Silly bint gets free boobs on the NHS

[wnb]

If it is truly a medical reason for getting bigger **** then why go so big? She would look better if they were half the size. Now they look swollen to big for her body. Would such a large pair come with it's in medical problems in the form of back strain.

 

[Jokester]

Could you pass that on to the overly politically correct mods please?

Or you could stop breaking forum rules.

 

[wnb]

Oh dear I googles her topless pics Anyhow she may get some work on the back of this publicity but once it wears off the only work she will be able to get is in pron.

 

[Judgeneo]

Oh dear I googles her topless pics

They really don't look DD...

 

[Theophany]

Oh dear I googles her topless pics Anyhow she may get some work on the back of this publicity but once it wears off the only work she will be able to get is in pron.

Yeah... Must agree...

 

[BrightonBelle]

This is not the first time and won't be the last.

BB x

 

[Zodar]

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.

Really? REALLY? I mean seriously, you're arguing that you're not working unpaid but being paid but a percentage of the money is being taken off... THUS MEANING THAT A PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME THEY ARE WORKING UNPAID.

I mean, come on, let's call an apple an apple at least. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing here.

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.

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.

Come on guys, leave the cliches already. "If a man on the street robs you at gunpoint, you always have the option to force him to shoot you instead".

But yes, thank you, it is of course the option - do as we say or we'll hurt you. But you're always free to exile yourself.

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.

Reading skills are useful. My post did not discuss whether or not a person on a salary of 20k is a net contributor or net benefactor. My post discussed the wasted resources based on a person earning 20k simply to put it in the terms of the everyman. I could have used a person earning £100k and the operation would have cost less in terms of "hours". Or a person earning minimum wage and it would have cost more. I chose £20k because it is a figure many people can relate to.

The £5000 is a very real, very limited resource. Money is simply a representative of value, which most people here seem to forget. I thus tried to make the point in terms of how many hours an everyman works unpaid (YES, if someone works 100 hours but get 10% of his earning taken away without choice, guess what, he's working 10 hours of unpaid labout. It's not that difficult a concept, really.) just to support PART of this operation.

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.

See above. Again, you clearly have terrible reading skills since you think I was trying to make some point about taxation in large. I was simply reminding the ignorant masses that money is not something that appears because we wish for it - it simply represents our available resources.

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.

Well seeing as how our resources are extremely limited, people are literally dying because they are mistreated or simply do not get the treatment they need, it seems quite cruel to use slave labour to fund someones breasts.

And yes, someone had to fund it. It doesn't how much the taxation system at large brings in, in the end, it cost £5000. Had you not spent it on this, you would have had £5000 more available to save a life or improve communications to further stimulate economic growth. Or since you seem to believe that the individual tax payer does not matter, give it back to some poor old sod that didn't wish to contribute it simply for it to be spent on a boobjob.

"Tax is theft"

Doesn't matter whether or not you think tax is justified, this is simply a fact. If someone told you on the street that he's taking your money and if you don't like it you can either move to a different neighborhood or simply not work so he don't have any money on him to steal... well, it's theft. Just because in a democracy the state theoretically consists of a majority doesn't make it less true. Just because a mugger has the support of the majority doesn't change the act itself. Just giving it another name doesn't change the real facts of the act.

elmarko

"I love Ron Paul"

Not particularly.

"I'm a libertarian capitalist".

Depends how you define libertarian and capitalist. Almost every single political group has a wildly different definition of both these words. Capitalism itself is so broad that it can mean anything from marxist anarchism to die hard state facism.

Seems fitting that you try to label your opponents with whatever suits you while trying to rename and redirect attention from the actual acts that you deem necessary. Names are just names at the end of the day, and debating is so much easier if people stop throwing around meaningless terms and actually stick to the definitions of words. Such a theft; "taking the property of another without permission".

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.

Here I honestly don't even know where to start. This post misses my point completely, and randomly waffles about things that doesn't even really make any sort of argument other than "you don't understand the NHS".

I mean, really? What are you trying to say? Oh, and I do have a good understanding of how the NHS economic model works. And like you, I don't have a perfect overview of their organisational structure. Not that it matters when we are discussing the economic model of the NHS.

But since you're just trolling with your meandering, toothless post, I might as well troll you back.

KILL THE NHS!
ALL THE SICK PEOPLE MUST DIE!

The pharmaceutical companies should be able to charge whatever they want because they spend much on R&D and the government should stop trying to limit their profits.

 

[Destination]

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.

