N.H.S.-England: pro or anti?

[Redway]

Let’s talk.

[Oliver_W]

Control should be with Government, not quangos. And if they're committing to the "black hole" story, it's good to cut wasted money.

[bots]

The names mean nothing. All anyone wants is an efficient, functioning health service that is available to all

[joeysteele]

I've never supported it
I've seen it as only a drain on resources more than anything else.

I'm glad it's being scrapped, it's one of the things I hoped would result from this government.
After the Coalition's disastrous reforming of the NHS under Andrew Lansley's time as Health Secretary.

[user104658]

The NHS in England is a mess compared to the NHS in other regions - that's not to say that they're anywhere near perfect in any part of the UK, but England is by far the worst - so something needs an overhaul. IMO the best option would be to break down England into other regions of approx 5 million people. Population is simply too big to be realistically managed under one umbrella.

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HAJi3gVWoAAWIDq?format=png&name=small

[Glenn.]

Triggered

[OnTheRight]

Get it privatised.

[Redway]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HAJi3gVWoAAWIDq?format=png&name=small

You bumped this year-old thread just to be anti-“drag”?

[Crimson Dynamo]

You bumped this year-old thread just to be anti-“drag”?

No

anti NHS

The fact you can't see that is astonishing

[Redway]

I think we all like the advantages of free healthcare, for all the (many) flaws of the NHS. Let’s not lie about it. You’re not exactly a trillionaire, are you, LeatherTrumpet? Or do you think you’re rich enough to always go private, if, truly, this isn’t about you being homophobic?

[Livia]

I think we all like the advantages of free healthcare, for all the (many) flaws of the NHS. Let’s not lie about it. You’re not exactly a trillionaire, are you, LeatherTrumpet? Or do you think you’re rich enough to always go private, if, truly, this isn’t about you being homophobic?

I have to point out, the NHS is not free. Everyone who works pays for it, and pays through the nose. You can't opt out if you also have private health insurance, you still have to pay to support the big, money-wasting, woke, ineffective, compaint-ridden NHS. It's only those who don't work who get it for free. And frankly I object to funding some of the stuff the NHS does while cancer patients can't get access to the latest treatments because it's too expensive and where people queue in ambulances for A&E, then end up languishing in a corridor for hours, maybe days. And the doctors are striking! It's those of us who fund the beast who should be striking.

[Crimson Dynamo]

:umm2:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HAG-4wLWYAECNwM?format=jpg&name=small

[Livia]

Now we're paying for ethnic minorities whose practices are so backward they allow cousins to marry and have damaged children. Guess who picks up the tab?

[bots]

The NHS saved my life, so you will never hear me criticise the fact that we have it. It's a huge benefit to everyone. The rules, process, structure, and recruitment are the things i have an issue with, and they are all politically driven

[Redway]

Now we're paying for ethnic minorities whose practices are so backward they allow cousins to marry and have damaged children. Guess who picks up the tab?

I don’t see ethnicity as the problem more than specific individual cultures, I have to be candid, Livia.

[Redway]

The NHS saved my life, so you will never hear me criticise the fact that we have it. It's a huge benefit to everyone. The rules, process, structure, and recruitment are the things i have an issue with, and they are all politically driven

Big-pharma. doesn’t help. Pushing cookie-cutter, generic SSRIs (not that there aren’t some exceptions) whereas truly life-saving, heavy-duty antidepressants, like MAOIs, are under-prescribed and under-dosed. But that’s more-or-less a worldwide problem, not an NHS-specific one.

[Livia]

I don’t see ethnicity as the problem more than specific individual cultures, I have to be candid, Livia.

That's true, it is a cultural problem. But it's one we should not be supporting. It is not acceptable to marry close relatives in the UK, we should not be encouraging them to bring poor kids into the world with multiple and lifelong physical and mental.problems because we're scared to offend them and their backward beliefs.

[GiRTh]

Now we're paying for ethnic minorities whose practices are so backward they allow cousins to marry and have damaged children. Guess who picks up the tab?This post has thrown me a bit. I agreed with the earlier point that unemployed people tend to benefit most from the NHS — that’s just how a universal system works, and it’s generally seen as the fairest way to run one. What I can’t quite follow is how the conversation jumped from that to talking about “ethnic minorities” and supposedly “backward” cultures, especially when the post isn’t even about immigrants or illegal immigration, but about long‑established communities within the country.

I mentioned in the immigration thread that I’m the son of immigrants, and I genuinely believe they’ve contributed a huge amount to this country. It might sound like a strange analogy, but food is one of the clearest examples. Thirty years ago, you couldn’t get a cappuccino in your local pub; now you can probably find one within a five‑minute walk. Someone brought that here. Chicken Tikka Masala — a dish born from South Asian immigration — is now the nation’s favourite. Even my own cupboard is full of things like olive oil, chilli sauces, paprika, and basmati rice, none of which were standard household items a few decades ago.

