FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

NHS Funding

Jump to newest
 

By *hae300 OP   Woman
over a year ago

North West

Has anybody been watching the programme NHS 2Billion a week and counting.

This is a great programme that helps us understand that there is only a limited amount of cash to go around and that every pound spent here means someone else there loses out.

As I watched the NHS decide where to spend money a child amputee in need of an artificial limb was rejected funding while a drug addict happy claiming benefits all day and getting high was given a place on a rehab programme.

The drug addict said it was hard work being an addict ? Silly me I though I thought hard work was working 12 hr shifts then going home to look after the kids.

Another man who had chosen to continue to drink until his liver was about as useful as Ed Milliband and Dave Cameron combined was granted life saving drugs and a transplant.

What is wrong with this country. What happened to personal accountability, taking the blame, taking responsibility for ones own actions.

Isnt it about time this country stopped awarding everybody victim status and enough of asking us taxpayers to fund drug addicts self afflicted self addictions and vain people who want bigger boobs or more hair.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

On the surface, yes.

But if that drug addict successfully completes a treatment programme and is able to start working they'll pay tax and require less in benefits. They might be currently committing crimes to fund their addiction, which is using police resources. They might be currently involved with social services, which is using council resources. If some NHS money is used to help treat them in the sense of rehabilitation then it's money well spent.

If the person who "wants bigger boobs" is genuinely suffering with extreme body issues they could be needing counselling treatment for depression. They might not be working, thus creating expenditure on benefits again. And so on.

I completely agree with your point about people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families, but these decisions are a much bigger jigsaw puzzle than just treating one person or another and more budgets than just the NHS budget come into play.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You're right people should help them selves first also you should only be allowed to take out what you put in

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"On the surface, yes.

But if that drug addict successfully completes a treatment programme and is able to start working they'll pay tax and require less in benefits. They might be currently committing crimes to fund their addiction, which is using police resources. They might be currently involved with social services, which is using council resources. If some NHS money is used to help treat them in the sense of rehabilitation then it's money well spent.

If the person who "wants bigger boobs" is genuinely suffering with extreme body issues they could be needing counselling treatment for depression. They might not be working, thus creating expenditure on benefits again. And so on.

I completely agree with your point about people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families, but these decisions are a much bigger jigsaw puzzle than just treating one person or another and more budgets than just the NHS budget come into play. "

This!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rcticFoxxxWoman
over a year ago

Hereabouts

People with addictions actually damage more people around them. So if the addict can recover and stop poisoning people around them, the funds needed to treat the victims of the addicts won't be as much. it all depends how you look at it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hae300 OP   Woman
over a year ago

North West


"On the surface, yes.

But if that drug addict successfully completes a treatment programme and is able to start working they'll pay tax and require less in benefits. They might be currently committing crimes to fund their addiction, which is using police resources. They might be currently involved with social services, which is using council resources. If some NHS money is used to help treat them in the sense of rehabilitation then it's money well spent.

If the person who "wants bigger boobs" is genuinely suffering with extreme body issues they could be needing counselling treatment for depression. They might not be working, thus creating expenditure on benefits again. And so on.

I completely agree with your point about people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families, but these decisions are a much bigger jigsaw puzzle than just treating one person or another and more budgets than just the NHS budget come into play. "

yes I respect your view, however why should a cancer patient who has worked and contributed to society all there lives be refused life prolonging drugs..whilst mr self inflicted benefit scrounging drug addict being given free nhs treatment.

To me the persons making the funding decisions seriously need a brain transplant ...and not on the NHS.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"You're right people should help them selves first also you should only be allowed to take out what you put in "

Lol,then if you need certain life saving surgeries,medication,and follow up treatment then no would qualify as no one puts that sort of money into the system.

Children put nothing in so should they just be told unlucky sunshine death awaits you!

Or what if two parents use up all their allocation,and then their children get ill?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hae300 OP   Woman
over a year ago

North West


"You're right people should help them selves first also you should only be allowed to take out what you put in

Lol,then if you need certain life saving surgeries,medication,and follow up treatment then no would qualify as no one puts that sort of money into the system.

Children put nothing in so should they just be told unlucky sunshine death awaits you!

Or what if two parents use up all their allocation,and then their children get ill?"

I think you will find people do put that sort of money into the system ..little word to the wise there called National Insurance Contributions and they get deducted straight out of our salaries.

Drug addicts on the dole do not pay national insurance as they do not work.

what on earth are you talking about "using up their allocations."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asokittyWoman
over a year ago

Nr Worksop


"People with addictions actually damage more people around them. So if the addict can recover and stop poisoning people around them, the funds needed to treat the victims of the addicts won't be as much. it all depends how you look at it. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You're right people should help them selves first also you should only be allowed to take out what you put in

Lol,then if you need certain life saving surgeries,medication,and follow up treatment then no would qualify as no one puts that sort of money into the system.

