On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:34:20 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:
>Tom wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:34:03 +0100, "Ophelia"
>> wrote:
>>> Tom wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 19:09:46 +0100, Mogga
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> She has many loving relatives to look after her for free?
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the relevance of your comment - please elaborate.
>>>
>>> It is quite clear! If she has relatives to care for her, her money
>>> will not be stolen for her care.
>>
>> Great solution. Why not do away with the NHS completely for people who
>> have realisable assets - after all, they can afford it. Perhaps we
>> should keep the NHS in the future for people who have spent their
>> whole live's leeching and forget the people who deserve it.
>
>Or even for those people who have paid taxes all of their lives?
>
>Or perhaps you think that those who have not saved, ought to get theirs
>free??/
>
>Resources would be much
>> better spent on immigrants who have done . all for the country!
>
>No, because they haven't paid their taxes. See above!
>
Ophelia - I think you've missed the point - the above was meant to be
taken as sarcastic :-)
Your original post seems to imply that those with "family" money
should not be entitled to NHS care when elderly.
IMO those who have contributed over the years should undoubtedly be
entitled to receive care when necessary. However, as indictated in the
OP's post, this is often not the case. It still does not stop the NHS
from providing healthcare (as a matter of priority) to those who
*haven't* contributed to the detriment of those who have contributed.
Regards
Tom |