NI doesn't directly cover the cost of the NHS anymore.
It never really did, it was just a dream, that it would cover health and pensions.
It doesn't directly, its all just one big fat tax pot now.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Really? REALLY? I mean seriously, you're arguing that you're not working unpaid but being paid but a percentage of the money is being taken off... THUS MEANING THAT A PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME THEY ARE WORKING UNPAID.

I mean, come on, let's call an apple an apple at least. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing here.

Well no, you've arbitrarily decided that some of the time counts as working for free rather than deducting a percentage from every hour they work which reduces the amount available to them at point of receipt. In your example if the person working for £20,000 requires NHS treatment costing £6,000 then are they still working unpaid for that time or are the benefits merely deferrred?

Maybe it's that you keep referring to working as slavery that encourages people to believe that you view taxation as the enemy here as well as what is the situation in the intant case.

Come on guys, leave the cliches already. "If a man on the street robs you at gunpoint, you always have the option to force him to shoot you instead".

But yes, thank you, it is of course the option - do as we say or we'll hurt you. But you're always free to exile yourself.

It may be a cliche but things do not stop being true just because they are a cliche. If you want the "benefits" of our society then it needs to be accepted you won't agree with everything that society does.

 

[LordSplodge]

NI doesn't directly cover the cost of the NHS anymore.
It never really did, it was just a dream, that it would cover health and pensions.
It doesn't directly, its all just one big fat tax pot now.

That it may be but the concept is the same. Everybody pays in; some take out more than they pay in, others don't.

 

[LordSplodge]

with your meandering, toothless post, I might as well troll you back.

KILL THE NHS!
ALL THE SICK PEOPLE MUST DIE!

You're an idiot, probably a returnee at that. No point arguing with you as the saying goes. Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with years of experience.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

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.

I have 3 women in the house and just asked them how they would feel about themselves if they were born without breasts and I really don't think I need to post their replies.
In fact just go and ask the women in your life but remember don't use the words 'would you have a boob job?' but 'you were born with no breasts' etc.

 

[Craterloads]

Where's this 0% breast tissue coming from? She clearly has boobs in her before pics? unless its just all padding.

 

[bitslice]

I have 3 women in the house and just asked them how they would feel about themselves if they were born without breasts and I really don't think I need to post their replies.
In fact just go and ask the women in your life but remember don't use the words 'would you have a boob job?' but 'you were born with no breasts' etc.

Curiously, a lot of women have slated her for this (on this forum too), even though like you suggested, if it were them they would feel awful. I guess that's something to do with women competing with each other.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Where's this 0% breast tissue coming from? She clearly has boobs in her before pics? unless its just all padding.

She did say she couldn't go out without padding

Curiously, a lot of women have slated her for this (on this forum too), even though like you suggested, if it were them they would feel awful. I guess that's something to do with women competing with each other.

And I think that's because they are listening to the shortened media story which goes:
Girl wants big breasts to be a model > She gets big breasts on the NHS

The full story says she has 0% breast tissue and been in talks with Clinicians since she was 14.

 

[Jono8]

Just looked at the after topless pics.

What a mess.

 

[theleg]

I have 3 women in the house and just asked them how they would feel about themselves if they were born without breasts and I really don't think I need to post their replies.
In fact just go and ask the women in your life but remember don't use the words 'would you have a boob job?' but 'you were born with no breasts' etc.

Thats fine and i accept that...but now ask them which would be worse in their opinion. No breasts or no vagina.

 

[Jono8]

Just for the record, all those that agree that the NHS did the right thing, would no doubt have no problem with a man getting a hair transplant on the NHS due to male pattern baldness?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Thats fine and i accept that...but now ask them which would be worse in their opinion. No breasts or no vagina.

Chalk & cheese - both would be worthy of my tax money as well as a man born with a tiny penis.

Just for the record, all those that agree that the NHS did the right thing, would no doubt have no problem with a man getting a hair transplant on the NHS due to male pattern baldness?

Please don't say you've just compared male baldness to a female with no breasts?
However if it was a male under 16 suffering with baldness then they would also get my tax money.

 

[theleg]

Chalk & cheese - both would be worthy of my tax money as well as a man born with a tiny penis.

Please don't say you've just compared male baldness to a female with no breasts?

Thats fine..but the post of mine you replied to was referring to another poster who said that having no breasts and having no penis were the same thing. They simply arent.

In fact its much like comparing male pattern baldness to having no breasts One is on an entirely different level.