Children put nothing in so should they just be told unlucky sunshine death awaits you!

Or what if two parents use up all their allocation,and then their children get ill?

I think you will find people do put that sort of money into the system ..little word to the wise there called National Insurance Contributions and they get deducted straight out of our salaries.

Drug addicts on the dole do not pay national insurance as they do not work.

what on earth are you talking about "using up their allocations.""

If you have a serious condition that required lengthy treatment the cost of that would FAR outweigh what you pay in NI contributions, that's the point being made. If I earn more than you, I pay more tax and NI. Does that mean I should get more and better treatment? I don't have children or drive, that should entitle me to take more out of the NHS, right? The 'get out what you put in' just doesn't work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"On the surface, yes.

But if that drug addict successfully completes a treatment programme and is able to start working they'll pay tax and require less in benefits. They might be currently committing crimes to fund their addiction, which is using police resources. They might be currently involved with social services, which is using council resources. If some NHS money is used to help treat them in the sense of rehabilitation then it's money well spent.

If the person who "wants bigger boobs" is genuinely suffering with extreme body issues they could be needing counselling treatment for depression. They might not be working, thus creating expenditure on benefits again. And so on.

I completely agree with your point about people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families, but these decisions are a much bigger jigsaw puzzle than just treating one person or another and more budgets than just the NHS budget come into play.

yes I respect your view, however why should a cancer patient who has worked and contributed to society all there lives be refused life prolonging drugs..whilst mr self inflicted benefit scrounging drug addict being given free nhs treatment.

To me the persons making the funding decisions seriously need a brain transplant ...and not on the NHS. "

Because that person (who doesn't exist, btw) is making decisions for the greater good and considering the overall position. It's not black and white and it's a really difficult balancing act.

What if a child gets ill, but their parents are drug addicts so have never contributed. Does that child get treatment?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hae300 OP   Woman
over a year ago

North West


"On the surface, yes.

But if that drug addict successfully completes a treatment programme and is able to start working they'll pay tax and require less in benefits. They might be currently committing crimes to fund their addiction, which is using police resources. They might be currently involved with social services, which is using council resources. If some NHS money is used to help treat them in the sense of rehabilitation then it's money well spent.

If the person who "wants bigger boobs" is genuinely suffering with extreme body issues they could be needing counselling treatment for depression. They might not be working, thus creating expenditure on benefits again. And so on.

I completely agree with your point about people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families, but these decisions are a much bigger jigsaw puzzle than just treating one person or another and more budgets than just the NHS budget come into play.

yes I respect your view, however why should a cancer patient who has worked and contributed to society all there lives be refused life prolonging drugs..whilst mr self inflicted benefit scrounging drug addict being given free nhs treatment.

To me the persons making the funding decisions seriously need a brain transplant ...and not on the NHS.

Because that person (who doesn't exist, btw) is making decisions for the greater good and considering the overall position. It's not black and white and it's a really difficult balancing act.

What if a child gets ill, but their parents are drug addicts so have never contributed. Does that child get treatment?

"

if the person who makes the decisions doesn't exist as you state then who or rather what is making these decisions ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"On the surface, yes.

But if that drug addict successfully completes a treatment programme and is able to start working they'll pay tax and require less in benefits. They might be currently committing crimes to fund their addiction, which is using police resources. They might be currently involved with social services, which is using council resources. If some NHS money is used to help treat them in the sense of rehabilitation then it's money well spent.

If the person who "wants bigger boobs" is genuinely suffering with extreme body issues they could be needing counselling treatment for depression. They might not be working, thus creating expenditure on benefits again. And so on.

I completely agree with your point about people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families, but these decisions are a much bigger jigsaw puzzle than just treating one person or another and more budgets than just the NHS budget come into play.

yes I respect your view, however why should a cancer patient who has worked and contributed to society all there lives be refused life prolonging drugs..whilst mr self inflicted benefit scrounging drug addict being given free nhs treatment.

To me the persons making the funding decisions seriously need a brain transplant ...and not on the NHS.

Because that person (who doesn't exist, btw) is making decisions for the greater good and considering the overall position. It's not black and white and it's a really difficult balancing act.

What if a child gets ill, but their parents are drug addicts so have never contributed. Does that child get treatment?

if the person who makes the decisions doesn't exist as you state then who or rather what is making these decisions ?"

