Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grace of God on April 07, 2018, 10:05:11 PM
-
or heavy drinkers, anyone fat, or with type 2 diabetes. they have caused their own problems..
-
Absolutely not. Once we start chipping away at universal free healthcare, it'll be gone before we know it.
-
No, there’s a good point here. Parents cause problems by having children. Perhaps we should deny medical care for them. After all, no-one asks them to have kids. And old people cause problems by living far too long and being too healthy to die before they become bed blockers and a burden on social care. Perhaps some kind of workhouse is the solution?
(No word of a lie, I once heard a receptionist at my GP’s surgery describe my kids, who got recurrent ENT problems when little, as ‘a burden on the NHS’)
-
Absolutely not. Once we start chipping away at universal free healthcare, it'll be gone before we know it.
yet anyone who refused a vaccine was dangerous and stupid, don't people who cause illnesses class as stupid??
-
or heavy drinkers, anyone fat, or with type 2 diabetes. they have caused their own problems..
Are you being deliberately obtuse or just ridiculous?
Treatment is NOT FREE and never has been. Since every person who works had paid into the NHS.
Diabetes is not self inflicted. Even type 2 diabetes is hereditary, just as being fat can also have a medical cause or be hereditary through genetic disposition. I think everyone has the right to medical treatment and the right to life.
-
And another thing - cigarette smokers (not pipe or cigar smokers nearly so much), the obese, heavy drinkers, etc. May cost the NHS more in the short term, but since they tend to die early they save the country the cost of looking after them in frail old age, so, over the whole population, it probably averages out.
And what about those who take part in dangerous sports? They're likely to be super-fit, but may suffer serious injuries. Do we charge them for their treatment too? Once you start charging some patients for their treatment, where does it all end?
-
Are you being deliberately obtuse or just ridiculous?
Treatment is NOT FREE and never has been. Since every person who works had paid into the NHS.
Diabetes is not self inflicted. Even type 2 diabetes is hereditary, just as being fat can also have a medical cause or be hereditary through genetic disposition. I think everyone has the right to medical treatment and the right to life.
ok, the other day it seemed pretty universal that anyone who does not take a vaccine is dangerous and stupid, yet those who smoke cause themselves and others great harm, those getting fat and disabled harm themselves and take up time of already over worked medical staff and gp's, type 2 diabetes, according to many gp's is linked with being over weight...
those you claim pay in to the nhs, it is a small percentage of a wage, some never earn a wage, it in no way covers the extensive costs of the long term treatment brought about by their own stupidity...
-
ok, the other day it seemed pretty universal that anyone who does not take a vaccine is dangerous and stupid, yet those who smoke cause themselves and others great harm, those getting fat and disabled harm themselves and take up time of already over worked medical staff and gp's, type 2 diabetes, according to many gp's is linked with being over weight...
those you claim pay in to the nhs, it is a small percentage of a wage, some never earn a wage, it in no way covers the extensive costs of the long term treatment brought about by their own stupidity...
Your version of Christianity seems to be a very hard, self-righteous, unforgiving one.
-
Your version of Christianity seems to be a very hard, self-righteous, unforgiving one.
if you have no answer just say so :)
-
And another thing - cigarette smokers (not pipe or cigar smokers nearly so much), the obese, heavy drinkers, etc. May cost the NHS more in the short term, but since they tend to die early they save the country the cost of looking after them in frail old age, so, over the whole population, it probably averages out.
And what about those who take part in dangerous sports? They're likely to be super-fit, but may suffer serious injuries. Do we charge them for their treatment too? Once you start charging some patients for their treatment, where does it all end?
die early , you can't be serious, how much do you think cancer treatment costs in the years they need it to stay alive..
if we are in a place where we force people to take vaccines, for the greater good, we should consider banning dangerous sports..
-
die early , you can't be serious, how much do you think cancer treatment costs in the years they need it to stay alive..
if we are in a place where we force people to take vaccines, for the greater good, we should consider banning dangerous sports..
I give up. you clearly have a dangerously fascistic attitude to nearly everything. I can understand the attitude of the atheists on here when I read your posts. Happily, I know that the vast majority of Christians are much more tolerant and reasonable.
-
It's Christian love, innit, of a rather right wing variety.
-
I give up. you clearly have a dangerously fascistic attitude to nearly everything. I can understand the attitude of the atheists on here when I read your posts. Happily, I know that the vast majority of Christians are much more tolerant and reasonable.
I'll ask again, why was it so obvious that people should be forced to take vaccines, for the greater good, yet people who have caused themselves harm should be treat freely and not made accountable for their actions...
you seem to be the control freak yet only when it suits your reasoning...
