LOL.
On a more serious note.
Would you feel the same is you had no breasts at all?.
I fail to see the relevance, she still met the required medical criteria.
Silly bint gets free boobs on the NHS
- Thread starter peterattheboro
- Start date
On a more serious note.
Would you feel the same is you had no breasts at all?.
The significance is that she didn't meet actually meet the criteria - she didn't get them done because she was distressed, she got them done because she wanted to be a glamour model.
Where does it say for the criteria that you explicitly have to care more about the breasts than the potential career getting them out in seedy lads mags?.
All the criteria says is "causing significant distress" & a series of medical criteria which she met.
It's not exactly hard to imagine that if a person was unable to do the job they wanted due to a physical abnormality - that abnormality may be a cause of distress.
I don't recall seeing anything stating that if you care about the job more than the breasts you can't have it - just that it requires distress & the medical criteria.
The only reason things seem irrational is because your mind is so unable to comprenhend basic facts of life.
A gross salary of £20,000 gives £16,134 after tax. Assume normal 40 hours working week with 28 days holiday.
Total hours worked in year = 52x5 - 28 = 232 = 1856 hours
Hourly rate = 20000/1856 = £10.78
Hours taken through tax = 3866/10.78 = 358 hours
Tell me WHY these 358 hours a man is forced to work unpaid is NOT slavery? Is it because it's necessary to fund infrastructure and basic human needs such as food, warmth? Well, where then does boobjobs enter the calculcation? The fact in the end remains that 358 hours of this worker's life was taken from him, just to help part fund a womans want for big breasts. Now, if you want to spend a good 500 hours working to give someone big breasts, feel free, but don't use slave labour to fund it.
Oh, and I'm not the one who needs to define "need", because I'm not the one who advocates slave labour to fund someone's boobjob.
But sure, you just call me "irrational", "crazy", just because I call things by their proper names. It's funny that the person with the unbalanced views is the one who actually understands the monetary system, trade offs and limited resources, while those I'm sure you'd dictate sane are the ones like you who dress things up in prettier words that don't sound as oppressive and scary and believe money is a magical substance that makes things we want appear out of thin air.
Last edited:
Causing significant psychological distress to the point that her primary reason for getting them was to get into glamour modelling rather than the distress itself? Do you think she would have got them if she had mentioned the glamour modelling bit - something she didn't mention being distressed about in not being able to do to the doctors. It was just a means to an end.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 7,438
The NHS would have given her implants based on her medical condition, they don't really operate a careers advisory service too. Although she's clearly bright enough to assess the opportunity this provides - being a model is a job just as digging a hole is a job.
Nobody would be using the opportunity to call him ugly though as happened here - remember this is a forum that reveres scum like Hugh Hefner, someone who pays for sex. I'd imagine that a penis extension would get a round of applause.
If being a model is tawdry then we are responsible, she's not getting big boobs for the lesbians to look at is she?
One look at the picture thread and it is clear that this forum supports women with fake boobs, pretending that individually one is above all that is a bit disingenuous.
As a mod, feel free to delete pictures that you morally disapprove of
.
Last edited:
If a story about a guy getting a willy extension to be a porn star paid for by the NHS were posted on a forum made up of 99% girls, i bet you he would get an awful lot of negative comments.
Two reasons actually.
1. You don't have to work, you always have the option of not working & starving to death in a gutter - you can also leave the country if you wish.
2. A person on a salary of £20,000 is NOT a net contributor & will be getting back more than that via benefits, education & healthcare in their lifetime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966
You make it sound like you are the only tax-payer in the UK.
You also have terrible maths skills & a poor understanding of our tax system - do you honestly think that 100% of tax is gained from people earning £20,000 PA? - you do know that most tax is gained from people earning considerably more, or corporation tax or other means? - in reality the "hours worked calculation" you did is utterly fictitious.
You also understand the mental health is also considered a "need"? & you are (clearly) in no position to make a judgement as to what's a need & what isn't. (By the rabid dog mouth foaming style you are posting in).
Well you do if you are saying it's not needed.
You are clearly not qualified professionally to give an opinion on the subject either way.
Based on the hilarious napkin maths you posted earlier on, I highly doubt it.
Let me guess.
"Tax is theft"
"I love Ron Paul"
"I'm a libertarian capitalist".
Ammirite?
A new willy does not equal extension.
Asking for a penis would be understandable on the NHS.
Asking for a bigger penis when you have a normal one already would not be.
It's not really complicated.