Committees of people. The decision making isn't left to one person because then individual prejudices could outweigh looking at the bigger picture (perhaps they all need brain transplants then)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I personally think all recreational drugs should be legalised anyway and made a government monopoly, in other word the profit at least help clear up the mess.

Drugs are everywhere, accept it, its also a self inflicted wound, the only real problem is the crime associated with it, which effects others. If the drugs are available relatively cheaply and manufactured properly, there is no reason for the person not to be able to hold down some kind of job, and the criminals would need to find another business.

If a person genuinely want to kick the habit, then fine let the NHS help him not because some judge says so.

You hear people (some worryingly in positions of power) say ban cigarettes, alcohol, are they mad, organised crime would love it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Once you start drawing arbitrary lines. That is the way to private healthcare.

Trust me my brother in law lived in the USA. You want people to get out what they pay in. Then if your not paying in thousands a year say good bye when you get cancer.

Full coverage costs a fortune and it would be the death Nell for 70% of tax payers.

It would be fair. But hope your on a good wage say. £60000+

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Should stop treatment for self inflicted. So that means most injuries. Idiots who go sking. Swingers who get stds. Oral as well as others. Drivers who crash. Sports injuries. All smokers even if you stopped when a teenager. Everyone over a size 8.

Those with heart diseases. Etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hae300 OP   Woman
over a year ago

North West


"On the surface, yes.

But if that drug addict successfully completes a treatment programme and is able to start working they'll pay tax and require less in benefits. They might be currently committing crimes to fund their addiction, which is using police resources. They might be currently involved with social services, which is using council resources. If some NHS money is used to help treat them in the sense of rehabilitation then it's money well spent.

If the person who "wants bigger boobs" is genuinely suffering with extreme body issues they could be needing counselling treatment for depression. They might not be working, thus creating expenditure on benefits again. And so on.

I completely agree with your point about people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families, but these decisions are a much bigger jigsaw puzzle than just treating one person or another and more budgets than just the NHS budget come into play.

yes I respect your view, however why should a cancer patient who has worked and contributed to society all there lives be refused life prolonging drugs..whilst mr self inflicted benefit scrounging drug addict being given free nhs treatment.

To me the persons making the funding decisions seriously need a brain transplant ...and not on the NHS.

Because that person (who doesn't exist, btw) is making decisions for the greater good and considering the overall position. It's not black and white and it's a really difficult balancing act.

What if a child gets ill, but their parents are drug addicts so have never contributed. Does that child get treatment?

if the person who makes the decisions doesn't exist as you state then who or rather what is making these decisions ?

Committees of people. The decision making isn't left to one person because then individual prejudices could outweigh looking at the bigger picture (perhaps they all need brain transplants then)"

All those brains making theses decisions ? I don't think any amount of money could save them so I would have to go for the cost effective measure and turn of the life support.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"You're right people should help them selves first also you should only be allowed to take out what you put in

Lol,then if you need certain life saving surgeries,medication,and follow up treatment then no would qualify as no one puts that sort of money into the system.

Children put nothing in so should they just be told unlucky sunshine death awaits you!

Or what if two parents use up all their allocation,and then their children get ill?

I think you will find people do put that sort of money into the system ..little word to the wise there called National Insurance Contributions and they get deducted straight out of our salaries.

Drug addicts on the dole do not pay national insurance as they do not work.

what on earth are you talking about "using up their allocations.""

I wonder where all my money went out of my pay!

There are certain treatments on the nhs that no one pays in via NI contributions!..the only way we can afford the nhs is because 30odd million people pay I,and vast majority use nothing after birth.I've been to the doctors a handful of times since I started working.all I need is a triple heart by pass,and a couple of years of cancer and I'll rinse through what I've contributed so far.

What you need is for the nhs to be knocked on its head,and then only working people can access all the benefits of health care through private insurance..the dregs of society can make do with nothing/very basic facilities.especially vanity projects like rehabilitation

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"On the surface, yes.

But if that drug addict successfully completes a treatment programme and is able to start working they'll pay tax and require less in benefits. They might be currently committing crimes to fund their addiction, which is using police resources. They might be currently involved with social services, which is using council resources. If some NHS money is used to help treat them in the sense of rehabilitation then it's money well spent.

If the person who "wants bigger boobs" is genuinely suffering with extreme body issues they could be needing counselling treatment for depression. They might not be working, thus creating expenditure on benefits again. And so on.

I completely agree with your point about people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families, but these decisions are a much bigger jigsaw puzzle than just treating one person or another and more budgets than just the NHS budget come into play.

yes I respect your view, however why should a cancer patient who has worked and contributed to society all there lives be refused life prolonging drugs..whilst mr self inflicted benefit scrounging drug addict being given free nhs treatment.

To me the persons making the funding decisions seriously need a brain transplant ...and not on the NHS.

Because that person (who doesn't exist, btw) is making decisions for the greater good and considering the overall position. It's not black and white and it's a really difficult balancing act.

What if a child gets ill, but their parents are drug addicts so have never contributed. Does that child get treatment?

if the person who makes the decisions doesn't exist as you state then who or rather what is making these decisions ?

Committees of people. The decision making isn't left to one person because then individual prejudices could outweigh looking at the bigger picture (perhaps they all need brain transplants then)

All those brains making theses decisions ? I don't think any amount of money could save them so I would have to go for the cost effective measure and turn of the life support."

Who's going to make the decisions then. You? Let me know when that's being implemented, I'll be emigrating.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Thank god we have elections.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hae300 OP   Woman
over a year ago

North West

With regard to funding for a child who needs treatment yet her parents are drug addicts.

Its not rocket science the child is an innocent and should be allowed treatment her parents on the other hand!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"With regard to funding for a child who needs treatment yet her parents are drug addicts.

Its not rocket science the child is an innocent and should be allowed treatment her parents on the other hand!"

Her parents should be told to get a job or go die somewhere...preferably out of sight,so we don't have to hear about it..we can then let the catholic church(charity-no direct taxes there)look after the orphan child..preferably in Australia or something..fucking scroungers.stay away from my tax contributions!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Its easy to pick fault but a useless exercise unless you can offer a solution. All this talk of getting out what you put in makes me laugh it's a pipe dream. Not all drug users are what you imply either some are very well off and what about the 'really ill' people who dont work and are on benefits what's your cut off point? Do you honestly think the people who make decision just sit there and stick a pin in a list of names? Get involved at a real level through patient focus groups etc and do something to make changes instead of jumping on media bandwagons.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Can we cut off funding to all kids. They wanted them. Let them pay fir em.

Whilst we are at it. Can we stop paying for the army. I never use em.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed


"Its easy to pick fault but a useless exercise unless you can offer a solution. All this talk of getting out what you put in makes me laugh it's a pipe dream. Not all drug users are what you imply either some are very well off and what about the 'really ill' people who dont work and are on benefits what's your cut off point? Do you honestly think the people who make decision just sit there and stick a pin in a list of names? Get involved at a real level through patient focus groups etc and do something to make changes instead of jumping on media bandwagons.

"

Most people have no idea of the true cost of healthcare. Even after watching tv.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

It is all academic anyway. The NHS s a victim of its own success and an ever ageing population.

It is going to change because it has to. It just remains to be seen who has got the guts to stand up and tell it the way it is.

There are other healthcare systems available other than the NHS and US insurance models and I am pretty certain that given the will and lack of politicking, all the main Parties can get together and formulate an NHS or NHS successor that will be fit for the future needs of all.

Without any shadow of doubt unconditional and "free" healthcare for all cannot continue for very much longer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its easy to pick fault but a useless exercise unless you can offer a solution. All this talk of getting out what you put in makes me laugh it's a pipe dream. Not all drug users are what you imply either some are very well off and what about the 'really ill' people who dont work and are on benefits what's your cut off point? Do you honestly think the people who make decision just sit there and stick a pin in a list of names? Get involved at a real level through patient focus groups etc and do something to make changes instead of jumping on media bandwagons.

Most people have no idea of the true cost of healthcare. Even after watching tv."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge


"With regard to funding for a child who needs treatment yet her parents are drug addicts.

Its not rocket science the child is an innocent and should be allowed treatment her parents on the other hand!

Her parents should be told to get a job or go die somewhere...preferably out of sight,so we don't have to hear about it..we can then let the catholic church(charity-no direct taxes there)look after the orphan child..preferably in Australia or something..fucking scroungers.stay away from my tax contributions!"
I REALY DO HOPE YOU NEVER BECOME UNEMPLOYED DUE TO A DEBILITATING ILNESS MEANING YOU HAVE TO EXIST ON BENEFITS AND THE NHS

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed


"It is all academic anyway. The NHS s a victim of its own success and an ever ageing population.

It is going to change because it has to. It just remains to be seen who has got the guts to stand up and tell it the way it is.

There are other healthcare systems available other than the NHS and US insurance models and I am pretty certain that given the will and lack of politicking, all the main Parties can get together and formulate an NHS or NHS successor that will be fit for the future needs of all.

Without any shadow of doubt unconditional and "free" healthcare for all cannot continue for very much longer."

Without doubt. But I imagine it will go the way of dentistth. Part subsidiesed and capped.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hae300 OP   Woman
over a year ago

North West


"With regard to funding for a child who needs treatment yet her parents are drug addicts.

