An inalienable right is something a government can't take away without being tyrannical.

Assurance of healthcare is not an inalienable right.

 

In that case there is no inalienable rights in a society. Rights can be taken away or twisted in any circumstance without the ruling powers being considered "tyrannical". If we followed the "endowed by the creator" rule, then the only thing we truly have a right to is being alive. And that forms neither an acceptable condition of "human"/inalienable rights or civil rights. I don't know if I agree with that.

I agree with this. The right to health is as inalienable a right as any.

An inalienable right is something a government can't take away without being tyrannical.

Assurance of healthcare is not an inalienable right.

 

In that case there is no inalienable rights in a society. Rights can be taken away or twisted in any circumstance without the ruling powers being considered "tyrannical". If we followed the "endowed by the creator" rule, then the only thing we truly have a right to is being alive. And that forms neither an acceptable condition of "human"/inalienable rights or civil rights. I don't know if I agree with that.

I agree with this. The right to health is as inalienable a right as any.

That's not the same as "free healthcare".

^

 

I can't tell if that's a joke. Presuming that health is a born right, it is the duty of the state to uphold its citizen's right to health as best it can, and so it only follows that it will provide free healthcare irrespective of circumstance.

 

To all extents and purposes, the right to health and free healthcare are the same thing expressed in different ways.

An inalienable right is something a government can't take away without being tyrannical.

Assurance of healthcare is not an inalienable right.

 

In that case there is no inalienable rights in a society. Rights can be taken away or twisted in any circumstance without the ruling powers being considered "tyrannical". If we followed the "endowed by the creator" rule, then the only thing we truly have a right to is being alive. And that forms neither an acceptable condition of "human"/inalienable rights or civil rights. I don't know if I agree with that.

I agree with this. The right to health is as inalienable a right as any.

That's not the same as "free healthcare".

Healthcare isn't free, it's publicly funded. The majority of the population pays taxes in order to provide it. And the majority of the population is deserving of it.

 

Just like any other public service.

Ohai National Insurance which gets automatically deducted from my wage.

 

It's not free bro. It's "free at the point of need". We can all play semantics.

An inalienable right is something a government can't take away without being tyrannical.

Assurance of healthcare is not an inalienable right.

 

In that case there is no inalienable rights in a society. Rights can be taken away or twisted in any circumstance without the ruling powers being considered "tyrannical". If we followed the "endowed by the creator" rule, then the only thing we truly have a right to is being alive. And that forms neither an acceptable condition of "human"/inalienable rights or civil rights. I don't know if I agree with that.

I agree with this. The right to health is as inalienable a right as any.

That's not the same as "free healthcare".

Healthcare isn't free, it's publicly funded. The majority of the population pays taxes in order to provide it. And the majority of the population is deserving of it.

 

Just like any other public service.

You just made my point.

An inalienable right is something a government can't take away without being tyrannical.

Assurance of healthcare is not an inalienable right.

 

In that case there is no inalienable rights in a society. Rights can be taken away or twisted in any circumstance without the ruling powers being considered "tyrannical". If we followed the "endowed by the creator" rule, then the only thing we truly have a right to is being alive. And that forms neither an acceptable condition of "human"/inalienable rights or civil rights. I don't know if I agree with that.

I agree with this. The right to health is as inalienable a right as any.

That's not the same as "free healthcare".

Healthcare isn't free, it's publicly funded. The majority of the population pays taxes in order to provide it. And the majority of the population is deserving of it.

 

Just like any other public service.

You just made my point.

 

What? That public services are given to anyone regardless of whether or not they deserve it? I don't see you complaining that people who don't pay taxes drive on publicly funded roads.

What? That public services are given to anyone regardless of whether or not they deserve it? I don't see you complaining that people who don't pay taxes drive on publicly funded roads.

Just because something is a public service does not make it an inalienable right. Roads are not inalienable rights. Public schooling is not an inalienable right. Healthcare is not an inalienable right.

Just because someone exists does not automagically give them a right to healthcare.

 

Trying to take this discussion back to the topic, if a person injures themselves, and a doctor is nearby, that doctor has no legal obligation to help them. Saying Healthcare is an inalienable right means otherwise, that doctors (or people in general) are obligated under natural law to help everyone, regardless of circumstance.

 

In the US, hospitals that accept federal funding are required to treat anyone and everyone, and are not allowed to turn people away because they can't pay. Private hospitals have no such obligation.

