The Cost Of Living - Alcohol And The NHS Funding Debate

First topic message reminder :

This blog - different to my usual blogs - has been written in partnership with the author Mark Pearson. I hope patients will read Mark's account of his transplant as a cautionary tale to the damage that alcohol can cause, and that Doctors will read it and gain an insight into patients' mindsets, and how we can better try to help this group earlier on.


Money. It's all about money. There is never enough in the NHS, and funding cannot match the new technology and ever-increasing cost of new drugs, let alone the challenges of an increasingly unwell and growing population.
The debate on NHS care - free at the point of contact for all patients, versus privatisation - where everything is paid for, continues. Various models have been proposed, and the current series on NHS funding decisions NHS: £2billion & Counting on Channel 4 has highlighted some of these. Novelist Mark Pearson was featured in the first show. He went from receiving international media coverage as a Sunday Times bestselling author with James Patterson, to two years later being admitted to hospital for an alcohol-related liver transplant.

Mark is the new type of alcoholic patient that doctors now see. The image of all alcoholics as dishevelled down and outs, swigging vodka or extra-strength cider on a park bench are no longer accurate. As well as increasing numbers of younger patients developing issues with their liver as a result of binge drinking, there is a group of patients whom Mark represents. These are often middle-aged individuals, many of whom do not consider themselves to be alcoholics. They have drunk moderate amounts, consistently, for most of their adult lives. Sometimes socially; often a (generous) glass or two or more with dinner each night. Because they do not wake up craving a drink, and their drink of choice is "palatable" alcohol, they do not associate themselves or conform to the normal perception of an alcoholic. These patients present with raised blood pressure, or raised cholesterol levels. They might have this picked up on an annual check-up, or a work medical. As part of these, patients are asked how much they drink.

Most patients underestimate their alcohol intake, and the concept of units of alcohol is poorly understood. Home measures are inevitably more generous than pub measures. Sometime validated screening questions are asked to try and pick up this group:
"Have you ever felt you should cut down on your drinking? Have people annoyed you by criticising your drinking? Have you ever felt bad or guilty about your drinking? Have you ever had a drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves, or to get rid of a hangover?"

Answering yes to two or more of these questions, indicates a potential problem, and is more accurate at detecting alcohol excess than some of the blood tests used. If these questions aren't asked, or the patient doesn't give honest answers, they are often reassured by blood tests done as part of the routine health check. This includes liver function tests - but tellingly does not include the most sensitive test for alcohol related liver damage (γGT) - unless it has been specifically requested by the doctor. So being told your liver function is "normal" doesn't mean it has not been damaged by alcohol. It usually means "you've told us nothing to make us think you have a drink problem, so we have done the standard liver test which won't always pick up alcohol related damage - and that's come back fine". And so the problem goes undiagnosed. Mark had drunk for most of his life, usually beer, sometimes 4-5 pints a night, sometimes only at weekends.Two years before his liver failure was diagnosed, he had some blood tests done which showed a mild anaemia. But his liver function was reported as normal. He had already started to reduce his drinking by then from previous levels, but more because of some weight gain than any worries about his drinking.

"I had gone weeks without drinking. I guess there are lots of definitions of what an alcoholic is. Was I addicted? Not physically, not really mentally. I was habituated that was for sure; I abused alcohol that is also for sure. If the test for addiction is measured in withdrawal terms then I would say I wasn't addicted. The main thing is people seeing that not considering yourself an alcoholic and still drinking enough to kill yourself is possible. It is important to remember that alcohol can play a part in health problems and ultimately death in a myriad of ways. Initially after what I thought was a stomach bug was getting worse, I phoned NHS111 who assured me to just stay in take plenty of fluids and rest up. I hadn't taken any alcohol since before the sickness started and didn't feel any urge to do so. When my symptoms didn't improve after about 10 days, I phoned my GP who sent me for a blood test. Later that afternoon, the phone rang. A phone call that was to change my life. My GP told me how concerned he was about the level of anaemia I was presenting with. I was admitted to hospital and after lots of tests, advised that my liver wasn't working well. I was discharged and told to radically change my lifestyle or there would be serious consequences. At this stage, no mention was made of whether a transplant was in the frame. When it became apparent my liver was continuing to fail, and jaundice levels rising even after eight months with no alcohol, I came to the point shown in the programme. My fiancée had never considered my drinking to be a huge issue either. She was shocked, horrified and completely supportive. Neither of us had any idea I was walking over a cliff."

Mark volunteered to go on the Channel 4 programme, knowing it would trigger debate:

"I felt it was fair for the public to form an opinion. Even if I didn't like what they had to say. Everyone has the right to join in the vital debate about our NHS. It is too simplistic to think it is simply a matter of party lines - as some would have us believe. So if my filming, and the others who agreed to take part in the programme, stimulates useful discussion then it has done a good thing. I knew I was putting myself up as a bogeyman, but the transplant unit asked me to do it, and I was happy to be able to do something for them, however little, in the grand scale of things, it was. If I helped raise awareness and possibly some people considered joining the organ donation scheme - then it would be very churlish to refuse the man, who if it turned out I needed it, would be saving my life. As it turned out that was exactly the case."
What about the issue of money? Does Mark feel he deserved the NHS to pay for his treatment?

"Katie Hopkins made a point on Twitter that people like me who could afford to have caused damage to myself through alcohol, or drugs, or overeating, or smoking, could also afford to pay for the help they consequently need. The issue she raises is one of responsibility and she is right to raise it. In my case it was quite simple, if you drink any alcohol again you will never be put on the transplant list, and if you drink after being transplanted your liver is very much on its own. It's fair! I am not sure how funding will change for the NHS in the future, but at the moment there are only three options - the NHS pays, the NHS doesn't pay and you don't have it done, or you pay privately. The latter is not an option for organ transplants obviously. If a means-tested system allowed for some contribution, to whatever percentage, to the cost of such an operation, few would turn down the opportunity In my case I certainly couldn't have afforded private care even if it was available for transplants. But if there was a choice between having to pay for it or die, then I of course would have sold my house, anything, to have the treatment I needed."

How did Mark feel when he got the call that there was a liver for him?
"I was extremely relieved and extremely saddened. The abstract concept of receiving a donor's organ was abstract no longer. Someone had died and that gave me the chance to live. Strangely I didn't feel scared anymore. I was aware, from being on the assessment process, how much care was going to be taken care of me and how brilliant, dedicated, driven and genuinely caring all the people in the transplant unit are. From Paul Gibbs the Clinical Director, to Neil the Healthcare Assistant. One of the things that became very clear to me very quickly was the shortage of organs that are available. I wasn't a donor card carrier myself for many years and so have no soap box at all to stand on with this issue. In Holland and other countries it is the rule that you choose to opt out of donor schemes rather than in. It is of course for individuals to make their mind up on these issues and it would be hypocritical for me to say what is right or wrong. So I won't. We are all, hopefully, capable of making our own decisions."
And now?

