FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Should health care be free
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For those who have become chronically ill through lifestyle choice?" Yes I still think so because you don't know what could have happened to cause that lifestyle. For example they could need a transplant because they are an alcoholic. But something horrendous in their life could have triggered that. I think it's amazing we have the nhs and we help whoever needs it. Would hate to see people suffer because they can't afford it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For those who have become chronically ill through lifestyle choice?" Yes, sometimes it’s very difficult to know what effects lifestyle will have. E.g. Running can cause chronic joint issues. Smoking and alcohol are heavily taxed to offset the health costs associated. I still like ‘Free at the point of need’ philosophy of the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"How are we defining lifestyle choice? " Smoking, obesity, eating junk etc I’m guessing. Not exercising. All preventable things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Don't worry clem. It's all going private healthcare. So just go bananas ![]() Nice tits ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I find it galling, when I have to pay for people who have abused there bodies and it’s something that totally preventable." As stated though, in cases of smoking and drinking, etc, the tax is apart of the extra income, so they do pay extra. And yes, it should be "free" for all, once you start cutting people off for drinking or weighing a certain amount then what's stopping that from being adjusted down? How long before you yourself fall into the unfit for free healthcare bracket? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"How are we defining lifestyle choice? Smoking, obesity, eating junk etc I’m guessing. Not exercising. All preventable things. " How about risky sport or the people whose lifestyle was chosen for them e.g. kids brought up on junk? Where is the line drawn? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Perhaps a subject for a new thread but should Gym's be free or heavily subsidised?" I still wouldn't go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I find it galling, when I have to pay for people who have abused there bodies and it’s something that totally preventable. But how else are they going to pay and if they can’t what do you do with them ? Yes, it’s shit but what else can you do, so I guess we have to continue paying for the buggers. " Do you drive? Let’s imagine you cause an accident and you need a hospital stay? What’s the difference? It would be your fault, so you should pay? No, the amazing thing about the NHS is it does not judge people who come through the door. It just tries to help them irrespective of how they got there. That is a wonderful concept, the envy of many around the world. But it is too socialist an idea for those who view society through the politics of self-interest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"How are we defining lifestyle choice? Smoking, obesity, eating junk etc I’m guessing. Not exercising. All preventable things. How about risky sport or the people whose lifestyle was chosen for them e.g. kids brought up on junk? Where is the line drawn?" Absolutely, some people don’t have a total say in their lifestyle. Plus, how do we identify whether that illness was caused by eg smoking or some workplace issue or living in a polluted city etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"How are we defining lifestyle choice? Smoking, obesity, eating junk etc I’m guessing. Not exercising. All preventable things. How about risky sport or the people whose lifestyle was chosen for them e.g. kids brought up on junk? Where is the line drawn?" Draw the line, at smoking, drinking, obesity etc. Playing sport or any aerobic activities should be encouraged, injuries are just an unfortunate by product. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"How are we defining lifestyle choice? Smoking, obesity, eating junk etc I’m guessing. Not exercising. All preventable things. " I snapped my criciate ligament playing football. NHS rebuilt my knee and thank god the did. Playing football was an avoidable lifestyle choice for recreation so who gets to decide what is valid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes but one of the main problems is people from overseas not being billed." But they do get billed? Unless they are from the EU where there is a reciprocal arrangement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"How are we defining lifestyle choice? Smoking, obesity, eating junk etc I’m guessing. Not exercising. All preventable things. How about risky sport or the people whose lifestyle was chosen for them e.g. kids brought up on junk? Where is the line drawn? Draw the line, at smoking, drinking, obesity etc. Playing sport or any aerobic activities should be encouraged, injuries are just an unfortunate by product. " Who makes the decisions? If someone smoked then gave up how long after they give up do they become eligible for free treatment for smoking related disease? Will diseases affecting children due to their parents lifestyle be treated free? Its an ethical minefield. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes but one of the main problems is people from overseas not being billed. But they do get billed? Unless they are from the EU where there is a reciprocal arrangement " They often don't pay the bill though. If they don't pay, there are no consequences, so they don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"How are we defining lifestyle choice? Smoking, obesity, eating junk etc I’m guessing. Not exercising. All preventable things. How about risky sport or the people whose lifestyle was chosen for them e.g. kids brought up on junk? Where is the line drawn? Draw the line, at smoking, drinking, obesity etc. Playing sport or any aerobic activities should be encouraged, injuries are just an unfortunate by product. Who makes the decisions? If someone smoked then gave up how long after they give up do they become eligible for free treatment for smoking related disease? Will diseases affecting children due to their parents lifestyle be treated free? Its an ethical minefield." That’s true, therefore that’s why they get away with it, because it’s such a grey area. Still doesn’t make it easier to swallow that we’ve got to pay for these feckless layabouts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"How are we defining lifestyle choice? Smoking, obesity, eating junk etc I’m guessing. Not exercising. All preventable things. How about risky sport or the people whose lifestyle was chosen for them e.g. kids brought up on junk? Where is the line drawn? Draw the line, at smoking, drinking, obesity etc. Playing sport or any aerobic activities should be encouraged, injuries are just an unfortunate by product. " What about people with eating disorders ? Victims of crime who turn to drugs or alcohol. Self harm victims? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Still doesn’t make it easier to swallow that we’ve got to pay for these feckless layabouts. " Again, ignoring the fact that additional taxes from said products means they pay MORE than you do towards the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Perhaps a subject for a new thread but should Gym's be free or heavily subsidised?" Now that would be a good idea ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. " That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Still doesn’t make it easier to swallow that we’ve got to pay for these feckless layabouts. Again, ignoring the fact that additional taxes from said products means they pay MORE than you do towards the NHS. " You’re presuming they all have worked to pay these taxes and are not on the dole. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The people we are talking about,are usually the people that have contributed least and have taken the most. Let’s not pretend otherwise, not saying all, but let’s face it, they will be the majority. It’s totally flawed and Ill still recent paying for these people. " Oh I get it, you're a walking tory talking post. Next you'll be telling us about how benefit cheats are ruining the system. ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"How are we defining lifestyle choice? Smoking, obesity, eating junk etc I’m guessing. Not exercising. All preventable things. How about risky sport or the people whose lifestyle was chosen for them e.g. kids brought up on junk? Where is the line drawn? Draw the line, at smoking, drinking, obesity etc. Playing sport or any aerobic activities should be encouraged, injuries are just an unfortunate by product. What about people with eating disorders ? Victims of crime who turn to drugs or alcohol. Self harm victims? " Like I said it’s a grey area and we will continue to pay for people who have given nothing and taken everything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I find it galling, when I have to pay for people who have abused there bodies and it’s something that totally preventable. But how else are they going to pay and if they can’t what do you do with them ? Yes, it’s shit but what else can you do, so I guess we have to continue paying for the buggers. Do you drive? Let’s imagine you cause an accident and you need a hospital stay? What’s the difference? It would be your fault, so you should pay? No, the amazing thing about the NHS is it does not judge people who come through the door. It just tries to help them irrespective of how they got there. That is a wonderful concept, the envy of many around the world. But it is too socialist an idea for those who view society through the politics of self-interest." ![]() ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For those who have become chronically ill through lifestyle choice?" Yes. Absolutely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. " When the untermensch are being enabled to replicate their genes, that is indeed a problem for the process of natural selection. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The people we are talking about,are usually the people that have contributed least and have taken the most. Let’s not pretend otherwise, not saying all, but let’s face it, they will be the majority. It’s totally flawed and Ill still recent paying for these people. Oh I get it, you're a walking tory talking post. Next you'll be telling us about how benefit cheats are ruining the system. ![]() Yes! What about the billions of pounds of tax avoidance by the very rich that makes the benefit system look like small beer. It’s those greedy bastards that we should be angry with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The people we are talking about,are usually the people that have contributed least and have taken the most. Let’s not pretend otherwise, not saying all, but let’s face it, they will be the majority. It’s totally flawed and Ill still recent paying for these people. Oh I get it, you're a walking tory talking post. Next you'll be telling us about how benefit cheats are ruining the system. ![]() As if rich people use the NHS ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I doubt very much that your tax liability would be reduced by the government just because we all had to buy ever increasing health care premiums .... you'd just end up paying more" Exactly, the cost of health care in the USA is a lot higher than here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The people we are talking about,are usually the people that have contributed least and have taken the most. Let’s not pretend otherwise, not saying all, but let’s face it, they will be the majority. It’s totally flawed and Ill still recent paying for these people. Oh I get it, you're a walking tory talking post. Next you'll be telling us about how benefit cheats are ruining the system. ![]() I don’t have an affiliation with an political party, I dislike them equally for different reasons. It says something when you can’t have a discussion without using triggered phrases. I’ll tick off your buzz word check list, I’m sure you’ve got a few more in your locker waiting to go . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For those who have become chronically ill through lifestyle choice?" Yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Of course we should continue to help those in need regardless of their lifestyle choice but not just in providing healthcare when things go wrong, but by providing education that prevent them making those choices in the first place. As others have pointed out there are no end of lifestyle choices that people make that could lead to needing the services of the NHS, all of them unnecessary in terms of being actually needed - where do you draw the line? Take swinging for example, an activity that is a lifestyle choice that increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases that require NHS treatment, and an activity undertaken by people from all walks of life - should we be refused treatment because we knew of the risks? As for those suggesting that withdrawing that treatment brings about "natural selection" amongst the lower classes - perhaps you'd be better off in Berlin in the 1930s!! Smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction are activities undertaken by all walks of life from the poor to the very rich so that's an absolutely ridiculous statement!! Healthcare on the NHS was introduced to help all those that needed it, without judgement, and should continue to do so - although more funding should be put into helping people avoid making those lifestyle choices that can lead to illness in the first place, even though I acknowledge there are some who just can't be helped in that regard, but the fact that there are significantly less smokers now due to the awareness campaigns down the years is an indication that it can work." I do wonder how many would have regular sexual health checks if it was £100 a time for swingers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Well between the age of 16 to 30 my job required me being fit, active, of decent BMI, have good cardio, cardio way beyond most ‘gym fit’ people. And the diet, was apauling, alcohol on camp and when based overseas was diet cheep, ciggerets were cheepish back then and places like sovereign base areas even cheeper. My body’s fucked. My joints are wrecked from long hours in the cold and wet, I was 20 before I saw gortex on issue. Now let’s look at the effect of carrying a Bergen for miles packed with a load of shit half of which I’m never gonna use. Antiquated comms, radio batteries like house bricks. Body armour. Helmets (with big flappy annoying visors for NI) Sleeping out in weather most sheep would cry about. I deserve free BUPA. ![]() Whilst never touching a yellow handbag? ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes, free regardless. You can't judge a 'lifestyle choice' which is subjective in itself - there's usually an underlying reason for that... so perhaps more funding needs to be put into mental health? (Full disclosure: there's no 'perhaps' about that.) What I do object to is abuse of the NHS. By the politicians who are flogging off slices of it to their mates to run privately, and the very same mates who avoid paying corporation tax and then go on to sue the NHS when things don't go their way (hello, Sir Richard Branson, you beardy twat)." Of course you can judge a lifestyle choice ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Of course you can judge a lifestyle choice ![]() Of course, you can judge if you really want to, but maybe consider the underlying reasons. Things are never black and white. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"which local a&e department do rich people get rushed to then? " Whichever NHS one is closest. Most private medicine is elective, ie not emergency. When things go wrong in private hospitals, the patient is transferred to an NHS one which has far more facilities to deal with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Of course you can judge a lifestyle choice ![]() True but I'm not really interested in them to be honest. It makes no difference to me whether my money is paying for a selfish person or an idiot to indulge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"If you were to refuse free healthcare based on life style choices, a lot of body builders would be out of pocket for all the popped disks and detached muscles etc ... Just saying ![]() And plenty of other professions, too. As soon as you start a job with a high risk factor of injury, does that mean you've made a 'lifestyle choice'? Tell that to the police, nurses, firefighters, labourers, builders ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. When the untermensch are being enabled to replicate their genes, that is indeed a problem for the process of natural selection. " Yes, poor people should be sneared at and be a cause of revulsion because they aren’t wealthy. And having the nerve to reproduce, do they have no shame? And of course being poor is genetic so if they could just be wiped out then ‘poor’ wouldn’t happen any more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"If you were to refuse free healthcare based on life style choices, a lot of body builders would be out of pocket for all the popped disks and detached muscles etc ... Just saying ![]() Don’t recall the careers office being to forwards about fucked knees, ankles and backs when they signed me up. ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It says something when you can’t have a discussion without using triggered phrases. I’ll tick off your buzz word check list, I’m sure you’ve got a few more in your locker waiting to go . " Its hardly a discussion when you ignore the evidence and keep pushing bs as fact that just so happens to be the same lies touted from certain parties. But no, you do you and believe those pointing out your bs are just "triggered" ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. When the untermensch are being enabled to replicate their genes, that is indeed a problem for the process of natural selection. Yes, poor people should be sneared at and be a cause of revulsion because they aren’t wealthy. And having the nerve to reproduce, do they have no shame? And of course being poor is genetic so if they could just be wiped out then ‘poor’ wouldn’t happen any more. " Jeez I'm not talking about wiping them out, don't get so extreme. Someone has to clean my toilet for me ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. When the untermensch are being enabled to replicate their genes, that is indeed a problem for the process of natural selection. Yes, poor people should be sneared at and be a cause of revulsion because they aren’t wealthy. And having the nerve to reproduce, do they have no shame? And of course being poor is genetic so if they could just be wiped out then ‘poor’ wouldn’t happen any more. Jeez I'm not talking about wiping them out, don't get so extreme. Someone has to clean my toilet for me ![]() I’m more concerned about the billions of pounds being siphoned out of the country by wealthy parasites like Phillip Green, which would provide vast reserves for public services. The same man who wiped out the pensions of thousands of employees thereby directly creating poverty for people who had worked hard their whole lives. Blaming a handful of people at the bottom of the pile really is the lowest and laziest interpretation of economic inequality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. When the untermensch are being enabled to replicate their genes, that is indeed a problem for the process of natural selection. Yes, poor people should be sneared at and be a cause of revulsion because they aren’t wealthy. And having the nerve to reproduce, do they have no shame? And of course being poor is genetic so if they could just be wiped out then ‘poor’ wouldn’t happen any more. Jeez I'm not talking about wiping them out, don't get so extreme. Someone has to clean my toilet for me ![]() Yawn. So every inexcusable abuse of the system by the white trash Jeremy Kyle gang is just going to be fobbed off with "look over there". That's as logical as saying that thieves shouldn't be punished because we have murderers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The people we are talking about,are usually the people that have contributed least and have taken the most. Let’s not pretend otherwise, not saying all, but let’s face it, they will be the majority. It’s totally flawed and Ill still recent paying for these people. Oh I get it, you're a walking tory talking post. Next you'll be telling us about how benefit cheats are ruining the system. ![]() Now that’s a statement I totally agree with, if they chased the tax avoiders this country wouldn’t be in austerity and the nhs and schools etc would have lots more money. But that would upset a lot of the tories friends x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. When the untermensch are being enabled to replicate their genes, that is indeed a problem for the process of natural selection. Yes, poor people should be sneared at and be a cause of revulsion because they aren’t wealthy. And having the nerve to reproduce, do they have no shame? And of course being poor is genetic so if they could just be wiped out then ‘poor’ wouldn’t happen any more. Jeez I'm not talking about wiping them out, don't get so extreme. Someone has to clean my toilet for me ![]() Yawn. Nope. Just providing perspective. The tiny minority of people abusing the system from the bottom is nothing in comparison. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes but one of the main problems is people from overseas not being billed. But they do get billed? Unless they are from the EU where there is a reciprocal arrangement " not all ways there's 1000s of case's every year where they walk in to A&E get treated and they just walk out the door. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It says something when you can’t have a discussion without using triggered phrases. I’ll tick off your buzz word check list, I’m sure you’ve got a few more in your locker waiting to go . Its hardly a discussion when you ignore the evidence and keep pushing bs as fact that just so happens to be the same lies touted from certain parties. But no, you do you and believe those pointing out your bs are just "triggered" ![]() Where can I find this ‘evidence’ that backs up your claim. I didn’t once state it as fact, it’s my opinion through observation, which I’m entitled to. But to be honest I think we should be more concerned about other issues, than the lazy free loaders who given nothing but taken the most. It’s small fry compared to other problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. When the untermensch are being enabled to replicate their genes, that is indeed a problem for the process of natural selection. Yes, poor people should be sneared at and be a cause of revulsion because they aren’t wealthy. And having the nerve to reproduce, do they have no shame? And of course being poor is genetic so if they could just be wiped out then ‘poor’ wouldn’t happen any more. Jeez I'm not talking about wiping them out, don't get so extreme. Someone has to clean my toilet for me ![]() I think the comparison is more like throwing the book at kids stealing from a sweet shop to those that rob banks when it comes to the scale of things. Neither are desirable but let’s get the perspective right! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. " ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. When the untermensch are being enabled to replicate their genes, that is indeed a problem for the process of natural selection. Yes, poor people should be sneared at and be a cause of revulsion because they aren’t wealthy. And having the nerve to reproduce, do they have no shame? And of course being poor is genetic so if they could just be wiped out then ‘poor’ wouldn’t happen any more. Jeez I'm not talking about wiping them out, don't get so extreme. Someone has to clean my toilet for me ![]() No it's just a distraction technique. This thread has its own subject and that's irrelevant. If you want to start a thread on tax evasion then I'll join it and explain why the analysis is wrong, but i don't want to derail this thread. So people should actually answer the question the OP asked instead of saying "look over there". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"not to mention those pesky children who have never paid into the system but get all this free stuff on the NHS " It's outrageous! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For those who have become chronically ill through lifestyle choice?" Ignoring the moral side of this, then the practicality of it has to be taken into consideration. If you introduce a testing mechanism before patients can get treatment then you're incurring significant costs in administrating that mechanism, not to mention legal fees when patients sue the NHS because a decision hasn't gone their way, for mistakes in paperwork that deny treatment, etc. Whatever you might save in not treating some patients would quite possibly be wiped out, if not exceeded, by the effort of doing so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"not to mention those pesky children who have never paid into the system but get all this free stuff on the NHS " Yes including those in the SCBU. When talking lifestyle choices, extreme sports are a choice, as is driving at speed causing an accident. Having cosmetic surgery privately that goes wrong and so on. It’s not just being obese, smoking too much or drinking too much which I assume this is aimed at. Let’s not look at why someone may be an alcoholic, the fact they have PTSD from serving in the armed forces and it’s their way to forget. Or the victim of abuse who hasn’t ever come to terms with it and uses alcohol as their prop to get through the day. It’s an illness not a lifestyle choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I'm trying to destroy my body just to get back at everyone I don't like who'll have to pay for it. That'll show 'em." I’ll give you a hand destroying your body. ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It is a difficult one, where do you draw the line at personal responsibility? " Nowhere according to most views on this thread. Then act surprised when the system can't be funded. Then claim it would be if we just shook the magic money tree a bit harder. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It is a difficult one, where do you draw the line at personal responsibility? Nowhere according to most views on this thread. Then act surprised when the system can't be funded. Then claim it would be if we just shook the magic money tree a bit harder. " I agree with the first sentence. The second two are pure speculation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes but one of the main problems is people from overseas not being billed." This isn't true, it's a side issue. 'Deliberate' use of the NHS—use by those who come here specifically to receive free treatment or who come for other reasons but take advantage of the system when they're here—is hard to quantify. It's thought to be very roughly between £110 million and £280 million a year.'Normal' use of the NHS—by foreign visitors who've ended up being treated while in England—is estimated to cost about £1.8 billion a year.The majority of these costs aren't currently charged for. Only about £500 million is thought to be recoverable or chargeable at the moment.' See https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourists-how-much-do-they-cost-and-who-pays/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It is a difficult one, where do you draw the line at personal responsibility? Nowhere according to most views on this thread. Then act surprised when the system can't be funded. Then claim it would be if we just shook the magic money tree a bit harder. I agree with the first sentence. The second two are pure speculation." It's not going to personally cost me anything to be wrong. You might regret your optimism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. " What’s making a career of the benefits system? Never having worked at all? Worked at times, used benefits in between jobs? How many time before your career is benefits usage? Genuinely wondering, given it’s not an actual term that has a definition but appears to be thrown around a lot. Which sources are we using, and what dates, for proof that a “career benefit user” (whatever your definition of this is) use the NHS more than someone not under that definition? Again, genuinely interested or is this just a subjective opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It is a difficult one, where do you draw the line at personal responsibility? Nowhere according to most views on this thread. Then act surprised when the system can't be funded. Then claim it would be if we just shook the magic money tree a bit harder. I agree with the first sentence. The second two are pure speculation. It's not going to personally cost me anything to be wrong. You might regret your optimism. " I’m simply pointing out that you’re making a generalisation that hasn’t been proven. I’ve not said if it will turn out right or wrong, was just clarifying that you’re speculating. Which you are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Dentistry is not free on the NHS, even though decay and gum disease are both easily preventable " Yes, this was something of an oversight when the NHS was formed and has never been subsumed into it. One might argue that many social services should also come under the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. " 'Many' should of course read 'a tiny proportion'. No matter how it offends you it's not actually that common. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"We pay for numbnuts on motorbikes, cyclists that are stupid, adrenaline junkies that think it’s wonderful until they end up crippled ... where would you draw the line? The difference between a smoker, drug addict, alcoholic and an obese person is that they may all be addictions but you can’t avoid food, you need it to survive it is a slightly different thing ... you can avoid the others. Yes it should be free. " You are talking some sense and some non-sense in the same breath. I've been a competing mountain biker and motorcyclist in the past and have had a few breakages along the way. On no occasion have I wanted to end up broken but shit happens and things go wrong. I have had folk say "do you know how much that cost?" Well, tough. I've paid my stamp all these years, never smoked, rarely drink and generally led a healthy life. The NHS has it's failings but it's well worth keeping and supporting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. What’s making a career of the benefits system? Never having worked at all? Worked at times, used benefits in between jobs? How many time before your career is benefits usage? Genuinely wondering, given it’s not an actual term that has a definition but appears to be thrown around a lot. Which sources are we using, and what dates, for proof that a “career benefit user” (whatever your definition of this is) use the NHS more than someone not under that definition? Again, genuinely interested or is this just a subjective opinion?" I’d call it a person who has never worked and chooses to milk the system their whole life and it is passed on from generation to generation. Believe me there are lots of them about. And I’d say it is these people who use the nhs more than the average Joe because of the lifestyle they have. Drugs, alcohol, junk food, chain smoking etc naturally result in illness. I don’t have facts and figures, just 20 years experience I’m dealing with them on a daily basis. That’s all I have to say on the matter, I’m not getting into a debate about it. That’s my view, feel free to disagree with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. When the untermensch are being enabled to replicate their genes, that is indeed a problem for the process of natural selection. " What the hell is this? Eugenics?? Besides I think you'll find that natural selection is doing exactly what it's always done. See the domestication of humans for more details. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. What’s making a career of the benefits system? Never having worked at all? Worked at times, used benefits in between jobs? How many time before your career is benefits usage? Genuinely wondering, given it’s not an actual term that has a definition but appears to be thrown around a lot. Which sources are we using, and what dates, for proof that a “career benefit user” (whatever your definition of this is) use the NHS more than someone not under that definition? Again, genuinely interested or is this just a subjective opinion? I’d call it a person who has never worked and chooses to milk the system their whole life and it is passed on from generation to generation. Believe me there are lots of them about. And I’d say it is these people who use the nhs more than the average Joe because of the lifestyle they have. Drugs, alcohol, junk food, chain smoking etc naturally result in illness. I don’t have facts and figures, just 20 years experience I’m dealing with them on a daily basis. That’s all I have to say on the matter, I’m not getting into a debate about it. That’s my view, feel free to disagree with it. " Subjective opinion, okay cool ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It is a difficult one, where do you draw the line at personal responsibility? Nowhere according to most views on this thread. Then act surprised when the system can't be funded. Then claim it would be if we just shook the magic money tree a bit harder. I agree with the first sentence. The second two are pure speculation. It's not going to personally cost me anything to be wrong. You might regret your optimism. I’m simply pointing out that you’re making a generalisation that hasn’t been proven. I’ve not said if it will turn out right or wrong, was just clarifying that you’re speculating. Which you are. " The fact that the NHS isn't currently affordable or sustainable with current government revenues is a fact and obvious from any set of government accounts. Those of the left will always claim that theres lots of unpaid tax that would solve the situation. It's possible that is correct. It's also a fact that they've been claiming it since at least 1997 and absolutely zero progress in that area has been made under new Labour, the coalition government or the current one. So I'm just saying that if I was banking on more money being found for my own healthcare, I wouldn't like the odds. You however, might. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. 'Many' should of course read 'a tiny proportion'. No matter how it offends you it's not actually that common. " It’s very common actually but if you’re insulated from it you just don’t see it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. What’s making a career of the benefits system? Never having worked at all? Worked at times, used benefits in between jobs? How many time before your career is benefits usage? Genuinely wondering, given it’s not an actual term that has a definition but appears to be thrown around a lot. Which sources are we using, and what dates, for proof that a “career benefit user” (whatever your definition of this is) use the NHS more than someone not under that definition? Again, genuinely interested or is this just a subjective opinion? I’d call it a person who has never worked and chooses to milk the system their whole life and it is passed on from generation to generation. Believe me there are lots of them about. And I’d say it is these people who use the nhs more than the average Joe because of the lifestyle they have. Drugs, alcohol, junk food, chain smoking etc naturally result in illness. I don’t have facts and figures, just 20 years experience I’m dealing with them on a daily basis. That’s all I have to say on the matter, I’m not getting into a debate about it. That’s my view, feel free to disagree with it. Subjective opinion, okay cool ![]() An opinion based on a vast amount of experience I might add. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"An opinion based on a vast amount of experience I might add. " Anecdotal evidence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. What’s making a career of the benefits system? Never having worked at all? Worked at times, used benefits in between jobs? How many time before your career is benefits usage? Genuinely wondering, given it’s not an actual term that has a definition but appears to be thrown around a lot. Which sources are we using, and what dates, for proof that a “career benefit user” (whatever your definition of this is) use the NHS more than someone not under that definition? Again, genuinely interested or is this just a subjective opinion? I’d call it a person who has never worked and chooses to milk the system their whole life and it is passed on from generation to generation. Believe me there are lots of them about. And I’d say it is these people who use the nhs more than the average Joe because of the lifestyle they have. Drugs, alcohol, junk food, chain smoking etc naturally result in illness. I don’t have facts and figures, just 20 years experience I’m dealing with them on a daily basis. That’s all I have to say on the matter, I’m not getting into a debate about it. That’s my view, feel free to disagree with it. Subjective opinion, okay cool ![]() You understand that doesn’t make it any more than a subjective opinion, right? ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. What’s making a career of the benefits system? Never having worked at all? Worked at times, used benefits in between jobs? How many time before your career is benefits usage? Genuinely wondering, given it’s not an actual term that has a definition but appears to be thrown around a lot. Which sources are we using, and what dates, for proof that a “career benefit user” (whatever your definition of this is) use the NHS more than someone not under that definition? Again, genuinely interested or is this just a subjective opinion?" Lets take Marie Buchan, the woman with 8 kids who doesn't work. Now i know you're a big fan of Kantian ethics so apply the universalizability principle to her life choices and you see why we can't commend them. So i think we would agree that she's "making a career of the benefits system?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I've had the unfortunate experience of being in A&E late on a Saturday night totally legitimate reason and the care I received was excellent. However I was horrified at the amount of total wankers that ended up there because they were out on a bender and couldn't handle it and something stupid happened. They then hurl abuse at the staff who are trying to help them and make life very difficult due to their intoxication. It's in these situations that I think there should be a fine - similar to a parking one - and this money goes back into the system. There's no such thing as a perfect system but something like this would help in my humble opinion" ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. What’s making a career of the benefits system? Never having worked at all? Worked at times, used benefits in between jobs? How many time before your career is benefits usage? Genuinely wondering, given it’s not an actual term that has a definition but appears to be thrown around a lot. Which sources are we using, and what dates, for proof that a “career benefit user” (whatever your definition of this is) use the NHS more than someone not under that definition? Again, genuinely interested or is this just a subjective opinion? Lets take Marie Buchan, the woman with 8 kids who doesn't work. Now i know you're a big fan of Kantian ethics so apply the universalizability principle to her life choices and you see why we can't commend them. So i think we would agree that she's "making a career of the benefits system?"" There’s a lot of telling me what I think in your comment. You’re going hard on speculation today. I appreciate an answer to my question to another poster, it’s useful, but let’s try and phrase it as your point without having to try and “close” me like a salesman as you do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The people we are talking about,are usually the people that have contributed least and have taken the most. Let’s not pretend otherwise, not saying all, but let’s face it, they will be the majority. It’s totally flawed and Ill still recent paying for these people. " I don't know who you're talking about but 40% of the budget went on the over 65s (18% of the population) in 2016. Mostly because old people are very expensive to treat and thanks to that treatment living longer. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/01/ageing-britain-two-fifths-nhs-budget-spent-over-65s | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. What’s making a career of the benefits system? Never having worked at all? Worked at times, used benefits in between jobs? How many time before your career is benefits usage? Genuinely wondering, given it’s not an actual term that has a definition but appears to be thrown around a lot. Which sources are we using, and what dates, for proof that a “career benefit user” (whatever your definition of this is) use the NHS more than someone not under that definition? Again, genuinely interested or is this just a subjective opinion? I’d call it a person who has never worked and chooses to milk the system their whole life and it is passed on from generation to generation. Believe me there are lots of them about. And I’d say it is these people who use the nhs more than the average Joe because of the lifestyle they have. Drugs, alcohol, junk food, chain smoking etc naturally result in illness. I don’t have facts and figures, just 20 years experience I’m dealing with them on a daily basis. That’s all I have to say on the matter, I’m not getting into a debate about it. That’s my view, feel free to disagree with it. Subjective opinion, okay cool ![]() ![]() Call it what you like. I’d call it an evidence based opinion. And I’ve seen a hell of a lot of evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. " I wonder what the Christian stand point would be ? What would Jesus have said ? I wonder what his view on. Simplistic survival of the fittest evolutionary theory would be (Hint survival of the fittest is only one of evolutions many faces ) I think free at point of need is wonderful , however as noted it isn't free | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't know who you're talking about but 40% of the budget went on the over 65s (18% of the population) in 2016. Mostly because old people are very expensive to treat and thanks to that treatment living longer. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/01/ageing-britain-two-fifths-nhs-budget-spent-over-65s" This is the major consideration for future generations - far more pressing than a sliver of pisstakers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I’d call it a person who has never worked and chooses to milk the system their whole life and it is passed on from generation to generation. Believe me there are lots of them about. " I don't believe you. Do you have good data for that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I have polycystic ovaries. I had been on hormones since I was 14 preventing pregnancy. Over time weight gained when I stopped them I'd tripled my weight from when I started. Albeit I was considered borderline anorexic. (All you going on how fat people this fat that where as anorexic people also need health care and considered to have done it to themselves, for some obesity is cause of an illness too!) I had a child ended up with severe spd where I couldn't walk or do anything it was excruciatingly painful. This went on 5 years! I ran for the 1st time after 5 years. I still have issues when it's cold and wet I stopped my hormones since then I've lost 4.5 stone. Haven't changed my diet or exercise. Now who is to blame? Should I have to forgo medical treatment due to being fat? I was a size 26! Government stating there's no funds should stop giving themselves pay bonuses and getting everything paid for them 1st house, 2nd house, house in the country etc expensive restaurants bills paid for on top of their wages. They get a significant amount of money yet still need shit paying for them. Stop paying Lords who sit on their ass 300 odd quid per day for turning up and falling asleep doing