Anna B Â Â 1,401 #1 Posted January 27, 2017 Old people will have to be in even greater pain before they will be allowed knee or hip replacement operations, according to this morning's BBC news. Â Anybody who currently asks for a replacement operation is already in considerable pain, and doesn't undergo such a serious operation and lengthy recovery lightly, so just how much more pain do they have to be in to qualify? Believe me, as one who knows, constant pain is one of the most draining, life destroying things you can imagine. Â This is another example of the system yet again failing them when they need it, after a lifetime of paying taxes and paying into the system. Not only that, but it is false economy, as without mobility they will be more dependent and need more care, putting more strain on the system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
DnAuK   10 #2 Posted January 27, 2017 Old people will have to be in even greater pain before they will be allowed knee or hip replacement operations, according to this morning's BBC news. Anybody who currently asks for a replacement operation is already in considerable pain, and doesn't undergo such a serious operation and lengthy recovery lightly, so just how much more pain do they have to be in to qualify? Believe me, as one who knows, constant pain is one of the most draining, life destroying things you can imagine.  This is another example of the system yet again failing them when they need it, after a lifetime of paying taxes and paying into the system. Not only that, but it is false economy, as without mobility they will be more dependent and need more care, putting more strain on the system.  As one such person who could use a new knee and ankle after a sports injury in my youth but is unlikely to get one as I'm not considered in enough pain, you'd think I'd be against this wouldn't you? Yeah it sucks, but you just get on with stuff. Would I deny someone else a hospital bed and treatment for a more serious condition just so I can be in less discomfort? No I wouldn't. If I need it that badly I'll pay for it privately. That's what the Tory Government has always been about. Charge you the minimum taxes and give you the minimum level of public services. What you save on one you can put towards your own treatment if you wish.  Is it perfect? No. Is it what the public voted for? Yes. Just like Brexit. So best get used to living with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jacktari   10 #3 Posted January 27, 2017 As one such person who could use a new knee and ankle after a sports injury in my youth but is unlikely to get one as I'm not considered in enough pain, you'd think I'd be against this wouldn't you? Yeah it sucks, but you just get on with stuff. Would I deny someone else a hospital bed and treatment for a more serious condition just so I can be in less discomfort? No I wouldn't. If I need it that badly I'll pay for it privately. That's what the Tory Government has always been about. Charge you the minimum taxes and give you the minimum level of public services. What you save on one you can put towards your own treatment if you wish.  Is it perfect? No. Is it what the public voted for? Yes. Just like Brexit. So best get used to living with it.  Minimum Taxes? With the Tories in power? You must be joking. The high earners and corporations are let off from paying their fair share, but the rest of us are taxed at every end and turn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Anna B   1,401 #4 Posted January 27, 2017 Minimum Taxes? With the Tories in power? You must be joking. The high earners and corporations are let off from paying their fair share, but the rest of us are taxed at every end and turn.  Again on this morning's news: The tax take from the rich has fallen by £1 Billion this year, in spite of the rich getting richer and the government supposedly cracking down on tax.  I commend DnAuk's selflessness until I got to his most telling sentence: 'If I need it that badly, I'll pay for it myself.' Surely the point is, what about the many people who can't afford to pay for it themselves? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
DnAuK   10 #5 Posted January 27, 2017 (edited) Again on this morning's news: The tax take from the rich has fallen by £1 Billion this year, in spite of the rich getting richer and the government supposedly cracking down on tax. I commend DnAuk's selflessness until I got to his most telling sentence: 'If I need it that badly, I'll pay for it myself.' Surely the point is, what about the many people who can't afford to pay for it themselves?  Then they suffer I'm afraid. Maybe they should have been more careful with money and not <removed> / smoked it away. They could have easily paid into a private medical insurance account if they had wanted to. And if they have never earned enough to do that then maybe they haven't contributed enough to be treat for free anyway.  Clearly those are sweeping statements, but broadly what a capitalist government is about. That's what you'd get in the US and that's what people voted for here. Government clearly cannot give everyone who has a nagging pain for free on the taxes they currently collect. So you have to prioritise who is going to get treatment. That is simply real life. The alternative would be to move to a completely Marxist society, which is what you seem to want. But sadly that doesn't work either. Edited January 27, 2017 by nikki-red Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