Its not rocket science the child is an innocent and should be allowed treatment her parents on the other hand!

Her parents should be told to get a job or go die somewhere...preferably out of sight,so we don't have to hear about it..we can then let the catholic church(charity-no direct taxes there)look after the orphan child..preferably in Australia or something..fucking scroungers.stay away from my tax contributions!"

What on earth has the catholic church got to do with this post ? Like it or not the fact remains the nhs cannot fund everybody... so again why should somebody who has worked and contributed to society and paid there ni be denied treatments and somebody that chooses to sponge of the state and spend there dole money on drugs and not contribute anything to society be allowed nhs treatment.

Yes you can disagree that's your entitlement but does it excuse your choice of volcabulary in reply to my posts. There is no need to swear at me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"With regard to funding for a child who needs treatment yet her parents are drug addicts.

Its not rocket science the child is an innocent and should be allowed treatment her parents on the other hand!

Her parents should be told to get a job or go die somewhere...preferably out of sight,so we don't have to hear about it..we can then let the catholic church(charity-no direct taxes there)look after the orphan child..preferably in Australia or something..fucking scroungers.stay away from my tax contributions!I REALY DO HOPE YOU NEVER BECOME UNEMPLOYED DUE TO A DEBILITATING ILNESS MEANING YOU HAVE TO EXIST ON BENEFITS AND THE NHS "

If this is aimed at me then you need to realise that I am taking the piss out of people who think they are more entitled because they pay tax.

I suggest you read the rest of my contributions,and I hope I never have to be on the dole again!nor ever need to use the nhs..I'm more than happy paying for the things I hardly ever use.especially if it saves the life of a child,or anyone for that matter

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rcticFoxxxWoman
over a year ago

Hereabouts


"Drugs are everywhere, accept it, its also a self inflicted wound, the only real problem is the crime associated with it, which effects others. "

I agree that it's a self inflicted wound.. And each to their own on opinions about legalising stuff. But in regard to crime being the only 'real problem', I completely disagree.

People with addictions (be it drugs or alcohol or whatever), don't always turn to crime to get their next hit. So there's flaw number one in your logic. And if crime isn't always a problem then what is? (By crime, I'm referring to anything non-domestic). People with addictions hurt everyone around them. That's the main problem with addictions. They can screw themselves for all I care... Been there, done that... Can't deal with people who refuse to help themselves any more! But the people around them are the victims. Abuse. Neglect. Worry. Depression. Anxiety. Aside from abuse and neglect (domestic), the other things aren't crimes... But they are the outcome of a persons addiction.

So basically what I'm saying is, legalising drugs so they are available without 'crime' being committed to get access to these drugs isn't the answer. Yes if they were legal they could be controlled and stuff. But it's the actual addiction and the poisonous way in which the addict behaves that's the problem.

Yes, there are high functioning addicts... But even they poison the people closest to them.

Sorry that this turned into a rant...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

National Insurance has nothing to do with funding the NHS.

NIC pay for the social safety net, providing people with an income at points in their life when they are out of work. That's all it covers.

NIC don't, and have never, funded the NHS so this argument of people having 'paid in' for the entitlement to the NHS is moot.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"With regard to funding for a child who needs treatment yet her parents are drug addicts.

Its not rocket science the child is an innocent and should be allowed treatment her parents on the other hand!

Her parents should be told to get a job or go die somewhere...preferably out of sight,so we don't have to hear about it..we can then let the catholic church(charity-no direct taxes there)look after the orphan child..preferably in Australia or something..fucking scroungers.stay away from my tax contributions!

What on earth has the catholic church got to do with this post ? Like it or not the fact remains the nhs cannot fund everybody... so again why should somebody who has worked and contributed to society and paid there ni be denied treatments and somebody that chooses to sponge of the state and spend there dole money on drugs and not contribute anything to society be allowed nhs treatment.

Yes you can disagree that's your entitlement but does it excuse your choice of volcabulary in reply to my posts. There is no need to swear at me."

Lol, didn't swear at you!I used a profanity..there is a huge difference..

Catholic church=charity..i thought that would be right up your street.

The solution is simple...knock the NHS on its head,and bring in private health insurance.that way the guy on minimum wage whose kid gets cancer can hope and pray the cheapest insurance he could afford covers the cost.at least the dole scrounger bum wont be able to get rehab though!I feel as though karma has been restored with this outcome

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the bigger boobs thing, should never be on the NHS unless they had a genuine medical thing(cancer)

I don't agree with the depression side, as someone who has suffered with depression since i was 11, i think im ugly, i wouldnt be allowed anything on the NHS to make that different.

You want bigger boobs, save up.

