UK Moves to Deny Surgery to Smokers

The retard would be you, unable to even understand the english language much less use it. Your foul mouthed tirades are an example of your ignorance. Unable to express yourself with words you resort to foul language, thinking it somehow appropriate. It is good to see you admit you do not give a rats ass about the Constitution or the rights and privelages of same.

You can complain about my use of what you consider foul language because I will continue to use such language whether you like it or not. What rights do you speak of? The right for dictators like you to vote and to elect you a representative while denying those of us who voted for the other person representation? Is that the right you speak of? The right to be representated and to deny others representation? These so called priveliges and rights you speak of are? The answer to that is that they are the rights that liberals in 1789 fought to have included because they recognized that they wouldn't be able to stop the conservatives from drafting and ratifying the Constitution. Why the hell do you think the Founding Fathers met behind closed doors? The answer is that the things they said in the Convention would have caused these tyrants to be lynched by the people. When Hamilton (the liar who wrote part of the Federalist Papers) went on about how the British form of government was the best and how the President should be appointed for life he would have been lynched as the people rioted. Why do you think they kept the journals of the Convention secret for so long? Because they knew what the people would have done had they known just how evil these men were.

I care about my rights and priveliges and I am grateful that liberals of that time fought to have a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution because we would be much worst off if they had not done so. My position is no different than those in Rhode Island who voted against ratifying the Constitution. The only way it was ratified was by a special convention of people like you. Had the Constitution been presented to the people in each state they also would have rejected it so the supporters of the Constitution made sure it wasn't presented to the people and that only a select few in Ratifying Conventions would have a say and they made sure that people like you were the at those conventions. Even then, the Constitution was only narrowly ratified. Why do you think that is? Because the people of that time recognized it as nothing more than the British form of government with a few minor changes. They understood that they revolted against the very form of government being proposed. Much of what they had said and predicted has come true. I don't have any problem with the provisions of the Constitution which protect my rights and liberties but they would still be my rights and liberties without the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant them to me and if anyone tried to take them away from me I would fight for them just like the American people did in the American Revolution.

Interesting enough, the only time the Constitution was rejected was when it went to a vote of the people, and the only time it was accepted was when evil people like you decided that they would hold ratifiying conventions and deprive us of our rights. We complained then and we obtained a Bill of Rights and we still believe the same and we have not changed our position. The Constitution was written by men like Alexander Hamilton who felt that the British form of government was the best in the world and who like the little conservative bitch he was left the Convention because it wasn't strong enough and the President wasn't going to be appointed for life but finally he recognized that if he wasn't going to get everything he wanted he could at least get a lot of what he wanted. Do you even realize that these people were not even authorized to draft a new Constitution or to change it and that some of them were explicitly instructed not to do so and yet they did because they were traitors, and conspiring men who sought to make our nation in the image of the British government we had revolted against. They knew exactly what they were doing when they met to discuss economic issues and decided to call a constitutional convention to draft a new Constitution and to urge Congress to call a constitutional convention. After Shay's rebellion and after the people had stormed Courthouses and called for the State Senate to be abolished these people became afraid that those who loved freedom and liberty would turn on them too and they sought to undo all that we had fought for.

Like those at that time I don't give a shit that we can debate and vote when the vote results in you and those who agree with you getting representation while I and the person I voted for are denied representation by your vote to deny us represention. I intend to make sure that the person who agrees with me wins so I will have representation and if that means your retarded ass doesn't have representation than so be it. So long as we live in a country where people are regularly denied representation through the electoral process I intend that I am not denied such representation and that you are. I respect the ideals in the Constitution that are good ones and I hold the rest of them put in it by bitches like you who lived then to be worthless.
 
The government cannot save us from ourselves. We are gonna eat fast food, not exercise, and die young. Now, the government and private sector, and insurance companies could work together to solve the problem. But dont look for one of them to be your saviour. As far as democracy goes, hasnt it always been a case one side is more represented then another. What is your point, I dont wanna read a two page lecture...

