specified that 21 is the min drinking age

however it also said: "Exceptions to the 21 law in some states include possession for religious purposes when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian; medical reasons; in private clubs or establishments; in the course of lawful employment by a duly licensed manufac" that means that the age for drinking is still 21. also your argument doesn't cover the fact that people under 21 can drink with their parents consent. http://tinyurl.com/6ou67r4