The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 3:05 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 8:10 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 8:07 am All that proves is that either you can't do rudimentary research...

Do you know what the most rudimentary kind of research is?

Go outside and look.

That's what I'm telling you to do.

Or...turn on your computer, and watch some news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1wA7a8KiEw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEt1oV6lO6k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG-YQrZQNDQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAzzgh ... FMUzzJRh6L

Oh dear. If you...

Theeere it is! Straight to the ad hominem. You may as well just wave a white flag. I know exactly what it signifies.

Again:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 2:49 pm...healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

That is bollocks. It is only a useless wänker who thinks 'You called me a useless wänker; therefore I'm right'. The simple fact is that it is not true that there are vast numbers of people who do not have health cover, in any country that provides universal healthcare, and who would "explode the costs" if they were to.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 5:12 amWhat matters is what is true.

Except when it makes you look like a useless wänker. Grow up, for fuċk's sake.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:23 pm Again:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 2:49 pm...healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

That is bollocks.

Really?

So which are you saying: that all the migrants, the mentally ill and fentanyl addicts are currently being served by universal health care, or that they aren't, but that it wouldn't cost any more money to extend healthcare to them?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 3:03 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:23 pm Again:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 2:49 pm...healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

That is bollocks.

Really?

Yes.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 3:03 pmSo which are you saying: that all the migrants, the mentally ill and fentanyl addicts are currently being served by universal health care, or that they aren't, but that it wouldn't cost any more money to extend healthcare to them?

How quickly you forget. What I am saying is that your claim:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 2:49 pm...healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is bollocks. I have given you the example of London. Over 200 000 homeless people, all of whom have full access to the NHS. That is a fact. Even if they did not have full access to the NHS, the addition of 200 000 to a population over 9 million, would not "explode the costs", except in the minds of useless wänkers who can't count.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 4:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 3:03 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:23 pm Again:
That is bollocks.

Really?

Yes.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 3:03 pmSo which are you saying: that all the migrants, the mentally ill and fentanyl addicts are currently being served by universal health care, or that they aren't, but that it wouldn't cost any more money to extend healthcare to them?

How quickly you forget. What I am saying is that your claim:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 2:49 pm...healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is bollocks.

Yes, yes...but "bollocks" on what grounds: that there's already full service for migrants, fentanyl addicts and the mentally ill, and it's quite enough; or that there isn't, but new healthcare for them will appear without cost to the taxpayer?

It has to be one or the other.

I have given you the example of London. Over 200 000 homeless people, all of whom have full access to the NHS.

Oh. So migrants, the addicted and the mentally ill don't need any more healthcare. They're already covered by the NHS.

I just want to check: that's your position?

Because, according to The King's Trust, your claim of the sufficiency of the NHS is not shared by most English people.

"6 in 10 people (59%) said they were ‘very’ or ‘quite’ dissatisfied with the NHS in 2024, a sharp rise from 52% in 2023. This is the highest level of dissatisfaction with the health service since the survey began in 1983. The survey, carried out by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) in September and October 2024, is seen as a gold-standard measure of public attitudes in Britain."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 6:05 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 4:17 pmI have given you the example of London. Over 200 000 homeless people, all of whom have full access to the NHS.

Oh. So migrants, the addicted and the mentally ill don't need any more healthcare. They're already covered by the NHS.

The NHS is not perfect, (see FlashDangerpants, Skepdick and Voltaire) but whatever its shortcomings, the same NHS is available to asylum seekers, drug addicts and the mentally ill as to the settled, drug free, mentally balanced population.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 6:05 pmI just want to check: that's your position?

Well, only a useless wänker might think so. Your position:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 2:49 pm...healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is bollocks, at least with regard to London and the NHS, because everyone you say would "explode the costs" already has full access to NHS treatment. Try another city in any country that has universal health care. Name one.

Ah, you were editing as I was posting:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 6:05 pm...your claim of the sufficiency of the NHS is not shared by most English people.

Well, as a useless wänker, you will not be able to cite me claiming that the NHS is sufficient.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 8:35 pm Ah, you were editing as I was posting:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 6:05 pm...your claim of the sufficiency of the NHS is not shared by most English people.

...you will not be able to cite me claiming that the NHS is sufficient.

Well, if 60% of your countrymen think the NHS is already under-providing...just for their own needs...then where is the extra money going to come from to cover these other things?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 8:50 pmWell, if 60% of your countrymen think the NHS is already under-providing...just for their own needs...then where is the extra money going to come from to cover these other things?

Well, given that:

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 8:22 pm...the same NHS is available to asylum seekers, drug addicts and the mentally ill as to the settled, drug free, mentally balanced population.

What other things have you in mind?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 9:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 8:50 pmWell, if 60% of your countrymen think the NHS is already under-providing...just for their own needs...then where is the extra money going to come from to cover these other things?

Well, given that:

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 8:22 pm...the same NHS is available to asylum seekers, drug addicts and the mentally ill as to the settled, drug free, mentally balanced population.

What other things have you in mind?

Ah, I see...

You say that as long as in theory, those among the addicted, the migrants and the mentally ill were to access the system, they'd be allowed to do so. But you don't know that they have the knowledge or ability to do that, and you don't know if there are sufficient services waiting to meet their needs. You certainly have no idea whether there are sufficient places and therapies waiting for them. You just hope they will be able to access the NHS, and that the NHS has an infinite pot of additional money, space and experts...though 60% of your countrymen still think the NHS isn't even adequately serving them, let alone this additional population.

Got it.

Not much of a defense, that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 9:17 pm You say that as long as in theory, those among the addicted, the migrants and the mentally ill were to access the system, they'd be allowed to do so. But you don't know that they have the knowledge or ability to do that, and you don't know if there are sufficient services waiting to meet their needs. You certainly have no idea whether there are sufficient places and therapies waiting for them. You just hope they will be able to access the NHS, and that the NHS has an infinite pot of additional money, space and experts...though 60% of your countrymen still think the NHS isn't even adequately serving them, let alone this additional population.

Actually, the DO (in the end) "access the system". Maybe in very costly ways.

Take HERE (no universal health system). That immigrant or homeless person (or here lots of the the working poor) have no health coverage. Does that mean that they don't cost the system? No, it means lacking coverage, what could have been treated with a doctor visit and a bottle of antibiotic pills becomes life threatening and they are dumped at the ER of a hospital. Where it is not a matter of "sorry, no health insurance, no treatment". They get admitted and maybe a week n (very expensive) ICU. THE REST OF US END UP PAYING THIS BILL just in the cost of OUR insurance instead of in our taxes.

If you think not >cost effective" (universal care) demonstrate that.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 9:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 9:17 pm You say that as long as in theory, those among the addicted, the migrants and the mentally ill were to access the system, they'd be allowed to do so. But you don't know that they have the knowledge or ability to do that, and you don't know if there are sufficient services waiting to meet their needs. You certainly have no idea whether there are sufficient places and therapies waiting for them. You just hope they will be able to access the NHS, and that the NHS has an infinite pot of additional money, space and experts...though 60% of your countrymen still think the NHS isn't even adequately serving them, let alone this additional population.

Actually, the DO (in the end) "access the system". Maybe in very costly ways.

I assume you meant to write "they."

Okay, if migrants, drug addicts and the mentally ill are "accessing the system," and "in very costly ways," as you say, then how is the NHS supposed to obtain the funds to cover that?

Why is grandad shouting about immigrants again?