The country has absorbed all of this without much resistance, and our everyday lives are better for it. Yet the same anxieties about the people who introduced these things keep resurfacing. The culture changes are embraced; the communities behind them are still treated with suspicion. That’s the part I’m struggling with.

[Redway]

This post has thrown me a bit. I agreed with the earlier point that unemployed people tend to benefit most from the NHS — that’s just how a universal system works, and it’s generally seen as the fairest way to run one. What I can’t quite follow is how the conversation jumped from that to talking about “ethnic minorities” and supposedly “backward” cultures, especially when the post isn’t even about immigrants or illegal immigration, but about long‑established communities within the country.

I mentioned in the immigration thread that I’m the son of immigrants, and I genuinely believe they’ve contributed a huge amount to this country. It might sound like a strange analogy, but food is one of the clearest examples. Thirty years ago, you couldn’t get a cappuccino in your local pub; now you can probably find one within a five‑minute walk. Someone brought that here. Chicken Tikka Masala — a dish born from South Asian immigration — is now the nation’s favourite. Even my own cupboard is full of things like olive oil, chilli sauces, paprika, and basmati rice, none of which were standard household items a few decades ago.

The country has absorbed all of this without much resistance, and our everyday lives are better for it. Yet the same anxieties about the people who introduced these things keep resurfacing. The culture changes are embraced; the communities behind them are still treated with suspicion. That’s the part I’m struggling with.

And people from all-these various communities in the world contribute so much to the NHS as workers within it, in varying sectors. Yeah. I have to agree there.

Either way, the NHS needs to be refined, not deleted. It’s not even about employment vs. unemployment. It’s about the rich (or at-least comfortably middle-class) vs. everyone-else. Even a pharmacist can’t necessarily afford to go private, let-alone a teacher at an independent faith-school (that doesn’t get any government-funding, naturally), a support-worker or a cleaner. Just having a job doesn’t automatically make you well-off enough to go private whenever you’re bored of waiting-lists. You have to have over a certain amount to spare each time every time you’re concerned about smelling melting butter on your hoodie being connected to encephalitic synaesthesia (or some random, crazy shi. like that, for people who really do have money to throw away and get ridiculous about), not just vague, broad potential financial means. Otherwise where’s the predictable surplus? It’s not a guarantee that that will always be there, or even twice in however-many decades? The NHS exists precisely because most people, working or not, just can’t afford unlimited medical uncertainty.

[GiRTh]

And people from all-these various communities in the world contribute so much to the NHS as workers within it, in varying sectors. Yeah. I have to agree there.

Either way, the NHS needs to be refined, not deleted. It’s not even about employment vs. unemployment. It’s about the rich (or at-least comfortably middle-class) vs. everyone-else. Even a pharmacist can’t necessarily afford to go private, let-alone a teacher at an independent faith-school (that doesn’t get any government-funding, naturally), a support-worker or a cleaner. Just having a job doesn’t automatically make you well-off enough to go private whenever you’re bored of waiting-lists. You have to have over a certain amount to spare each time every time you’re concerned about smelling melting butter on your hoodie being connected to encephalitic synaesthesia (or some random, crazy shi. like that, for people who really do have money to throw away and get ridiculous about), not just vague, broad potential financial means. Otherwise where’s the predictable surplus? It’s not a guarantee that that will always be there, or even twice in however-many decades? The NHS exists precisely because most people, working or not, just can’t afford unlimited medical uncertainty.Reading your post, I found myself agreeing with every point. People from diverse communities contribute to the NHS every single day in various roles, making it impossible to separate the service from the diversity that sustains it. This issue is not merely about employment status; rather, it concerns who can genuinely afford private healthcare and who cannot. This line sharply divides the working population.

Most people, even those in stable professions, do not have the predictable disposable income necessary to seek private care when health concerns arise. A pharmacist, a teacher at a small independent school, a support worker, or a cleaner—none of these individuals are automatically in a position to spend hundreds of pounds whenever they feel unwell. Private care only works if you have consistent, surplus money, which is not the reality for the majority of households.

That is precisely why the NHS exists: because medical uncertainty is costly, unpredictable, and beyond most individuals' means to manage alone. Improving the NHS makes sense; eliminating it never has.

[Crimson Dynamo]

NHS translation and interpretation spending has more than doubled over the
past five financial years, Telegraph analysis can reveal.

In the financial year of 2020-21, NHS trusts and integrated care boards
(ICBs) spent £31m on translation and interpretation, according to figures
obtained through freedom of information requests.