-
ok, the other day it seemed pretty universal that anyone who does not take a vaccine is dangerous and stupid, yet those who smoke cause themselves and others great harm, those getting fat and disabled harm themselves and take up time of already over worked medical staff and gp's, type 2 diabetes, according to many gp's is linked with being over weight...
those you claim pay in to the nhs, it is a small percentage of a wage, some never earn a wage, it in no way covers the extensive costs of the long term treatment brought about by their own stupidity...
Inaccurate. 1) Most obesity is self inflicted....not all.
I am obese. That's due to a pre-existant provable medical condition.
2) Not all type 2 diabetes is self inflicted as a result of obesity, etc. I run a blind club. I know several members who are visually impaired due to type 2 which was not caused by diet, lifestyle or whatever.
Do you wish to distinguish?
Are you trying to be a judge?
-
Inaccurate. 1) Most obesity is self inflicted....not all.
I am obese. That's due to a pre-existant provable medical condition.
2) Not all type 2 diabetes is self inflicted as a result of obesity, etc. I run a blind club. I know several members who are visually impaired due to type 2 which was not caused by diet, lifestyle or whatever.
Do you wish to distinguish?
Are you trying to be a judge?
I am judging no one, that is God's job...
so do you agree those making themselves ill through being obese, drinking or smoking should be taken off free medicine, unless they have a proven medical reason for being fat??
-
or heavy drinkers, anyone fat, or with type 2 diabetes. they have caused their own problems..
Did Jesus come for sinners ? Or did he minister only to the self-righteous ?
-
I am judging no one, that is God's job...
so do you agree those making themselves ill through being obese, drinking or smoking should be taken off free medicine, unless they have a proven medical reason for being fat??
No.
'proven medical reasons'? Psychological, psychiatric and other conditions can manifest themselves in the form of addiction to drink, drugs or food. Sometimes that underlying condition is hard to define, let alone diagnose.
Would Christ turn away someone who asked for help?
-
(No word of a lie, I once heard a receptionist at my GP’s surgery describe my kids, who got recurrent ENT problems when little, as ‘a burden on the NHS’)
Well if all the burdens were refused treatment, GP's wouldn't need receptionists.
Universal healthcare is the single greatest thing this country has done for itself since the war. Why do so many people want to dismantle it?
-
ok, the other day it seemed pretty universal that anyone who does not take a vaccine is dangerous and stupid,
I think you are misrepresenting what most people think. I think refusing vaccines is stupid and dangerous, and if it on behalf of your children, negligent too. However, I do not propose that we refuse treatment for unvaccinated people.
The UK has a universal healthcare system which means it is free at the point of delivery. Nobody should be turned away.
-
I am judging no one, that is God's job...
Just saying it doesn't make it true. You definitely are judging people.
so do you agree those making themselves ill through being obese, drinking or smoking should be taken off free medicine, unless they have a proven medical reason for being fat??
Nope.
-
It's Christian love, innit, of a rather right wing variety.
it's a call to wake up fools, those who would make some take vaccines, for the greater good but would not control someone who makes themselves and others ill, hypocrisy seems to be a problem in the topic..
-
Did Jesus come for sinners ? Or did he minister only to the self-righteous ?
what does that have to do with the subject, other than proving you have nothing to add to it ... :)
-
I think you are misrepresenting what most people think. I think refusing vaccines is stupid and dangerous, and if it on behalf of your children, negligent too. However, I do not propose that we refuse treatment for unvaccinated people.
The UK has a universal healthcare system which means it is free at the point of delivery. Nobody should be turned away.
and smoking and heavy drinking, eating yourself to disability is not stupid...
so how come people in some opinions should be forced to have a vaccine yet idiotic behaviour in others is acceptable..
-
and smoking and heavy drinking, eating yourself to disability is not stupid...
so how come people in some opinions should be forced to have a vaccine yet idiotic behaviour in others is acceptable..
Because Not vaccinating children is a choice in their behalf and it has a specific effect on increasing the likelihood of affecting someone else who cannot be vaccinated or hasn't been vaccinated because of age.
-
Just saying it doesn't make it true. You definitely are judging people.Nope.
in this case it is true, I am judging no one, yet a few days ago nearly everyone was there to agree that not taking a vaccine makes you stupid...
good , so you think we have to help these people who are killing themselves and others, by smoking, drinking and eating to disability...
-
or heavy drinkers, anyone fat, or with type 2 diabetes. they have caused their own problems..
No! I'm hoping you are just provoking discussion and don't mean it.
