No NHS treatment if self inflicted? Morally right?

[BroadsRS6]

I heard rumour that if the NHS becomes under pressure from either beds occupied or treatment needed (HOW about making it fit for purpose, there's a novel idea) people un-vaccinated with Covid will not be treated or will be considered long after others who have had 2 jabs. On the basis i presume that it was self-inflicted.
But would they then have to push down the list anyone obese who had any issue relating to being too fat? Then maybe a dangerous sports person who comes in injured, etc., etc?
Where do you stand on treating double jabbed people and pushing those who refuse way down the list? This has split people i've initially asked, with a fair few in favour of treating those who ''bother to look after themselves''.
You?

Edited by BroadsRS6 on Tuesday 13th July 08:25

[Ian Geary]

I think you got to the crux of it by the fourth word.

[ChunkyloverSV]

Sure I would not be against that if the following:

- obese people do not receive any treatment for illnesses that have been caused by their weight
- people who choose to have babies that are suffering from genetic conditions do not get treatment
- people who smoke excessively do not receive treatment
- people who drink excessively do not receive treatment
- you want an abortion you pay for it
- athletes or people who have caused damage to themselves through excessively exercising will not get treatment
- people suffering from type 2 diabetes receive 0 treatment

Doesn't really work in practice through.

In the first wave of Covid though ventilators were not given to the over 65's+

[m_cozzy]

I would support only treating those who have paid in during their life regardless.
Workshy sponger = no treatment.

[JeffreyD]

m_cozzy said:

I would support only treating those who have paid in during their life regardless.
Workshy sponger = no treatment.

We need more of this common sense thinking at the top of government. Who needs nuanced thought these days?

Clear, concise and absolutely on point.

Well played.

[Randy Winkman]

JeffreyD said:

m_cozzy said:

I would support only treating those who have paid in during their life regardless.
Workshy sponger = no treatment.

We need more of this common sense thinking at the top of government. Who needs nuanced thought these days?

Clear, concise and absolutely on point.

Well played.

But doesn't that make the workshy sponger less able to get work so they cause more hassle for everyone else? And if they have something that can be transmitted to others that's another hassle. And it generally makes to UK a crappier place to live. Don't we want the UK to be a "nicer" place to live not somewhere that's more like south America with slums?

[JeffreyD]

Randy Winkman said:

But doesn't that make the workshy sponger less able to get work so they cause more hassle for everyone else? And if they have something that can be transmitted to others that's another hassle. And it generally makes to UK a crappier place to live. Don't we want the UK to be a "nicer" place to live not somewhere that's more like south America with slums?

Randy - that's way too many questions. Let's stick to common sense. Those who pay get the service, those who don't - don't.

It's what Jesus would have wanted so it absolutely aligns with our judeo-christian culture. Back to basics.

[bennno]

ChunkyloverSV said:

Sure I would not be against that if the following:

- obese people do not receive any treatment for illnesses that have been caused by their weight
- people who choose to have babies that are suffering from genetic conditions do not get treatment
- people who smoke excessively do not receive treatment
- people who drink excessively do not receive treatment
- you want an abortion you pay for it
- athletes or people who have caused damage to themselves through excessively exercising will not get treatment
- people suffering from type 2 diabetes receive 0 treatment

Doesn't really work in practice through.

In the first wave of Covid though ventilators were not given to the over 65's+

What a moronic post.

Why not add to your list anybody who falls off a motorbike or ladder, or sustains injuries from a self inflicted diy or own fault car accident.

Clearly anybody who gets a STD or has a pregnancy doesn’t get treatment as you could have abstained.

If you need mental help, for stress, anxiety or depression then jog on.

[Flooble]

If you look hard enough you can find a reason not to treat anybody, as this thread has started to demonstrate.

Maybe we should skip the intervening bit and just jump straight to that. "No-one is eligible for NHS treatment unless they are a mate of Matt Hancock" ought to do it.

[redrabbit]

JeffreyD said:

m_cozzy said:

I would support only treating those who have paid in during their life regardless.
Workshy sponger = no treatment.