You can complain about my use of what you consider foul language because I will continue to use such language whether you like it or not. What rights do you speak of? The right for dictators like you to vote and to elect you a representative while denying those of us who voted for the other person representation? Is that the right you speak of? The right to be representated and to deny others representation? These so called priveliges and rights you speak of are? The answer to that is that they are the rights that liberals in 1789 fought to have included because they recognized that they wouldn't be able to stop the conservatives from drafting and ratifying the Constitution. Why the hell do you think the Founding Fathers met behind closed doors? The answer is that the things they said in the Convention would have caused these tyrants to be lynched by the people. When Hamilton (the liar who wrote part of the Federalist Papers) went on about how the British form of government was the best and how the President should be appointed for life he would have been lynched as the people rioted. Why do you think they kept the journals of the Convention secret for so long? Because they knew what the people would have done had they known just how evil these men were.

I care about my rights and priveliges and I am grateful that liberals of that time fought to have a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution because we would be much worst off if they had not done so. My position is no different than those in Rhode Island who voted against ratifying the Constitution. The only way it was ratified was by a special convention of people like you. Had the Constitution been presented to the people in each state they also would have rejected it so the supporters of the Constitution made sure it wasn't presented to the people and that only a select few in Ratifying Conventions would have a say and they made sure that people like you were the at those conventions. Even then, the Constitution was only narrowly ratified. Why do you think that is? Because the people of that time recognized it as nothing more than the British form of government with a few minor changes. They understood that they revolted against the very form of government being proposed. Much of what they had said and predicted has come true. I don't have any problem with the provisions of the Constitution which protect my rights and liberties but they would still be my rights and liberties without the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant them to me and if anyone tried to take them away from me I would fight for them just like the American people did in the American Revolution.

Interesting enough, the only time the Constitution was rejected was when it went to a vote of the people, and the only time it was accepted was when evil people like you decided that they would hold ratifiying conventions and deprive us of our rights. We complained then and we obtained a Bill of Rights and we still believe the same and we have not changed our position. The Constitution was written by men like Alexander Hamilton who felt that the British form of government was the best in the world and who like the little conservative bitch he was left the Convention because it wasn't strong enough and the President wasn't going to be appointed for life but finally he recognized that if he wasn't going to get everything he wanted he could at least get a lot of what he wanted. Do you even realize that these people were not even authorized to draft a new Constitution or to change it and that some of them were explicitly instructed not to do so and yet they did because they were traitors, and conspiring men who sought to make our nation in the image of the British government we had revolted against. They knew exactly what they were doing when they met to discuss economic issues and decided to call a constitutional convention to draft a new Constitution and to urge Congress to call a constitutional convention. After Shay's rebellion and after the people had stormed Courthouses and called for the State Senate to be abolished these people became afraid that those who loved freedom and liberty would turn on them too and they sought to undo all that we had fought for.

Like those at that time I don't give a shit that we can debate and vote when the vote results in you and those who agree with you getting representation while I and the person I voted for are denied representation by your vote to deny us represention. I intend to make sure that the person who agrees with me wins so I will have representation and if that means your retarded ass doesn't have representation than so be it. So long as we live in a country where people are regularly denied representation through the electoral process I intend that I am not denied such representation and that you are. I respect the ideals in the Constitution that are good ones and I hold the rest of them put in it by bitches like you who lived then to be worthless.
 
You can complain about my use of what you consider foul language because I will continue to use such language whether you like it or not. What rights do you speak of? The right for dictators like you to vote and to elect you a representative while denying those of us who voted for the other person representation? Is that the right you speak of? The right to be representated and to deny others representation? These so called priveliges and rights you speak of are? The answer to that is that they are the rights that liberals in 1789 fought to have included because they recognized that they wouldn't be able to stop the conservatives from drafting and ratifying the Constitution. Why the hell do you think the Founding Fathers met behind closed doors? The answer is that the things they said in the Convention would have caused these tyrants to be lynched by the people. When Hamilton (the liar who wrote part of the Federalist Papers) went on about how the British form of government was the best and how the President should be appointed for life he would have been lynched as the people rioted. Why do you think they kept the journals of the Convention secret for so long? Because they knew what the people would have done had they known just how evil these men were.

me: Who exactly was evil, and why?. im not understand your point?

I care about my rights and priveliges and I am grateful that liberals of that time fought to have a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution because we would be much worst off if they had not done so. My position is no different than those in Rhode Island who voted against ratifying the Constitution. The only way it was ratified was by a special convention of people like you. Had the Constitution been presented to the people in each state they also would have rejected it so the supporters of the Constitution made sure it wasn't presented to the people and that only a select few in Ratifying Conventions would have a say and they made sure that people like you were the at those conventions. Even then, the Constitution was only narrowly ratified. Why do you think that is? Because the people of that time recognized it as nothing more than the British form of government with a few minor changes. They understood that they revolted against the very form of government being proposed. Much of what they had said and predicted has come true. I don't have any problem with the provisions of the Constitution which protect my rights and liberties but they would still be my rights and liberties without the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant them to me and if anyone tried to take them away from me I would fight for them just like the American people did in the American Revolution.

me: I am not opposed to the bill of rights, or our liberties, and I thought god , or our creator gave us our rights, so is that why your saying we dont need the constitution?

Interesting enough, the only time the Constitution was rejected was when it went to a vote of the people, and the only time it was accepted was when evil people like you decided that they would hold ratifiying conventions and deprive us of our rights. We complained then and we obtained a Bill of Rights and we still believe the same and we have not changed our position. The Constitution was written by men like Alexander Hamilton who felt that the British form of government was the best in the world and who like the little conservative bitch he was left the Convention because it wasn't strong enough and the President wasn't going to be appointed for life but finally he recognized that if he wasn't going to get everything he wanted he could at least get a lot of what he wanted. Do you even realize that these people were not even authorized to draft a new Constitution or to change it and that some of them were explicitly instructed not to do so and yet they did because they were traitors, and conspiring men who sought to make our nation in the image of the British government we had revolted against. They knew exactly what they were doing when they met to discuss economic issues and decided to call a constitutional convention to draft a new Constitution and to urge Congress to call a constitutional convention. After Shay's rebellion and after the people had stormed Courthouses and called for the State Senate to be abolished these people became afraid that those who loved freedom and liberty would turn on them too and they sought to undo all that we had fought for.

me; I am completely confused what youre talking about, youre saying conservatives at that time were evil, and/or conservatives are evil?. And that the founding fathers were traitors because they wanted a british form of government, with a lifetime appointment for president, that was hamilton you said?

Like those at that time I don't give a shit that we can debate and vote when the vote results in you and those who agree with you getting representation while I and the person I voted for are denied representation by your vote to deny us represention. I intend to make sure that the person who agrees with me wins so I will have representation and if that means your retarded ass doesn't have representation than so be it. So long as we live in a country where people are regularly denied representation through the electoral process I intend that I am not denied such representation and that you are. I respect the ideals in the Constitution that are good ones and I hold the rest of them put in it by bitches like you who lived then to be worthless.

So, shouldnt we fix the system then?. Why should one side be screwed completely, just because the other won. I think youre a very intelligent man, just over-passionate like me lol :)
 
So, shouldnt we fix the system then?. Why should one side be screwed completely, just because the other won. I think youre a very intelligent man, just over-passionate like me lol :)

Libs like Eddie believe ONLY the government can improve the quality of health care

Then we all will have care like they had at Walter Reed
 
Edward, I'm afraid I don't quite follow the subtle nuances of your reasoning. On the one hand, you want socialized medicine, which would be a gigantic program administered by the federal government.

On the other hand, you point out that the constitution is not sacred, that Hamilton and the other federalists succeeded in slipping one past the people, etc. and that it would not have passed if the people had a chance to vote on it. Which from what I've read is all very true. The only thing is, that would leave us with the articles of confederation, a document which would have given us a much weaker central government, and therefore no national health care system.

Could you explain this seeming contradiction?
 
The ruling will apply to non life threatening conditions only and serves only to push the smokers to the back of the queue and not deny them treatment altogether.It is a good idea imo, especially if it serves to cause more smokers to quit permanently.I can't see a down side here.
 
I thought the legislation denied them surgery altogether. can anyone provide a link with the info.

The ruling will apply to non life threatening conditions only and serves only to push the smokers to the back of the queue and not deny them treatment altogether.It is a good idea imo, especially if it serves to cause more smokers to quit permanently.I can't see a down side here.
 
This is a bad decision. Where are we going to draw the line, we wont treat people who are alcoholic, obese, who have aids. The hippocratic oath is do no harm, not decide what diseases we think we should treat.


Another reason why government run health care will not work



Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused
By DAN NEWLING - More by this author »

Last updated at 16:02pm on 4th June 2007


Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand.

Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking.