I saw you were comparing this subject to vaccines; only one person said people who suffered as a result of no vaccines shouldn't be treated and quite honestly I doubt he meant it, he just hadn't thought it out. No-one grudges someone else treatment, surely? People who smoke and drink do plenty of good things you know! Maybe more than many saintly non-drinkers and non-smokers.
-
in this case it is true, I am judging no one, yet a few days ago nearly everyone was there to agree that not taking a vaccine makes you stupid...
good , so you think we have to help these people who are killing themselves and others, by smoking, drinking and eating to disability...
What a deeply unpleasant, uncharitable, self-righteous little neo-puritan you are.
-
She may be just putting forward arguments for discussion.
GofG:- "...nearly everyone was there to agree that not taking a vaccine makes you stupid"
No-one except one said such people should not receive NHS treatment.
-
What a deeply unpleasant, uncharitable, self-righteous little neo-puritan you are.
still can't answer then.. :)
-
If you read back a few posts - not many - you'll see you have been answered, Grace.
-
in this case it is true, I am judging no one, yet a few days ago nearly everyone was there to agree that not taking a vaccine makes you stupid...
It looks from here very much like you are judging people. You judge people with self inflicted health problems as being not worthy of free NHS treatment. At least that is what it looks like.
good , so you think we have to help these people who are killing themselves and others, by smoking, drinking and eating to disability...
Here is my position once again. Please read it and understand it before accusing me of anything again.
It is my belief that the NHS should not discriminate in any way in who it treats. It should not discriminate against smokers, drinkers, people who engage in dangerous sports, gang members, crack addicts, Piers Morgan, or anybody else who is in need of healthcare. This includes people who have refused to be vaccinated and children whose parents refused to get them vaccinated.
If Bob refuses to be vaccinated and gets polio, he has been very stupid, but that is not a reason for the NHS to refuse him treatment. If Bob's daughter has not been vaccinated and she gets polio, Bob's daughter should get treatment from the NHS (and Bob should be in court on negligence charges).
Yes, people who refuse to vaccinate are stupid and they are negligent if they are not vaccinating their children. However, even if not vaccinating is made illegal, it is not the job of the NHS to pass judgement on people. That's for the justice system.
If that's not clear enough for you, please tell me what you are having trouble with and I'll try to explain better, but stop accusing me of hypocrisy.
-
ok, the other day it seemed pretty universal that anyone who does not take a vaccine is dangerous and stupid, yet those who smoke cause themselves and others great harm, those getting fat and disabled harm themselves and take up time of already over worked medical staff and gp's, type 2 diabetes, according to many gp's is linked with being over weight...
those you claim pay in to the nhs, it is a small percentage of a wage, some never earn a wage, it in no way covers the extensive costs of the long term treatment brought about by their own stupidity...
There is adifference between the two cases.
Vaccines are offered FREE to PREVENT disease.
Smoking, Drinking etc cost a bloody fortune - if you can afford to smoke and drink you can affoird to pay what you would normally pay for smokes and booze toward your treatment.
I am in favour of charging for the treatment of vaccine preventable disease where the vacine has been refused as this is a refusal of free pre-emptive treatment.
-
There is adifference between the two cases.
Vaccines are offered FREE to PREVENT disease.
Smoking, Drinking etc cost a bloody fortune - if you can afford to smoke and drink you can affoird to pay what you would normally pay for smokes and booze toward your treatment.
I am in favour of charging for the treatment of vaccine preventable disease where the vacine has been refused as this is a refusal of free pre-emptive treatment.
No, no, no! The NHS must remain free at point of use for all, however stupid and irresponsible they may be.
-
It looks from here very much like you are judging people. You judge people with self inflicted health problems as being not worthy of free NHS treatment. At least that is what it looks like.
Here is my position once again. Please read it and understand it before accusing me of anything again.
It is my belief that the NHS should not discriminate in any way in who it treats. It should not discriminate against smokers, drinkers, people who engage in dangerous sports, gang members, crack addicts, Piers Morgan, or anybody else who is in need of healthcare. This includes people who have refused to be vaccinated and children whose parents refused to get them vaccinated.
If Bob refuses to be vaccinated and gets polio, he has been very stupid, but that is not a reason for the NHS to refuse him treatment. If Bob's daughter has not been vaccinated and she gets polio, Bob's daughter should get treatment from the NHS (and Bob should be in court on negligence charges).
Yes, people who refuse to vaccinate are stupid and they are negligent if they are not vaccinating their children. However, even if not vaccinating is made illegal, it is not the job of the NHS to pass judgement on people. That's for the justice system.
