It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'I wouldn't be here if not for the NHS': Stephen Hawking defends UK's 'Orwellian' healthcare a

page: 20
30
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Wriggle, wriggle


You have stated that he has probably had private treatment - prove it.

I know that he is in fact pretty poor, because an awfull lot of his royalty money has gone on hiring carers because the NHS does not provide the round the clock help that he requires without him being admitted to hospital or a residential care home.

That is the extent of Hawking's care outside the NHS, a carer that he hired to keep him out of hospital.

That does not constitute private treatment, because the carer does not treat him - the carer helps him with everyday tasks, such as washing, dressing, in/out of bed etc etc

You have also stated that there's no way he can state that he wouldn't be alive if not for the NHS.

Who has provided his treatement?
The NHS
Therefore without the NHS he would not be alive.

Simple really.

Now if you want to take a contrary position the burden of proof is on you to PROVE otherwise.




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Wriggle, wriggle


You have stated that he has probably had private treatment - prove it.


if you want to be a wriggler, prove he would have died had he lived in the US, how does that sound buddy, good luck !

PROVE IT!



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by john124
Hmmm so you see his excellent NHS treatment actually has contributed to extending his life beyond all expectations.


well it really does not prove that the "excellent" NHS predicted he would die within 2 years, and that turned out to be a crock of turd- maybe it is in his genes, maybe he is just lucky, but without alternate universe Hawkings you can prove jack s





A Phd student wouldn't be able to afford private treatment, and his family were not wealthy. Thankfully the NHS doesn't distinguish who to treat by how much they can afford to pay.


You have no idea what his earnings were or sources of income, you have no idea how much private health care would cost for him (for someone young it is dirt cheap)


0.9 years brother you must feel well safe




How's it feel when all the evidence supports what Hawking's said?


there is no "proof" it is his belief that the NHS saved his life, but until we have duplicate hawkings living the same life under different health care systems it remains proof



Balls to you Yanky, who can't use google to save his life.




Brilliant stuff, Im from Belfast you cheeser


You are making the bold claims with no basis.

It's perfectly reasonable to accept Mr. Hawking's comments as there is a multitude of evidence to support his claim.

If he did not have treatment with the NHS at age 21, therefore having no treatment being the alternative, then he would have died long ago. It's the treatment during his Phd years which he could not afford that saved his life, at the early stages of treatment. Whether that prolonged his life to today or whether his genes contributed a great deal is irrelevant.

This all correlates with Mr. Hawking's comments, therefore it is logical to say his comments are true that the NHS saved his life, and that he could not afford alternate treatment at the time.

It really is a logical deduction Mr. Old Smokey Irishman.

And you still cannot use google to save your life!

[edit on 14-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


See now I never said that he would have died in the US, so I have nothing to prove.

Whereas you stated that no-one can prove that the NHS saved his life.

I say that's a crock of #.

He was born in the UK, was diagnosed by the NHS, has had NHS treatment all his life.

What kept him alive, fresh air?

Or the NHS treatment he has received all his life, that he would have died without?


[edit on 14/8/2009 by budski]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by blueorder
 


See now I never said that he would have died in the US, so I have nothing to prove.

Whereas you stated that no-one can prove that the NHS saved his life.

I say that's a crock.

He was born in the UK, was diagnosed by the NHS, has had NHS treatment all his life.

What kept him alive, fresh air?

Or the NHS treatment he has received all his life, that he would have died without?


That's a much simpler way of putting it, which is just as true and accurate.

Those who make bold claims and pretending their is a greater argument that actually does not exist, and who cannot show adequate reasoning like this are only embarrassing themselves.... wherever they are from.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by blueorder
 


See now I never said that he would have died in the US, so I have nothing to prove.



it is pretty much the basis for this thread

* Idiotic article does not realise Hawkings is British
* Hawkings responds with the opinion NHS saved his life
* Idiots on the other side of the debate then use this as an attack on the US system




Whereas you stated that no-one can prove that the NHS saved his life.