Last edited:
And a third of those women would be equally two faced as all the blokes in here, because they watch porn too and I bet they don't get off on the 5" almost-studs either.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
You appear to have no grasp of how the NHS works. Let me enlighten you; we all pay this thing called National Insurance, it pays for the NHS that is free at the point of entry. Now some people will take more out than they put in but overall the system keeps everything in balance.
My drug bill alone is far more than the NI I have paid in my life (and much, much more than the cost of this one operation mentioned in the OP. Add on doctors, nurses and consultant time allocated to me during my life and the bill is astronomical.
The woman is getting a lot of grief because she unfortunately looks like a trollop (and she may even be one, but that's not the point) but let's take a look at this objectively. So she has a condition where she has no breast tissue, that's going to have serious effects on her mental health. Let's say she needs treatment for this. Drugs, hospital time, consultancy, counselling and so on because mental health issues aren't cheap to treat. The NHS could do this for most of her life at a costs of hundreds of thousands of pounds or they could spend a few thousand for cosmetic surgery. Now what is the best value for money in this situation?
Hope that's cleared things up. By the way, you are the one looking moronic. One because you don't undersatnd the NHS at all and two because you have been blinded by the fact the woman looks like a tart. Hell she may even be a tart but if she has got mental health issues then who gives a **** what she looks like, she has a right to be given the best treatment the NHS can provide. Perhaps you should walk a mile in somebody who is chronically depressed shoes before spouting off.
If she is committing fraud then she should be charged. Shame we can't charge you with crass stupidity.
Well I think it might actually.
Having no breasts is not on the same level as having no penis. Having no penis is far more serious a problem. You cannot function as a human being on a basic physiological level. It is impossible for you to be sexually active and reproduce.
Having no boobs has no real effect upon her sex life other than damaging her confidence..Which is exactly what happens to a man with a very small penis. So i think i would say that, in this situation, a boob job does equal a penis extension.
It seems like quite a complicated issue to me. Maybe im just dumb though.
The requirement is that it
In her interview she says her primary reason for getting a boob job is to become a glamour model. Didn't cause her that much distress did it. The job is relevant as it highlights that her primary concern wasn't dealing with a mental health issue in the slightest.
The thing about glamour models though is that appearance also matters to a greater degree. Also It's not being a model per se - it's the use of public funds to give a woman fake boobs so that she get them out for men (lesbians not like boobs?) and who holds that of higher importance than her own mental health.
You do realise that the forum and its rules and myself as an individual are two separate things right?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
The person isn't working unpaid for the time you mention, they are paid but a percentage of the money they earn is then taken off them as tax. If you like it's a levy imposed on them for the privilege of living in this society, you're not expected to agree with everything that is funded via taxation. However if you are really so opposed to taxation in any form I can only suggest moving to a country where taxation is not levied, I'm not sure which countries meet that criteria but I'll take a punt and say I wouldn't care to live in any that might exist.
I'm slightly surprised that no-one has picked up yet that whether you agree with how and why this lady had the plastic surgery she's probably got a means of employment out of it. Thinking somewhat laterally you could potentially argue it is broadly analogous to spending money on retraining someone - the barrier to entry here isn't the usual lack of a particular skill, it's a lack of particular assets which has now been remedied. It also means one more person who is ultimately likely to pay higher taxes than in her current job should she manage to kick off a career as a glamour model...
It had crossed my mind - it could be a new "growth" industry to get us out of the economic doldrums, boob jobs on the NHS, could churn out new Jordans by the thousand.
Agreed. Thread is constantly derailing off topic. If you're undecided about this story, just ask yourself three questions
1. Was the operation done for the right reasons? i.e. to address a genuine mental health problem, and not as a means to facilitate a misguided pursuit of 'glamour modelling'
2. Did the result of the procedure achieve an aesthetically pleasing result? This is important since aesthetics is the driving force of the argument here
3. Would you be able to argue a case in favour of this operation to the mother of a 9 year old girl who can't have an insulin pump due to budget cuts?
I don't think I can say yes to all three
Erm...
What's your point caller?
An interview with a tabloid is irrelevant compared to ongoing consultations with medical staff starting at age 14. Only they are qualified to agree to this, not the Sun and not us (who have only been spun half a story here).
(lesbians don't pay enough for boobs)
Modelling is still a legit career, and you are basing an opinion on her mental health on one or two sentences in which she chose what to say to the press. Her distress at having no breast tissue was mentioned at the start, I'm pretty sure that will be a standard reaction from any girl in that situation regardless if she later chooses to make the best of it and pick a complementary career. What was she supposed to do, have a modest 32C just to avoid the two faced male backlash? Whose life is this anyway?
Could you pass that on to the overly politically correct mods please?