"The silly thing is I have learned that I am no less sociable and gregarious than I was when I was drinking. I still go to the pub and laugh and enjoy people's company. I don't drink but I don't laugh any less, or love any less, or care for people any less. I do still feel guilty, but guilt without action can lend to self-indulgence. So I am doing what I can and doing it as best as I can to make the donor's family not regret their gift. Not drinking for me, and I know I am only speaking for myself, is genuinely the easiest part of the process. Looking back now I can see how stupid I have been. I was aware of the drinking limits but in my opinion they were set very low deliberately. I know I am not alone in badly drinking above the guidelines. But for me I was stupid. Arrogantly so - for example I was aware that GPs sometimes prescribe double the dose of painkillers. So at home I was regularly taking double the dose of Paracetamol that the box stated. I just thought I was doing what the doctors would have done anyway. Not a good thing for your liver either to be put it ridiculously mildly. No excuses. Stupid. It is no exaggeration to say it was the most humbling and yet uplifting experience of my life. I feel a 100% guilty and ashamed, and a 100% grateful and life affirmed. The donor and his family have given me my life and the transplant team made me able to accept that gift. I truly hope they are not disappointed that it was me, should they learn so, and I will do absolutely everything to both treasure and nurture the gift I have been given."

Every patient has a responsibility to safeguard their own health. There are a million ways to find out how to do this, but the NHS cannot enforce healthy living. Ultimately it is the responsibility of each individual. Ignoring the advice on weight, alcohol, smoking, and exercise is no longer an option. In order to continue providing a basic service, tough funding decisions have to be made. It is not only a small group of patients - drug users, alcoholics, whoever you deem it to be - who drain NHS resources; it is all of us by our actions every day. At the current rate, the great NHS safety net may not be there when you need it, or you may find yourself on the receiving end of a decision not to fund your care, based on your health choices. The NHS is a very fragile glass house and no one can afford to throw too many stones.
Mark before
And after his transplant

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Second Veya seems to think there is no need to be responsible for ourselves then why should anyone be responsible for others?
That is what you are saying Veya, as the concept is being responsible which we all have to be for others and not just ourselves.
We as huamans further cause problems to our bodies because we are not responsible with them, you either advocate responsibility or you do not, which would mean you back nobody being responsible with anything.

Nail head

IT is called FREEDOM
You Freedom hater

Responsibility is for the STATE to worry about

Why should individuals be responsible if the state wont be

why not just kill the rich guy and take his stuff
why not shot cops
If society anit helping those in need to give more money to the rich  Fucking BURN IT  
JUST END SOCIETY NOW
Your opinion make me not believe in democracy
FREEDOM TO WATCH YOUR WIFE SUFFER WHEN NOT WALKING MILES FOR A PITTANCE!! is what you want!!!
you selfish greedy piece of shit

YOU ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD..

Wrong on every level, our natural instinct like many other species is taking responsibility for others, which you keep avoiding at tevery level.
Animals take the responsibility of raising their young of which if they did not they would die.

You are making the most silliest argument to now excuse people being irresponsible if others are not.
That is just plain dumb, when the matter is that we should take responsibility of others that need help. You are basically advocating not helping and refugee, not sending aid etc.
I am not saying people should not have a choice, we all have a choice, but if you advocate a choice of irresponsibility this view makes being responsible for anything redundent and then we should not bother teaching people to care.
This choice should come naturally to people, and if it does not it is because those people are selfish with no care of what affect they have on others or too themselves.
So no I am afraid you are what is wrong with the world, which would allow murder, rape, genocide off a view of having no responsibility to others or yourself.

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Do you?
You just posted natural cures for cancer.
Chemo does not cure cancer either, seriously you said you understand more medically than myself, that was just easily disproved.

I suggest you read some real science:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-marijuana-as-the-new-herbalism-part-2-cannabis-does-not-cure-cancer/

No i pointed out a possible herbal cure for cancer as was your request

quote
"I mean what next, you will be telling me of natural cures of cancer."


but you have obviously done more than 20 Medical Studies to dismiss expert opinion ,i look forward to reading your report ,and which journal will i find that in exactly oh!!! that right the hitch-hikers guide to bullshit    and uninformed ramblings and delusions of  importance  ....hence nobody including me take you seriously
your a bit of a also ran i am afraid

This is expert studies, which shows it is not a cure for cancer.
I have certainly researched far more than yourself and clkaims to natural cures are just that, claims.
Hencw why I would never take your advice on this matter because you would place someone's life in danger based off poor claims to something that has not been proven to cure.

Can cannabinoids treat cancer?

There is no doubt that cannabinoids – both natural and synthetic – are interesting biological molecules. Hundreds of scientists around the world are investigating their potential in cancer and other diseases – as well as the harms they can cause – brought together under the blanket organisation The International Cannabinoid Research Society.
Researchers first looked at the anticancer properties of cannabinoids back in the 1970s, and [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=cannabinoid cancer]many hundreds of scientific papers[/url] looking at cannabinoids and cancer have been published since then. This Wellcome Witness seminar is also fascinating reading for aficionados of the history of medical cannabis, including the scientific, political and legal twists. [Updated KA 26/03/14]
But claims that this body of preclinical research is solid “proof” that cannabis or cannabinoids can cure cancer is highly misleading to patients and their families, and builds a false picture of the state of progress in this area. For example, we’ve taken a look at more than 30 scientific papers that are often claimed to “prove” that cannabis cures various types of cancer. [Updated KA 21/07/14]


http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/

I will repeat for Veya, responsibility is a choice, you choose to be irresponsible.
That is selfish beyond belief.

we have drunk alcohol for Millennia IF people still choose to they should be allowed too NOT everyone has something important do
not everyone has great fun lives... In FACT the MAJORITY of people use alcohol or drugs to relax and wake up.. Caffeine is also hugely bad. THIS IS BEING Human we are not machines that just need pure fuel to live (we can survive but is that really living?)

YOU Want to DENY EVERYONE Freedom of choice SO THEY CAN ONLY PICK From the tiny list of food you gave them to choose from... AND why are you telling anyone shit!!!
You have no right to! as shown repeatable YOU ARE NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH to TELL ANYONE something is FACT.

The only issue with just expanding the NHS is that it costs money
they only reason why you don't have the money is because YOU let a few rich people have it all..
SO your lets make people suffer IF they don't follow Strict rules IS NOT EVEN NECESSARY!!! Just STOP GIVING MORE MONEY TO THE RICH !!!! they are not earning it !!! the vast majority of millionaires are inherited wealth there is almost NO NEW MONEY any more.. And You think they should be given MORE because they were born with so much

FUCK YOU, YOU ARE A DUMB MORON THAT WILL SELL OUT 99% of people to give some rich ---- more money.
AGAIN YOU ARE THE PROBLEM WITH THE WORLD
you and your tribal bullshit (keep voting RW cause your daddy did Fucking peasant)
LEARN SOMETHING You dumb hick, learn some maths and science and stop living your life 100% on faith in people that ARE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF YOU!!! Yeah believe the guy that is selling you something Good work Dumb ass, the fact you would then throw away things that society has worked for generations to establish Because your too fucking lazy to learn maths and just want to trust the rich guy and the TV. cause it so much easier than THINKING FOR YOURSELF

Democracy DOES NOT WORK because men like you exist

ANY ONE arguing Against the NHS or Medicare in favour of a US style system (that even they are getting rid of because of how hugely it lets down society) is FUCKED IN THE HEAD!!!!