I say that's a crock.

He was born in the UK, was diagnosed by the NHS, has had NHS treatment all his life.

What kept him alive, fresh air?

Or the NHS treatment he has received all his life, that he would have died without?


the NHS said he would live for 2 years, it appears they were pretty inept in that diagnosis.

Anyway, I aint an NHS hater, I think it needs amended, like the US system needs amended, but if you want evidence of his private care, here is but one example


news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I have a Canadian friend (who's lived in the US for almost 20 years now), whose father had a transplant back in Canada, which saved his life. My friend is convinced that his dad wouldn't have been afforded same care here in the US.

I didn't invent anything in this factoid. Just want to point out that semi-social healthcare works well in many cases.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I wonder how many here have lived under both systems - well I have, and the UK system is far superior.

It has its drawbacks, but our system is just plain corrupt.

However, the French "dual choice" system is the best of all, basically a hybrid approach of private and public.

Given the choice I would adopt a French style system, but the current Obama healthcare proposal is a shambles, Hillary would have done it better.

Wow, never thought I'd say THAT.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by blueorder
 


See now I never said that he would have died in the US, so I have nothing to prove.



it is pretty much the basis for this thread

* Idiotic article does not realise Hawkings is British
* Hawkings responds with the opinion NHS saved his life
* Idiots on the other side of the debate then use this as an attack on the US system




Whereas you stated that no-one can prove that the NHS saved his life.

I say that's a crock.

He was born in the UK, was diagnosed by the NHS, has had NHS treatment all his life.

What kept him alive, fresh air?

Or the NHS treatment he has received all his life, that he would have died without?


the NHS said he would live for 2 years, it appears they were pretty inept in that diagnosis.

Anyway, I aint an NHS hater, I think it needs amended, like the US system needs amended, but if you want evidence of his private care, here is but one example


news.bbc.co.uk...




Hmmm why focus on the negative aspects only. Isn't it worth celebrating that somebody lived 67 years and is still alive today when he was told he had 2 years left to live?

The NHS provides a pretty decent service despite the ineptness you perceive.

The basis of this thread is that Stephen Hawking said he wouldn't be here if not for the NHS, not the crap you said it was about.

Like I've said previously, it's the early stages of the treatment by the NHS where he could not afford private healthcare that saved his life. Whether private healthcare later prolonged it further does not change this one fact that Hawking's himself has said.

From the BBC source you gave:

In 1980, he changed to a system of community and private nurses, who came in for an hour or two in the morning and evening.


It was 1963 he was diagnosed. So according to your evidence he has lived under NHS healthcare for 17 years at least. Much more than the 2 years doctors said he had left to live. Hardly inept healthcare!

We've tried to be patient, but you just do not seem to understand these basic points in your clueless haze.


[edit on 14-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


No, the basis of this thread is that Stephen Hawking said he wouldn't be here if not for the NHS.

Once again, the clue is in the title.

You have stated that there's no way that can be proved.

I have stated that he was born in the UK was diagnosed by the NHS, had treatment by the NHS and was, in other words, kept alive by the NHS, because if the NHS did not exist he would not have been treated by them - so QED the NHS has kept him alive.

Therefore you are wrong.

There is an argument to say that despite the original diagnosis, it is the excellence of the treatment that he recieved and the research done into the disease by the NHS that has made the original diagnosis irrlevant, and prolonged his life far more than his original prognosis.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Hmmm why focus on the negative aspects only. Isn't it worth celebrating that somebody lived 67 years and is still alive today when he was told he had 2 years left to live?


I am not solely focussed on the negative aspects of the NHS, all I've said is that it needs reform too.

It is great that Hawkings has lived so long, and can give hope to others




The NHS provides a pretty decent service despite the ineptness you perceive.


yes, it is relatively decent (in the same way that the US system is not the horror story that some like to picture)- once again, neither system is perfect



The basis of this thread is that Stephen Hawking said he wouldn't be here if not for the NHS, not the crap you said it was about.


