Georgina Reilly

Georgina Reilly

Born in Surrey, England, Georgina began her professional career at ten years old as a singer on the popular BBC Children’s series Number Time. She participated in summer musical theatre workshops under the guidance of Philip Bateman (Musical Director of Billy Elliot, London production) and performed leading roles in Youth Theatre productions of Camelot, Guys and Dolls and Grease. When her family moved to Toronto, Canada, Georgina continued her musical theatre training and completed her formal education at Havergal College.

Her professional credits include Pontypool, a horror genre film directed by Bruce McDonald (The Tracey Fragments),Plums and Prunes, a short film written by Terry Southern (Dr. Strangelove, Easy Rider), The Dark Room, directed by Bruce McDonald,Beautiful People, (Sony Pictures Television) and RRunaway (CW Network) Between professional engagements, Georgina enjoys going to movies, reading, working out, acting classes and her two dachshunds “Alfie and Boadie”. She has a keen interest in Interior Design and composes music with a Pop/Rock vibe. Georgina is the grand daughter of Canadian Tommy Reilly, who was one of the worlds leading classical harmonica players.

(via imdb)

Location: Guildford, Surrey, England, UK
Web Series Filmography: Valemont (Melissa)

See More On

Bio
IMDB
Facebook

  • mike

    Thanks for giving it a good shot! Complex issue, highly charged. We need more rational discussion.

  • sbspalding

    Thanks mate. I am pretty convinced there is no perfect way a post like this could be put together, especially not without skewing it wildly. All I really hoped to do was touch on most of the points and provide some kind of context.

  • http://www.floridaventureblog.com/ danrua

    Much of the debate about this or other politically-charged issues have roots in near-term vs. long-term thinking/pandering. The party that highlights near-term candy over larger long-term poison often wins the debate because the average voter doesn’t “do the math” for net long-term consequences. This is just a specific example of the risks of society’s growing “sound bite” debate trend.

    Even this post focuses largely on near-term risks instead of combining near-term and long-term risks. For example, your conclusions about private insurance and rationing focus on whether this single legislative step accomplishes the risks being highlighted by those opposing government healthcare. However, the President has specifically stated his goal of single payer:
    “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” via http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

    On the topic of near-term vs. long-term, note the President’s use of “we may not get there immediately.” That puts today’s legislation in its appropriate context, as a step towards an ultimate goal.

    Even without knowing the President’s stated long-term goal, economics can help predict the long-term consequences of a “public option” that has the ability to sustain losses, supported by higher taxation or future generation deficits. A government competitor that isn’t subject to profit/loss/market forces ultimately puts private insurers out of business, resulting in higher taxes and/or fewer choices for all. If that government competitor succeeds in putting all others out of business (via economics or politics), healthcare rationing of the sort Rahm Emmanuel’s brother outlines is a very real risk.

    Therefore, your summation that private insurers will not be driven of out business and government-driven rationing will not occur lacks a time frame for full analysis. Although today’s language may not achieve those outcomes immediately, they are very real long-term risks of today’s legislation for government healthcare.

  • sbspalding

    What you describe in reference to the “public option” is a systemic problem with any government facilitated healthcare system including Medicare parts A-”D”. Namely, it becomes a question of who is paying for any of this.

    The answer is unquestionably “future generations.” Which is a convenient scapegoat that both parties rely on to keep near-term thinkers at bay. If you look at the most recent conflict in Iraq you will see a serious long-term economic boondoggle that was justified as a necessary expense for a variety of political reasons that aren’t worth going over again here.

    My argument “about” Health Care Reform as a principle is that it is necessary. Without any reform, Health Care costs will -still- require most (if not all) of the GDP to sustain in the next 15-20 years (by some estimates). Everyone paying attention knows that this is not a system that can continue. It would be political suicide for either side to admit that.

    Where I think this particular plan offers a step in a positive direction is that it seeks to identify inefficiency in the current system and resolve it. I wouldn’t put money on that working out as the cheerleaders would say it would, but it is a proactive government step towards change. The odds of the entire thing changing 500 times before it actually becomes law are so high I’d leave it at that for now.

    My conclusion to all of this is that we are on a train heading towards a brick wall. Half of the country wants to stay on the train, the other half wants to switch to a track that will potentially head towards yet another brick wall. Most people neither know they are on a train nor see the wall that they are running into. Those who see both aren’t talking about it because it would put the fear of god into the constituency.

