|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 25, 2023 18:28:06 GMT
The OP never was about a golden era that some posters have tried to imply .
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 25, 2023 19:15:25 GMT
The OP never was about a golden era that some posters have tried to imply . No, it was an implied better situation today had immigration hadn't happened. Its flaw is that it implies everything including pot holes would be cured if immigration hadn't happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 25, 2023 19:17:17 GMT
The OP never was about a golden era that some posters have tried to imply . No, it was an implied better situation today had immigration hadn't happened. Its flaw is that it implies everything including pot holes would be cured if immigration hadn't happened. Yup. Just as I said .The OP never was about a golden era that some posters have tried to imply . |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 25, 2023 19:18:58 GMT
No, it was an implied better situation today had immigration hadn't happened. Its flaw is that it implies everything including pot holes would be cured if immigration hadn't happened. Yup. Just as I said .The OP never was about a golden era that some posters have tried to imply . Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 25, 2023 22:39:11 GMT
The OP never was about a golden era that some posters have tried to imply . No, it was an implied better situation today had immigration hadn't happened. Its flaw is that it implies everything including pot holes would be cured if immigration hadn't happened. What has mass immigration improved?. Can you honestly say that our towns and cities are the better for it? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 25, 2023 22:48:08 GMT
No, it was an implied better situation today had immigration hadn't happened. Its flaw is that it implies everything including pot holes would be cured if immigration hadn't happened. What has mass immigration improved?. Can you honestly say that our towns and cities are the better for it? Its hard to say. We can't tell what the country would be like if they hadn't come. My belief is that without immigration constantly increasing GDP, tax take would be circa 42% to provide the health services we now take for granted. I wonder how many people would turn our population back to 1950 if it meant turning our NHS back to 1950 as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2023 8:13:30 GMT
What has mass immigration improved?. Can you honestly say that our towns and cities are the better for it? Its hard to say. We can't tell what the country would be like if they hadn't come. My belief is that without immigration constantly increasing GDP, tax take would be circa 42% to provide the health services we now take for granted. I wonder how many people would turn our population back to 1950 if it meant turning our NHS back to 1950 as well. GP services in the 1950's were far better than we have now. People had a specific GP who knew you and your background, gave face to face appointments and even did home visits at any time of the day or night. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 8:18:57 GMT
Its hard to say. We can't tell what the country would be like if they hadn't come. My belief is that without immigration constantly increasing GDP, tax take would be circa 42% to provide the health services we now take for granted. I wonder how many people would turn our population back to 1950 if it meant turning our NHS back to 1950 as well. GP services in the 1950's were far better than we have now. People had a specific GP who knew you and your background, gave face to face appointments and even did home visits at any time of the day or night. Yep. Their ability to treat Parkinson's and bowel cancer are well documented. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Nov 26, 2023 8:27:37 GMT
GP services in the 1950's were far better than we have now. People had a specific GP who knew you and your background, gave face to face appointments and even did home visits at any time of the day or night. The Late Mrs P's mother was diagnosed with a life-limiting condition this year, and the local surgery we both use have been excellent. Her GP has already made a number of home visits, as have nursing services. The GPs based there certainly know people and our backgrounds. I don't think our surgery is in any way unusual. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 26, 2023 8:31:58 GMT
GP services in the 1950's were far better than we have now. People had a specific GP who knew you and your background, gave face to face appointments and even did home visits at any time of the day or night. Yep. Their ability to treat Parkinson's and bowel cancer are well documented. Which there is a huge amount of money via charities pumped into cancer research, which in actual fact has nothing to do with how the NHS is run. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 26, 2023 8:37:23 GMT
GP services in the 1950's were far better than we have now. People had a specific GP who knew you and your background, gave face to face appointments and even did home visits at any time of the day or night. Yep. Their ability to treat Parkinson's and bowel cancer are well documented. Assuming an overdose of irony being prescribed here, would you say that the treatments for these diseases would never have been developed if it hadn't been for mass immigration? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 8:37:56 GMT
Yep. Their ability to treat Parkinson's and bowel cancer are well documented. Which there is a huge amount of money via charities pumped into cancer research, which in actual fact has nothing to do with how the NHS is run. Do you think charities cover the cost of cancer research and treatment in this country? In any case that has little to do with the amount of diseases and ailments that were treatable in 1950 compared to now. People like Pacifico want todays level of treatment at 1950's prices. He sees little connection between increased costs and increased treatments. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 8:40:15 GMT
Yep. Their ability to treat Parkinson's and bowel cancer are well documented. Assuming an overdose of irony being prescribed here, would you say that the treatments for these diseases would never have been developed if it hadn't been for mass immigration? My views here have been aired frequently. That we could easily have the NHS of today without immigration if we were prepared to pay for it. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 26, 2023 8:42:01 GMT
Which there is a huge amount of money via charities pumped into cancer research, which in actual fact has nothing to do with how the NHS is run. Do you think charities cover the cost of cancer research and treatment in this country? In any case that has little to do with the amount of diseases and ailments that were treatable in 1950 compared to now. People like Pacifico want todays level of treatment at 1950's prices. He sees little connection between increased costs and increased treatments. No I am just pointing out progress isn't all down to the amount of money the NHS can seem to waste, it also doesn't have much to do with how many people the NHS have to look after today compared with the 1950's. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2023 8:42:26 GMT
GP services in the 1950's were far better than we have now. People had a specific GP who knew you and your background, gave face to face appointments and even did home visits at any time of the day or night. Yep. Their ability to treat Parkinson's and bowel cancer are well documented. Technological advances are not dependent on immigration. Japan has exactly the same access to modern medicine without decades of mass migration. |
|
