Sal Paradise wrote:So I see you quickly ignore the abuse and inefficiency points - your argument destroyed

Sal Paradise wrote: a cataract surgery is pretty cheap <£1,000 plenty of people either insure or just pay because the NHS will not put you on a list for surgery until you cannot see. So you can't drive, your propensity for falling over increases and your quality of life decreases significantly. Would you pay over the odds in those circumstances - of course you would. Nobody said the private sector is more efficient - only you suggested they weren't. This is about quality of life - you have tooth ache, you don't care what it costs to sort it out. This is where private health care really works and the NHS

The Ghost of '99 wrote:Not really, you come out with some many meaningless tropes it's hard to respond to them all. But if missed appointments is your biggest argument against the NHS it's pretty obvious you're on weak ground. Spend vs results is the metric to use and our relatively meagre spend produces great value for money.

Ah silly me I'd forgotten your backstop response would be that people should just pay for it if they get struck down by illness. Your lack of empathy for or even it seems comprehension of the existence of anyone who can't afford £1,000 surgery is sadly unsurprising.

People love the NHS precisely because it irons out the risk you would seek to place back on the shoulders of the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

wrencat1873 wrote:Labour haven't yet started bribing opposition candidates, something which is illegal and yet again, shows how far the Tories, with Boris at the help and Cummings in the backroom, will stoop.
We now know what "do or die translates to".
Not content with proroguing Parliament, they are offering to "pay" the opposition not to stand.

They have always said that politics is a murky business and it certainly is at the moment.

Much as I despise Ann Widdecombe's views, I do believe that she has been tapped up.
Her comment was that she "would swear on the bible", which for her makes it serious, for others in her former party, probably not.

Sal Paradise wrote:I absolutely agree with your last point - but if the service cant cope then you need to seek out alternatives - if those that can afford it take pressure off the NHS then surely that is a good thing and will help the poorest & most vulnerable access vital services quicker? On further abuse - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there?

Sal Paradise wrote:I absolutely agree with your last point - but if the service cant cope then you need to seek out alternatives - if those that can afford it take pressure off the NHS then surely that is a good thing and will help the poorest & most vulnerable access vital services quicker?

Sal Paradise wrote: On further abuse - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there?

The Ghost of '99 wrote:So what do you want? Starve it of funding so that it's so bad that only the poorest will be willing to wait long enough, assuming they don't die first?

Means test healthcare?

How about we fund it properly instead of going down such vicious routes?

Almost all of them? I know the Daily Mail likes to paint a picture of a nation of dole scrounging layabouts bleeding you rich folks dry with their non stop loitering in A&E but you're not supposed to take it seriously.

In reality medial professionals would rather people consult doctors if they are concerned, even if it turns out to be nothing. That identifies serious problems at an early stage. This isn't rocket science even if it doesn't match your dystopic view of your fellow citizens.

Sal Paradise wrote:If you can afford to access private medical care then that is a much preferable way forward and it takes pressure off the health service - win win all round. I am not suggesting we move to an insurance based system as the US - but those that can afford it should be encouraged to invest in insurance.

Sal Paradise wrote:I see the NHS wants to change the way the 4 hour target is measured to accurately reflect what A&E should be for - surely the identification of serious issues is what you GP is for not A&E?

Cronus wrote:<racist rhetoric>

AXE2GRIND wrote:To be clear, my last post was in direct response to you rant that "I had missed the point" when in reality, I had hit the nail on the head. You claimed that there was nothing wrong with the poster, I pointed out that in reality, there was no control issue. Your subsequent rat about "if we'd done that we'd have been called racist" is neither here nor there. The reality is Britain never lost control of its borders, but a picture of Migrants thousands of miles away with the TAKE BACK CONTROL dogma did its job.
You are a racist by the way. Not based on creed or colour I suspect, but more on blaming someone else for the woes you feel are inflicted on you. Once your imaginary fence goes up, you'll turn your attention inwards, to those unfortunate enough to rely on food banks, government benefits and other "hand outs".

FACT. Britain never lost control of it's borders. Admit that and it'll make anything else you have to spew afterwards more relevant, but I doubt you will.

Facts will always undermine your right wing rhetoric, so you'll type "Riiiiight" in a patronising way to make you feel better, but FACTS are your enemy, so you and your ilk will describe them as "fake news".

Here's another article that you probably cheerleaded too...

[img]snip[/img]

Cronus wrote::BOOHOO: There it is...the tactic of the snowflake