revolution saint

I'm not sure it's a question of whether Gillett is better than Wotton but whether Gillett is actually that good. I don't think he is but that's opinions for you. I certainly can't see Gillett as a holding midfielder as some suggest though - he buzzes around a lot and would to my mind be more of a box to box type. Unfortunately I'm just not sure he's that great at it.

Night Johnny. I'm sorry to have shattered a few illusions - there's just one more. Father Christmas isn't real but on the plus side neither are the monsters under the bed.

Oh FFS you even quote a link that says free at the point of need!

Ha ha, you must be on a wind up! Surely no one is that stupid! Did you really think free at the point of use was free? You did, didn't you? I bet you get all excited about winning the reader's digest lucky prize as well.....

I'm sorry but I'm going to keep doing this - where has any politician ever stated the NHS was free? Just give me one quote. I'm glad you agree with the OP though. The rest of your posts are decent - start a thread on them as a general NHS one is just too.....well general....to reach any sort of consensus. The idea that what should and shouldn't be paid for though has actually been set up (to a degree) with NICE. They recommend the drugs which should be used and they have difficult decisions to make - any body that makes them would. You were arguing against them earlier though weren't you? You can't have it both ways - either you want a body that will decide what is and what isn't cost effective or you don't.

True. It's when they breed that annoys me but that's a different debate.....

OK, leaving aside morons no one thinks it's free.

1. Apart from you no one thought it was free. Did that come as a shock when you first realised? 2. It's fine that you want to emulate the French system, that's debate. It wasn't what the thread was about though. However I'm not sure many people would be happy to pay more in taxation and then pay 30% of treatment costs to fund a french style system - you're already moaning about our cheaper version! 3. You were the one who brought up socialism. No one else is interested. Socialism in this country is dead and died years ago. I'd love to debate with you it's various merits but it isn't really relevant. What we have now are two major parties and the only real difference between them is presentation.

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?