Guys with small dicks,bigger muscles etc cant get bigger dicks on NHS, so why should women be allowed boobs.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"You're right people should help them selves first also you should only be allowed to take out what you put in "

In that case any pensioner on an income of just a state pension would probably starve to death after 10 years on that pension.

What they get out in their pensions is adjusted for cost of living and inflation, it's not pound for pound.

I think most people wouldn't want to see that happening.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think the bigger boobs thing, should never be on the NHS unless they had a genuine medical thing(cancer)

I don't agree with the depression side, as someone who has suffered with depression since i was 11, i think im ugly, i wouldnt be allowed anything on the NHS to make that different.

You want bigger boobs, save up.

Guys with small dicks,bigger muscles etc cant get bigger dicks on NHS, so why should women be allowed boobs."

Kind of a moot point. You can't get bigger dicks or bigger muscles by going private either.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"With regard to funding for a child who needs treatment yet her parents are drug addicts.

Its not rocket science the child is an innocent and should be allowed treatment her parents on the other hand!

Her parents should be told to get a job or go die somewhere...preferably out of sight,so we don't have to hear about it..we can then let the catholic church(charity-no direct taxes there)look after the orphan child..preferably in Australia or something..fucking scroungers.stay away from my tax contributions!

What on earth has the catholic church got to do with this post ? Like it or not the fact remains the nhs cannot fund everybody... so again why should somebody who has worked and contributed to society and paid there ni be denied treatments and somebody that chooses to sponge of the state and spend there dole money on drugs and not contribute anything to society be allowed nhs treatment.

Yes you can disagree that's your entitlement but does it excuse your choice of volcabulary in reply to my posts. There is no need to swear at me."

Love the game you are playing this morning, all the threads you have posted are very provocative and you appear to be winning by getting everyone riled up, well done you.

I will play along just for the hell of it.

What about people who have contributed all of their working lives but for no fault of their own find themselves out of work, should they not be able to access NHS funding because they are not paying into the system at present?

My hubby has always worked, he was in a very well paid job over 50k a year and had to give it up to care full time for his father who has vascular dementia.

This terrible condition does not qualify for funding as it is not seen as a clinical condition. And there is only limited help available.

We are now in a position were our savings have gone, and my hubby has only just been told he can claim carers allowance of £62 a week. Until now he has not earned a penny in well over 12 months.

So what about him? A good man, a proud man who has worked all his life and now through circumstances beyond his control, because he loves the man who brought him up, his father, so much he is prepared to do anything for him in return, now finds himself needing a little help from the state. Does that mean he should not receive any help should he become ill?

Anyway, thanks for letting me play your game, hope this helps you create more arguments, just because you seem bored on a Saturday morning.

If this hasn't helped would you like me to post a few provocative comments on the reverse rascism post you posted earlier?

Nothing but love,

V xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its easy to pick fault but a useless exercise unless you can offer a solution. All this talk of getting out what you put in makes me laugh it's a pipe dream. Not all drug users are what you imply either some are very well off and what about the 'really ill' people who dont work and are on benefits what's your cut off point? Do you honestly think the people who make decision just sit there and stick a pin in a list of names? Get involved at a real level through patient focus groups etc and do something to make changes instead of jumping on media bandwagons.

Most people have no idea of the true cost of healthcare. Even after watching tv."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Truth is, it's a Lottery subject to economics.

Eg cancer drugs deemed too expensive.

Older people deemed less worthwhile coz they may die in next 10 years anyway, so why give them expensive treatment .

thing is we're being softened up for the end of nhs- private healthcare will be the future unfortunately

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hae300 OP   Woman
over a year ago

North West


"Truth is, it's a Lottery subject to economics.

Eg cancer drugs deemed too expensive.

Older people deemed less worthwhile coz they may die in next 10 years anyway, so why give them expensive treatment .

thing is we're being softened up for the end of nhs- private healthcare will be the future unfortunately

"

Good and thought provoking post. I think privatisation of the nhs already started at a hospital somewhere in stoke ...but its has now failed and is in the process of reverting back to the NHS.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 07/03/15 12:41:02]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Truth is, it's a Lottery subject to economics.

Eg cancer drugs deemed too expensive.

Older people deemed less worthwhile coz they may die in next 10 years anyway, so why give them expensive treatment .

thing is we're being softened up for the end of nhs- private healthcare will be the future unfortunately

Good and thought provoking post. I think privatisation of the nhs already started at a hospital somewhere in stoke ...but its has now failed and is in the process of reverting back to the NHS."

The myth of myth of privatisation as being cheaper needs to be stamped right out.