Brasidas wrote:I will repeat for Veya, responsibility is a choice, you choose to be irresponsible.
That is selfish beyond belief.

You don't believe people can be irresponsible you saying it is beyond your comprehension

ARE YOU A FUCKING alien
Do you know another human being???

Have you not seem the irresponsible fucks that are in UK parliament?

Fuck your responsibility in the ass. It woudl be nice if people were but they are not AND I will not expect the poor man too until the rich is FIRST
the one that benefits from society should be responsible for maintaining it

OTHERWISE
BURN THE FUCKER DOWN

Never seen such idiotic asnwers avoiding all my points where at no point did I say people should not ever drink alcohol, in fact in moderation it is actually good for the body. That is just the most stupid attempt again to avoid the whole issue around responsibility.
So lets dumb this down further for the ignorant Aussie twat.

If you do not belive in responsibility, then why do you bother to even eat? If you do not eat, you strave to death, thus we all are responsible enought to ensure we eat or we die, where again many are also responsible to to over indulge and eat healthy as of the risks of over indulging such foods can be dangereous to our bodies.

At no point is people telling you what to do but the best advice for you and if you do not take that advice then on your head be it, like the ignorant twat that you are Veya, who as I stated before you need to be sectioned because you are as batty as they come.

At every turn yuo have tried to reflect away from the point on responsibility and bring up rich people, where this also includes them being responsible through choice, nolt just the poor, showing your point is again as stupid as they come.

Now stop being a pathetic little weasel and answer my questions, or as stated you will have proved beyond doubt you are the thickest twat know in forum history.

Wrong on every level, our natural instinct like many other species is taking responsibility for others, which you keep avoiding at tevery level.
Animals take the responsibility of raising their young of which if they did not they would die.

You are making the most silliest argument to now excuse people being irresponsible if others are not.
That is just plain dumb, when the matter is that we should take responsibility of others that need help. You are basically advocating not helping and refugee, not sending aid etc.
I am not saying people should not have a choice, we all have a choice, but if you advocate a choice of irresponsibility this view makes being responsible for anything redundent and then we should not bother teaching people to care.
This choice should come naturally to people, and if it does not it is because those people are selfish with no care of what affect they have on others or too themselves.
So no I am afraid you are what is wrong with the world, which would allow murder, rape, genocide off a view of having no responsibility to others or yourself.


The point here is on being responsible or not, and some thinking they know better based off it seems the worst education system in the world, or just that Beya is such an ignorant wally. As at no point have I ever said I want to take away choice, that is you as per usual lying out of your arse because you are getting made to look stupid again and people can see your poor attempts at inventing things not even claimed.

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I will repeat for Veya, responsibility is a choice, you choose to be irresponsible.
That is selfish beyond belief.

You don't believe people can be irresponsible you saying it is beyond your comprehension

ARE YOU A FUCKING alien
Do you know another human being???

Have you not seem the irresponsible fucks that are in UK parliament?

Fuck your responsibility in the ass. It woudl be nice if people were but they are not AND I will not expect the poor man too until the rich is FIRST
the one that benefits from society should be responsible for maintaining it

OTHERWISE
BURN THE FUCKER DOWN

Homophobic.

Intolerance.

Never claimed people cannot be responsible, many are in rasing children, others are not and neglect children.

Everyone has a choice which you seem to neglect at every turn.

So simnple question, is it our responsiblity to raise our own children that we decide to bring into this world?

Good god it's quite simple really!

There are people in real need of medical treatment - a child with cancer, the guy who broke his foot playing football, the woman having a troubled pregnancy, the old lady who had a fall due to old age.....etc etc

I think those that are being over-excessive with any type of non-essential (wine, doughnuts, drugs) are a drain on the NHS.

I'd like the know the figures for the druggies, alcoholics and obese - how many of these actually worked to pay taxes for the medical help they seek?

My opinion is this: if you find yourself with terrible health due to something you are putting in your body then stop! Don't whine and moan and expect a never-ending supply of money to be thrown at you - especially if you haven't paid taxes!

Lets take a scenario. A child grows up in a household where the father is a drunk and abusive and the the mother, instead of leaving because she feels worthless, stays. The boy is physically abused by his father. He swears he will never drink when he grows up. However, the mental scars start him on the road to drinking and soon he is addicted.

Should we not treat him?

Who are we to judge who is 'worthy' and who isn't, and no-one knows why people do things because they can't see inside other people's heads. Do we have to pass a morality test now before we get treatment?

risingsun wrote:Lets take a scenario.  A child grows up in a household where the father is a drunk and abusive and the the mother, instead of leaving because she feels worthless, stays.  The boy is physically abused by his father.   He swears he will never drink when he grows up.   However, the mental scars start him on the road to drinking and soon he is addicted.

Should we not treat him?

Who are we to judge who is 'worthy' and who isn't, and no-one knows why people do things because they can't see inside other people's heads.  Do we have to pass a morality test now before we get treatment?  

Did he have a choice over whether to drink?
Yes
Addiction is a problem and needs the support and help needed.
This also is about though people taking responsibility for their actions they take in life. For one why has this person gone down this road and to recognise why they have used alcohol as a substitute for dulling out problems.
You  help this person recognise it is not helping them.
You advise and support.
This is about people understanding health and life choices.
He does also need to understand it is his responsibility in life though and how such an addiction will decrease his life expectancy greatly, let alone the other areas this may affect his life.

eddie wrote:Good god it's quite simple really!

There are people in real need of medical treatment - a child with cancer, the guy who broke his foot playing football, the woman having a troubled pregnancy, the old lady who had a fall due to old age.....etc etc

I think those that are being over-excessive with any type of non-essential (wine, doughnuts, drugs) are a drain on the NHS.

I'd like the know the figures for the druggies, alcoholics and obese - how many of these actually worked to pay taxes for the medical help they seek?

My opinion is this: if you find yourself with terrible health due to something you are putting in your body then stop! Don't whine and moan and expect a never-ending supply of money to be thrown at you - especially if you haven't paid taxes!

Hi eddie

My view is like with have with smoking, that it increases the chances of health issues, you thus place a higher tax on alcohol and sugary foods.
I agree people should not moan if they are placing their lives in risk by ignoring sound medical advice.

risingsun wrote:Lets take a scenario.  A child grows up in a household where the father is a drunk and abusive and the the mother, instead of leaving because she feels worthless, stays.  The boy is physically abused by his father.   He swears he will never drink when he grows up.   However, the mental scars start him on the road to drinking and soon he is addicted.

