"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:33:37 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:29:41 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:01:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 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?

Well if you look at the reality in Africa well yes, that is exactly
how
it spreads.

And AIDS too.

Works in USA without NHS.

Because there any hospital that receives any federal funding
at all has to treat any life threatening medical problem even
if the individual can't afford to pay for that treatment.

Life threatening.

That is what ebola and AIDS are.

The point is the NHS spends most money on non life threatening things.

And then they charge them if possible.

And get to wear the cost if they can't pay.

But in the UK, people who can afford it don't have to pay.

Most of them do have to pay for NI.

And people who can't afford unnecessary treatment get it anyway.