absolutely nothing but turning up and filling seats. While they moan it's not enough money to do that they'd be out of pocket if they took less. Where as people have to try and survive on less than that a week, You wonder why they drink and take drugs with the life they have. People working minimum wage eating the cheapest but fattest unhealthy foods because it's cheaper! You order a salad that costs more than a fatty cheap cut burger. Make healthy food cheaper! You'll soon see a decline in obese people. Where does blame start? " I eat very very healthy food It's very very cheap | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Subjective opinion, okay cool ![]() ![]() I’m not negating your personal, subjective experience - one tends to refer to something as evidence based when it’s drawn from research findings etc but yes, it is your evidence. It would be speculation to assume that extrapolates to be all encompassing or even for us to take your word for the actuality of your experience though. That’s all I’m saying. You’ll note I’ve only asked questions and attempted to glean the veritable source of your opinion, and all I’m saying is it’s just an opinion and you’ve confirmed that. It is still your opinion and I don’t and haven’t negated that aspect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Subjective opinion, okay cool ![]() ![]() Verifiable* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. What’s making a career of the benefits system? Never having worked at all? Worked at times, used benefits in between jobs? How many time before your career is benefits usage? Genuinely wondering, given it’s not an actual term that has a definition but appears to be thrown around a lot. Which sources are we using, and what dates, for proof that a “career benefit user” (whatever your definition of this is) use the NHS more than someone not under that definition? Again, genuinely interested or is this just a subjective opinion? Lets take Marie Buchan, the woman with 8 kids who doesn't work. Now i know you're a big fan of Kantian ethics so apply the universalizability principle to her life choices and you see why we can't commend them. So i think we would agree that she's "making a career of the benefits system?" There’s a lot of telling me what I think in your comment. You’re going hard on speculation today. I appreciate an answer to my question to another poster, it’s useful, but let’s try and phrase it as your point without having to try and “close” me like a salesman as you do. " I said "I think we would agree" with a question mark at the end signifying that it was a question. I know you're not big on real world examples so by all means ignore it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not free. It’s just free at the point of use. We pay for it through our taxes for our whole working lives. Of course many in society make a career of the benefits system so it’s free for them and typically it is those people who use it the most. What’s making a career of the benefits system? Never having worked at all? Worked at times, used benefits in between jobs? How many time before your career is benefits usage? Genuinely wondering, given it’s not an actual term that has a definition but appears to be thrown around a lot. Which sources are we using, and what dates, for proof that a “career benefit user” (whatever your definition of this is) use the NHS more than someone not under that definition? Again, genuinely interested or is this just a subjective opinion? Lets take Marie Buchan, the woman with 8 kids who doesn't work. Now i know you're a big fan of Kantian ethics so apply the universalizability principle to her life choices and you see why we can't commend them. So i think we would agree that she's "making a career of the benefits system?" There’s a lot of telling me what I think in your comment. You’re going hard on speculation today. I appreciate an answer to my question to another poster, it’s useful, but let’s try and phrase it as your point without having to try and “close” me like a salesman as you do. I said "I think we would agree" with a question mark at the end signifying that it was a question. I know you're not big on real world examples so by all means ignore it." You’ve ignored the two times now you’ve told me what I know. When you don’t know. Speculating. ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't know who you're talking about but 40% of the budget went on the over 65s (18% of the population) in 2016. Mostly because old people are very expensive to treat and thanks to that treatment living longer. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/01/ageing-britain-two-fifths-nhs-budget-spent-over-65s This is the major consideration for future generations - far more pressing than a sliver of pisstakers." Yup. I was looking forward to being a burden on society myself but fear that when I get there the system will have broken :D Of course this is in part because tax contributions aren't saved for the future need of the payer but given out to those currently in need. It used to work fine until those pesky Dr's started improving life expectancy! Plus expectation growth, not much one can do about that though, humans are NOT A rational creatures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"No it should not. Most the people being reckless are pure white trash who don't pay anything remotely close in tax, to what their treatment costs. They tend to breed the most as well, we need to let evolution do its job. That doesn’t make sense! Once you’ve got to the age you can reproduce evolution has no effect. Evolution will not solve this. You’re usually smarter than that. When the untermensch are being enabled to replicate their genes, that is indeed a problem for the process of natural selection. What the hell is this? Eugenics?? Besides I think you'll find that natural selection is doing exactly what it's always done. See the domestication of humans for more details." It's dysgenics rather than eugenics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Healthy food is affordable, assuming people have learned to cook. That's another health care skill that's been flung by the wayside in the UK over the past generation or two." Kind of. Certainly food has generally got cheaper. I'd speculate that while it's become more affordable it's become less DESIRABLE, mostly thanks to advertising and recipes stuffed with salt, fat and sugar. Is easy but apparently mistaken to assign too much agency to people. We're not as clever and independent as we're lead to believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Subjective opinion, okay cool ![]() ![]() Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" It's dysgenics rather than eugenics. " The obverse of the same coin? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Kind of. Certainly food has generally got cheaper. I'd speculate that while it's become more affordable it's become less DESIRABLE, mostly thanks to advertising and recipes stuffed with salt, fat and sugar. Is easy but apparently mistaken to assign too much agency to people. We're not as clever and independent as we're lead to believe." That's why health care starts way before any hospital. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. " That's *still* anecdotal evidence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence" I didn’t say it wasn’t. It’s the best kind of evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. " While one might argue that everyone is entitled to express their opinion it's the data that separate the wheat from the chaff. Without it's all chaff. Personally I also have reservations about the freedom of expression but then I'm a liberal :D Mike xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" It's dysgenics rather than eugenics. The obverse of the same coin?" If you like. Not sure why anyone would be in favour of dysgenics really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence" I’m leaving it there as I’m not arguing and my actual point is not being grasped. But yes, understanding what anecdotal is would be useful! ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"How are we defining lifestyle choice? Smoking, obesity, eating junk etc I’m guessing. Not exercising. All preventable things. " What if you fall off your bike and break your back rendering you paralysed? It was a lifestyle choice for you yet now you require medical treatment all the time? Or do you qualify for free treatment despite a chronic condition bought about by lifestyle choice because that lifestyle was an active one? So no we're talking about earning NHS points.