Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Something that angers me is women going abroad for things like cheap breast implants, and other vanity issues. They come home with health problems from poorly executed surgery. They then turn to the NHS to fix the problem. They find money for breast implants, then they should find the money to have problems fixed. Why should the taxpayer be stuck with a bill caused by their vanity?
There was one woman I saw on tv a while back. She went abroad for treatment to change the colour of her eyes!...... The NHS ended up spending a fortune saving her sight. The NHS shouldn't be responsible for saving people from their stupidity and vanity.I'm not saying they should be left to die, or go blind. But they should get a bill for such treatment.
theres a lot of these cosmetic procedures paid for abroad from British people who then come home and things go wrong and has to be sorted by the NHS..
So you're saying some stupid girl who decides she will let some quack mess around with her eyes should think, "ah well..... if I'm in danger of going blind, the NHS will sort me out."
Yes, I do think stupid should be charged. The NHS has enough problems dealing with real illness.
theres a lot of these cosmetic procedures paid for abroad from British people who then come home and things go wrong and has to be sorted by the NHS..
Yes indeed. The NHS is under great stress and strain. There will be changes coming in the future I believe. It won't matter who is in Government. Hard decisions are coming down the line.
So you're saying some stupid girl who decides she will let some quack mess around with her eyes should think, "ah well..... if I'm in danger of going blind, the NHS will sort me out."
Yes, I do think stupid should be charged. The NHS has enough problems dealing with real illness.
agreed... the trouble with the NHS is they have too many staff doing reception duties , my hubby goes to different clinics in Glasgow.. for his RA.. and there are about seven in a reception office when the waiting room is nearly always empty.. and this is the same in each clinic.. too much staff in the office end of it...
agreed... the trouble with the NHS is they have too many staff doing reception duties , my hubby goes to different clinics in Glasgow.. for his RA.. and there are about seven in a reception office when the waiting room is nearly always empty.. and this is the same in each clinic.. too much staff in the office end of it...
I'm off in an hour to the hospital with my wife dizzy.......I'll take a good look at what you say about staff.
Yes indeed. The NHS is under great stress and strain. There will be changes coming in the future I believe. It won't matter who is in Government. Hard decisions are coming down the line.
Every health system in the developed world is under stress and strain due to an aging population, greater life expectancy and greater demand as new therapeutic treatments become available. Spending on the NHS has more than doubled since 2000 and this is consistent with the trend in other countries. You are absolutely right in that hard decisions will have to be made.
agreed... the trouble with the NHS is they have too many staff doing reception duties , my hubby goes to different clinics in Glasgow.. for his RA.. and there are about seven in a reception office when the waiting room is nearly always empty.. and this is the same in each clinic.. too much staff in the office end of it...
My mother was in Gartnavel and we saw very few reception staff but plenty of nurses and other staff actually working on the ward. Her GP's office had maybe two or three handling reception/admin but, given the size of the practice and the number of patient records to maintain, that was probably reasonable.
My mother was in Gartnavel and we saw very few reception staff but plenty of nurses and other staff actually working on the ward. Her GP's office had maybe two or three handling reception/admin but, given the size of the practice and the number of patient records to maintain, that was probably reasonable.
I'm just back from my local hospital. Like you say Jaggy, not many reception staff, but plenty of doctors and nurses....... as it should be of course. 2.30 appointment, and my wife was being attended to just a few minutes after that time. The procedure was carried out, and we're home for 3.30pm. Great service, and no complaints at all.
What about people who suffer injuries in the gym, is that not vanity, should they be charged too? Or people who are into sports, one guy I know plays rugby and has had both ears sewn back on multiple times (which is kind of stupid), should he be charged? Another guy I know suffered a perforated ulcer after eating a jar of pickled onions should he be charged? Or people who shoot themselves in the foot/hand/wherever with nail guns stupid? Or people who are out hiking in someplace they don't know and fall down a hole and break a leg both stupid and irresponsible?
When you have someone determining whether something should be billed, you'll quickly find that many things will be billed, and probably some things that you yourself do that you never intended to have billed. Where you going to come up with the 5-10k in casualty, recovery, rehab fees for falling down the stairs when drunk, or working on your car or doing DIY (because you're not a qualified mechanic, or licensed builder/plumber/electrician) which is all pretty stupid? How long do you think it would take the mandarins and politico's to determine that any condition that you had been treated for by your GP that required you altering your behavior but didn't, that has an acute in patient event (say heart, gastric/duodenal ulcers, liver/renal insufficiency, lungs etc.) isn't covered?
Agreed 100%. What about people who smoke? Or are over-weight? Should a national system start to decide who/what it will treat?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The NHS ended up spending a fortune saving her sight. The NHS shouldn't be responsible for saving people from their stupidity and vanity.I'm not saying they should be left to die, or go blind. But they should get a bill for such treatment.