If that's not clear enough for you, please tell me what you are having trouble with and I'll try to explain better, but stop accusing me of hypocrisy.
so should the alcoholics, smokers, fat people , be on some charge of personal negligence??
-
That's all very well LR but people who smoke, drink, overeat or whatever are often quite proactive in areas of which you would approve - good people - which could outweight their weaknesses. I say this because I have read from your posts that you are more deeds v faith than faith v deeds & it isn't a faith-type subject anyway.
Th NHS may well be strapped for cash, when is it not? Still what money they have isn't always fairly distributed. We have a large number of Diabetes ll patients here, some if not many of them could well have contributed to their condition by eating wrongly, I wouldn't want to consign them to no treatment.
People are good and bad and a mixture of both regardless of their habits.
-
It's certainly an interesting idea, not to treat some people. Drug addicts could be left to die, if they OD, drink drivers left by the roadside to die, fat people could die in bed unattended. Only the pure at heart survive!
-
so should the alcoholics, smokers, fat people , be on some charge of personal negligence??
No, they are endangering only themselves. The person who fails to vaccinate his child is endangering somebody else - in fact, lots of other people.
-
No, they are endangering only themselves. The person who fails to vaccinate his child is endangering somebody else - in fact, lots of other people.
smokers endanger others, drinkers endanger others if they drive especially or through violence, they also waste the time of medical staff..
not taking a vaccine may endanger your own child but isn't it the parents choice to do the best for their child and not a state decision..
-
I am of the opinion that people who cause their own health problems by drinking excessively, smoking, eating too much and taking drugs, should be at the back of the queue for treatment. The NHS is strapped for cash so it is only right people whose illnesses are not caused by their lifestyle should be treated first. I will now don my flak jacket and helmet!
Whoa.
Simplistic (but what's new?)
Have you ever considered that there may be underlying psychological reasons why certain people eat and drink to excess?
Would you therefore put them, also 'at the back of the queue'?
Wouldn't it be more humane to examine and deal with the situation which has caused their problem first?
-
I generally think all people should be treated in the same way, including smokers but it might be a good idea if smokers were put into special wards with a good circulation of air that would hopefully waft away the unpleasant odour, smokers seem to be oblivious of, that goes along with their addiction, away from the rest of us.
Regards ippy
-
Patients aren't allowed to smoke in hospital, Ippy.
-
More should have put into leisure centres.
They use to have health tips on breakfast TV. Now on BBC you have sportsmen on sofas and that leadingexponentof chairobics. 'I'm on GMB.
-
Patients aren't allowed to smoke in hospital, Ippy.
I assume you haven't got a very good sense of smell, they all have a personal smell of tobacco surounding them, in their hair and clothes, I'm surprised you havent noticed.
Smokers seem to be unaware of the trail of an unplesent smoky odour they leave behind themselves as they go about their daily tasks, even when they're not actually smoking.
Tried a cigerette when I was about twelve and thought it was bloody awful then, thank goodness and that was in the days when the general public were unaware of health issues.
Regards ippy
-
Enjoying a bowl of Samuel Gawith's 'Commonwealth Mixture' in a billiard pipe as I write. Fuck the health nazis!
-
I assume you haven't got a very good sense of smell, they all have a personal smell of tobacco surounding them, in their hair and clothes, I'm surprised you havent noticed.
Smokers seem to be unaware of the trail of an unplesent smoky odour they leave behind themselves as they go about their daily tasks, even when they're not actually smoking.
Tried a cigerette when I was about twelve and thought it was bloody awful then, thank goodness and that was in the days when the general public were unaware of health issues.
Regards ippy
Ippy I have an excellent sense of smell! I have come across the smell you talked about but not for a very long time.
People nowadays bathe, shower, wash hair and change their clothes daily, ippy. The lingering aroma you refer to is very much a thing of the past partly because people are generally cleaner and partly because there's hardly anywhere to smoke. Anyway if they were in hospital they'd be in clean pyjamas.
-
No, no, no! The NHS must remain free at point of use for all, however stupid and irresponsible they may be.
Why?
Especially when huge numbers (my local hospital, is the closest tothe UK's major airport) are treated free of charge at point of use having been transported direct from airport to casualty and vanish without paying a penny as soon as cured and prove impossible to trace for payment.
-
That's a different issue, Owlswing & it is a problem but people - like ourselves - should be treated by the NHS even if we have been unwise in our lifestyles. I don't know how or where the line would be drawn if it was decided to penalise drinkers, smokers etc. We all pay for the NHS.
-
Why?
