chem1st Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 For the sake of equality, should we have positive discrimination in healthcare? What with car insurance now being equal for men and women, pension annuities, etc. and pension ages soon to be so too. Has the time come for positive discrimination in healthcare? Women live much longer than men. People born in Dore live longer than those born in Tinsley. Should we provide better healthcare to men in Tinsley, at the expense of women in Dore? To try and equal life expectancy? What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 What an excellent idea - if a woman from Dore has a stroke and the ambulance turns up, they should let her die and go to Tinsley and treat a poor man. Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 For the sake of equality, should we have positive discrimination in healthcare? What with car insurance now being equal for men and women, pension annuities, etc. and pension ages soon to be so too. Has the time come for positive discrimination in healthcare? Women live much longer than men. People born in Dore live longer than those born in Tinsley. Should we provide better healthcare to men in Tinsley, at the expense of women in Dore? To try and equal life expectancy? What do you think? there already is, there have been area health initiatives for since the eighties. another non thread-but feel free to ignore the facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 There is already negative discrimination in the health service, based on age, size, and poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 For the sake of equality, should we have positive discrimination in healthcare? What with car insurance now being equal for men and women, pension annuities, etc. and pension ages soon to be so too. Has the time come for positive discrimination in healthcare? Women live much longer than men. People born in Dore live longer than those born in Tinsley. Should we provide better healthcare to men in Tinsley, at the expense of women in Dore? To try and equal life expectancy? What do you think? The ideal solution is for men born in Tinsley to move to Dore. get a sex change done and then they'll live longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 yep I'm right again-the initiative is called Sheffield healthy communities programme. anyone interested in the truth can access further info on the sheffield nhs website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 There isn't anything positive about discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 There isn't anything positive about discrimination. And or is there anything negative-it simply means to treat differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 For the sake of equality, should we have positive discrimination in healthcare? What with car insurance now being equal for men and women, pension annuities, etc. and pension ages soon to be so too. Has the time come for positive discrimination in healthcare? Women live much longer than men. People born in Dore live longer than those born in Tinsley. Should we provide better healthcare to men in Tinsley, at the expense of women in Dore? To try and equal life expectancy? What do you think? I oppose positive discrimination in all its forms. Why in this day and age should we do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Localman Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 This is a pretty stupid question, unless you are suggesting that the amount that the NHS is allowed to spend on each individual, irrespective of their health status, is exactly the same! However, there is a very serious issue around this. The government has announced that it wants to distribute Public Health funds in England simply on the basis of an age-weighted formula. This would result in £ms being transferred from those areas with populations with the poorest health to areas with the healthiest populations. (Or, to put it simply, from Sheffield to Surrey.) The Doctors heading up the NHS National Commissioning Board are resisting this (see Dec 2012 minutes), but, as with all public expenditure, it appears that this government is intent on moving £ from the poorest to the wealthiest areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.