|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 26, 2023 9:01:44 GMT
Regular checks is one thing and in the round is a good idea, taking the advice is a bit different especially now with the 'vaccine advice'. Should the unvaxed be somehow denied treatment becasue they did not accept advice.I could save the NHS large amounts of money tomorrow but then that is another debate Yes, if they get Covid. There we have it. Complete control. 'We advised you not to leave your house and you did and you tripped and fell and broke your leg. You will have to pay for treatment.' Bodily autonomy is supposed to be a sacred principle and things only placed into your body with your complete and unfettered permission with no consequences, other than natural ones, if you do not. It is especially of concern given the questions Andrew Bridgen is asking and just as importantly how he is being ignored and demeaned. We do not just live in interesting times we live in very worrying times. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 26, 2023 9:19:53 GMT
“Should we make NHS health care (Free at the point of delivery) dependent on you having regular tests and taking the advice/ medication prescribed by your doctor/ nurse. Would this self responsibility save the NHS significant amounts of money the tax payer currently has to find. “ Sounds like a good idea at first glance . However it’s pretty much unworkable and open to abusive state control and mission creep into other ‘ free’ state services . Everything is open to abusive state control. If we use that as an excuse not to try then we would close the NHS altogether. I assume assessments and decisions on "free" treatment would be made by clinicians. That said, it would require some considerable thought. Is someone who refuses to give up smoking a drug addict, needing special help? (As would apply to a heroin addict) Is an overweight person Obese or Grossly Obese, deserving of free treatment or not? Equally just to brush off the risk by saying ‘ everything is open to abusive state control’ isn’t the most intelligent or mature approach. Also saying that ignoring the risk and not trying it would close the NHS altogether is ridiculous. Later in your post you seem to be alluding to ‘special help ‘ for people who are unable or unwilling to comply with the orders of the NHS . This defeats the object . If you are going to suggest this NHS strategy then you should at least a acknowledge that the result could and would be quite brutal treatment for those who don’t conform to NHS instructions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2023 9:37:18 GMT
There we have it. Complete control. 'We advised you not to leave your house and you did and you tripped and fell and broke your leg. You will have to pay for treatment.' Bodily autonomy is supposed to be a sacred principle and things only placed into your body with your complete and unfettered permission with no consequences, other than natural ones, if you do not. It is especially of concern given the questions Andrew Bridgen is asking and just as importantly how he is being ignored and demeaned. We do not just live in interesting times we live in very worrying times. The evil ones will push it even futher. If you hold certain views you'll be denied treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 26, 2023 18:12:49 GMT
No. Better a cull of the non-contributors. Ah. So we're back to having to pay for the care we expect. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 26, 2023 18:15:26 GMT
We already do. Quite handsomely. Well, those of us that actually contribute do and we pay for all the non-contributors too.
And therein lies your problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 26, 2023 19:06:34 GMT
We already do. Quite handsomely. Well, those of us that actually contribute do and we pay for all the non-contributors too. And therein lies your problem. So you think we shouldn't pay for those who can't afford it themselves. Oh and we don't pay handsomely compared to the rest of the West. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 26, 2023 19:11:44 GMT
There we have it. Complete control. 'We advised you not to leave your house and you did and you tripped and fell and broke your leg. You will have to pay for treatment.' Bodily autonomy is supposed to be a sacred principle and things only placed into your body with your complete and unfettered permission with no consequences, other than natural ones, if you do not. It is especially of concern given the questions Andrew Bridgen is asking and just as importantly how he is being ignored and demeaned. We do not just live in interesting times we live in very worrying times. You've just read a guy suggesting we cull non contributors and you pick on my post as control. Beyond that you are just making up slippery slopes that don't exist. Its common practice on here. If you can't argue with what's being said make up something worse to argue with. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 26, 2023 19:13:58 GMT
Everything is open to abusive state control. If we use that as an excuse not to try then we would close the NHS altogether. I assume assessments and decisions on "free" treatment would be made by clinicians. That said, it would require some considerable thought. Is someone who refuses to give up smoking a drug addict, needing special help? (As would apply to a heroin addict) Is an overweight person Obese or Grossly Obese, deserving of free treatment or not? Equally just to brush off the risk by saying ‘ everything is open to abusive state control’ isn’t the most intelligent or mature approach. Also saying that ignoring the risk and not trying it would close the NHS altogether is ridiculous. Later in your post you seem to be alluding to ‘special help ‘ for people who are unable or unwilling to comply with the orders of the NHS . This defeats the object . If you are going to suggest this NHS strategy then you should at least a acknowledge that the result could and would be quite brutal treatment for those who don’t conform to NHS instructions. Brush off? I pointed out your claim could apply to anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 26, 2023 19:16:32 GMT