Especially when huge numbers (my local hospital, is the closest tothe UK's major airport) are treated free of charge at point of use having been transported direct from airport to casualty and vanish without paying a penny as soon as cured and prove impossible to trace for payment.
All UK citizens, and any others who are entitled. Heath tourism is a problem, as Robbie says above, but it is peripheral, and doesn'y affect the basic principle of there being no charge at point of use.
-
Yes we should all be treated, but I think the priority should be people who aren't damaging their health deliberately like smokers, drinkers and those over eat.
The priority should be clinical need, and nothing else. If smokers are put behind non-smokers in the waiting list, they will never be treated, as there will always be non-smokers needing treatment.
-
Smoking, Drinking etc cost a bloody fortune - if you can afford to smoke and drink you can affoird to pay what you would normally pay for smokes and booze toward your treatment.
It could be argued that smokers & drinkers are already contributing more per head than more abstemious members of society by way of the taxes they pay and the fact that their choices in life will limit their lifespan. Taking this to a logical conclusion all the non-drinkers and non-smokers should actually pay more because they are going to live into old age as a result of their selfish life choices, get dementia and be a much bigger burden on society.
This is probably a reductio ad absurdum or some such. It does show what a complicated mess you get into if you try to define by means other than clinical need who deserves to get treatment.
And that is what LR and others here are doing. They are basing who they think should get treatment on their own personal prejudices. Well that's all fine and dandy until someone comes along and says we shouldn't treat people with Down's syndrome or with HIV infection, or any number of other things that people get exorcised about.
Steve H is absolutely correct, treatment should be on the basis of clinical need and free at the point of treatment.
-
Yes we should all be treated, but I think the priority should be people who aren't damaging their health deliberately like smokers, drinkers and those over eat.
I agree, it makes sense..
-
The priority should be clinical need, and nothing else. If smokers are put behind non-smokers in the waiting list, they will never be treated, as there will always be non-smokers needing treatment.
It seems the some wouldn’t object to that.
Why is no one mentioning the benefits to the NHS of treating addictions and disordered eating?
-
I suppose AIDS would never have got treated, at least, people who were being BAD.
-
I suppose AIDS would never have got treated, at least, people who were being BAD.
Make that all STDs.
-
Yes, plus teenage pregnancy, more BAD people.
-
Can you imagine what a disgusting country this would be, if medical treatment depended on some kind of moral vetting? And who would do the vetting? Who are the moral arbiters? Bigots and racists, probably.
-
Can you imagine what a disgusting country this would be, if medical treatment depended on some kind of moral vetting? And who would do the vetting? Who are the moral arbiters? Bigots and racists, probably.
We’re already getting that with the refusal of treatment for Windrush children.
-
I'm still curious about drink drivers who crash. Leave them dying, as a warning to others?
-
I'm still curious about drink drivers who crash. Leave them dying, as a warning to others?
People participating in extreme sports?
-
Can you imagine what a disgusting country this would be, if medical treatment depended on some kind of moral vetting? And who would do the vetting? Who are the moral arbiters? Bigots and racists, probably.
I'm finding it quite alarming that some posters can't see the arguments against this 'moral outrage' approach to the issue.
Alarmed but not surprised. Sadly.
-
I think the Mrs Grundy types have always existed, but the internet gives them more of a voice. Think Mary Whitehouse. Judgmentalism at its nastiest.
-
Enjoying a bowl of Samuel Gawith's 'Commonwealth Mixture' in a billiard pipe as I write. Fuck the health nazis!
Your funeral.
Regards ippy
-
We’re already getting that with the refusal of treatment for Windrush children.
I did not know about this - please can you post some links?
-
I did not know about this - please can you post some links?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/10/denied-free-nhs-cancer-care-left-die-home-office-commonwealth
-
It's horrible and ridiculous, the man came from the Commonwealth and having lived and worked here for so many years must also count. I can only assume the official who told him he'd have to pay was so tied up in red tape, couldn't differentiate between him and a 'foreign visitor'.
I hope we get some follow up to this story - feel sure it will be put right. It's such an outrage.
-
People in similar situations are being denied the right to work, claim benefits and are losing their local authority homes.
-
It's horrible and ridiculous, the man came from the Commonwealth and having lived and worked here for so many years must also count. I can only assume the official who told him he'd have to pay was so tied up in red tape, couldn't differentiate between him and a 'foreign visitor'.
I hope we get some follow up to this story - feel sure it will be put right. It's such an outrage.
he might have done better if he came from a european country, they can get in and treated completely free ..
