B880 - NHS Operation Funding Bill 2015

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
B880 - NHS Operation Funding Bill 2015, The Hon. Hazzer1998 MP
NHS Operation Funding Bill 2015


An Act to Limit the certain types of operations available on the National Health Service

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—


1) Definitions
(1) " Operations " In this act shall refer to an act of surgery on a patient
(2) " Funding" In this act shall refer to money provided especially by an organisation or Government for a certain purpose
(3)"life style choice operations" in this act shall refer to Non essential , Voluntary, Non urgent operations that the individual has chosen to have
(4)"Essential" In this act shall refer to an operations that is preformed on a elective or emergency basics
(5)"non essential" shall refer an operations that is not nessercly and is a personal choice by the individual


2) Funding for Operations

(1) Operations deemed to be relating to lifestyle choices shall no longer be provided by the NHS except in exceptional circumstances
(2) The funding saved from no longer providing these services will remain available within the NHS budget.

3) Commencements , extent and short title
(1) This Act may be cited as the NHS Operation Funding Bill 2015
(2) This Act comes into force on the 1st of January 2016

Spoiler: show
Spoiler:
Show
The NHS was set up to protect the health and well-being of the British Public but should not spend obscene amounts of money on non-essential procedures whist people with actual health issues suffer . the NHS should be a " Safety net " for the United Kingdom that concentrates of individuals that have essential health issues

Therefore funding for " life style choices " operations will stop and will no longer be available on the NHS . The " Life style choices " operations are

- Sex Change operations
- Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
- IVF Fertility Treatment
- All Operations of a Religious nature
- Bariatic operations
- Cosmetic Surgery

Baritaic operations

- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...s_surgery.html

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing ( my notes for this bill - cannot upload the graphs needed so ive put t into a google doc )

" There were large differences between specialties in the proportion of the total specialty workload made up of non elective cases " - http://www.ncepod.org.uk/pdf/2003/03_s07.pdf
0
username1899909
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Birchington please can the spoiler be fixed please , thank you
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Nay because you included IVF
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
hazzer1998


I feel as if the operations should be included in the bill.

I also feel that IVF should definitely be funded by the NHS and some of the others I'm not 100% sure on.

It's a Nay, but it's good to see you having a crack at a bill
1
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
This would ban abortion, which is a serious infringement on women's rights, so nay.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Nay because you included IVF
(Original post by PetrosAC)
hazzer1998


I feel as if the operations should be included in the bill.

I also feel that IVF should definitely be funded by the NHS and some of the others I'm not 100% sure on.

It's a Nay, but it's good to see you having a crack at a bill
Why should the taxpayer fund IVF?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why should the taxpayer fund IVF?

Posted from TSR Mobile
All members of society should be given the opportunity to become parents should they desire to be.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why should the taxpayer fund IVF?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Why shouldn't they? Some people are lucky enough to be fertile, others aren't.
0
username1899909
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
If This Bill went to Second Reading , I May make amendments regarding IVF
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Sex changes for me are the big doubt hanging over this bill.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by PetrosAC)
All members of society should be given the opportunity to become parents should they desire to be.
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Why shouldn't they? Some people are lucky enough to be fertile, others aren't.
???

So if some men are short and have small dicks, we should pay for their enlargement surgeries because they were ‘unlucky’? Having a child isn't a basic human right. Why should they? Arguments rather than opinions would be splendid.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by hazzer1998)
If This Bill went to Second Reading , I May make amendments regarding IVF
IVF is the tip of the iceberg for me regarding this bill. I believe that sex changes should also be under the NHS, as well as some forms of cosmetic surgery.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Why shouldn't they? Some people are lucky enough to be fertile, others aren't.
Let's say someone kicks you really hard in the testes and you are rendered infertile. Would you pay a few grand in a few years time when you want a kid?


Edit: that was intended for those against taxpayers funding IVF

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Life_peer)
???

So if some men are short and have small dicks, we should pay for their enlargement surgeries because they were ‘unlucky’? Having a child isn't a basic human right. Why should they? Arguments rather than opinions would be splendid.
Well we're going to disagree, it's in our nature. Children are important (even if personally I believe that people should have no more than 2), they are future tax payers as well as future leaders. There are too many children without a decent home that if a couple can offer a child of their own a decent quality of life and they require the state's help then the state should offer that help. The same cannot be said for "penis enlargement surgery"
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
Why should we pay for someone else's sex change? Why that and not all plastic surgeries to remove defects that make people severely unhappy with themselves, for example?
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Andy98)
Let's say someone kicks you really hard in the testes and you are rendered infertile. Would you pay a few grand in a few years time when you want a kid?


Edit: that was intended for those against taxpayers funding IVF

Posted from TSR Mobile
Those against taxpayer funded IVF will probably say that it's down to the person who did the kicking to compensate, not the taxpayer.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Well we're going to disagree, it's in our nature. Children are important (even if personally I believe that people should have no more than 2), they are future tax payers as well as future leaders. There are too many children without a decent home that if a couple can offer a child of their own a decent quality of life and they require the state's help then the state should offer that help. The same cannot be said for "penis enlargement surgery"
Well, perhaps they should adopt orphans, then… We don't need that many new people any more and the demand will be decreasing with robotisation. The quality of life is improving, fewer people are dying from diseases and hard labour, they stay productive longer and die older, former high risk jobs are being done much more safely, etc. The investments into IVF could be put to a much better use.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Those against taxpayer funded IVF will probably say that it's down to the person who did the kicking to compensate, not the taxpayer.
Indeed - but what of those born infertile?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Why shouldn't they? Some people are lucky enough to be fertile, others aren't.
May I point out to those who argue for IVF, we have a surplus of adoptable stock and any genes causing infertility will not be passed on.
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
If this bill had been enacted in real life, I expect I would have fewer friends because a number of mine would be dead. There's every chance that one day, I'd be among them. That should tell you everything you need to know about why a service is "essential". Nay.
1
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you worried that a cap in student numbers would affect your place at uni?

Yes (107)
60.45%
No (36)
20.34%
Not sure (34)
19.21%

Watched Threads

View All