Should we not treat him?

Who are we to judge who is 'worthy' and who isn't, and no-one knows why people do things because they can't see inside other people's heads.  Do we have to pass a morality test now before we get treatment?  

Yes he should be treated - with therapy and if necessary, medication.
He should be treated for as long as he treats himself and doesnt return to drink.
He should be given one chance to slip-up (fall off the wagon) and after that treatment is withdrawn.

I think you'll find that most people, knowing they have limited and timed access and help, will help themselves faster.
I do not believe in throwing money time and again at someone who just keeps falling off the drink or drug or food wagon.

One chance and one time allowed for a slip. You have to draw the line somewhere.

You really think things are that simple? The chemical reaction that people set up in their brains when they are addicted don't just go away when they stop, nor is therapy a cure all that works in six weeks and then you are ok. Human beings are much more complicated than that.

risingsun wrote:You really think things are that simple?   The chemical reaction that people set up in their brains when they are addicted don't just go away when they stop, nor is therapy a cure all that works in six weeks and then you are ok.  Human beings are much more complicated than that.

Like I said. Help given whilst the person is helping themselves.
If the person refrains from drink he can have therapy until the demons are vanquished.
If he falls off the wagon, one more chance.

You think he will think harder, try harder, take therapy and help a lot more seriously if he knows he only has one chance and then a second chance if he slips up?

Everyone behaves better if they know they have a certain time limit or chance.
Everyone. No matter what the circumstances.

If you think you have unlimited help and chances....what do you think that creates sassy?
It creates a chancer.

risingsun wrote:You really think things are that simple?   The chemical reaction that people set up in their brains when they are addicted don't just go away when they stop, nor is therapy a cure all that works in six weeks and then you are ok.  Human beings are much more complicated than that.

Yes It is complex where the addiction takes control of them and it can take a life time of control for some and others once they get dry they stay dry. So yes humans are complicated, but this does not let the addict off the hook of once recognising they have a problem to start down the road of recovery with support and most importantly self help. This means they themselves once recognising they have an addiction are taking responsibility for their addictioon or to the point of combating this addiction. Once down this road they have to make a commitment to stop drinking, set goals, medical assistance if needed to combat the withdrawl symptoms, but one of the biggest aspect they all have to find is new meaning to their lives. So most of this is going to have to come from the individual themselves. So again here responsibility is a big key part to overcomning the addiction.

eddie wrote:

risingsun wrote:You really think things are that simple?   The chemical reaction that people set up in their brains when they are addicted don't just go away when they stop, nor is therapy a cure all that works in six weeks and then you are ok.  Human beings are much more complicated than that.

Like I said. Help given whilst the person is helping themselves.
If the person refrains from drink he can have therapy until the demons are vanquished.
If he falls off the wagon, one more chance.

You think he will think harder, try harder, take therapy and help a lot more seriously if he knows he only has one chance and then a second chance if he slips up?

Everyone behaves better if they know they have a certain time limit or chance.
Everyone. No matter what the circumstances.

If you think you have unlimited help and chances....what do you think that creates sassy?
It creates a chancer.

you can treat the symptoms but One a alcoholic always a alcoholic

eddie wrote:

risingsun wrote:You really think things are that simple?   The chemical reaction that people set up in their brains when they are addicted don't just go away when they stop, nor is therapy a cure all that works in six weeks and then you are ok.  Human beings are much more complicated than that.

Like I said. Help given whilst the person is helping themselves.
If the person refrains from drink he can have therapy until the demons are vanquished.
If he falls off the wagon, one more chance.

You think he will think harder, try harder, take therapy and help a lot more seriously if he knows he only has one chance and then a second chance if he slips up?

Everyone behaves better if they know they have a certain time limit or chance.
Everyone. No matter what the circumstances.

If you think you have unlimited help and chances....what do you think that creates sassy?
It creates a chancer.

And what is wrong with that
WE CAN SUPPORT A CHANCER
we just have tax the rich properly STOP giving them loop holes and tax havens and When they STEAL off the tax man actually get the money back and charge them as the thieves they are.

this whole argument is REALLY does society want to protect it members (even if they are fuck ups) OR do we think that the 1 in thousand people born with insane amounts of money should be allowed to make more money and pay less tax through the abuse of the loop holes and the financial system.
Do we want serfs and kings? or do we want equality?

Eddie, you are sounding seriously sanctimonious and are greatly under estimating the complexities of mental problems (because that is the basis of most addictions).

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

Like I said. Help given whilst the person is helping themselves.
If the person refrains from drink he can have therapy until the demons are vanquished.
If he falls off the wagon, one more chance.

You think he will think harder, try harder, take therapy and help a lot more seriously if he knows he only has one chance and then a second chance if he slips up?

Everyone behaves better if they know they have a certain time limit or chance.
Everyone. No matter what the circumstances.

If you think you have unlimited help and chances....what do you think that creates sassy?
It creates a chancer.

And what is wrong with that
WE CAN SUPPORT A CHANCER
we just have tax the rich properly STOP giving them loop holes and tax havens and When they STEAL off the tax man actually get the money back and charge them as the thieves they are.

this whole argument is REALLY does society want to protect it members (even if they are fuck ups) OR do we think that the 1 in thousand people born with insane amounts of money should be allowed to make more money and pay less tax through the abuse of the loop holes and the financial system.
Do we want serfs and kings? or do we want equality?

That had absolutely no relevance to the point Eddie was making.
It is conjecture what you believe in regards to how much people should pay, based off your views.
What you are actually wanting is inequality, as how do you provide equal taxes based off so many different wages?
If you set levels based on set amounts of pay, then plenty of people within each bracket will either be better or worse off than others, hence why it would near impossible to have an equality on paying taxes.
The only way would be to limit the amount of wages people have, which is then taking away their rights to choose how much they can earn.
Nobody is saying richer people should not pay their fair share, but that is the point and how we define as to what is fair, which is very subjective indeed.

I hate to see the terms ‘junkies’ and ‘alkie’s’ getting thrown around like confetti simply because I see people that are addicted to drugs or alcohol as victims of a society that they were tossed into, often from broken homes, domestic abuse, victims of crime, mental bullying -  even from within their own family. Soldiers of war who suffer from the most heinous images scarred into their minds.  Ex soldiers make up a high number of homeless people living on our streets along with young people so seriously abused and cast aside that they don’t trust adults anymore.