Cleaning contracts in the NHS are an absolute joke they're more expensive and do a lousy job, why? Because the money goes to some parasite CEO and directors rather than the correct equipment, chemicals and of course paying a decent wage to the the most important people in that operation, the cleaners.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hae300 OP   Woman
over a year ago

North West


"Truth is, it's a Lottery subject to economics.

Eg cancer drugs deemed too expensive.

Older people deemed less worthwhile coz they may die in next 10 years anyway, so why give them expensive treatment .

thing is we're being softened up for the end of nhs- private healthcare will be the future unfortunately

Good and thought provoking post. I think privatisation of the nhs already started at a hospital somewhere in stoke ...but its has now failed and is in the process of reverting back to the NHS.

The myth of myth of privatisation as being cheaper needs to be stamped right out.

Cleaning contracts in the NHS are an absolute joke they're more expensive and do a lousy job, why? Because the money goes to some parasite CEO and directors rather than the correct equipment, chemicals and of course paying a decent wage to the the most important people in that operation, the cleaners.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My son has a life long medical condition and his treatment costs £3-4000 a week at present and will increase in cost over time as his dose increases due to weight. He will need this for the rest of his life. I have nothing but gratitude to the NHS for this. It is always easy to judge from the outside looking in

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hae300 OP   Woman
over a year ago

North West


"My son has a life long medical condition and his treatment costs £3-4000 a week at present and will increase in cost over time as his dose increases due to weight. He will need this for the rest of his life. I have nothing but gratitude to the NHS for this. It is always easy to judge from the outside looking in "

yes good point and I am sorry to hear about your son. You state he will need this treatment for the ret of his life ? I hope he gets that treatment and hope that at the next NHS funding review his treatment wont be withdrawn as has happened with funding for life prolonging drugs to some cancer paitents.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You're right people should help them selves first also you should only be allowed to take out what you put in "

Once every single person is allotted the same amount of finances i think this might be fair. Until then though no, some people are financially advanataged.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *UNCHBOXMan
over a year ago

folkestone


"Has anybody been watching the programme NHS 2Billion a week and counting.

This is a great programme that helps us understand that there is only a limited amount of cash to go around and that every pound spent here means someone else there loses out.

As I watched the NHS decide where to spend money a child amputee in need of an artificial limb was rejected funding while a drug addict happy claiming benefits all day and getting high was given a place on a rehab programme.

The drug addict said it was hard work being an addict ? Silly me I though I thought hard work was working 12 hr shifts then going home to look after the kids.

Another man who had chosen to continue to drink until his liver was about as useful as Ed Milliband and Dave Cameron combined was granted life saving drugs and a transplant.

What is wrong with this country. What happened to personal accountability, taking the blame, taking responsibility for ones own actions.

Isnt it about time this country stopped awarding everybody victim status and enough of asking us taxpayers to fund drug addicts self afflicted self addictions and vain people who want bigger boobs or more hair.

"

Have you just taken what Katie Hopkins has said in her column in this week's sun and made out as your own over your two threads?.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bony in IvoryCouple
over a year ago

Black&White Utopia

Gonna put the cat in the middle of the birdies now.... So where does this argument stop? Drug addicts ... Piss heads... Smokers... Sports injuries... Woman having babies??? All could come under the hat of self inflicted? ... If you pull it all apart....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"With regard to funding for a child who needs treatment yet her parents are drug addicts.

Its not rocket science the child is an innocent and should be allowed treatment her parents on the other hand!

Her parents should be told to get a job or go die somewhere...preferably out of sight,so we don't have to hear about it..we can then let the catholic church(charity-no direct taxes there)look after the orphan child..preferably in Australia or something..fucking scroungers.stay away from my tax contributions!

What on earth has the catholic church got to do with this post ? Like it or not the fact remains the nhs cannot fund everybody... so again why should somebody who has worked and contributed to society and paid there ni be denied treatments and somebody that chooses to sponge of the state and spend there dole money on drugs and not contribute anything to society be allowed nhs treatment.

Yes you can disagree that's your entitlement but does it excuse your choice of volcabulary in reply to my posts. There is no need to swear at me.

Love the game you are playing this morning, all the threads you have posted are very provocative and you appear to be winning by getting everyone riled up, well done you.

I will play along just for the hell of it.

What about people who have contributed all of their working lives but for no fault of their own find themselves out of work, should they not be able to access NHS funding because they are not paying into the system at present?

My hubby has always worked, he was in a very well paid job over 50k a year and had to give it up to care full time for his father who has vascular dementia.

This terrible condition does not qualify for funding as it is not seen as a clinical condition. And there is only limited help available.

We are now in a position were our savings have gone, and my hubby has only just been told he can claim carers allowance of £62 a week. Until now he has not earned a penny in well over 12 months.