Yes, and what you term as "crap" is just opinions which you dislike in relation to said comment from Hawkings, so if you don't like it don't bother reading them



Like I've said previously, it's the early stages of the treatment by the NHS where he could not afford private healthcare that saved his life.


yeah, like you said, as if you have that gift to know what saved his life



Whether private healthcare later prolonged it further does not change this one fact that Hawking's himself has said.


One person was getting rather stuck on "proof" of any private health care, he has received it so hopefully he will be happy- and there is no "fact" about why Hawkings is alive btw- the simple fact is he is alive



From the BBC source you gave:

In 1980, he changed to a system of community and private nurses, who came in for an hour or two in the morning and evening.


It was 1963 he was diagnosed. So according to your evidence he has lived under NHS healthcare for 17 years at least. Much more than the 2 years doctors said he had left to live. Hardly inept healthcare!



listen chum, I was having a separate discussing with budski who demanded proof of private care, don't join in as you appear to be confused



We've tried to be patient, but you just do not seem to understand these basic points in your clueless haze.


oh how wonderful for you, with your grand assumptions of my nationality and your crass "yank" reference- I couldnae give a flying fisherman's turd what false levels of superiority you think you have, just so ye know pal



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by budskiNo, the basis of this thread is that Stephen Hawking said he wouldn't be here if not for the NHS.

Once again, the clue is in the title.

You have stated that there's no way that can be proved.

I have stated that he was born in the UK was diagnosed by the NHS, had treatment by the NHS and was, in other words, kept alive by the NHS, because if the NHS did not exist he would not have been treated by them - so QED the NHS has kept him alive.

Therefore you are wrong.



Incorrect- the only way you could prove this is to go back in time and see how long he survived with different treatment (or not treatment at all)

Can you do that buddy?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Man that's a stupid concept and just proves you're wrong.

I guess you've been caught out and are resorting to inept responses as a last ditch effort to save your hide.





posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


No, it is completely correct.

Perhaps if we ask what HAS kept Hawking alive?

Fresh air?

Long naps in the afternoon?

A regimen of drugs, therapy and other treatment provided free by the NHS because he was born and raised in the UK and is entitled to it by law?


Hmmm, my money is on option number three.



All this going back in time rubbish is just that - rubbish.

The fact is that he has had NHS treatment which has kept him alive, therefore without it, he would not be here.

BTW community nurses and carers do not TREAT people, they provide supportive care.
Only doctors TREAT people, and Hawking has never had private doctors.

But thanks for playing.

Please come again.



[edit on 14/8/2009 by budski]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 



Yes, and what you term as "crap" is just opinions which you dislike in relation to said comment from Hawkings, so if you don't like it don't bother reading them


Yes your opinion was obviously incorrect because you misunderstood the title of this thread.


listen chum, I was having a separate discussing with budski who demanded proof of private care, don't join in as you appear to be confused


Oh really, I thought this was a public forum, you know, for everybody to join in. Do you argue for fun or can you actually be rational?


oh how wonderful for you, with your grand assumptions of my nationality and your crass "yank" reference- I couldnae give a flying fisherman's turd what false levels of superiority you think you have, just so ye know pal


My previous 2 or 3 posts before this explain why Hawking's comments are correct, and show the relevant proof. If you wish to deny these facts, then that's your own choice of course.

I was wondering why it is so important that you wouldn't take Hawking's word anyway without even needing to question it in such detail, it's not such a big issue in relation to most other matters.

It's a simple logical deduction to say within those 17 years (from your own sources provided!) before Hawking's had a combination of private and NHS nurses, that the NHS saved his life, with the early stages of treatment being the most critical. And the NHS doctors being the life-savers.

Also there's no reason to doubt Mr. Hawking's comments because a typical Phd student does not have the money to pay for private treatment, and he was a Phd student writing his thesis for the 2 years he only expected to live for, at that time, from his doctor's diagnosis.

There is no reason to doubt Mr. Hawking's whatsoever!