These are all vulnerable people who need help which they can get but they do lapse and if they do that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to help them.  I’m not for giving up on them and I’m sure our medical practitioner’s wouldn’t give up either because this is Britain, we are British and in the main we are not like that

Irn Bru wrote:I hate to see the terms ‘junkies’ and ‘alkie’s’ getting thrown around like confetti simply because I see people that are addicted to drugs or alcohol as victims of a society that they were tossed into, often from broken homes, domestic abuse, victims of crime, mental bullying -  even from within their own family. Soldiers of war who suffer from the most heinous images scarred into their minds.  Ex soldiers make up a high number of homeless people living on our streets along with young people so seriously abused and cast aside that they don’t trust adults anymore.

These are all vulnerable people who need help which they can get but they do lapse and if they do that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to help them.  I’m not for giving up on them and I’m sure our medical practitioner’s wouldn’t give up either because this is Britain, we are British and in the main we are not like that

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

risingsun wrote:You really think things are that simple?   The chemical reaction that people set up in their brains when they are addicted don't just go away when they stop, nor is therapy a cure all that works in six weeks and then you are ok.  Human beings are much more complicated than that.

Like I said. Help given whilst the person is helping themselves.
If the person refrains from drink he can have therapy until the demons are vanquished.
If he falls off the wagon, one more chance.

You think he will think harder, try harder, take therapy and help a lot more seriously if he knows he only has one chance and then a second chance if he slips up?

Everyone behaves better if they know they have a certain time limit or chance.
Everyone. No matter what the circumstances.

If you think you have unlimited help and chances....what do you think that creates sassy?
It creates a chancer.

And what is wrong with that
WE CAN SUPPORT A CHANCER
we just have tax the rich properly STOP giving them loop holes and tax havens and When they STEAL off the tax man actually get the money back and charge them as the thieves they are.

this whole argument is REALLY does society want to protect it members (even if they are fuck ups) OR do we think that the 1 in thousand people born with insane amounts of money should be allowed to make more money and pay less tax through the abuse of the loop holes and the financial system.
Do we want serfs and kings? or do we want equality?

l

Why would you assume I am on the side of tax-Dodgers?

Actually, people who don't work due to drugs and over-eating also dodge tax by not working

risingsun wrote:Eddie, you are sounding seriously sanctimonious and are greatly under estimating the complexities of mental problems (because that is the basis of most addictions).

I'd love to put my way into practice sassy. Because "your" way isn't working, is it?

Irn Bru wrote:I hate to see the terms ‘junkies’ and ‘alkie’s’ getting thrown around like confetti simply because I see people that are addicted to drugs or alcohol as victims of a society that they were tossed into, often from broken homes, domestic abuse, victims of crime, mental bullying -  even from within their own family. Soldiers of war who suffer from the most heinous images scarred into their minds.  Ex soldiers make up a high number of homeless people living on our streets along with young people so seriously abused and cast aside that they don’t trust adults anymore.

These are all vulnerable people who need help which they can get but they do lapse and if they do that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to help them.  I’m not for giving up on them and I’m sure our medical practitioner’s wouldn’t give up either because this is Britain, we are British and in the main we are not like that

Nothing to do with being British, what a poor racial view to have. It is in human nature to want to help others in the main, where we see people take responsibility to help others from the moment they are born to when they are sick, old, disabled etc. Not all want to help of course because some people are selfish, indifferent or just do not care. Thankfully many people do care, we see this in abundance daily.
This goes back to my whole point about responsibility and having responsibility and people should want to help not because of what land they are born in which is defined as a nation but that we are human and want to help.

Er - we haven't got 'my way' we have the Tory way where billions of pounds that could be used for the health service, in the form of taxes that the rich don't pay, are not in the economy to be used for the health service.  They are also paying billions of pounds for Trident, which the Labour will keep, which I think is very, very wrong.   My way would be scrap Trident and go after every rich tax dodger etc etc.  We would then have plenty of money for the NHS.

risingsun wrote:Er - we haven't got 'my way' we have the Tory way were billions of pounds that could be used for the health service in the form of taxes that the rich don't pay are not in the economy to be used for the health service.  They are also paying billions of pounds for Trident, which the Labour will keep, which I think is very, very wrong.   My way would be scrap Trident and go after every rich tax dodger etc etc.  We would then have plenty of money for the NHS.

How is Labour any different?
No party can sing praises here when they have allowed billions to be lost on tax avoidance of they may pay some more on some policies than others. So you would scrap our defence, no thanks. As much as I would like to give as much money as possible, until you rid the world of people who want to destroy the lives of others and more so with people who hold power and can in fact destroy the whole way of life for a nation, I will stick to placing aside money to our defense which helpds deter these people from destroying us.

eddie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

risingsun wrote:You really think things are that simple?   The chemical reaction that people set up in their brains when they are addicted don't just go away when they stop, nor is therapy a cure all that works in six weeks and then you are ok.  Human beings are much more complicated than that.

Like I said. Help given whilst the person is helping themselves.
If the person refrains from drink he can have therapy until the demons are vanquished.
If he falls off the wagon, one more chance.

You think he will think harder, try harder, take therapy and help a lot more seriously if he knows he only has one chance and then a second chance if he slips up?

Everyone behaves better if they know they have a certain time limit or chance.
Everyone. No matter what the circumstances.

If you think you have unlimited help and chances....what do you think that creates sassy?
It creates a chancer.

And what is wrong with that
WE CAN SUPPORT A CHANCER
we just have tax the rich properly STOP giving them loop holes and tax havens and When they STEAL off the tax man actually get the money back and charge them as the thieves they are.

this whole argument is REALLY does society want to protect it members (even if they are fuck ups) OR do we think that the 1 in thousand people born with insane amounts of money should be allowed to make more money and pay less tax through the abuse of the loop holes and the financial system.
Do we want serfs and kings? or do we want equality?

l

Why would you assume I am on the side of tax-Dodgers?

Actually, people who don't work due to drugs and over-eating also dodge tax by not working

yes that is right
But the actual sum they are taking is the difference.

SO then they are both bad... so do you take from the poorest with the least OR the the person that has taken a far large number and CAN afford it, will still be living well and truly above average after you take the funds required to support the entire community are you Robin Hood Or the Sheriff

eddie wrote:

risingsun wrote:Eddie, you are sounding seriously sanctimonious and are greatly under estimating the complexities of mental problems (because that is the basis of most addictions).

I'd love to put my way into practice sassy. Because "your" way isn't working, is it?

Ask anyone in public health if all the problems could be fixed with enough funding...
If the community give the resources we can do it, currently a small section of the community is draining far more than the give and it is not drug addicts. they also have the money to pay for TV adverts and editorials to convince people to vote to let them take more and pay less toward maintaining the society that gives them such and elevated position.

so tax the SOURCE of the problem
and in reality we are NOT talking about the "alki" here

what costs the NHS more than anything else is the stupid moronic binge drinking idiots who cant go out for a nights fun without getting pissed as a newt, and then getting injured or alcohol poisoning....

these are NOT alkis in the mormal sense...just irresponsible fools

personally i'd close the night clubs and "club" type pubs and reduce opening hours back to what they were i the 80's 90's

I'd also round up the drunken youth and find em something to keep them occupied in an evening and at weekends for about 12 months...like breaking rocks....