samssong   10 #6 Posted January 27, 2017 (edited) Then they suffer I'm afraid. Maybe they should have been more careful with money and not <removed> / smoked it away. They could have easily paid into a private medical insurance account if they had wanted to. And if they have never earned enough to do that then maybe they haven't contributed enough to be treat for free anyway.  Clearly those are sweeping statements, but broadly what a capitalist government is about. That's what you'd get in the US and that's what people voted for here. Government clearly cannot give everyone who has a nagging pain for free on the taxes they currently collect. So you have to prioritise who is going to get treatment. That is simply real life. The alternative would be to move to a completely Marxist society, which is what you seem to want. But sadly that doesn't work either. It does in Cuba if you need an operation you get one regardles of whether you can pay or not and that is why the National Health was formed by a socialist Government . Far to many people have your attitude of I'm alright Jack so sod you. Edited January 27, 2017 by samssong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #7 Posted January 27, 2017 Labour said in their last general election manefesto they would not reverse any cuts and refused to spend more money (or indeed commit any specific number) to the NHS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
iansheff   84 #8 Posted January 27, 2017 Then they suffer I'm afraid. Maybe they should have been more careful with money and not <removed> / smoked it away. They could have easily paid into a private medical insurance account if they had wanted to. And if they have never earned enough to do that then maybe they haven't contributed enough to be treat for free anyway.  Clearly those are sweeping statements, but broadly what a capitalist government is about. That's what you'd get in the US and that's what people voted for here. Government clearly cannot give everyone who has a nagging pain for free on the taxes they currently collect. So you have to prioritise who is going to get treatment. That is simply real life. The alternative would be to move to a completely Marxist society, which is what you seem to want. But sadly that doesn't work either.  Not every one can afford private health insurance especially if on minimum wage, obviously the older you are the more it is, plus if you are unfortunate enough to have pre-existing conditions you may not be covered. I took this from the MSE site and was correct as of January 2017.  For a healthy, non-smoking 35-year-old PROVIDER £ PER YEAR April UK £541 Aviva £713 Bupa £785 VitalityHealth £802 Axa PPP £850 Exeter Family Friendly £957 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Dr Afzal   12 #9 Posted January 27, 2017 Last night on question time someone said the the government bailed the banks out why won`t they bail the NHS out.  Even if it was not a total bail out of the NHS a few billion would help. Look at these figure that the banks received.  **Last December, the National Audit Office published a second report into the costs of the bail-out. That report concluded:  The scale of the support currently provided to UK banks has fallen from a peak of £955bn to £512bn, but the amount of cash currently borrowed by the government to support banks has risen by £7bn [to a total of £124bn] since December 2009.  **This is from 2011 2012 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/12/reality-check-banking-bailout Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
willman   10 #10 Posted January 27, 2017 Again on this morning's news: The tax take from the rich has fallen by £1 Billion this year, in spite of the rich getting richer and the government supposedly cracking down on tax. I commend DnAuk's selflessness until I got to his most telling sentence: 'If I need it that badly, I'll pay for it myself.' Surely the point is, what about the many people who can't afford to pay for it themselves?  Would that be the many who hoard their money away or distribute their wealth before care homes might be needed ?  People earn money so spend it on keeping yourself healthy and well. The contributions paid by every earner keep hospitals open, they aren't a savings plan for when you need something.  I'd rather sell the equity in my home and have a new knee, than release the equity for a world cruise.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
banjodeano   28 #11 Posted January 27, 2017 Labour said in their last general election manefesto they would not reverse any cuts and refused to spend more money (or indeed commit any specific number) to the NHS.  ah, but that was when we didnt have a true Labour party, they couldnt win an election, so they tried to be more like the tories, now we have a socialist at the helm, and when they get into power, i am sure they will be reversed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
lottiecass   17 #12 Posted January 27, 2017 You are dreaming again banjo,its never going to happen with corbyn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...