-
he might have done better if he came from a european country, they can get in and treated completely free ..
that's a reciprocal right, currently
-
Yes at the moment & for us if we are taken ill in an EU country. However the Commonwealth surely has a reciprocal procedure - Malta always had one. The man in the story is a UK citizen though - surely he must be after so many years here. He came here with his mother who nursed in the NHS for goodness sake.
-
At the time this man came into the UK were not Commonwealth citizens considered to be "British" citizens? In addition, he came from a colony and thus he would have been justified in believing that he was a British citizen (or even "subject").
Another own goal for May.
-
At the time this man came into the UK were not Commonwealth citizens considered to be "British" citizens? In addition, he came from a colony and thus he would have been justified in believing that he was a British citizen (or even "subject").
Another own goal for May.
Yes!!!
I think it is just an administrative cock up. In the meantime he suffers but - hopefully not for long as the world and his wife will be up in arms about it
-
Yes!!!
I think it is just an administrative cock up. In the meantime he suffers but - hopefully not for long as the world and his wife will be up in arms about it
Theresa says no!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/22/theresa-may-refuses-to-intervene-over-mans-54000-nhs-cancer-bill-albert-thompson
-
Silly old bat.
Surely it isn't just up to her. The medics involved, the hospital Trust, must be able to make a case and quickly.
Trent might know how it can be achieved.
-
Perhaps it is part of her strategy: preparing the country for a postBrexit paradise governed by Rees Mogg.
-
Not much of a paradise if people can't get NHS treatment.
-
Silly old bat.
Surely it isn't just up to her. The medics involved, the hospital Trust, must be able to make a case and quickly.
Trent might know how it can be achieved.
I wish I did. I had some knowledge of reciprocal agreements when I was doing a spell as an Admissions Manager some 12 years ago. Even then, some agreements were more reciprocal than others. It was an incredibly complicated system. I suspect it has not changed. Our Trust, did in some cases turn a blind eye to some cases, as it was too difficult to establish whether reciprocal treatment was appropriate at different stages of treatment, so instead of trying to claw back money from patients who only qualified for certain parts of their treatment, they allowed all treatment to be done. That may have been tightened up in the intervening period.
I'm getting cold sweats just thinking about it.
-
Not surprised Trent. Yet this poor man's case is so obviously a travesty of justice!He's no 'NHS tourist' or whatever they call them.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/10/denied-free-nhs-cancer-care-left-die-home-office-commonwealth
Thanks - that's awful. The poor man. They accept he has been here for a long time and paid taxes, so I don't see how it can be right for the hospital trust to deny him treatment because he does not have all the required immigration paperwork. There should be procedures for making an exception in this case, even if they are required to follow rules.
-
I'mlookig for an update on this case, feel sure it will be favourable to him but want ocnfirmation.
-
ok, the other day it seemed pretty universal that anyone who does not take a vaccine is dangerous and stupid, yet those who smoke cause themselves and others great harm, those getting fat and disabled harm themselves and take up time of already over worked medical staff and gp's, type 2 diabetes, according to many gp's is linked with being over weight...
those you claim pay in to the nhs, it is a small percentage of a wage, some never earn a wage, it in no way covers the extensive costs of the long term treatment brought about by their own stupidity...
I don't agree take the average man and his earnings.
Who has the largest part of his earnings after tax and insurance.
The Government have more than enough of the tax payers money. Compare the NHS and the wages of MP's and their rises.
The truth is they want the poor poorer and dying in corridors of emergency outlets because their is no beds. The bed crisis is due to closure of hospitals and emergency outlets so they die before they can reach help. JUST LIKE THE BAD OLD USA.
-
I don't agree take the average man and his earnings.
Who has the largest part of his earnings after tax and insurance.
The Government have more than enough of the tax payers money. Compare the NHS and the wages of MP's and their rises.
The truth is they want the poor poorer and dying in corridors of emergency outlets because their is no beds. The bed crisis is due to closure of hospitals and emergency outlets so they die before they can reach help. JUST LIKE THE BAD OLD USA.
Nothing unusual there Sass, you haven't got a clue.
Regards ippy
-
MPs don't actually earn high salaries, Sass. I know they have had a pay rise but that was the first one they'd had for years. An MPs salary was not as much as a head teacher or a GP, it was scandalous how poorly they were paid.n
Some people who work for the NHS are well paid too - I don't quite understand what you mean about that nor what is "the average man and his earnings" (or woman come to that).
However I do agree that the government has a lot of untapped funds & there's no reason for someone to go untreated.
-
However I do agree that the government has a lot of untapped funds & there's no reason for someone to go untreated.
...... and a National Debt of £1,670,432,000,000 and rising.