So what about him? A good man, a proud man who has worked all his life and now through circumstances beyond his control, because he loves the man who brought him up, his father, so much he is prepared to do anything for him in return, now finds himself needing a little help from the state. Does that mean he should not receive any help should he become ill?

Anyway, thanks for letting me play your game, hope this helps you create more arguments, just because you seem bored on a Saturday morning.

If this hasn't helped would you like me to post a few provocative comments on the reverse rascism post you posted earlier?

Nothing but love,

V xxx

"
What a lovely man you have there ..... He put his father first as his father would him I am sure . He may miss out on money but he will have more knowing he did his best for his dad, He has put his father first .. xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"Has anybody been watching the programme NHS 2Billion a week and counting.

This is a great programme that helps us understand that there is only a limited amount of cash to go around and that every pound spent here means someone else there loses out.

As I watched the NHS decide where to spend money a child amputee in need of an artificial limb was rejected funding while a drug addict happy claiming benefits all day and getting high was given a place on a rehab programme.

The drug addict said it was hard work being an addict ? Silly me I though I thought hard work was working 12 hr shifts then going home to look after the kids.

Another man who had chosen to continue to drink until his liver was about as useful as Ed Milliband and Dave Cameron combined was granted life saving drugs and a transplant.

What is wrong with this country. What happened to personal accountability, taking the blame, taking responsibility for ones own actions.

Isnt it about time this country stopped awarding everybody victim status and enough of asking us taxpayers to fund drug addicts self afflicted self addictions and vain people who want bigger boobs or more hair.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"With regard to funding for a child who needs treatment yet her parents are drug addicts.

Its not rocket science the child is an innocent and should be allowed treatment her parents on the other hand!

Her parents should be told to get a job or go die somewhere...preferably out of sight,so we don't have to hear about it..we can then let the catholic church(charity-no direct taxes there)look after the orphan child..preferably in Australia or something..fucking scroungers.stay away from my tax contributions!

What on earth has the catholic church got to do with this post ? Like it or not the fact remains the nhs cannot fund everybody... so again why should somebody who has worked and contributed to society and paid there ni be denied treatments and somebody that chooses to sponge of the state and spend there dole money on drugs and not contribute anything to society be allowed nhs treatment.

Yes you can disagree that's your entitlement but does it excuse your choice of volcabulary in reply to my posts. There is no need to swear at me.

Love the game you are playing this morning, all the threads you have posted are very provocative and you appear to be winning by getting everyone riled up, well done you.

I will play along just for the hell of it.

What about people who have contributed all of their working lives but for no fault of their own find themselves out of work, should they not be able to access NHS funding because they are not paying into the system at present?

My hubby has always worked, he was in a very well paid job over 50k a year and had to give it up to care full time for his father who has vascular dementia.

This terrible condition does not qualify for funding as it is not seen as a clinical condition. And there is only limited help available.

We are now in a position were our savings have gone, and my hubby has only just been told he can claim carers allowance of £62 a week. Until now he has not earned a penny in well over 12 months.

So what about him? A good man, a proud man who has worked all his life and now through circumstances beyond his control, because he loves the man who brought him up, his father, so much he is prepared to do anything for him in return, now finds himself needing a little help from the state. Does that mean he should not receive any help should he become ill?

Anyway, thanks for letting me play your game, hope this helps you create more arguments, just because you seem bored on a Saturday morning.

If this hasn't helped would you like me to post a few provocative comments on the reverse rascism post you posted earlier?

Nothing but love,

V xxx

What a lovely man you have there ..... He put his father first as his father would him I am sure . He may miss out on money but he will have more knowing he did his best for his dad, He has put his father first .. xx "

Thanks xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *aitinkCouple
over a year ago

York

More fool you for believing a TV programme - having been involved in such programmes I can assure you that the be all and end all of the producers is to create a sensation regardless of the truth. Having watched several programmes where the final production ignored the evidence and created a totally made up conclusion because it made better television I have learned to ignore such programmes - even BBC programmes can not be trusted because the content is no longer created by the BBC but by sub contractors who do not have the same editorial integrity. Regardless of the truth of the matter, and the complexities of the process, you took away from the programme the message they wanted you to hear, not the truth of the matter they were purportedly investigating: you were played.

What the programmes don't explain is that the cost of the NHS is inflated by the concentration of power in centralized trusts instead of the older model of a decentralized but more responsive organization. When you hear the phrase 'economies of scale' replace it with 'easier to defraud' and 'centralized magnified errors'. That is why funding is tight and the fact that politicians won't leave it alone so funds go into changing things to satisfy this week's legislation so that it can be changed again next week.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top