Part of the reason why I don't think people should be turned away (especially from public hospitals) is because when I'm having a medical emergency, I don't want to have to convince the hospital that I'm insured or have the ability to pay.

 

That's also to say that its my obligation to reimburse the hospital once I'm better. Most of the time, medical emergencies aren't in-and-out, they require long term care. People that can't reimburse the hospital shouldn't be given the best, most costly treatment, they should receive the bare minimum. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut.

Trying to take this discussion back to the topic, if a person injures themselves, and a doctor is nearby, that doctor has no legal obligation to help them. Saying Healthcare is an inalienable right means otherwise, that doctors (or people in general) are obligated under natural law to help everyone, regardless of circumstance.

No it doesn't, and now you're drawing superfluous tangents. They don't have any legal obligation to take care of me when off-duty in the UK either (although there is a minimal requirement that they should phone 999, as is the case with everybody, since it's a serious offence to not call for help when you notice someone in a life-threatening condition). You're trying to insinuate that my right to healthcare means that doctors and nurses are 'working' 24/7 even during their personal time; that's simply not the case, if that doctor wants to phone 999 and walk on by, that's still their choice.

 

There is absolutely an expectency, however, that an on-duty paramedic should respond to an emergency call, and that on-duty doctors and nurses should take care of me at the hospital, and that that treatment should be free at the point of need because, after all, that's why I'm paying National Insurance out of my wages.

Using one example of a failing system--where it clearly goes against the laws defined--in your eyes is apparently okay enough to strip people of their rights regardless. Or you use it as your guilt-beating stick to force others to agree with you.

 

Either way, I think your opinion is twisted and falls back on "Well X is doing it so you shouldn't care" too heavily to even be taken seriously.

Having skeletons in your closet while trying to make smart-arsed comments about slavery didnt work for you. The irony of it all is your country exploits criminals for the $ (quite a number of BIG NAME companies are named and the info isnt difficult to find).

 

Im not trying to guilt beat anyone. Im just suggesting you look in your own backyard first before you lecture me on my stance or opinion.

 

Really, jr? The plight of old people? Care to be a little more specific, perhaps even with some evidence? Again, victims rights are not an issue in the UK whatsoever. You're speaking to someone whose family comes from Sicily, where crimes used to go unpunished because of money/connections, and to an extent still do.

 

The problem with your argument is that there is no convincing case for stating that human rights in the UK are corrupt in any absolute sense, while, in relative terms, they rank among the best on the planet.

 

I added in an aside about crime statistics to counter your points on self-responsibility and how awful it is today, when in the 1970s and before - which you seem quite nostalgic about - crime was statistically higher and so presumably self-responsibility more lacking.

 

Croc, I'm not sure which 'UK' you live in, as if you keep your head reasonably above the water you'd have heard/seen many articles/news reports of what I've been talking about.

 

I guess you missed this type of article - Elderly home care failures breach human rights. So youll excuse me if it offends to not care about a criminals right to medical treatment as I think its more deplorable that an old person is denied proper access to food. Oh and there's no issues with victims of crime are there? :rolleyes:

 

You continually mention that you come from Sicily.....so what? Just because the corruption there is more blatant does not mean it isnt here because its not as obvious. Its the same thing except the moneys in the hands of lawyers who purposely undertake certain cases because thats where the money is (Hence why Cherie Booth/Blair was keen to bring it in and why everyone knows she lined her pockets very nicely). Cases such as this arent abuse of public money? Have you seen the backlog of cases in the human rights court? Fantastic arent we. Oh and dont forget that our wonderful human rights stops us from deporting many foreign criminals, you know, that hate us. Just for good measure, our current prime minister seems to think there's some issues with it

 

The thing you need to know about crime statistics is that theyve pretty much always been falling. Any guesses why? Simple. Try not recording them in the first place

jrhairychest, one question I must ask you. Earlier you commented on the state of elderly care. Why do you want to reduce the care for the accused rather than improve the well-being of the elderly?

 

I guess you missed this type of article - Elderly home care failures breach human rights. So you'll excuse me if it offends to not care about a criminals right to medical treatment as I think it's more deplorable that an old person is denied proper access to food. Oh and there's no issues with victims of crime are there? :rolleyes:

It's strange how I work in council-funded elderly care and yet I don't recognise the picture painted in that article, at least not at my workplace. I'm not denying neglect happens, and when that story came out, my colleagues and I were disgusted by some of the details, but social care is under huge pressure, and it's not just a lack of funding to blame. The system worked great for Florence Nightingale and hasn't improved much since--that's the problem with social care.

 

Given the above, I'm not sure why you're linking a yet-to-be-convicted (this seems to be forgotten in just about every reply I've read) criminal's healthcare rights to the state of council-funded social care. It has no relevence to the topic.

There is absolutely an expectency, however, that an on-duty paramedic should respond to an emergency call, and that on-duty doctors and nurses should take care of me at the hospital, and that that treatment should be free at the point of need because, after all, that's why I'm paying National Insurance out of my wages.

What I'm splitting hairs over is the difference between an inalienable right, a right, and an entitlement. Government sponsored/run healthcare is at best a right for those apart of that country, but in no way is it an inalienable right. I'd say its closer to an entitlement though.

There is absolutely an expectency, however, that an on-duty paramedic should respond to an emergency call, and that on-duty doctors and nurses should take care of me at the hospital, and that that treatment should be free at the point of need because, after all, that's why I'm paying National Insurance out of my wages.

What I'm splitting hairs over is the difference between an inalienable right, a right, and an entitlement. Government sponsored/run healthcare is at best a right for those apart of that country, but in no way is it an inalienable right. I'd say its closer to an entitlement though.

Are you suggesting that a government should only provide those things which we have an inalienable right to? I'm just curious, I don't see where you're going here...

There is absolutely an expectency, however, that an on-duty paramedic should respond to an emergency call, and that on-duty doctors and nurses should take care of me at the hospital, and that that treatment should be free at the point of need because, after all, that's why I'm paying National Insurance out of my wages.

What I'm splitting hairs over is the difference between an inalienable right, a right, and an entitlement. Government sponsored/run healthcare is at best a right for those apart of that country, but in no way is it an inalienable right. I'd say its closer to an entitlement though.

Are you suggesting that a government should only provide those things which we have an inalienable right to? I'm just curious, I don't see where you're going here...

 

This is the post a few pages back that triggered the discussion.

[hide]

[D]enying them the free healthcare entitled to everyone else is cruel as far as I am concerned.

I don't believe that healthcare is an inalienable right endowed by the Creator. I don't believe doctors or hospitals should have a moral legal obligation to treat people.

Sure, turning people away from hospitals if they're unable to pay is "cruel," but having to shut down entire burn units in hospitals because of criminals making meth is worse for the general population.

 

In the strictest John Locke sense of government (that the USA is founded on), requiring a health care professional to treat someone violates the professional's freedoms (and in a sense is tyranny). Government (We the people) paying for healthcare for those who can't (i.e. making the taxpayers pay for the poor) violates the rights of the people.

 

That's not to say that people who can't pay shouldn't be treated, it means that's left up to charity. In my opinion, that also means that people who can't pay shouldn't receive the latest and greatest, most costly treatment.

 

EDIT:fixed an inconsistency... :oops:

[/hide]

My entire point in that tangent was that just because something's nice to have the government manage doesn't make it an inalienable right.

 

There were a few other things but I think I've lost sight of the original discussion. :sad:

Oh okay, I agree. But I still think the right to good health is an inalienable right.

jrhairychest, one question I must ask you. Earlier you commented on the state of elderly care. Why do you want to reduce the care for the accused rather than improve the well-being of the elderly?

On the contrary I would do both given the option. See below for elaboration.

 

It's strange how I work in council-funded elderly care and yet I don't recognise the picture painted in that article, at least not at my workplace. I'm not denying neglect happens, and when that story came out, my colleagues and I were disgusted by some of the details, but social care is under huge pressure, and it's not just a lack of funding to blame. The system worked great for Florence Nightingale and hasn't improved much since--that's the problem with social care.

 

Given the above, I'm not sure why you're linking a yet-to-be-convicted (this seems to be forgotten in just about every reply I've read) criminal's healthcare rights to the state of council-funded social care. It has no relevence to the topic.

 

I'm in agreement that there's plenty who do a fantastic job caring for the likes of the elderly, so don't think I'm knocking that for a second. :thumbup:

 

Given the choice there are plenty of more deserving causes out there than criminals. Trying to think how to describe this but I think everyone's trying to be.....liberally trendy if that makes sense. For many it's cool to defend the rights of criminals but no-one really defends or really makes issues for those who need it. That's why it's an interesting thread. Everyone's so focussed that criminals should have rights and interested in bashing me for wanting to deny them certain things that when I threw the example plight of the elderly in the air they ignored it........such is life.

There's currently cross-party talks on-going into the future of social care funding. There isn't a lack of people wanting to reform the system through which elderly care is delivered, I'm sure most people have enough experience through their own friends and family of how outdated the process is.

 

I'm not sticking up for criminals because it's "liberally trendy". It's just a basic principle of medical care which goes back to days of Hippocrates: Doctors are not in a position to judge their patients, they're there to look after the patient's best interests. Giving them sub-standard care because society wants them to receive sub-standard care is quite obviously going against that principle. Unless you're willing to argue that we should uproot about 3,000 years of medical tradition, which if we're being honest, is right now actually working quite well for us all things considered, then I don't think there's any argument for denying criminals access to equal healthcare in a country where free healthcare at the point of need is considered a basic human right, especially when up until the point where they 'became' criminals, they were paying National Insurance in order to guarentee that safety net later on in life.

 

If you're going to argue "Well he knew the risks, he shouldn't receive any sympathy", then where do you draw the line? People working on scaffolding shouldn't receive care because they knew there was a risk of walking off the edge? Firefighters shouldn't receive treatment for injuries sustained during operations because they knew that being in close proximity to fire usually burns? The elderly shouldn't receive care when they accidently forget to use sticks while walking and consequently fall because they knew that falling will likely cause serious injury?

 

It's a debate which promises to be a bottomless pit and it's something I, and many others, would rather not indulge in when we can just say, "Everyone gets care when they need it, because through NI, they've already paid for it."

[hide]

Really, jr? The plight of old people? Care to be a little more specific, perhaps even with some evidence? Again, victims rights are not an issue in the UK whatsoever. You're speaking to someone whose family comes from Sicily, where crimes used to go unpunished because of money/connections, and to an extent still do.

 

The problem with your argument is that there is no convincing case for stating that human rights in the UK are corrupt in any absolute sense, while, in relative terms, they rank among the best on the planet.

 

I added in an aside about crime statistics to counter your points on self-responsibility and how awful it is today, when in the 1970s and before - which you seem quite nostalgic about - crime was statistically higher and so presumably self-responsibility more lacking.

 

Croc, I'm not sure which 'UK' you live in, as if you keep your head reasonably above the water you'd have heard/seen many articles/news reports of what I've been talking about.

 

I guess you missed this type of article - Elderly home care failures breach human rights. So youll excuse me if it offends to not care about a criminals right to medical treatment as I think its more deplorable that an old person is denied proper access to food. Oh and there's no issues with victims of crime are there? :rolleyes:

 

You continually mention that you come from Sicily.....so what? Just because the corruption there is more blatant does not mean it isnt here because its not as obvious. Its the same thing except the moneys in the hands of lawyers who purposely undertake certain cases because thats where the money is (Hence why Cherie Booth/Blair was keen to bring it in and why everyone knows she lined her pockets very nicely). Cases such as this arent abuse of public money? Have you seen the backlog of cases in the human rights court? Fantastic arent we. Oh and dont forget that our wonderful human rights stops us from deporting many foreign criminals, you know, that hate us. Just for good measure, our current prime minister seems to think there's some issues with it

 

The thing you need to know about crime statistics is that theyve pretty much always been falling. Any guesses why? Simple. Try not recording them in the first place

[/hide]

 

 

This is what happens when people buy into the mass media's manufactured hysteria without questioning, they become chicken little and thus even more suseptible to hysteria as its brilliant for business and getting support for ill thought out or downright insidious legislation.

After the cause of the molehill is found then the binary thinking usually kicks in, anyone who's knee isnt jerking far enough (usually to the right, but not exclusively) must be part of the problem and needs to be disposed of too, because every situation no matter how complex can be solved instantly if you ignore all the other problems your mindless flailing creates. (which conveniently creates next months story and crusade when granny's house gets demolished while she's out shopping to make way for the new bypass. We did get rid of the human rights act after all, so she doesnt actually HAVE any right to the property she worked and paid for her whole life, but hey at least we got rid of those gypsy camps lowering our house prices, misson accomplished!)

 

 

Given the choice there are plenty of more deserving causes out there than criminals. Trying to think how to describe this but I think everyone's trying to be.....liberally trendy if that makes sense. For many it's cool to defend the rights of criminals but no-one really defends or really makes issues for those who need it. That's why it's an interesting thread. Everyone's so focussed that criminals should have rights and interested in bashing me for wanting to deny them certain things that when I threw the example plight of the elderly in the air they ignored it........such is life.

 

you keep making the mistake of framing it as being either/or, as if people are only capable of caring about 1 issue at a time and should only care about the 'more important' (a completely nebulous and subjective criterion if there ever was one),which presumably means if/when a 'more important' issue than the treatment of the elderly comes up (chilld protection services failing perhaps?) you'll drop them in favour of the new issue to be outraged about, to show how much you actually care about the issue.

 

The reason people are focusing on the rights of criminals (also that they do actually have rights, and, shock! horror! are actually human too) is because thats the topic funnily enough. But hey, we're just stupid pinko liberal hippies, because we think prisoners should have protections against such things as being raped/abused by other prisoners and staff or that rehabilitation works better than just locking people up and wondering why they reoffend when they arent equpped/able to rejoin society, it means we MUST be A-OK with the elderly being neglected. You know, makes perfect sense...

I think his point is not that we can't concentrate on both things at once, what he's saying is that this stuff costs money. And the reason why there are still problems is that there isn't enough money. Because of this, money that would be spent on improving the situation for criminals would be better spent on improving the situation for others, e.g. old people.

 

He does have a point with this, but honestly I think the effect of it would be minimal. If the money of the state consisted only of one big pot of money where everything is paid out of, it might be true, but it's all distributed already. It's very unlikely that money not spent on criminals will be spent in order to improve life for other needy people, and that's why I disagree here.

Taking healthcare away from one group to help another is in no way an improvement. If anything we should be looking elsewhere for the funding, such as the failing war on drugs.

I'm not sticking up for criminals because it's "liberally trendy". It's just a basic principle of medical care which goes back to days of Hippocrates: Doctors are not in a position to judge their patients, they're there to look after the patient's best interests. Giving them sub-standard care because society wants them to receive sub-standard care is quite obviously going against that principle. Unless you're willing to argue that we should uproot about 3,000 years of medical tradition, which if we're being honest, is right now actually working quite well for us all things considered, then I don't think there's any argument for denying criminals access to equal healthcare in a country where free healthcare at the point of need is considered a basic human right, especially when up until the point where they 'became' criminals, they were paying National Insurance in order to guarentee that safety net later on in life.

 

Sure the principle of medicine dictates treatment. Thats not happened in the last 3000 years to the criminal community. In fact, just the opposite. Mutilation, whipping, branding, flogging as well as execution were commonplace for criminals. We werent all nicey nicey to criminals via your theory. It only existed as an idea. No-one could get it unless they could pay. It was only in 1948 that we got the NHS, before which, healthcare was erratic for the entire population.

 

If you're going to argue "Well he knew the risks, he shouldn't receive any sympathy", then where do you draw the line? People working on scaffolding shouldn't receive care because they knew there was a risk of walking off the edge? Firefighters shouldn't receive treatment for injuries sustained during operations because they knew that being in close proximity to fire usually burns? The elderly shouldn't receive care when they accidently forget to use sticks while walking and consequently fall because they knew that falling will likely cause serious injury?

 

The line is drawn because none of these people are breaking the law.

 

It's a debate which promises to be a bottomless pit and it's something I, and many others, would rather not indulge in when we can just say, "Everyone gets care when they need it, because through NI, they've already paid for it."

You also pay tax but do you get it spent on what you want it to and do you always get the benefit? I dont think so.

 

 

 

This is what happens when people buy into the mass media's manufactured hysteria without questioning, they become chicken little and thus even more suseptible to hysteria as its brilliant for business and getting support for ill thought out or downright insidious legislation.

After the cause of the molehill is found then the binary thinking usually kicks in, anyone who's knee isnt jerking far enough (usually to the right, but not exclusively) must be part of the problem and needs to be disposed of too, because every situation no matter how complex can be solved instantly if you ignore all the other problems your mindless flailing creates. (which conveniently creates next months story and crusade when granny's house gets demolished while she's out shopping to make way for the new bypass. We did get rid of the human rights act after all, so she doesnt actually HAVE any right to the property she worked and paid for her whole life, but hey at least we got rid of those gypsy camps lowering our house prices, misson accomplished!)

 

you keep making the mistake of framing it as being either/or, as if people are only capable of caring about 1 issue at a time and should only care about the 'more important' (a completely nebulous and subjective criterion if there ever was one),which presumably means if/when a 'more important' issue than the treatment of the elderly comes up (chilld protection services failing perhaps?) you'll drop them in favour of the new issue to be outraged about, to show how much you actually care about the issue.

 

The reason people are focusing on the rights of criminals (also that they do actually have rights, and, shock! horror! are actually human too) is because thats the topic funnily enough. But hey, we're just stupid pinko liberal hippies, because we think prisoners should have protections against such things as being raped/abused by other prisoners and staff or that rehabilitation works better than just locking people up and wondering why they reoffend when they arent equpped/able to rejoin society, it means we MUST be A-OK with the elderly being neglected. You know, makes perfect sense...

 

Yes Locke....Youve obviously (not) read who did the initial reports that the articles are based on e.g. Equality and Human rights Commission, Police, Victim Support and politicians own words. Do I think criminals deserve medical treatment other than emergency/life saving? No. Do I think there are more deserving causes and things to petition? Absolutely. I didnt see any rules stating I had to agree with everyone else, nor the fact that there were other things that were more important. So if you dont like it then its a bit tough titty.

 

In terms of your last paragraph, youre concerned about prisoners being raped, beaten etc. by other prisoners or staff. Very politically correct approach (Labourite), but as per usual, wheres the voice of those that are the real victims of this out there in the real world? You claim oh its all media propaganda and knee jerk. Yeah, yeah enjoy living in your bubble world.

 

I think his point is not that we can't concentrate on both things at once, what he's saying is that this stuff costs money. And the reason why there are still problems is that there isn't enough money. Because of this, money that would be spent on improving the situation for criminals would be better spent on improving the situation for others, e.g. old people.

 

He does have a point with this, but honestly I think the effect of it would be minimal. If the money of the state consisted only of one big pot of money where everything is paid out of, it might be true, but it's all distributed already. It's very unlikely that money not spent on criminals will be spent in order to improve life for other needy people, and that's why I disagree here.

Thats fair comment Jonanananas. Interesting one for you.........If you were guaranteed the cash would be spent elsewhere e.g. the old, help for victims of crime etc..........................Would you agree? What about charging criminals (or their families) full private rates for medical treatment? Perhaps like they do in the US, make them work for that money via private companies?

Taking healthcare away from one group to help another is in no way an improvement. If anything we should be looking elsewhere for the funding, such as the failing war on drugs.

This, more or less. It'd be a good idea to make healthcare more efficient/affordable before letting the government manage it (In the States, at least).

I'm not sticking up for criminals because it's "liberally trendy". It's just a basic principle of medical care which goes back to days of Hippocrates: Doctors are not in a position to judge their patients, they're there to look after the patient's best interests. Giving them sub-standard care because society wants them to receive sub-standard care is quite obviously going against that principle. Unless you're willing to argue that we should uproot about 3,000 years of medical tradition, which if we're being honest, is right now actually working quite well for us all things considered, then I don't think there's any argument for denying criminals access to equal healthcare in a country where free healthcare at the point of need is considered a basic human right, especially when up until the point where they 'became' criminals, they were paying National Insurance in order to guarentee that safety net later on in life.

 

Sure the principle of medicine dictates treatment. That's not happened in the last 3000 years to the criminal community. In fact, just the opposite. Mutilation, whipping, branding, flogging as well as execution were commonplace for criminals. We weren't all nicey nicey to criminals via your theory. It only existed as an idea. No-one could get it unless they could pay. It was only in 1948 that we got the NHS, before which, healthcare was erratic for the entire population.

So now that we have the political will and financial resources to deliver good on medical principle, you want to pretend as though we're living in the 2,950 or so years before the foundation of the welfare state and revert back to the days where everyone received varying levels of care according to their personal circumstances.

 

Makes total sense.

So now that we have the political will and financial resources to deliver good on medical principle, you want to pretend as though we're living in the 2,950 or so years before the foundation of the welfare state and revert back to the days where everyone received varying levels of care according to their personal circumstances.

 

Makes total sense.

No. I've clearly shown that criminals are treated a billion times better than they were not all that long ago. Those those that choose not to obey the laws and regulations shouldn't expect the same benefits that come with it. Everyone else can expect the same level of care, though I might add there that we already have a tiered system in our NHS already....postcode lottery.