Equally just to brush off the risk by saying ‘ everything is open to abusive state control’ isn’t the most intelligent or mature approach. Also saying that ignoring the risk and not trying it would close the NHS altogether is ridiculous. Later in your post you seem to be alluding to ‘special help ‘ for people who are unable or unwilling to comply with the orders of the NHS . This defeats the object . If you are going to suggest this NHS strategy then you should at least a acknowledge that the result could and would be quite brutal treatment for those who don’t conform to NHS instructions. Brush off? I pointed out your claim could apply to anything. That’s what I said …Just to brush off the risk by saying ‘ everything is open to abusive state control’ isn’t the most intelligent or mature approach. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 26, 2023 19:39:10 GMT
Brush off? I pointed out your claim could apply to anything. That’s what I said …Just to brush off the risk by saying ‘ everything is open to abusive state control’ isn’t the most intelligent or mature approach. OK. Lock up shop lifters? Next thing they'll be locking up everyone Stop asylum seekers ? Next thing they'll be throwing out undesirable Brits. Stop Cock fighting? Next they'll say you can't eat chicken. So lets get rid of all rules in case its a slippery slope. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 26, 2023 19:40:04 GMT
So you think we shouldn't pay for those who can't afford it themselves... You've just read a guy suggesting we cull non contributors and you pick on my post as control. Excuse me? I'm not the chap brought up culls and forced medical treatment. That was you, Zany. As I said: I think it's a terrible idea. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 26, 2023 19:47:48 GMT
So you think we shouldn't pay for those who can't afford it themselves... You've just read a guy suggesting we cull non contributors and you pick on my post as control. Excuse me? I'm not the chap brought up culls and forced medical treatment. That was you, Zany. As I said: I think it's a terrible idea. No, you're the guy who suggested a cull of those who can't afford health care. However Squeezy, I'm honest enough to say I know you didn't mean it. That you were just making a point. So how about you try it. I never suggested forced medical treatment. At most I said that if you refuse the vaccine you don't get free medical treatment if you catch it. Free choice. No vaccine, no free covid treatment. Seems fair to me. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 26, 2023 19:49:56 GMT
There we have it. Complete control. 'We advised you not to leave your house and you did and you tripped and fell and broke your leg. You will have to pay for treatment.' Bodily autonomy is supposed to be a sacred principle and things only placed into your body with your complete and unfettered permission with no consequences, other than natural ones, if you do not. It is especially of concern given the questions Andrew Bridgen is asking and just as importantly how he is being ignored and demeaned. We do not just live in interesting times we live in very worrying times. You've just read a guy suggesting we cull non contributors and you pick on my post as control. Beyond that you are just making up slippery slopes that don't exist. Its common practice on here. If you can't argue with what's being said make up something worse to argue with. It is your thread and I was replying to your comment. Slippery slopes exist all over the place. Saying it is not and will not be is just ignoring the real dangers. The lockdowns and the vaccine rollout gave us a clear picture of how dictatorial government can be and how they can take many with them in support of those dictats many in the public sphere. We remember the major figures who were quite adamant that ostracisation of the 'unvaxed' from society was not just wanted but eminently desirable and badges should be worn by the unvaxed so that the compliant ones could shun them and keep them from public spaces. I am not sure how different that is to wearing a yellow star. We have lived the dangers in what you suggest in a slightly different way. Now you are saying a doctors advice is sacrosanct in terms of the future receipt of treatment and we know how often that advice has been wrong in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 26, 2023 20:29:06 GMT
No, you're the guy who suggested a cull of those who can't afford health care. No, I was paraphrasing your suggested cull of the elderly: I agree, but if people don't want to pay more. Something has to give? A cull of the very old? I'd like to think that you didn't mean it and perhaps you were just making a point but, given the attitude of some on here towards the elderly, well... I never suggested forced medical treatment... Okay, but: ...my scheme could not be totally voluntary. so having been tested the advice you were given would be compulsory if you wanted to continue getting free health care... So, like you said: Or else. And like a terrible idea to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 26, 2023 20:53:06 GMT
That’s what I said …Just to brush off the risk by saying ‘ everything is open to abusive state control’ isn’t the most intelligent or mature approach. OK. Lock up shop lifters? Next thing they'll be locking up everyone Stop asylum seekers ? Next thing they'll be throwing out undesirable Brits. Stop Cock fighting? Next they'll say you can't eat chicken. So lets get rid of all rules in case its a slippery slope. Don’t make false comparisons . It doesn’t help your case . |
|