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. While one might argue that everyone is entitled to express their opinion it's the data that separate the wheat from the chaff. Without it's all chaff. Personally I also have reservations about the freedom of expression but then I'm a liberal :D Mike xx" It's only "all chaff" if you think all opinions are inherently equal. Is that what you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" That's *still* anecdotal evidence I didn’t say it wasn’t. It’s the best kind of evidence. " Sadly it's terrible but emotionally convincing evidence. Personal experience really should be entirely discounted. Trust no one, especially the person between your ears! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"My answer again to the OP, is yes. AB’s quote sums it up: “Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.”" So people that get infected at bareback gangbangs are misfortunate... interesting point of view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence I’m leaving it there as I’m not arguing and my actual point is not being grasped. But yes, understanding what anecdotal is would be useful! ![]() I understand it perfectly thanks. When you have 20 years of anecdotal evidence I think it’s fair to say you’re entitled to form a reliable opinion based on that accumulated evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" That's *still* anecdotal evidence I didn’t say it wasn’t. It’s the best kind of evidence. Sadly it's terrible but emotionally convincing evidence. Personal experience really should be entirely discounted. Trust no one, especially the person between your ears! " The person between your ears is the person you should trust the most, not the least. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence I’m leaving it there as I’m not arguing and my actual point is not being grasped. But yes, understanding what anecdotal is would be useful! ![]() Nobody says you aren’t. They do however get to point out it’s subjective, anecdotal and that there are issues in knowing the rigour of the opinion and that an opinion based on anecdotal isn’t all encompassing necessarily of an entire situation. That’s all that’s been said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It's only "all chaff" if you think all opinions are inherently equal. Is that what you think? " Any opinion not explicitly backed by data is err. ... maybe right, maybe wrong. How to tell? Ah do some scientific research ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It's only "all chaff" if you think all opinions are inherently equal. Is that what you think? Any opinion not explicitly backed by data is err. ... maybe right, maybe wrong. How to tell? Ah do some scientific research ![]() Right so all opinions are equally likely to be right or wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It's only "all chaff" if you think all opinions are inherently equal. Is that what you think? Any opinion not explicitly backed by data is err. ... maybe right, maybe wrong. How to tell? Ah do some scientific research ![]() Schrodinger's opinion ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It's only "all chaff" if you think all opinions are inherently equal. Is that what you think? Any opinion not explicitly backed by data is err. ... maybe right, maybe wrong. How to tell? Ah do some scientific research ![]() ![]() Brilliant. Until we open up the university and take out the scientific paper, there's just no way to know which opinion is better. ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" The person between your ears is the person you should trust the most, not the least. " Sadly not true. One's brain is constantly making stuff up and then lying about it. See 'choice-support bias' for one trivial example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence I didn’t say it wasn’t. It’s the best kind of evidence. " It's also potentially the most skewed kind - if you experience a particular situation or type of people on a daily basis you tend to take that as the "norm" and use anecdotal "facts" and words that aren't actually correct like "many" rather than looking at, and appreciating, the wider and potentially more accurate picture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence I’m leaving it there as I’m not arguing and my actual point is not being grasped. But yes, understanding what anecdotal is would be useful! ![]() Anecdotal evidence is literally the worst form of evidence. It's how you end up with anti vaxxers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It's only "all chaff" if you think all opinions are inherently equal. Is that what you think? Any opinion not explicitly backed by data is err. ... maybe right, maybe wrong. How to tell? Ah do some scientific research ![]() ![]() ![]() Pretty much. Certainly it's easy to think one knows and of course sometimes such thinking is backed by existing data which skews things. I suppose that one might default to Occams's razor but not when it comes to public projects. I don't care if someone thinks that one washing powder works better than another but I'd be mightily annoyed to discover that public money were being spent on a whim. Yes I know this happens all the time, why do you think I'm so grumpy? lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence I didn’t say it wasn’t. It’s the best kind of evidence. It's also potentially the most skewed kind - if you experience a particular situation or type of people on a daily basis you tend to take that as the "norm" and use anecdotal "facts" and words that aren't actually correct like "many" rather than looking at, and appreciating, the wider and potentially more accurate picture." Walk into any a+e waiting room and look at the people in there and then tell me I’m wrong. I’m happy to rest my case, safe in the knowledge that my opinion is cast iron. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence I’m leaving it there as I’m not arguing and my actual point is not being grasped. But yes, understanding what anecdotal is would be useful! ![]() All my kids are fully vaccinated thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence I didn’t say it wasn’t. It’s the best kind of evidence. It's also potentially the most skewed kind - if you experience a particular situation or type of people on a daily basis you tend to take that as the "norm" and use anecdotal "facts" and words that aren't actually correct like "many" rather than looking at, and appreciating, the wider and potentially more accurate picture. Walk into any a+e waiting room and look at the people in there and then tell me I’m wrong. I’m happy to rest my case, safe in the knowledge that my opinion is cast iron. " Hang on, so you’re now telling us you can simply look at someone and *know*...how did you define it...that they’ve never worked and generation on generation have been on benefits. Right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Thought it was free in the UK and that's why ever fucker from Europe comes to the UK for free healthcare?! It shouldn't be free for those who have chronic illnesses through their own fault because they abuse their bodies. It should definitely be free for children, disabled and those who are ill through no fault of their own ie cancer, MS, AD etc. The rest should bloody well pay. I hate the fact that the most needy in society are the ones that haven't contributed a dime towards the NHS but are the most demanding and act as if the NHS owes them!!!!!!!!!!!!GRRRR" I feel your pain but would like to reassure you that 40% of the NHS budget goes on the elderly because they bloody well won't die. If only the coffin dodgers would do the decent thing the rest of us would be fine. I'd be surprised if anyone contributed dimes towards the NHS. Also curious how you know that those who contribute the least demand the most? Other than diabetes the elderly are by far the biggest users of the NHS resources (of the top of my head) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It's only "all chaff" if you think all opinions are inherently equal. Is that what you think? Any opinion not explicitly backed by data is err. ... maybe right, maybe wrong. How to tell? Ah do some scientific research ![]() ![]() ![]() Well that's a fascinating opinion of anti-intellectualism. Take parenting for example, you're never going to get undisputed scientific evidence about the best parenting techniques because we simply can't put kids in controlled environments for longitudinal studies. Yet most of us need to make decisions as parents. So personally, I give priority to proxy factors like experts years of experience and proven track records of working with multiple kids with multiple issues, rather than just throwing my hands in the air and declaring that every parents opinion is equally valid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For those who have become chronically ill through lifestyle choice?" Smokers cost the NHS 5 billion a year. The government makes about 65 billion a year on the cigarette tax. Smokers more than pay their way. I suppose the same could be said for other lifestyle choices such as drinking. Except for illegal drugs as they are not taxed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It is a difficult one, where do you draw the line