Search results

Well you could say that about any private insurances too, you pay at sometime for a service you might need at sometime the physical act of handing over money isn't the issue, I dont think many would advocate that.

I think we are going off piste here ....... and it is becoming a wholly politicised position you have, fine, but then you are unlikely to ever accept any real change whether beneficial or not.

You seem stuck on the FREE bit, although it cost us something above £100 billion annually, which is as far away from free as you could ever know. The quality of care and its execution is key for me, however it is delivered.

Now I have no political position on this, I suspect I would go for the status quo, but also if I was presented with aspects of private innovation within a massive blackhole of a department that might improve the service that too would get me going. But seriously is this how we are genuinely...

I don't share the conspiracy theory of GP's blocking relevant treatments so that they can peddle drugs. Generally science doesnt share your belief in the treatments you say, nor do I. The problem with illnesses is that unless they are chronic or terminal they do improve, so any treatment...

No, I am saying that there has to be some level of science behind any claim before it can be deemed relevant to our overall health, let alone spending tax payers money. There are so many quite outrageous anecdotal claims of healing that it is critical that there should be some decision process...

I am sorry the NHS dismiss it because there isnt any reasonable expectation based in science that it actually works.