-
Yeah, tell me about it! However I know for a fact that the gov has some money in a compartment, that many people do not claim or have been intimidated into not pursuing - was Disability Living Allowance & now PLP.
-
Why?
Especially when huge numbers (my local hospital, is the closest tothe UK's major airport) are treated free of charge at point of use having been transported direct from airport to casualty and vanish without paying a penny as soon as cured and prove impossible to trace for payment.
Can you tell us what this huge number is please.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/10/denied-free-nhs-cancer-care-left-die-home-office-commonwealth
This is where all this "give deserving people priority" stuff leads. We are forced to watch people like this man die. Id that what you really want?
-
Can you tell us what this huge number is please.
432 in-patients - medical and 204 in-patients mental - only figures I can find 2003/2004 prior to the opening of Terminal Five.
I asked a couple of members of Out Patients staff who are of the opinion that these are less that a third of those currently being treated.
Knowing kind of comment I am going to get about the above, I did ask, but I cannot name the people who spoke to me as, one, Management wouldn't like it and, two, neither would the Union.
-
432 in-patients - medical and 204 in-patients mental - only figures I can find 2003/2004 prior to the opening of Terminal Five.
I asked a couple of members of Out Patients staff who are of the opinion that these are less that a third of those currently being treated.
Knowing kind of comment I am going to get about the above, I did ask, but I cannot name the people who spoke to me as, one, Management wouldn't like it and, two, neither would the Union.
Those absolute numbers don't really tell us anything much. Is that a lot compared to the number of people treated altogether? Given that it is the closest hospital to Heathrow, don't you think the number of foreign nationals would be unusually high compared to the average across the UK?
Also, should the doctors and nurses refuse to treat them and just watch them die if they can't produce suitable documentation or a credit card?
-
Those absolute numbers don't really tell us anything much. Is that a lot compared to the number of people treated altogether? Given that it is the closest hospital to Heathrow, don't you think the number of foreign nationals would be unusually high compared to the average across the UK?
Also, should the doctors and nurses refuse to treat them and just watch them die if they can't produce suitable documentation or a credit card?
When you take your child to A & E with a severe asthma attack that their inhaler is not enough to help - asthma being a child-killer - and find that the Triage Nurse tells you that there is at least a three hour wait and you cannot hear more than three or four people speaking in English and in the first twenty minutes of your wait three ambulances come in direct from Heathrow with foreign nationals who are immedialtely attended to the relevant numbers pale into insignificance.
Also the quoted figures in my earlier post were in-patiants, they don't include out-patients whose stay was up to but less than 24-hours and are therefore not listed as in-patients.
Regardless of all this I am in no doubt that I am on a hiding to nothing in this matter, so I bow out before the weight of contrary opinions to my own as those contrary opinions are clearly those obtaining currently and there appears to be no chance of them being overturned due to political financial disinterest in doing so.
-
Sounds like a bit of an exaggeration Owl. Also you don't know how many of the foreign nationals will pay for their treatment here, plenty do.
We don't have to pay for hospital treatment in EU countries - at present.
Do you really sit in A&E and listen to foreign accents?
-
I can’t believe anyone comes here as a MH tourist.
-
I can’t believe anyone comes here as a MH tourist.
Indeed it would seem an odd thing. Anyway here's at least an attempt to validate some numbers on health tourism
https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourism-whats-cost/
-
0.3%!
From previous conversations, Owlswing does know some unusual people.So he may know the three out of every hundred who present at A&E. Must say I've never been to A&E and taken note of people's accents, neither have I had a very long wait. I don't live near an airport though.
I'm very glad that if I go to Spain, France or Belgium (& other places), if I collapse I'll be treated.
-
I can well believe that there must be a huge number of tourists at A&E near Heathrow. I can also believe that some travellers end up being sectioned while flying and can’t be sent home until the end of the period of their treatment. I’m not sure how many people would deliberately seek to get treatment here though.
-
Sounds like a bit of an exaggeration Owl. Also you don't know how many of the foreign nationals will pay for their treatment here, plenty do.
We don't have to pay for hospital treatment in EU countries - at present.
Do you really sit in A&E and listen to foreign accents?
Actually, of course, NHS treatment is NOT free - I paid for it every week for 52 years as does every single employed person under retirement age in the UK.
Free service - what bollocks! OK you don't pay at the time because you have paid in advance! AND you can be refused treatment if some knobhead political appointee decides your treatment is too expensive.
-
Actually, of course, NHS treatment is NOT free - I paid for it every week for 52 years as does every single employed person under retirement age in the UK.
