Is the NHS useless?

[Bob Arctor]

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!

 

I don't think this was ever in doubt.

[Obelix]

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

 

 

Nothing like a bit of ad hominem. At least you are being consistent...

 

.....maybe if you had a bash at trying to construct some kind of logic based 'argument'

 

Perhaps you could do the same?

 

You've posted a lot of assertions without providing any proof of them despite me and many others asking many pages ago.

 

Perhaps you could address that deficiency in your argument first before slinging mud about?

[onewheeldave]

 

You've posted a lot of assertions without providing any proof of them despite me and many others asking many pages ago.

 

Perhaps you could address that deficiency in your argument first before slinging mud about?

I've posted links to evidence if anyone's interested in following them up. I can't make people read a page, or watch a video.

[Obelix]

I've posted links to evidence if anyone's interested in following them up. I can't make people read a page, or watch a video.

 

I must have missed the hard evidence then. I discounted all the wooly tat and ones where you couldnt be bothered to reference it.

[onewheeldave]

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

 

 

Right, so you literally thought you weren't in a logical debate?! That explains so much

 

In reality, you were in a logical debate (there's no other kind) and now we've sorted that out, if you want to continue, you'll need to start making some logical point.

[I1L2T3]

I don't think this was ever in doubt.

 

 

Indeed. There's a difference between a free service and a service that has a goal to be free at the point of use.

 

The service that is free at the point of use isn't free. The NHS has to be paid for through taxes but (most of the time) not when you need to use it. No bills to pay, no upfront fees, no invoices, no insurance claims, no admin costs for collecting payments.

[onewheeldave]

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

 

.

 

It's not a grey area. Currently we're marketing 'foods' that our science has established are extremely harmfull to health, to children and, to the legal guardians of children.

 

This guarantees that more of those children will suffer heart disease, disease and obesity.

 

Nothing controversial there, I think we can all accept the above as facts? (If not, please do state which of the above are flawed, and, a bit of reasoning as to why).

 

All I'm adding to the above facts, is that marketing of said rubbish can end, and, ideally, have the same profound health benefits that banning marketing of tobacco did.

 

Still no-ones come up with a single argument as to why we shouldn't ban marketing of rubbish to children (and/or their guardians).

 

Makes me think it's maybe cos there's not one...

[lauren84]

I'm very grateful for the NHS, sometimes it can let you down a little, but then again so can everything, nothing can run to full efficiency when its overstretched.

 

I have had three children using NHS funds, two out of three required a lot of medical intervention which if I would've had to pay out there and then would have run into thousands and thousands of pounds. I don't mind being indebted to the NHS for the rest of my working life (even if I don't need treatment again - which is highly unlikely) as it is likely my babies and I wouldn't be here if it was left to nature!

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

.

No you don't. You just need to ban the marketing of health destroying rubbish to kids.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 22:06 ----------

 

 

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

 

Banning the advertising of cigarettes didn't stop the availability of cigarettes. What's your point?

 

 

 

 

Education is key.

It's never too late dude

[JFKvsNixon]

It's not a grey area. Currently we're marketing 'foods' that our science has established are extremely harmfull to health, to children and, to the legal guardians of children.

 

This guarantees that more of those children will suffer heart disease, disease and obesity.

 

Nothing controversial there, I think we can all accept the above as facts? (If not, please do state which of the above are flawed, and, a bit of reasoning as to why).

 

All I'm adding to the above facts, is that marketing of said rubbish can end, and, ideally, have the same profound health benefits that banning marketing of tobacco did.

 

Still no-ones come up with a single argument as to why we shouldn't ban marketing of rubbish to children (and/or their guardians).

 

Makes me think it's maybe cos there's not one...

 

If you have one takeaway a month, or one Mars bar a month, do you believe that you're damaging your health? So isn't the point that people are over consuming unhealthy food as opposed to having the unhealthy food available.

 

What we need to do is educate people to make better life choices, instead of trying to shield them from temptations.

Edited November 3, 2015 by JFKvsNixon