We need more of this common sense thinking at the top of government. Who needs nuanced thought these days?

Clear, concise and absolutely on point.

Well played.

Agreed, 100% on point, but there is room for nuance. Even if you do pay in, you only get treated up to the cumulative lifetime sum you have contributed. So, if you're opened up on the operating table and the meter runs out mid procedure, that's your lot I'm afraid. Should have got a better job, loser.

Sound good, lads?

[A Winner Is You]

redrabbit said:

JeffreyD said:

m_cozzy said:

I would support only treating those who have paid in during their life regardless.
Workshy sponger = no treatment.

We need more of this common sense thinking at the top of government. Who needs nuanced thought these days?

Clear, concise and absolutely on point.

Well played.

Agreed, 100% on point, but there is room for nuance. Even if you do pay in, you only get treated up to the cumulative lifetime sum you have contributed. So, if you're opened up on the operating table and the meter runs out mid procedure, that's your lot I'm afraid. Should have got a better job, loser.

Sound good, lads?

Would be a bit of a bugger for under 18's, but that's their problem.

[pquinn]

Another stupid Covid thread. Great.

[JeffreyD]

A Winner Is You said:

Would be a bit of a bugger for under 18's, but that's their problem.

Yeah fk'em we can always make more kids if we need them.

[dundarach]

Black boxes for all cars - if speed or style a factor, immediate suspension of treatment.

Quick blood test upon entry - that'll cut most people out.

Free for all, or free for no-one there's very little else which is equitable.

[redrabbit]

A Winner Is You said:

redrabbit said:

JeffreyD said:

m_cozzy said:

I would support only treating those who have paid in during their life regardless.
Workshy sponger = no treatment.

We need more of this common sense thinking at the top of government. Who needs nuanced thought these days?

Clear, concise and absolutely on point.

Well played.

Agreed, 100% on point, but there is room for nuance. Even if you do pay in, you only get treated up to the cumulative lifetime sum you have contributed. So, if you're opened up on the operating table and the meter runs out mid procedure, that's your lot I'm afraid. Should have got a better job, loser.

Sound good, lads?

Would be a bit of a bugger for under 18's, but that's their problem.

Well, since the only ones likely to need treatment are those that spend all day stuffing their faces on the Maccy Ds that they buy on handouts ('pocket money', I think they call it on the street) it's all philosophically and morally consistent with the original proposal. Result!

[Electro1980]

A Winner Is You said:

redrabbit said:

JeffreyD said:

m_cozzy said:

I would support only treating those who have paid in during their life regardless.
Workshy sponger = no treatment.

We need more of this common sense thinking at the top of government. Who needs nuanced thought these days?

Clear, concise and absolutely on point.

Well played.

Agreed, 100% on point, but there is room for nuance. Even if you do pay in, you only get treated up to the cumulative lifetime sum you have contributed. So, if you're opened up on the operating table and the meter runs out mid procedure, that's your lot I'm afraid. Should have got a better job, loser.

Sound good, lads?

Would be a bit of a bugger for under 18's, but that's their problem.

If their parents can’t afford all and any possible medical costs they shouldn’t have had them!

[BroadsRS6]

m_cozzy said:

I would support only treating those who have paid in during their life regardless.
Workshy sponger = no treatment.

I agree there. NO treatment at ALL for illegal immigrants either.

Edited by BroadsRS6 on Tuesday 13th July 08:22

[BroadsRS6]

Covid-treatment for those who won't protect themselves is the real question.

Priority for those who have had 2 jabs or not?

[pquinn]

BroadsRS6 said:

Ian Geary said:

I think you got to the crux of it by the fourth word.

THAT?

Your counting is as good as your critical thinking.

[BroadsRS6]

pquinn said:

BroadsRS6 said:

Ian Geary said:

I think you got to the crux of it by the fourth word.

THAT?

Your counting is as good as your critical thinking.

What's my critical thinking? Quote me something i've said.
Your assumptions are as stupid as your ability to realise when an error has been corrected.