lubylou12 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 It is disgusting how low this unelected government will sink to cut costs. It is now seriously considering allowing children to die in order to cut costs. They are despicable! How some people can defend this just because they are diehard tories is beyond me. It is signed. very well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 It is disgusting how low this unelected government will sink to cut costs. It is now seriously considering allowing children to die in order to cut costs. They are despicable! How some people can defend this just because they are diehard tories is beyond me. It is signed. Unfortunately, that has always been the case - irrespective of which political party is in power. The NHS has finite funds. Health care in the UK is far better than it was when the NHS was first started, but the NHS cannot - nor will ever be able to - treat every ailment, nor will it be able to afford to treat those ailments it can treat everywhere. If your finite budget leaves you with a choice between one centralised unit which can treat, say, 1000 patients a year or two units which can each afford to treat 450 patients a year, which is the preferred option? Neither is ideal. But we don't live in an ideal world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artifact Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Unfortunately, that has always been the case - irrespective of which political party is in power. The NHS has finite funds. Health care in the UK is far better than it was when the NHS was first started, but the NHS cannot - nor will ever be able to - treat every ailment, nor will it be able to afford to treat those ailments it can treat everywhere. If your finite budget leaves you with a choice between one centralised unit which can treat, say, 1000 patients a year or two units which can each afford to treat 450 patients a year, which is the preferred option? Neither is ideal. But we don't live in an ideal world. So you are saying let the children die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Fortunately, I don't have to make decisions like that - but there are people who do and no doubt, although they would probably prefer to do anything rather than let a child die, sometimes that happens. I don't know what the position in the NHS is now, but some years ago (in 1974) I was told that if a person suffered from renal failure and if that person was aged under 7 or over 55, no treatment was available. - Lack of dialysis machines, lack of available transplant organs but no shortage of patients. Are you saying that in the event that the sick person is a child, an unlimited amount of money should be spent to provide treatment for that child? We all know that - unfortunately - that just doesn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artifact Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 My thoughts are that England is a very wealthy country. There are people with enough personal wealth to keep this unit open out of their own pockets. It will not happen because our priorities are wrong. Some tories are anarchists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazjea Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 My thoughts are that England is a very wealthy country. There are people with enough personal wealth to keep this unit open out of their own pockets. It will not happen because our priorities are wrong. Some tories are anarchists. The Uk also appears wealthy enough to be able to fight wars it seems, as and when one appears. A fraction of the money involved in these escapades, would resolve the funding of the at risk Cadiac Units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artifact Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 One cruise missile costs about £1,000,000. Britain have just fired more than 100 of them at Libya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitch_1980 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 One cruise missile costs about £1,000,000. Britain have just fired more than 100 of them at Libya. Ummm so you missed the bit about a US led action and them firing the most missiles with uk firing about 2....but dont let the facts get in the way of a narrow minded view and attack on the goverment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artifact Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Ummm so you missed the bit about a US led action and them firing the most missiles with uk firing about 2....but dont let the facts get in the way of a narrow minded view and attack on the goverment. I read the true story, you got the official line. The rest of your post is merely an old cherry revamped, but 3 out of ten for effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazjea Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Ummm so you missed the bit about a US led action and them firing the most missiles with uk firing about 2....but dont let the facts get in the way of a narrow minded view and attack on the goverment. Well whatever the number of missiles fired be it 2 or 100, at £1,000,000 pound a time. I think my point is proven that the cardiac units could be kept open at a fraction of the cost of running a war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.