Free service - what bollocks! OK you don't pay at the time because you have paid in advance! AND you can be refused treatment if some knobhead political appointee decides your treatment is too expensive.
The official formula is "free at point of use", and long may it remain so.
-
Actually, of course, NHS treatment is NOT free - I paid for it every week for 52 years as does every single employed person under retirement age in the UK.
Free service - what bollocks! OK you don't pay at the time because you have paid in advance! AND you can be refused treatment if some knobhead political appointee decides your treatment is too expensive.
I expect you still pay for the NHS out of your pension.
Do you object to paying for it & do you not want quick treatment if you need to see a doctor? I certainly have no objections, not one bit; my mum had good NHS treatment towards the end of her life. When her GP first thought she might have Ca. and needed to be seen quickly, she referred her to a consultant for an initial private consultation but the the consultant said there was no need, she could be fitted into NHS clinic. No complaints there, mum was well looked after until she died.She also had an emergency visit to A&E after a fall and was happy with that.
My sister has also had some NHS treatment which was excellent after a horse riding accident when her pelvis was fractured. When she had children she had Caesarians and was fine afterwards. She & her husband both work for the NHS.
However we all have anecdotes - maybe you have some not so good. Perhaps share rather than just sounding off about the NHS generally?
-
When you take your child to A & E with a severe asthma attack that their inhaler is not enough to help - asthma being a child-killer - and find that the Triage Nurse tells you that there is at least a three hour wait and you cannot hear more than three or four people speaking in English and in the first twenty minutes of your wait three ambulances come in direct from Heathrow with foreign nationals who are immedialtely attended to the relevant numbers pale into insignificance.
Yes that's right, if a child was in danger of dying because of asthma, the NHS staff would definitely put them to the back of the queue.
/sarcasm
Or let's put it another way. If a foreign parent brought their child in with a life threatening condition that will kill them without treatment would you like to be the one to tell them they must just watch their child die because foreign lives are less important than British ones?
Also the quoted figures in my earlier post were in-patiants, they don't include out-patients whose stay was up to but less than 24-hours and are therefore not listed as in-patients.
I'd still like to know if that is a lot.
Regardless of all this I am in no doubt that I am on a hiding to nothing in this matter, so I bow out before the weight of contrary opinions to my own as those contrary opinions are clearly those obtaining currently and there appears to be no chance of them being overturned due to political financial disinterest in doing so.
-
So no-one on here has had someone left on a trolley in a corridor for a coupke of hours, had an operation postoned /cancelled, been refused treatment on the grounds of cost etc ad infinitum!
We pay millions per year to obtain a 'free' service while the MP's who make the decisions all go private!
Oh f**k it, who the Hell gives shit - I'll just be glad when I can eventually get an appointment with the Podiatry clinic so that the bleeding cracks in the soles of my feet can be treated and I can walk without pain again.
-
I have known someone whose operation was cancelled because a more serious case came in & they found it quite distressing to be admitted to hospital, starved overnight for nothing. When it was all explained they were OK about it and were admitted again the following week. Also know someone on waiting list for hip replacement but is not in great discomfort at the mo, just accepts it. Should happen in about six months though. Not known anyone left on a trolley in a corridor, just read reports of such things.
Nothing to stop you going to your local podiatrist & if they think your foot condition is serious they'll write to the hospital on your behalf. So will your GP and GP surgeries have visiting podiatrists free of charge.
Owlswing your foot condition sounds horrendous & you do need to insist on being seen quickly - get others to support you.
If MPs 'go private' it's because they can choose when they are treated to fit in with commitments. Same goes for anyone who has private medical treatment & they're not all rich people - tho' wouldn't matter if they were, rich people are as entitled to choices as well as poor - many firms give medical insurance to their employees as part of a package. Sometimes including spouses and children which is very useful. I had it at my previous employers, when I left there my husband added me to his medical insurance policy, our kids were on it until they were eighteen.
Anyone can go to A&E and be treated for an emergency - thank goodness!
-
On the issue Owlswing has about so-called "health tourists" clogging up hospital A & E's.
It is perhaps time to remind him and others of the biggest waste of A & E resources. That is namely drink related issues which isn't by and large Johnny Foreigner, but is your own home grown health problem. If some way could be found of changing the behavior of the GBP in this respect then Emergency Departments might stand a better chance of coping with the real emergencies presenting themselves.
Still not much chance of that as it would affect the profits of Tim Martin amongst others.
-
Oh no, he's way beyond worrying about pocket change.
However it sounds as though Owlswing has a very bad problem with his feet, such issues can colour how we feel about other things. I just hope he gets the treatment he needs soon before it gets any worse.