I wonder what he would make of your pettiness whilst you are complaining that others are behaving superior to you, and when you demonstrate an inferior use of grammer and spelling, with a lack of logical reasoning.


[edit on 14-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


dude HE SAID IT..

I mean what part of this point do you not get?

The NHS is paid for by EVERYONE in the UK.. EVERYONE because we get TAXED for it..

In the USA they PAY some stupid company... "insurance" blue shield blah blah

We dont..

We do not have to worry about AFFORDING IT because ITS PAID FOR by a DIRECT TAX

are you insane?

The man is making a VALID statement here...

He is saying and he is correct WITHOUT the SYSTEM we have he would probably be DEAD

and he is great full for the fact he got the service ..

No offense to any people from the USA here but the fact is

YOU LOVE MONEY you cant stand GOVERMENT but u kiss there ass every single day.. correct?

You pay tax wipiing ur ARSE .. my friends.. and you whine and moan about health care? and solicalism? ha thats a joke

You spend more on blowing people up than you do on looking after the poor sods you send to war for OIL

talk about being a two faced....

Some of you need to wake up my friends...

If i lived in the usa? I WOULD MOVE TO CANADA ... or here lol

You are being shafted by greedy people who only see you as a share in a stcok called USA PLC

get my point?

You think that because of the 4th of july ur a great nation

we was having wars and revlots befor you was even a NATION

we know this because WE MADE YOU lets get that right

having the most nukes and showing off is all good and well.. but MY for fartehrs created what you call the USA

you do not even speak ENGLISH you speak USA english? are u kidding me?

You think you are the best nation on earth?

300 years mate ill piss all over it with my own history....

THE NHS is NOT about MONEY its about MORALS for people who u see who can NOT afford some wizz jiggery pokery INSURANCE

we care for our fellow man i suggest u do the same.. but then again

GW BUSH says it all really...

I will give u a quote here... and this is from bob marley

THE FOR GET FULL ONES

you forget who and why and how u became a nation and glorify it.. with what?

crap and money

thats what.. there is more to life than stupid big screen tvs and HUMMERS...

its all about mentality my friend.. and in the DOLLA we trust.. not god

so go play with ur green backs And ill be happy to get my health care while u debate it with ur INSURANCE company..

lesson over



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by budskiNo, the basis of this thread is that Stephen Hawking said he wouldn't be here if not for the NHS.

Once again, the clue is in the title.

You have stated that there's no way that can be proved.

I have stated that he was born in the UK was diagnosed by the NHS, had treatment by the NHS and was, in other words, kept alive by the NHS, because if the NHS did not exist he would not have been treated by them - so QED the NHS has kept him alive.

Therefore you are wrong.



Incorrect- the only way you could prove this is to go back in time and see how long he survived with different treatment (or not treatment at all)

Can you do that buddy?


Thanks for proving to us all that you're a halfwit adult, or a child.

You could just have the guts to admit you're wrong and you may learn something from this debacle!



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I think that Hawking statement is best understood in the context of a very real attack in the US media, against the UK NHS. The first shots in this war were fired a few years ago by none other than Rudy Giuliani, who said about his prostate cancer condition that he'd be actually dead in the UK (or some other European country, but I believe he did mention UK). This, of course, is a complete lie and a gross exaggeration at best. CNN has run a clip on British reaction to all this besmirching attempts.

Look, European model (with all its variations) mostly works and there are plenty of studies to prove it. Dr.Hawking is just one data point in the grand picture of the US system being detrimental to the overall nation's condition, with its runaway cost structure and lackluster results.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Good points, and they illustrate what I've been saying for some time - corporate healthcare doesn't work because the bottom line will always be more important than the patients.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
simply put

one group of people are arguing that tax money should go to non other then them selfs, not the goverment nor other people.

the other group of people are arguing that since its tax money, everyone should get the benefits from it.

then we have an other group who´s arguing that they dont want to pay tax but want to benefit from an established goverment.

somehow i feel that two of the groups miss the point of what it means to live in a society and what tax money is to be used for.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join