Smoking: Have We Gone Mad?

You largetwat are the idiot. The NHS is dying from being overloaded especially from labours deliberate flooding of this country with immigrants.
Yes i would tell them you complete tosspot because someone needs to protect this country from idiots like you. What about all the illegals largetwat should they get it too? of course they should its a bottomless money pit isnt it you brainless shit pan. Now get back to wanking over your fat ladies largetwat.

Angry Dad - so according to your philosophy of what teh NHS should, and should not treat. That also means that anyone who has a sporting injury should not be treated either, as the person who has had the injury knew it could happen. Again, waste of money.

So how would you ahve dealt with Muamba? Leave him be, as he knew the risks in playing sport?

I think Angry Dad is right in saying that it wont remain free for everyone. I believe we are already seeing instances of the 'post-code lottery' where some are unable to get help, for example cancer drugs. Like largehat I think it should be free to all and sundry, on condiiton they are British, or ar, in some way, contributing to the national welfare. Health tourists should be banned, and shortage of money for an ailing system should be taken form all the give-aways that we seem intent on forcing on countries that don't really need, or even want it, such as India. (Nothing against India). To penalise people who have formed an addiction, whether it be food drink or drugs, is n't right, especially when they have reached the point of requiring medical help. I know it isn't easy, but something should be done, with penalties if necessary, (don't know what), to ensure the health system remains effective and free for all.

bwfc71 wrote:Angry Dad - so according to your philosophy of what the NHS should, and should not treat. That also means that anyone who has a sporting injury should not be treated either, as the person who has had the injury knew it could happen. Again, waste of money.

So how would you ahve dealt with Muamba? Leave him be, as he knew the risks in playing sport?

That's a good argument actually Mr Amos, I'll be interested to read Angry Dad's reply.

Thats not an argument at all. If we extended that to its logical conclusion, people wouldn't be treated for anything. An example being slipping on ice. The argument would go that they shouldn't go out in bad weather, or should have had crampons on their shoes/boots, so no treatment. Sports not only cause damage, but overall they improve a persons health, so keeping them away from the doctor in the long term.

I see Angry Dad got someone who knows how to use a keyboard to type his last post out for him. Perhaps he dictated it to them while he was busy reading Mein Kampf or the EDL newsletter.

At least if I have a heart attack knocking one one out to fat ladies I live in a country where people will try to save me, who knows, one of the doctors or paramedics might even be a horrible, nasty immigrant, Angry Dad.

I've come across some backward folk on the Internet so your views aren't that shocking, but you're the first troglodyte I've come across who admits he would leave people to die. Remarkable.

Whatever is eating you must be suffering horribly largetwat.

Angry Dad wrote:Whatever is eating you must be suffering horribly largetwat.

I enjoyed your posts at first, now I'm beginning to think you're a bitter poster from another site.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:Angry Dad - so according to your philosophy of what the NHS should, and should not treat. That also means that anyone who has a sporting injury should not be treated either, as the person who has had the injury knew it could happen. Again, waste of money.

So how would you ahve dealt with Muamba? Leave him be, as he knew the risks in playing sport?

That's a good argument actually Mr Amos, I'll be interested to read Angry Dad's reply.

These are the points I would have raised too. People go rock climbing, paint balling, skiing, running, bungee jumping etc - are you going to charge them all for treatment after something goes wrong.

Why stop there?

We all know the risks of travelling in cars, or aeroplanes. If you get in a crash - regardless of fault, it's your fault and you should pay for it eh?

Then do we start looking at everything else that happens and trace it back to it's original cause? Skin cancer - you got sun burned when you were 21 - pay. Heart attack - you only went running once a week - not four times like you should have. Pay.
Your kid plays tig in the playground - falls over - pay!

Madness!

jayjay23 wrote:

These are the points I would have raised too. People go rock climbing, paint balling, skiing, running, bungee jumping etc - are you going to charge them all for treatment after something goes wrong.

Why stop there?

We all know the risks of travelling in cars, or aeroplanes. If you get in a crash - regardless of fault, it's your fault and you should pay for it eh?

Then do we start looking at everything else that happens and trace it back to it's original cause? Skin cancer - you got sun burned when you were 21 - pay. Heart attack - you only went running once a week - not four times like you should have. Pay.
Your kid plays tig in the playground - falls over - pay!

Madness!

If an alien crashed landed in Bolton would he get free treatment on the NHS?

If they were illegal aliens - then probably.

JJ, you were giving examples of when someone might pay for causes of injuries, and you mentioned driving. Not to sure of all the reasons, but I'm sure that in a road traffic accident, the insurance companies have to pay for the ambulance, possibly fire engines, etc. Although indirectly, this is still a request for payment from the patient/victim.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I enjoyed your posts at first, now I'm beginning to think you're a bitter poster from another site.

Angry Dad = Malcolm Everett.

Bernard Dennis Park wrote:

Angry Dad = Malcolm Everett.

Unlikely, Angry Dad isn't Malcolm's style. Plus they have different IP addresses.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't smoke, but I am sick and tired of the government treating smokers like children. From today supermarkets and large shops can't display fags, they have to keep them below the counter.

Apparantly this will stop people from becoming smokers. What a load of rubish. I'm guessing most smokers didn't smoke their first fag when they walked past a fag display and thought to themselves "that looks good, I'll have a puff".

I tried a few fags when I was a kid, an older girl let me have one of hers. At the time it was the only thing to do in the Little Lever Ghetto, but I quickly wised up.

People should be able to chose whether to smoke or not. If they want to kill themselves that should be their choice, not the governments. What next, set a maximum number of pints that any one person can drink in a night?

Not just that, I'm sick of them spending millions of our money on advertising and commercials