Is the NHS useless?

[Bob Arctor]

IT'S NOT FREE.

They get thousands per year out of me and almost everybody else working full time with any kind of advanced training.

It's just a compulsory insurance scheme in which the better off subsidies the very poor. Both in the form of extra contributions and charges from which the poor are exempt.

 

You see, I think this shows you are missing the point. To most people the above is a good thing, including those like me on a higher than average salary. Employers think it's a good thing because lower paid workers lose fewer days through illness. People on lower incomes think it's good because they get affordable health care. Most people with some degree of empathy and understanding think that the better off subsidising the less better off is fine and good.

 

The basis of this thread is that your relative didn't get what they wanted/needed so the whole system has to change even though most of us are very happy with it. You're in a minority on that one I'm afraid. Clearly mental health services have a lot of room for improvement and that will require better funding.

[Cyclone]

What do you think should be the answer to that?

 

Ooh, ooh, I know this one.

 

Is it..... parenting?

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 19:13 ----------

 

Thanks for those- I've not watched actual tv for several years and assumed that cyclone was on the ball with his claim that they don't advertise burgers and fast food on tv. It looks like maybe he wasn't?

 

Shown after the watershed I believe?

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 19:18 ----------

 

I'm not after regulation- I want it banned.

Yes, after making a claim about there being no preventative medicine, you've now seized on food advertising and changed the discussion to be all about banning it.

[GLASGOWOODS]

It's easy

 

Regardless of the advertising of food. It's a parent's responsibility what their child eats.

 

Over to you

 

Kids get dinner money for school. Parents can't monitor what they purchase with it.

[onewheeldave]

It's easy

 

Regardless of the advertising of food. It's a parent's responsibility what their child eats.

 

Over to you

 

No thanks, I'll have to decline, your argument above is unassailable and I must bow to your clearly greater intellent and retire, defeated, from the debate

[unbeliever]

You see, I think this shows you are missing the point. To most people the above is a good thing, including those like me on a higher than average salary. Employers think it's a good thing because lower paid workers lose fewer days through illness. People on lower incomes think it's good because they get affordable health care. Most people with some degree of empathy and understanding think that the better off subsidising the less better off is fine and good.

 

It is a good thing. The more successful should help support those who are struggling. Especially with something as important as healthcare. It's the right thing to do.

It is however NOT FREE!

[onewheeldave]

 

Shown after the watershed I believe?

I don't know if it's after the watershed (as I've not watched a tv for several years) and, given that you'd just previously told me that food ads for children weren't allowed on TV, you'll forgive me for waiting for someone to verify your 'belief' concerning watershedage.

 

In the meantime, lets reflect on why you're even thinking it's relevant, given that you know as well as I, that many children watch tv after the watershed.

 

Plus, as we are in danger of getting overly focused on tv ads, you may recall I was saying that we need a ban on all marketing/promotion of scientifically-proven-to-be-health-damaging 'foods' to children, which includes billboards, tv, magazines, online, etc, etc.

 

So even if you can get your stance on tv/ads/watershed bashed into something resembling a coherent argument, I'd personally suggest you don't waste too much time on that, as it will not be that relevant to all the other forms of ads/marketing/promotion that children can see, and will continue to be influenced by, unless the ads are BANNED.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 20:30 ----------

 

Yes, after making a claim about there being no preventative medicine, you've now seized on food advertising and changed the discussion to be all about banning it.

 

Yes, it's called moving on to one point after another.

 

I've seized on food advertising as it's so clear that promoting/marketing/advertising 'foods' that our science has shown to be responsible for the obscene and unsane health of our obese/diabetic/heart diseased population, to children, or, the the parents of said children is a really, really, bad idea.

 

And because I'm waiting for someone to make a good, valid argument as to why banning said marketing could be bad.

 

....and waiting

 

...and waiting

[SnailyBoy]

I don't know if it's after the watershed (as I've not watched a tv for several years) and, given that you'd just previously told me that food ads for children weren't allowed on TV, you'll forgive me for waiting for someone to verify your 'belief' concerning watershedage.

 

In the meantime, lets reflect on why you're even thinking it's relevant, given that you know as well as I, that many children watch tv after the watershed.

 

Plus, as we are in danger of getting overly focused on tv ads, you may recall I was saying that we need a ban on all marketing/promotion of scientifically-proven-to-be-health-damaging 'foods' to children, which includes billboards, tv, magazines, online, etc, etc.

 

So even if you can get your stance on tv/ads/watershed bashed into something resembling a coherent argument, I'd personally suggest you don't waste too much time on that, as it will not be that relevant to all the other forms of ads/marketing/promotion that children can see, and will continue to be influenced by, unless the ads are BANNED.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 20:30 ----------

 

 

Yes, it's called moving on to one point after another.

 

I've seized on food advertising as it's so clear that promoting/marketing/advertising 'foods' that our science has shown to be responsible for the obscene and unsane health of our obese/diabetic/heart diseased population, to children, or, the the parents of said children is a really, really, bad idea.

 

And because I'm waiting for someone to make a good, valid argument as to why banning said marketing could be bad.

 

....and waiting

 

...and waiting

 

At least you've not resorted to hyperbole....

[I1L2T3]

Kids get dinner money for school. Parents can't monitor what they purchase with it.

 

We can. The kids have an account at school and we top it up every week. There is no cash used in the school and every purchase is bought using the account, and every purchase is itemised on a report we can look at whenever we like.

 

So we know when they had cookies for lunch instead of a sandwich and fruit. And when they keep having cookies for lunch we don't top up their accounts and they get a healthy packed lunch instead. They soon learn.

 

We control their behaviour pretty well.

[onewheeldave]

At least you've not resorted to hyperbole....

 

Had to look it up- words aren't really my strong point. Well done- excellent bit of humour

 

Fortunately, at least with word issues I can look them up and find the meaning- I'd imagine there's no similar resource available for those who have a deficiency in logical/rational ability

 

.....maybe if you had a bash at trying to construct some kind of logic based 'argument' that attempts to show that there's any benefit to not banning the marketing/promotion of proven harmful substances to children and their parents/guardians, it might help sharpen up your issue with rationality and logic? Bit of exercise can't hurt, can it?

 

plus, wouldn't harm the debate to have some actual reasons to not ban it, flying around.

[SnailyBoy]

Had to look it up- words aren't really my strong point. Well done- excellent bit of humour

 

Fortunately, at least with word issues I can look them up and find the meaning- I'd imagine there's no similar resource available for those who have a deficiency in logical/rational ability

 

.....maybe if you had a bash at trying to construct some kind of logic based 'argument' that attempts to show that there's any benefit to not banning the marketing/promotion of proven harmful substances to children and their parents/guardians, it might help sharpen up your issue with rationality and logic? Bit of exercise can't hurt, can it?

 

plus, wouldn't harm the debate to have some actual reasons to not ban it, flying around.

 

Well this isn't a logical argument, there's too much of a grey area.

 

You've got to balance the wishes of those who like to indulge in a little of what they fancy against those who are unable to resist the 'pester power' of their children.

 

Banning the advertising won't stop the availability of the food.

 

Education is key.