I'm only glag I am a competent first aider and well capable of dealing with even moderately serious cuts/gashes and such like.....

cos I collect a few now and again (occupational hazzard of playing with the toys I do, ask any wood machinist) and I certainly aint spending hours in A&E waithing for drunken yobs to be pushed up the queue "to get them out of the way"

not long back I actually near on created a riot at A&E, because a young kid with a nasty sclap wound that was bleeding AND quite clearly very painful kept being ignored whilst assorted junkies and drunks got wafted through...

I told the charge nurse that one more and the hospital manager would a) be summoned
and b) recorded as to his reply....moreover the NEXT drunk wafted through would be needing surgery to remove my boot from his ass on th eway out the door....

Boils my piss....

alkis...the down and out are actually quite rare.....

and darkness is also right

there are so many that use and abuse the system to focus on one of the poorest and least able to fix their issues is silly

Do you have Medical centres (for not life threatening stuff) ? we do and they cut down the number of drunks in emergency, plus much quicker if you just have a minor break or need a few stitches. Probably the only issue with them is that it can be a little too easy to get medication (some are used for recreation), mainly because you are not always going to see the same doctor, although they are starting a register to limit people doctor shopping to get extra meds.

eddie wrote:

risingsun wrote:You really think things are that simple?   The chemical reaction that people set up in their brains when they are addicted don't just go away when they stop, nor is therapy a cure all that works in six weeks and then you are ok.  Human beings are much more complicated than that.

Like I said. Help given whilst the person is helping themselves.
If the person refrains from drink he can have therapy until the demons are vanquished.
If he falls off the wagon, one more chance.
You think he will think harder, try harder, take therapy and help a lot more seriously if he knows he only has one chance and then a second chance if he slips up?
Everyone behaves better if they know they have a certain time limit or chance.
Everyone. No matter what the circumstances.
If you think you have unlimited help and chances....what do you think that creates sassy?
It creates a chancer.

wow. tad harsh. still you're entitled to that view.
but what about the functioning alcoholic or drug User who is holding down a job of some sorts and still paying their taxes?
sometimes it takes more than one try at sobriety - sometimes many before the person can overcome their addiction - as korben said once ....always. so we just write off those people do we because they couldn't do it the first time? I don't like wasting my taxes and resources on substance abusers but you know what? I'd rather they have a safety net in case one day I or any of my family or friends need one too.
there will always be changers in any type of system....housing, medical, unemployment

Cass, I firmly believe that as people get older they take the piss more than when they were a kid.
Know why?
Becasue they can.

Think about that.
What would happen if we all knew that we only had that one chance (then one final chance?)

I think they'd be more successful cases of people giving up for good.

Want do we have now???

It's called tough love and it works.

The advice is you live with a druggie or an alcoholic is to not keep on helping them as you're actually creating and helping them stay hooked.

One chance and one chance to slip.
If people knew that that's alll they had - they may take it more seriously.

Not sure why people fidn that hard it understand.

Some people do take the piss Eddie, nobody I think would deny that, but addiction is somnething out of the control of the individual, where it controls their lives, which is difficult to resolve. Tough love does not work on addiction, because if you take that view who is going to come forward when the vast majority find it difficult to recognise they have a problem. All you are going to do then is ensure many will stay addicted and unable to combat their addiction. This is a medical problem you need to look into more to understand.

eddie wrote:Cass, I firmly believe that as people get older they take the piss more than when they were a kid.
Know why?
Becasue they can.

Think about that.
What would happen if we all knew that we only had that one chance (then one final chance?)

I think they'd be more successful cases of people giving up for good.

Want do we have now???

It's called tough love and it works.

The advice is you live with a druggie or an alcoholic is to not keep on helping them as you're actually creating and helping them stay hooked.

One chance and one chance to slip.
If people knew that that's alll they had - they may take it more seriously.

Not sure why people fidn that hard it understand.

Fully in agreement with you here Eds. I think people should be given chances, if they are treated once for some kind of self-indulgence induce 'problem' (over eating, smoking, drugs etc) then they should be warned. Two more strikes and that's it. It seems so many people have some kind of 'addiction' they are 'helpless' to control thesedays. As you say, slam the harsh reality in their face and they may try a little harder- certainly the situation today is absurd. People wanting gastric bands, binge drinkers wanting stomach pumps etc should be expected to pay or slapped with a massive bill for whatever service they used. It is nonesense to think they should be as irresponsible as they like and use the NHS as their fall back.

^veya, I haven't seen anyone here saying we should ban anything- so no freedoms are being infringed upon. If we didn't even have an NHS then this wouldn't even be a discussion- but that we do have one is reason for finding ways of protecting it from reckless wasters who don't think about the effect their selfishness has on society.

That is not understanding addiction Eilzel and basically claiming people are maiking it up or that they can control them. They cannot, in fact it takes over their thinking. Of course many have to help themselves, but it is not as you are thinking it is Eilzel.



How do you define addiction?
Any behavior that is associated with craving and temporary relief, and with long-term negative consequences, that a person is not able to give up. Note that I said nothing about substances — it’s any behavior that has temporary relief and negative consequences and loss of control.
When you look at process or behavior — sex, gambling, shopping or work or substances — they engage the same brain circuitry, the same reward system, the same psychological dynamic and the same spiritual emptiness. People go from one to the other. The issue for me is not whether you’re using something or not; it’s, Are you craving, are you needing it for relief and does it have negative consequences?

Brasidas wrote:Some people do take the piss Eddie, nobody I think would deny that, but addiction is somnething out of the control of the individual, where it controls their lives, which is difficult to resolve. Tough love does not work on addiction, because if you take that view who is going to come forward when the vast majority find it difficult to recognise they have a problem. All you are going to do then is ensure many will stay addicted and unable to combat their addiction. This is a medical problem you need to look into more to understand.

Havent you just done a complete u-turn??

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:Cass, I firmly believe that as people get older they take the piss more than when they were a kid.
Know why?
Becasue they can.

Think about that.
What would happen if we all knew that we only had that one chance (then one final chance?)

I think they'd be more successful cases of people giving up for good.

Want do we have now???

It's called tough love and it works.

The advice is you live with a druggie or an alcoholic is to not keep on helping them as you're actually creating and helping them stay hooked.

One chance and one chance to slip.
If people knew that that's alll they had - they may take it more seriously.

Not sure why people fidn that hard it understand.

Fully in agreement with you here Eds. I think people should be given chances, if they are treated once for some kind of self-indulgence induce 'problem' (over eating, smoking, drugs etc) then they should be warned. Two more strikes and that's it. It seems so many people have some kind of 'addiction' they are 'helpless' to control thesedays. As you say, slam the harsh reality in their face and they may try a little harder- certainly the situation today is absurd. People wanting gastric bands, binge drinkers wanting stomach pumps etc should be expected to pay or slapped with a massive bill for whatever service they used. It is nonesense to think they should be as irresponsible as they like and use the NHS as their fall back.