The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

It is thought that 500,000 smokers a year will be affected.

However patients' groups argue that the move is about the NHS saving money rather than improving patient care.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770
 
This is a bad decision. Where are we going to draw the line, we wont treat people who are alcoholic, obese, who have aids. The hippocratic oath is do no harm, not decide what diseases we think we should treat.


You asked for a link, I told you where it was, you could at least click on it and read it properly.
 
The ruling will apply to non life threatening conditions only and serves only to push the smokers to the back of the queue and not deny them treatment altogether.It is a good idea imo, especially if it serves to cause more smokers to quit permanently.I can't see a down side here.

Why should government deny treatment?

If they order smokers how to live their lives, where will it stop?
 
Why should government deny treatment?

If they order smokers how to live their lives, where will it stop?

They won't be denied treatment but their treatment will be deferred in favour of non smokers.Is it to much to ask that smokers prove they are willing to meet the medical services half way here?They are only being asked to stop smoking for the 4 weeks prior to surgery for the reasons listed in the link, after they are discharged from hospital they can continue to smoke themselves to death again if they wish.Obese people are already told to lose weight before ops, again, for their own good, alcoholics are last in line for livers and kidneys, exactly as it should be, unless of course it includes you or a member of your own family.What is wrong with provoking self harmers into looking after themselves better?
 
They won't be denied treatment but their treatment will be deferred in favour of non smokers.Is it to much to ask that smokers prove they are willing to meet the medical services half way here?They are only being asked to stop smoking for the 4 weeks prior to surgery for the reasons listed in the link, after they are discharged from hospital they can continue to smoke themselves to death again if they wish.Obese people are already told to lose weight before ops, again, for their own good, alcoholics are last in line for livers and kidneys, exactly as it should be, unless of course it includes you or a member of your own family.What is wrong with provoking self harmers into looking after themselves better?

For their own good?

So now it is OK for the government to decide what is good for you?

Is this what the left wants for the US?
 
For their own good?

So now it is OK for the government to decide what is good for you?

Is this what the left wants for the US?

The same applies to very many private health insurance policies. If you are overweight, you often have to pay a higher premium for coverage. The same applies if you are a smoker. In a manner of speaking, in an indirect way, private health insurance companies decide what is good for you too.
 
The same applies to very many private health insurance policies. If you are overweight, you often have to pay a higher premium for coverage. The same applies if you are a smoker. In a manner of speaking, in an indirect way, private health insurance companies decide what is good for you too.

But they do not deny treatment
 
For their own good?

So now it is OK for the government to decide what is good for you?

Is this what the left wants for the US?

Yes, for their own good.

Yes, it is ok for government to tell the ignorant and stupid what is good for them.It is not always ok to enforce it.

I have no idea what the left wants for the US.
 
Yes, for their own good.

Yes, it is ok for government to tell the ignorant and stupid what is good for them.It is not always ok to enforce it.

I have no idea what the left wants for the US.

Read what you wrote. Carefully. A majority elected the Republicans into office for over 8 years, yet to hear the left tell it they were stupid and ignorant. Just who gets to decde who is "ignorant" and or "stupid" and thus able to have their rights under the law and the Constitution denied them, for their own "good"?
 
The same applies to very many private health insurance policies. If you are overweight, you often have to pay a higher premium for coverage. The same applies if you are a smoker. In a manner of speaking, in an indirect way, private health insurance companies decide what is good for you too.

The difference is, you get a choice of health insurance companies. People in the UK do not, if I understand correctly. Unless maybe they want to fly to another country like India or Malaysia or what have you, where they have cheap relatively capitalist health care, and a booming health care tourist industry.
 
Yes, for their own good.

Yes, it is ok for government to tell the ignorant and stupid what is good for them.It is not always ok to enforce it.

I have no idea what the left wants for the US.

The same thing

Libs believe people are to stupid to make it on their own and they need government to take care of them

Seems you agree with the mode of thinking
 
Read what you wrote. Carefully. A majority elected the Republicans into office for over 8 years, yet to hear the left tell it they were stupid and ignorant. Just who gets to decde who is "ignorant" and or "stupid" and thus able to have their rights under the law and the Constitution denied them, for their own "good"?

The Mommy and Daddy party will take care of you

Just fork over a hell of alot more in taxes for the service
 

Forum List

Back
Top