at personal responsibility? Nowhere according to most views on this thread. Then act surprised when the systm can't be funded. Then claim it would be if we just shook the magic money tree a bit harder. I agree with the first sentence. The second two are pure speculation. It's not going to personally cost me anything to be wrong. You might regret your optimism. I’m simply pointing out that you’re making a generalisation that hasn’t been proven. I’ve not said if it will turn out right or wrong, was just clarifying that you’re speculating. Which you are. The fact that the NHS isn't currently affordable or sustainable with current government revenues is a fact and obvious from any set of government accounts. Those of the left will always claim that theres lots of unpaid tax that would solve the situation. It's possible that is correct. It's also a fact that they've been claiming it since at least 1997 and absolutely zero progress in that area has been made under new Labour, the coalition government or the current one. So I'm just saying that if I was banking on more money being found for my own healthcare, I wouldn't like the odds. You however, might. " There's countless examples of the waste that goes on through things such as pfi's where not only have hospitals have in effect remortgaged themselves, but have been tied into service provides that charge extraordinary rates for maintaining the buildings too. Negotiated but expensive consultants, that award contracts to middlemen who Cream off a fee, to a specific service provider who in turn makes a bit for themselves and their employees. In truth, if hospitals were to have their own staff framework in place, this could cost a lot less. Any jobs that can't be done in house could themselves be sub contracted in. As with most things in the public service sector, follow the money... There's a lot of old rope being sold for ropey services. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence I didn’t say it wasn’t. It’s the best kind of evidence. It's also potentially the most skewed kind - if you experience a particular situation or type of people on a daily basis you tend to take that as the "norm" and use anecdotal "facts" and words that aren't actually correct like "many" rather than looking at, and appreciating, the wider and potentially more accurate picture. Walk into any a+e waiting room and look at the people in there and then tell me I’m wrong. I’m happy to rest my case, safe in the knowledge that my opinion is cast iron. Hang on, so you’re now telling us you can simply look at someone and *know*...how did you define it...that they’ve never worked and generation on generation have been on benefits. Right. " Pretty much. That’s what 20 years experience buys you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" All my kids are fully vaccinated thank you. " Excellent ![]() ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"A few points 1. It's not free everyone pays for it. 2. The current government is deliberately bringing about the break up of the NHS which post Brexit will be sold off to American Corporations. Google for IFT, Liam Fox and Daniel Hannan. That was why Brexit was engineered by neocon organisations like Atlantic Bridge. 3. Joe Public hasn't got a fecking clue as to what is going on, as they are deliberately distracted by TV reality shows, celebrity culture, a controlled media in a dumbing down that was forecast many years ago by the great Carl Sagan “I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” Wake up people they want you arguing amongst yourselves as to wheteher this person or that person should be entitled to use the NHS etc. If you're busy doing that you aren't looking at the bigger picture and the 'long game' that is being played by the elites." This. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There's countless examples of the waste that goes on through things such as pfi's where not only have hospitals have in effect remortgaged themselves, but have been tied into service provides that charge extraordinary rates for maintaining the buildings too. Negotiated but expensive consultants, that award contracts to middlemen who Cream off a fee, to a specific service provider who in turn makes a bit for themselves and their employees. In truth, if hospitals were to have their own staff framework in place, this could cost a lot less. Any jobs that can't be done in house could themselves be sub contracted in. As with most things in the public service sector, follow the money... There's a lot of old rope being sold for ropey services. " I know how you feel and broadly agree but I have to caution against thinking that there are really many savings the can be squeezed out, as a proportion of total spending I think they would be relatively trivial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"A few points 1. It's not free everyone pays for it. 2. The current government is deliberately bringing about the break up of the NHS which post Brexit will be sold off to American Corporations. Google for IFT, Liam Fox and Daniel Hannan. That was why Brexit was engineered by neocon organisations like Atlantic Bridge. 3. Joe Public hasn't got a fecking clue as to what is going on, as they are deliberately distracted by TV reality shows, celebrity culture, a controlled media in a dumbing down that was forecast many years ago by the great Carl Sagan “I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” Wake up people they want you arguing amongst yourselves as to wheteher this person or that person should be entitled to use the NHS etc. If you're busy doing that you aren't looking at the bigger picture and the 'long game' that is being played by the elites. This. " Number 1 is wrong. The career benefit scroungers dont. ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence I didn’t say it wasn’t. It’s the best kind of evidence. It's also potentially the most skewed kind - if you experience a particular situation or type of people on a daily basis you tend to take that as the "norm" and use anecdotal "facts" and words that aren't actually correct like "many" rather than looking at, and appreciating, the wider and potentially more accurate picture. Walk into any a+e waiting room and look at the people in there and then tell me I’m wrong. I’m happy to rest my case, safe in the knowledge that my opinion is cast iron. Hang on, so you’re now telling us you can simply look at someone and *know*...how did you define it...that they’ve never worked and generation on generation have been on benefits. Right. Pretty much. That’s what 20 years experience buys you. " If you've bought anecdotal evidence you've overpaid ![]() ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For those who have become chronically ill through lifestyle choice? Smokers cost the NHS 5 billion a year. The government makes about 65 billion a year on the cigarette tax. Smokers more than pay their way. I suppose the same could be said for other lifestyle choices such as drinking. Except for illegal drugs as they are not taxed. " Absolute bollucks figures. Smoking costs the NHS about 6.2bn a year and the government 14bn a year because it's not only the NHS effected (e.g. fire service). In return there's 9.5bn in tobacco duties and 2.5bn in VAT. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Yes. Everything I do at work is recorded in many forms. But at the end of the day, I don’t need to verify anything to form my own opinion. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I’m merely voicing my opinion which I know from personal experience to be a good indicator of the facts. That's *still* anecdotal evidence I didn’t say it wasn’t. It’s the best kind of evidence. It's also potentially the most skewed kind - if you experience a particular situation or type of people on a daily basis you tend to take that as the "norm" and use anecdotal "facts" and words that aren't actually correct like "many" rather than looking at, and appreciating, the wider and potentially more accurate picture. Walk into any a+e waiting room and look at the people in there and then tell me I’m wrong. I’m happy to rest my case, safe in the knowledge that my opinion is cast iron. Hang on, so you’re now telling us you can simply look at someone and *know*...how did you define it...that they’ve never worked and generation on generation have been on benefits. Right. Pretty much. That’s what 20 years experience buys you. " I have a similar length of experience but would never say I could do something like that - it shows how much you believe that you can take some data and extrapolate it thinking it gives you accurate data overall. I now don’t really feel comfortable in how valid even your anecdotal experience might be if you’re making what I deem to be really rather silly claims like this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
![]() ![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
![]() | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |