On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:54:10 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:13:45 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

You do, they can't afford treatment so that's what they do.

Well you could have that paid for by the government, but why should they
pay to fix their broken leg?

Trouble with that approach is how do you decide what the govt pays for ?

Things that affect other people. Eg removing a contagious deadly disease from a pov benefits others. But don't bother fixing their broken leg.

Easy enough to decide that the NHS isnt going to pay for cosmetic stuff,
but even that can get tricky. What about kids with ears that look like
open car doors ? Should that be available on the NHS or not ?

Not. Probably genetic and the parents' fault. Anyway huge ears attract girls.

--
Ever stop to think, and forget to start again?