revolution saint

Oh right you seriously think there are people wandering around who actually think the NHS is free? Again no one does. No one is that stupid to even try to pretend it's free. Of course we pay for it, of course it's funded by taxation - that's the whole bleeding point!

Jesus Christ are you deliberately dense? No one, that's not one single person, ever, in the history of the world, on this planet, on this thread has ever suggested the NHS is free. No one. I really don't know how to make that any clearer.

if Wotton landed on the moon I'd be sick as a parrot.

oxymoron surely?

Yep, I'd agree with this. Seems to have a fanbase similar to Prutton - he runs around a bit, doesn't do an awful lot but at least he tries eh?

So to sum up, the claims made about the NHS by the American far right are wrong. Sex changes on the NHS shouldn't be allowed although Kadeem is grateful that they are. The people who argue against the NHS quite like the French system where tax is higher and you pay 30% of the cost as well. The NHS is outdated and socialist (although there's no evidence to back this up and Churchill thought of it first apparently). St. George predictably likes the US system and everyone is happy he does because they don't want him back. Did that cover it all?

I never said it should be catered for - I was responding to the accusation that the NHS is just for terminal and life threatening illness. After that it's a grey area. Incidentally a PCT was recently defeated in court because it didn't believe it should fund sex change operations.

I haven't commented on the French system, I'm not sure why you quoted me on that. You neatly sidestepped the question of why you feel the NHS problems are because they are too socialist though. You're right about Churchill though - he did propose the NHS but only because of the Beveridge report (Beveridge was actually a liberal though) and labour proposals. In any case it doesn't matter because it was the Atlee government that did implement the NHS - there's no way of knowing whether Churchill would or wouldn't though and it doesn't really matter does it? I'll think you'll find that Attlee and particularly Bevin were far more enthusaistic than Churchill though which resulted in a landslide victory for Labour despite Churchill having just emerged victorious from the 2nd world war. As I say, it's irrelevant but worth pointing out.

It's not socialism....how is incentivising people to do their job socialist? I thought it was about distribution of wealth? It sounds to me as if you'd rather return to the roots of the NHS as it was when it first started (ironically by a socialist labour party).

I can only judge you by what you post but no, I don't think you're that thick. However once you say it's healthcare rather than terminal and life threatening then it becomes a question of interpretation.

I'd agree with you there - the treatment you get should not be determined by where you live. This was driven by a need for the patient (or shall we call them customer) being given the choice of where to be treated. It's wrong and unworkable - ironically though it was supposed to make the NHS act more like a business rather than a not for profit health care organisation.

Oh come on, you say there's inefficiency in the NHS and then expect to treat absolutely everything? Of course money will come into the equation but the difference is it's hopefully based on the individual, the illness and the treatment available. It's not arbitrary which was the point.

I thought it was set up to provide health care? Where did Nye Bevin state "We now have a health care service for all, well i say all but I really mean the terminal and life threatening things - the rest of you with minor ailments can **** off". I've had ingrowing toenails, tonsils, adenoids and a hernia treated. None of them life threatening though.

Of course it does and in some cases it's wrong and in others (hopefully the majority) it's based on clinical reasons rather than financial ones. However that wasn't the point of the original post. You were arguing against sex change operations earlier weren't you? If one was refused are you now saying that would be wrong?

So despite everything that's still No, the NHS don't descriminate on age and no they don't place an arbitrary price on six months of life at $20,000. Took a while but we got there in the end!

Rasiak is a loss but if he doesn't want to be here then I don't want him either. The same goes for Saga but we'll need another striker as it's asking a lot to expect Lambert and patterson to play every game, remain injury free and maintain form.

As far as I can see you're the only person getting your knickers in a twist protesting something that no one here has claimed. Back to the original claim (and point of the thread): Does the NHS refuse heart bypass operations for people over 59? Does the NHS value 6 months of life at $22,750?

free at the point of use is different to free. No one said it wasn't.

Apparently Matt Holland is really annoyed. He met up with Pards expecting a contract offer and all he wanted was Holland to go up to Shelvey and Racon and say, "my mate really likes you".

Does the NHS refuse heart bypass operations for people over 59? Does the NHS value 6 months of life at $22,750? Wasn't that the original point? Clearly you want to be angry at the NHS and that's fine but it wasn't really the point of the post in the first place. Try counting to ten or something.

Everyone's probably seen it before but it made me laugh:

Well we could all go on a rant about whether the NHS is good/bad and expensive/free but isn't the original post about treatment being based not on need but on cost effectiveness and the relative merit of treating the patient in question? Isn't it about whether it's true or not that the NHS would refuse certain treatment for elderly patients?

This is what happens when you take on the health care companies in the US. It's sad.

It's too early to tell. Pardew likes good football, played on the ground etc etc but he'll also know what it takes to get out of this division. That will be his priority. When it comes to getting a CB I doubt we'll be going for the ball playing type who will bring it out of defence - we'll have a tough fella who'll lump it away from danger. I would say the style of football will be "effective" and that means winning games or avoiding defeat. How that happens will be determined by who is available and who we're playing. For example if we get a pacy striker then we can expect a more route one style with Lambert getting the flick ons. If we've got Rasiak and Lambert up front then expect a more patient build up with the midfield expected to push on and provide a runner or two.

It looks like "Total football" to me.....