^veya, I haven't seen anyone here saying we should ban anything- so no freedoms are being infringed upon. If we didn't even have an NHS then this wouldn't even be a discussion- but that we do have one is reason for finding ways of protecting it from reckless wasters who don't think about the effect their selfishness has on society.

Well said les x

eddie wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Some people do take the piss Eddie, nobody I think would deny that, but addiction is somnething out of the control of the individual, where it controls their lives, which is difficult to resolve. Tough love does not work on addiction, because if you take that view who is going to come forward when the vast majority find it difficult to recognise they have a problem. All you are going to do then is ensure many will stay addicted and unable to combat their addiction. This is a medical problem you need to look into more to understand.

Havent you just done a complete u-turn??

How exactly?

Brasidas wrote:

eddie wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Some people do take the piss Eddie, nobody I think would deny that, but addiction is somnething out of the control of the individual, where it controls their lives, which is difficult to resolve. Tough love does not work on addiction, because if you take that view who is going to come forward when the vast majority find it difficult to recognise they have a problem. All you are going to do then is ensure many will stay addicted and unable to combat their addiction. This is a medical problem you need to look into more to understand.

Havent you just done a complete u-turn??

How exactly?

Didn't you start off saying that people should take responsibility for their own actions?

eddie wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

How exactly?

Didn't you start off saying that people should take responsibility for their own actions?

Yes they should and if you read  back I have said this throughout and even where people recognise they have an addiction.
So how am I contradicting?
Never did, with addiction as I have said throughout it is different that people lose control and their addictions take over.

Again read what I said to Sassy:



Yes It is complex where the addiction takes control of them and it can take a life time of control for some and others once they get dry they stay dry. So yes humans are complicated, but this does not let the addict off the hook of once recognising they have a problem to start down the road of recovery with support and most importantly self help. This means they themselves once recognising they have an addiction are taking responsibility for their addictioon or to the point of combating this addiction. Once down this road they have to make a commitment to stop drinking, set goals, medical assistance if needed to combat the withdrawl symptoms, but one of the biggest aspect they all have to find is new meaning to their lives. So most of this is going to have to come from the individual themselves. So again here responsibility is a big key part to overcomning the addiction.

eddie wrote:Cass, I firmly believe that as people get older they take the piss more than when they were a kid.
Know why?
Becasue they can.

Think about that.
What would happen if we all knew that we only had that one chance (then one final chance?)

I think they'd be more successful cases of people giving up for good.

Want do we have now???

It's called tough love and it works.

The advice is you live with a druggie or an alcoholic is to not keep on helping them as you're actually creating and helping them stay hooked.

One chance and one chance to slip.
If people knew that that's alll they had - they may take it more seriously.

Not sure why people fidn that hard it understand.

Because I am not simply prepared to write off other human beings when I don't know what they have been through. I am not perfect and neither is anybody else. How do you know that they don't take it seriously even if they have failed? Who are you to judge them and tell them how much better you are as a human being (not your per se but in general context) and that they must live up to your expectations? And what if somebody had called you on some things that you have done in your past and said whoopsie, that's your lot used up cause you made a mistake? What if someday regardless of how you teach them and bring them up, your children become alcoholics? What would you do then?

Start of the slippery rope if you ask me....first you have one chance only for sobriety, next it will be well we are overcrowded so everyone only gets 1 kid, or you have cancer again? too bad you already had chemo....

committing a crime whilst under the influence is a totally separate matter though.

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Cass wrote:

eddie wrote:Cass, I firmly believe that as people get older they take the piss more than when they were a kid.
Know why?
Becasue they can.

Think about that.
What would happen if we all knew that we only had that one chance (then one final chance?)

I think they'd be more successful cases of people giving up for good.

Want do we have now???

It's called tough love and it works.

The advice is you live with a druggie or an alcoholic is to not keep on helping them as you're actually creating and helping them stay hooked.

One chance and one chance to slip.
If people knew that that's alll they had - they may take it more seriously.

Not sure why people fidn that hard it understand.

Because I am not simply prepared to write off other human beings when I don't know what they have been through. I am not perfect and neither is anybody else. How do you know that they don't take it seriously even if they have failed? Who are you to judge them and tell them how much better you are as a human being (not your per se but in general context) and that they must live up to your expectations? And what if somebody had called you on some things that you have done in your past and said whoopsie, that's your lot used up cause you made a mistake? What if someday regardless of how you teach them and bring them up, your children become alcoholics? What would you do then?

Start of the slippery rope if you ask me....first you have one chance only for sobriety, next it will be well we are overcrowded so everyone only gets 1 kid, or you have cancer again? too bad you already had chemo....

committing a crime whilst under the influence is a totally separate matter though.

That was excellent Cass.
Best post of the week so far.

@Les
So what do you do when they Ignore your warnings??

You are either BANNING what they are doing or you are going to Ban the individual from Receiving Medical treatment
Which BAN are you proposing?
Or are you just going to warn them endlessly?


@Cass
Hit the Nail on the head
+100000000000000

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Do you?
You just posted natural cures for cancer.
Chemo does not cure cancer either, seriously you said you understand more medically than myself, that was just easily disproved.

I suggest you read some real science:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-marijuana-as-the-new-herbalism-part-2-cannabis-does-not-cure-cancer/

No i pointed out a possible herbal cure for cancer as was your request

quote
"I mean what next, you will be telling me of natural cures of cancer."


but you have obviously done more than 20 Medical Studies to dismiss expert opinion ,i look forward to reading your report ,and which journal will i find that in exactly oh!!! that right the hitch-hikers guide to bullshit    and uninformed ramblings and delusions of  importance  ....hence nobody including me take you seriously
your a bit of a also ran i am afraid


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

Again for the second time, its not a cure and there are many medical studies of which none show it as a cure, but have good qualities.
So again you are ignoring the facts. Many things are possible, which means they are not cures. I have no doubt it can treat soime forms of cancer but not cure.

Can cannabinoids treat cancer?

There is no doubt that cannabinoids – both natural and synthetic – are interesting biological molecules. Hundreds of scientists around the world are investigating their potential in cancer and other diseases – as well as the harms they can cause – brought together under the blanket organisation The International Cannabinoid Research Society.
Researchers first looked at the anticancer properties of cannabinoids back in the 1970s, and [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=cannabinoid cancer]many hundreds of scientific papers[/url] looking at cannabinoids and cancer have been published since then. This Wellcome Witness seminar is also fascinating reading for aficionados of the history of medical cannabis, including the scientific, political and legal twists. [Updated KA 26/03/14]
But claims that this body of preclinical research is solid “proof” that cannabis or cannabinoids can cure cancer is highly misleading to patients and their families, and builds a false picture of the state of progress in this area. For example, we’ve taken a look at more than 30 scientific papers that are often claimed to “prove” that cannabis cures various types of cancer. [Updated KA 21/07/14]

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/


Again I suggest you further your research into the matter and look to see if any of your claims have been answered by opthers Korben. Sound reasearch is seeing not just claims but what other experts say on them, hence why again I am sorry but that shows poor medical knowledge on your part if you do not reasearch properlky and see if your papers making claims have been counteredl

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:I hate to see the terms ‘junkies’ and ‘alkie’s’ getting thrown around like confetti simply because I see people that are addicted to drugs or alcohol as victims of a society that they were tossed into, often from broken homes, domestic abuse, victims of crime, mental bullying -  even from within their own family. Soldiers of war who suffer from the most heinous images scarred into their minds.  Ex soldiers make up a high number of homeless people living on our streets along with young people so seriously abused and cast aside that they don’t trust adults anymore.