    This entire exercise is designed to put information out there and allow others to make decisions based on it. I tried to pick -reasonable- elements to describe both sides opinions on the matter.

  • stephenKaaaa

    Sorry, this is just more partisan postings under the guise of “nonpartisanship”. Just look at the youtube videos you chose. They unnecessarily denigrate people by trying to cast individuals opposed to some of the healthcare reforms being proposed as being hicks/rednecks. This is just more hate-mongering.

  • sbspalding

    I’m sorry you interpreted it like that but I think you might be misunderstanding the point of that section of the guide, and that’s my fault for not explaining it well enough.

    Nonpartisan does not mean devoid of emotional content. Both sides of this debate have strong opinions that are colored in large part by politics.

    Video 1 shows a group of people fighting for what they believe to be unnecessary or poorly structured reform. Some of the statements they make might be considered -highly- inflammatory if you happened to be on the other side. Video 6 shows a very similar thing except the makers of the video are on the other side and are using satire to make their point.

    Videos 2 and 3 show what I consider very reasoned arguments from both sides of the debate.

    Videos 4 and 5 (the videos on bringing guns to town hall meetings and Obama’s take on the reform respectively) are highly interpretative. Video 4 is seen through the lens of someone who is pro reform talking to someone who is against it. Video 5 is seen through the lens of someone who is against reform commenting on someone who is (obviously) for it.

    The point here is that section was designed to give a cross-section of public opinion in this debate after presenting the facts. Public opinion has been, for the most part, highly partisan. If you look at some of the videos out there you’ll see that the ones I picked are no where near as one-sided as the vast majority of the material available. Not only that but they explore both sides of the issue.

    Again, I don’t know where you stand on healthcare reform and I’m not about to guess but I’d say look at the entire “guide” again as compared to the public debate on the issue. What I hope you see is that it is as close to a measured response as you can really hope to write about an issue this partisan.

    If you have any videos, links or other materials that you think would “balance” it I’d love to see them.

    Thanks for taking the time to comment.

    Cheers,

  • stephenKaaaa

    I sincerely appreciate what you are trying to do. It is not easy for
    a whole host of reasons not the least of which because it is
    incredibly complicated. I am looking for sites that put forth
    articulate viewpoints – even if they are not what I agree with – so
    that I may at least understand others’ perspective is and their
    reasoning.

    My primary issues with your site

    - This discourse is already far too emotional. You can’t possibly
    make it devoid of emotion. By taking a satirical approach –
    especially a mean-spirited one – only throws gasoline on a fire.
    - I think there is pretty universal acknowledgement that healthcare in
    America needs to be reformed, the issue is the type of reforms. An
    enumeration on the points of (general) agreement and disagreement
    would be helpful. Especially if the areas of disagreement were (non-
    emotionally) articulated taking into account the general
    perspectives. This is NOT an easy task, but would likely be the most
    beneficial (which is why I was hoping that someone had already done it).

    Some sites that are helpful? A couple of suggestions: http://www.cato.org
    (a libertarian perspective with a long history of having strong points
    of agreement and disagreement on major political issues and
    politicians from both sides of the aisle) and factcheck.org.

    Cheers

  • sbspalding

    I think you’re right and upon reflection I can see how video six might do more harm than good if only because it serves as a distraction.

    I am a big fan of factcheck and I cited them in several parts of this guide, I feel they go a great job of cutting through the cruft.

    I also like Cato’s approach to discussing politics even if I don’t entirely agree with them on some issues. Typically, they try to raise the level of discourse which is something I appreciate.

    If nothing else, I’m glad we were able to discuss this reasonably. I admit that this isn’t a perfect guide, there is too much information for a single person to parse even given the amount of time I spent working through it. The issue is complicated further by all the misinformation that is floating around.

    That being said, I hope more people like you will read this guide and point things like that out. It only serves to help people see that you can discuss a hot button issue like this without all the name calling and general insanity that I’ve seen in recent policy debates.

    Thanks again!

  • http://www.medicaiddoctors.net Medicaid Doctors

    I like this article! Will come again next time for sure, thank again

  • http://www.onlinemedicalstore.net/ Generic Viagra

    Great
    information you got here. I’ve been reading about this topic for one week now
    for my papers in school and thank God I found it here in your blog. I had a
    great time reading this.