NHS.

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

The Daily Mail.

A newspaper. With plummeting sales. That seems immune to economic reality-except for its owners/shareholders, naturally.

In newspaper speak, every drug is a "wonder drug". This one is licensed for use, so it clearly has a benefit in slowing down the worsening of the disease. What it doesn't do us prevent it. Cure it. Stop it.

If there are 70,000 people who would receive a temporary small, but important, benefit at a cost of £30,000 a year. Each.

That it £2,100,000,000.00 a year. £2.1 Billion. Every year.

Money we have not got. Or could spend more effectively elsewhere. Sad. But true.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

The Daily Mail.

A newspaper. With plummeting sales. That seems immune to economic reality-except for its owners/shareholders, naturally.

In newspaper speak, every drug is a "wonder drug". This one is licensed for use, so it clearly has a benefit in slowing down the worsening of the disease. What it doesn't do us prevent it. Cure it. Stop it.

If there are 70,000 people who would receive a temporary small, but important, benefit at a cost of £30,000 a year. Each.

That it £2,100,000,000.00 a year. £2.1 Billion. Every year.

Money we have not got. Or could spend more effectively elsewhere. Sad. But true.

I wouldnt disagree with that.
Although I dislike the Express headline more, as it seems designed to create division.
I also think that this type of article will only increase in number.
The NHS has been a financial black hole for some time.
We cant afford for it to be everything to everybody.
Lines will surely have to be drawn.
They have a massive waiting list for operations, huge waiting times in A&E, GP appointments that are rarer than rocking horse sh1t, no dentists anywhere, and thousands of unfilled hospital vacancies.
All of which will massively increase the NHS costs to address.
There is going to come a point where the purpose of the NHS will have to be properly defined.

I dont hate rich people, lots of them benefit the country, by providing jobs.
I can easily accept that I couldnt afford this treatment.
In the same way as I cant afford a Ferrari, super yacht, or a £27,000 Gordon Ramsey lunch at the Formula 1.
Lots of things in life are only available to the rich.

tai-gar

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

The Daily Mail.

A newspaper. With plummeting sales. That seems immune to economic reality-except for its owners/shareholders, naturally.

In newspaper speak, every drug is a "wonder drug". This one is licensed for use, so it clearly has a benefit in slowing down the worsening of the disease. What it doesn't do us prevent it. Cure it. Stop it.

If there are 70,000 people who would receive a temporary small, but important, benefit at a cost of £30,000 a year. Each.

That it £2,100,000,000.00 a year. £2.1 Billion. Every year.

Money we have not got. Or could spend more effectively elsewhere. Sad. But true.

I wouldnt disagree with that.
Although I dislike the Express headline more, as it seems designed to create division.
I also think that this type of article will only increase in number.
The NHS has been a financial black hole for some time.
We cant afford for it to be everything to everybody.
Lines will surely have to be drawn.
They have a massive waiting list for operations, huge waiting times in A&E, GP appointments that are rarer than rocking horse sh1t, no dentists anywhere, and thousands of unfilled hospital vacancies.
All of which will massively increase the NHS costs to address.
There is going to come a point where the purpose of the NHS will have to be properly defined.

I dont hate rich people, lots of them benefit the country, by providing jobs.
I can easily accept that I couldnt afford this treatment.
In the same way as I cant afford a Ferrari, super yacht, or a £27,000 Gordon Ramsey lunch at the Formula 1.
Lots of things in life are only available to the rich.

Just FORGET IT.

Unless of course you can afford £30k a year from your pension.