These are all vulnerable people who need help which they can get but they do lapse and if they do that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to help them.  I’m not for giving up on them and I’m sure our medical practitioner’s wouldn’t give up either because this is Britain, we are British and in the main we are not like that

Nothing to do with being British, what a poor racial view to have. It is in human nature to want to help others in the main, where we see people take responsibility to help others from the moment they are born to when they are sick, old, disabled etc. Not all want to help of course because some people are selfish, indifferent or just do not care. Thankfully many people do care, we see this in abundance daily.
This goes back to my whole point about responsibility and having responsibility and people should want to help not because of what land they are born in which is defined as a nation but that we are human and want to help.

You disagree then in what I said in that we as the British nation will always care for our people  and we will never refuse to treat people on their health irrespective of their circumstances and whether they can afford it or not? In the main that's what we are like isn't it?

How exactly is that a poor racial view?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Nothing to do with being British, what a poor racial view to have. It is in human nature to want to help others in the main, where we see people take responsibility to help others from the moment they are born to when they are sick, old, disabled etc. Not all want to help of course because some people are selfish, indifferent or just do not care. Thankfully many people do care, we see this in abundance daily.
This goes back to my whole point about responsibility and having responsibility and people should want to help not because of what land they are born in which is defined as a nation but that we are human and want to help.

You disagree then in what I said in that we as the British nation will always care for our people  and we will never refuse to treat people on their health irrespective of their circumstances and whether they can afford it or not?

How exactly is that a poor racial view?

All humans have the capability to care, it does not stem from being British which your view point was on British people, where again many humans care. Now the country as a whole lacks in care, where we have countless youngsters in care homes, where many have been constantly let down over decades, which really as a nation shows that our care has limitations and it does not reach out to everyone or that the care provided is inssuffcient. The point is to say British, is nothing many than a concept and the point should be on people helping and caring more.
The last part you just invented Irn off your poor last point. I get what you meant. just you could of put it better across as you did in your latest post. But again this nation has a long way to go to claiming it really cares as the most many people do is pay into a system and allow others that responsibility, when more should be done by people themselves.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Nothing to do with being British, what a poor racial view to have. It is in human nature to want to help others in the main, where we see people take responsibility to help others from the moment they are born to when they are sick, old, disabled etc. Not all want to help of course because some people are selfish, indifferent or just do not care. Thankfully many people do care, we see this in abundance daily.
This goes back to my whole point about responsibility and having responsibility and people should want to help not because of what land they are born in which is defined as a nation but that we are human and want to help.

You disagree then in what I said in that we as the British nation will always care for our people  and we will never refuse to treat people on their health irrespective of their circumstances and whether they can afford it or not?

How exactly is that a poor racial view?

All humans have the capability to care, it does not stem from being British which your view point was on British people, where again many humans care. Now the country as a whole lacks in care, where we have countless youngsters in care homes, where many have been constantly let down over decades, which really as a nation shows that our care has limitations and it does not reach out to everyone or that the care provided is inssuffcient. The point is to say British, is nothing many than a concept and the point should be on people helping and caring more.
The last part you just invented Irn off your poor last point. I get what you meant. just you could of put it better across as you did in your latest post. But again this nation has a long way to go to claiming it really cares as the most many people do is pay into a system and allow others that responsibility, when more should be done by people themselves.

Yes, I know all that and there is plenty room for improvement but we would never, ever refuse treatment to anyone whoever they are or whichever country they came from or if they had any money in their pockets to pay for it. Money is not a priority in this country when someone is ill and needs help and I'm bloody proud that I live in a country that is like that.
You appear to want to make out that there is something wrong in what I said and that it is a poor racial view to hold as if that is something you would get in other countries in the world without question.
So why is what I said a poor racial view?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

All humans have the capability to care, it does not stem from being British which your view point was on British people, where again many humans care. Now the country as a whole lacks in care, where we have countless youngsters in care homes, where many have been constantly let down over decades, which really as a nation shows that our care has limitations and it does not reach out to everyone or that the care provided is inssuffcient. The point is to say British, is nothing many than a concept and the point should be on people helping and caring more.
The last part you just invented Irn off your poor last point. I get what you meant. just you could of put it better across as you did in your latest post. But again this nation has a long way to go to claiming it really cares as the most many people do is pay into a system and allow others that responsibility, when more should be done by people themselves.

Yes, I know all that and there is plenty room for improvement but we would never, ever refuse treatment to anyone whoever they are or whichever country they came from or if they had any money in their pockets to pay for it. Money is not a priority in this country when someone is ill and needs help and I'm bloody proud that I live in a country that is like that.
You appear to want to make out that there is something wrong in what I said and that it is a poor racial view to hold as if that is something you would get in other countries in the world without question.
So why is what I said a poor racial view?

It is a poor view point to make a view on the concept British when again caring for people is a human issue.
You made a view around the British being as this country is so diverse, where that is just a name to identify under the country, where it has no meaning to the point on humans caring. In fact we are getting very poor at caring in this country where there is now a view to ship off those who raised us into care homes when they are old and need care, where many do not take in their parents,

Your view was this:
I’m not for giving up on them and I’m sure our medical practitioner’s wouldn’t give up either because this is Britain, we are British and in the main we are not like that


What relevance did the point on British people be relevant to a debate on responsibility?
Even more so when a third of our doctors are forign>
It is if you are only making out British medical staff care and make no mention of the countless foreign medical staff that care.
Hence the point of British was racial, as many ethnic groups care and where we have many foreigners now also who are not British who do a wonderful job. British is agaiin a concept Irn, it is humans that care.

sorry Didge I sort of agree with Irn to an extent about being proud to be British. I hate the American health care system so much. it has hurt so many people and all because of money. people have gone bankrupt had their credit history ruined list their houses or have suffered pain and sickness unnecessariky because they didn't or don't have the money to pay for treatment or insurance premium.

I'm off to the docs tomorrow - will cost me £27 just to elwalk in the door and that's with insurance. if I need blood tests which I suspect I do, and a cortisone shot in my shoulder and others meds then it will go up and up and up. I'm just lucky I can afford it.