Three cheers for
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Not actually true - disability allowance has nothing to de with being fit for work or not. It is an payment-of-expenses-incurred in living with a disability. You do not have to be unemployed or signed off by a doctor to get it.
Quelle horreur! My ignorance exposed! Please don't tell Gillian or Private Wee Parts, I shall never live it down! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
The only way you can tell Captain Semen Stains anything is to post it on YouTube - so your secert is safe. :laugh:
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
-
If it didn't it wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It is morally superior to simply allow people to go bust in attempting to pay for services, and to die horribly because they can not afford the treatments, than to possibly delay treatment for a non-critical injury in a system that covers everyone. Or so I've been told, but the people who said it really hated my analysis of it.
Distind wrote:
Or so I've been told, but the people who said it really hated my analysis of it.
ROTFL - excellent summation. Mentlally, I gave you a 5.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Actually, I am more worried by the fact a doctor hasnt signed him off as unfit for work. While another doctor, his surgeon, says he is unfit for an operaiton!
Three cheers for socialism and bureaucracy!
Ilíon wrote:
Three cheers for socialism and bureaucracy!
As has been pointed out, high blood pressure is a valid reason for cancelling surgery, but not for remaining unemployed. Mr Eeles has not worked and has received incapacity benefit since his accident. Claimants receiving this benefit for over 29 weeks are re-assessed medically. This is to weed out benefit cheats, such as those who do not follow their doctor's instructions, and thus prolong their period of invalidity. From the Trust Statement[^] (an excerpt omitted from the newspaper reports): He was told [that he needed to give up smoking] first when he came to the QEII in December 2008 and on several occasions subsequently. It was explained to Mr Eeles, in detail, that his continued smoking raised the risk of serious complications had the surgery gone ahead. Did no journalist enquire of Mr Eeles whether he had yet given up smoking, and whether his blood pressure had been reduced? The only reason for the hospital not arranging a further operation would be, again, the risk of serious complications. While Mr Eeles may be incapable of following his trade as a kitchen fitter and plumber, a doctor opined that he was fit for work. There is a cynical side to my nature that wonders why the media were unaware of Mr Eeles' plight until his incapacity benefit was withdrawn, and the dismal spectre of Employment cast its pall over his days of whine and ciggies. Thank you for your continuing interest in the UK, why do you pretend to care? Isn't that a *liberal* (or is it L*I*B*E*R*A*L) trait?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
That's what happens here in Massachusetts. It's why Massachusetts is now in debt, after having surpluses for ten plus years. Now that it's been implemented for three years, the state is in debt.
josda1000 wrote:
It's why Massachusetts is now in debt, after having surpluses for ten plus years
Are you sure that's the only place that funds were mismanaged in Mass ? Australia has had public health since the 50s, without a constant, growing, out of control debt problem. We just vote the libs in when the debt gets too bad, and they pay it off. Then we forget and vote in labour because they spend the most money on us.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Three cheers for socialism and bureaucracy!
As has been pointed out, high blood pressure is a valid reason for cancelling surgery, but not for remaining unemployed. Mr Eeles has not worked and has received incapacity benefit since his accident. Claimants receiving this benefit for over 29 weeks are re-assessed medically. This is to weed out benefit cheats, such as those who do not follow their doctor's instructions, and thus prolong their period of invalidity. From the Trust Statement[^] (an excerpt omitted from the newspaper reports): He was told [that he needed to give up smoking] first when he came to the QEII in December 2008 and on several occasions subsequently. It was explained to Mr Eeles, in detail, that his continued smoking raised the risk of serious complications had the surgery gone ahead. Did no journalist enquire of Mr Eeles whether he had yet given up smoking, and whether his blood pressure had been reduced? The only reason for the hospital not arranging a further operation would be, again, the risk of serious complications. While Mr Eeles may be incapable of following his trade as a kitchen fitter and plumber, a doctor opined that he was fit for work. There is a cynical side to my nature that wonders why the media were unaware of Mr Eeles' plight until his incapacity benefit was withdrawn, and the dismal spectre of Employment cast its pall over his days of whine and ciggies. Thank you for your continuing interest in the UK, why do you pretend to care? Isn't that a *liberal* (or is it L*I*B*E*R*A*L) trait?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Ilíon wrote:
Three cheers for socialism and bureaucracy!
As has been pointed out, high blood pressure is a valid reason for cancelling surgery, but not for remaining unemployed. Mr Eeles has not worked and has received incapacity benefit since his accident. Claimants receiving this benefit for over 29 weeks are re-assessed medically. This is to weed out benefit cheats, such as those who do not follow their doctor's instructions, and thus prolong their period of invalidity. From the Trust Statement[^] (an excerpt omitted from the newspaper reports): He was told [that he needed to give up smoking] first when he came to the QEII in December 2008 and on several occasions subsequently. It was explained to Mr Eeles, in detail, that his continued smoking raised the risk of serious complications had the surgery gone ahead. Did no journalist enquire of Mr Eeles whether he had yet given up smoking, and whether his blood pressure had been reduced? The only reason for the hospital not arranging a further operation would be, again, the risk of serious complications. While Mr Eeles may be incapable of following his trade as a kitchen fitter and plumber, a doctor opined that he was fit for work. There is a cynical side to my nature that wonders why the media were unaware of Mr Eeles' plight until his incapacity benefit was withdrawn, and the dismal spectre of Employment cast its pall over his days of whine and ciggies. Thank you for your continuing interest in the UK, why do you pretend to care? Isn't that a *liberal* (or is it L*I*B*E*R*A*L) trait?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Bob Emmett wrote:
Thank you for your continuing interest in the UK, why do you pretend to care? Isn't that a *liberal* (or is it L*I*B*E*R*A*L) trait?
Motive-mongering is so anti-logical. Thus, one is lead to wonder: 1) are you incapable of reasoning properly? 2) do you reason illogically because you lack some information, the lack of which leads you to misunderstand how to reason properly? 3) do you understand how to reason logically, but have chosen to not do so?
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
As has been pointed out, high blood pressure is a valid reason for cancelling surgery, but not for remaining unemployed.
Any honest person would admit that that bureaucratic excuse doesn't work in this case.
Ilíon wrote:
Any honest person would admit that that bureaucratic excuse doesn't work in this case.
As an honest person, my post would have been the same had the Daily Wail, Daily Torygraph, Daily Mirror, et al been attacking a private, insurance backed, medical service. Short of dragging Mr Eeles into hospital, forbidding him to smoke, bringing down his blood pressure, and operating (Nanny State indeed), what would you have the NHS do? Mr Eeles is responsible for his life, not the state. If the NHS were at fault, he could have sorted it out. You can fight 'City Hospital' in this country, believe it or not. You don't have to be rich or privileged, just right - and noisy.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Thank you for your continuing interest in the UK, why do you pretend to care? Isn't that a *liberal* (or is it L*I*B*E*R*A*L) trait?
Motive-mongering is so anti-logical. Thus, one is lead to wonder: 1) are you incapable of reasoning properly? 2) do you reason illogically because you lack some information, the lack of which leads you to misunderstand how to reason properly? 3) do you understand how to reason logically, but have chosen to not do so?
You have expressed the opinion that "liberals" do not really care about the causes that they espouse. That it is all show. You do not really care about NHS victims (real or imaginary), and yet you espouse their cause in your attack on socialism. Therefore you display the trait that you accuse "liberals" of possessing.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