By 2024-25, the cost of these services reached
– more than double the
sum spent during the pandemic.

The data show that the total spending on translation and interpretation over
the five financial years was £243m – equivalent to the cost of employing
nearly 2,000 NHS nurses.

Analysis of the data reveals that it costs taxpayers more than £133,000 each day to fund these services.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/13/nhs-costs-translations-for-non-english-speaking-patients/

[Livia]

This post has thrown me a bit. I agreed with the earlier point that unemployed people tend to benefit most from the NHS — that’s just how a universal system works, and it’s generally seen as the fairest way to run one. What I can’t quite follow is how the conversation jumped from that to talking about “ethnic minorities” and supposedly “backward” cultures, especially when the post isn’t even about immigrants or illegal immigration, but about long‑established communities within the country.

I mentioned in the immigration thread that I’m the son of immigrants, and I genuinely believe they’ve contributed a huge amount to this country. It might sound like a strange analogy, but food is one of the clearest examples. Thirty years ago, you couldn’t get a cappuccino in your local pub; now you can probably find one within a five‑minute walk. Someone brought that here. Chicken Tikka Masala — a dish born from South Asian immigration — is now the nation’s favourite. Even my own cupboard is full of things like olive oil, chilli sauces, paprika, and basmati rice, none of which were standard household items a few decades ago.

The country has absorbed all of this without much resistance, and our everyday lives are better for it. Yet the same anxieties about the people who introduced these things keep resurfacing. The culture changes are embraced; the communities behind them are still treated with suspicion. That’s the part I’m struggling with.

I am the grandchild of immigrants, for clarity and balance.

My post is to do with one single subject: close family relations marrying and producing damaged kids. It mostly affects Pakistani and Bangladeshis. I really don't see the connection between that and embracing the more positive parts of other cultures like cuisine.

[GiRTh]

I am the grandchild of immigrants, for clarity and balance.

My post is to do with one single subject: close family relations marrying and producing damaged kids. It mostly affects Pakistani and Bangladeshis. I really don't see the connection between that and embracing the more positive parts of other cultures like cuisine.You’re talking about a very specific part of those communities, but the way it was introduced made it sound much broader than that. My point was simply that it felt like an odd direction to take in a discussion about the NHS. One moment we were talking about healthcare, and the next we were suddenly in a much wider conversation about “ethnic minorities” and “damaged children,” which doesn’t really connect to the topic we were actually discussing.

That shift is what felt jarring. I wasn’t dismissing the issue itself — I was pointing out that it didn’t naturally follow from the NHS conversation we were having.

[Crimson Dynamo]

You’re talking about a very specific part of those communities, but the way it was introduced made it sound much broader than that. My point was simply that it felt like an odd direction to take in a discussion about the NHS. One moment we were talking about healthcare, and the next we were suddenly in a much wider conversation about “ethnic minorities” and “damaged children,” which doesn’t really connect to the topic we were actually discussing.

That shift is what felt jarring. I wasn’t dismissing the issue itself — I was pointing out that it didn’t naturally follow from the NHS conversation we were having.

You made 2 posts in the middle of the night, you were not having a discussion

[GiRTh]

You made 2 posts in the middle of the night, you were not having a discussionYou made a point about the amount of money spent on translators, which is yet another pretty strange direction to take in a thread that was supposed to be about the NHS — but I suppose that’s everyone’s prerogative.

My point was simply that we’d drifted a long way from the actual topic. we were talking about the NHS, and suddenly we were off into broad statements about ethnic minorities, “damaged children,” and now the cost of translators. Are these really the most significant concerns in a discussion about a national health service that’s struggling with staffing, funding, recruitment, and basic capacity?

That’s the disconnect I’m highlighting.

[Livia]

:umm2:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HAG-4wLWYAECNwM?format=jpg&name=small

You’re talking about a very specific part of those communities, but the way it was introduced made it sound much broader than that. My point was simply that it felt like an odd direction to take in a discussion about the NHS. One moment we were talking about healthcare, and the next we were suddenly in a much wider conversation about “ethnic minorities” and “damaged children,” which doesn’t really connect to the topic we were actually discussing.

That shift is what felt jarring. I wasn’t dismissing the issue itself — I was pointing out that it didn’t naturally follow from the NHS conversation we were having.

The post from Crimson Dynamo above was what I was referring to when I made my point. It was relevant to the NHS discussion so I'm not sure why you"d think my point was taking the discussion in an "odd direction". Hope that clears this up for you.

[GiRTh]

The post from Crimson Dynamo above was what I was referring to when I made my point. It was relevant to the NHS discussion so I'm not sure why you"d think my point was taking the discussion in an "odd direction". Hope that clears this up for you.:thumbs: