Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Broke my nose

NAS

New member
Hey ppl, I broke my nose and now it looks awful.:(

Now, I have to wait 2 years before the NHS operate on it.

So, I'm considering going private and having a rhinoplasty.
They can perform one within a month, also that way i can tell them how i would like my nose to be reshaped.

What do you think people
 
You might want to want until the swelling goes down and see how you actually look. Some times a perceived "flaw" can actually enhance ones looks. I mean look at the guy in Hansels avitar. His nose looks like it was broken. He might be too pretty if he had a perfect nose.
 
bdog527 said:
2 years! Why so long?

In the UK we have free medical help.........but you have to wait your turn. Straightening a broken nose isn't really considered essential........more cosmetic. Cosmetic ops are low priority.
 
NHS is the best health service in the world, no doubt about it.
It just needs more funding, investment, resources and patience and it will be even greater.

Well, its been two weeks, I took a picture and I looked awful.
The left side of my nose was bent and it is clearly evident on the photograph.
 
CASS said:
Big up the NHS.. Best system in the world

You reckon?

I dunno, its good that the service is free and all but waiting lists are sooo long. All I ever hear on the news about the NHS is negative and how it is struggling to cope.

Im still very grateful for things doctors have done for me in the last couple of years, it just takes so long to see a doctor.

Plus, I don't rate women doctors at all. I've seen quite a few and all the women doctors were terrible. IMO woemn doctors shoudl be strictly for 'womens problems', oh and physiotherapy if they're hot. :-)
 
YOU SHOULD SLAM YOUR WHOLE FACE WITH A 30LB SLEDGE HAMMER........THAT WAY YOU'LL MOVE UP ON THE PRIORITY LIST AND THEY CAN RESHAPE YOUR NOSE AT THE SAME TIME LARRY.
 
free? how is it free? you people are taxed excessively to pay for such a stupid program. worst of all, you have to depend on the state for your own health and well-being.

if you guys were able to save the money you shell out in taxes to actually buy your own medical insurance, you would wind up saving money.

if you lived in the states, not only would you receive better medical attention, you would not have to wait 2 fucking years to get something done. you give them a phone call, schedule something (usually that week or the next), and get it done.

god, it is a pain in the ass just to get a license renewed, let alone go to the government for health care. no thanks.
 
as i was saying...

Soldiers forced to buy private treatment for war injuries
Electronic Telegraph | June 16, 2003 | Sean Rayment

British troops injured in war are being forced to pay for private medical treatment or face long delays for operations on the National Health Service.

A staffing crisis in the Defence Medical Services (DMS) means that more than 10,000 soldiers - the equivalent of 15 infantry battalions - are currently not fit for frontline duty. That figure rises to more than 17,000 when all three services are taken into consideration, according to Government figures given to the Liberal Democrats.

Senior officers have told ministers that unless they receive an emergency injection of cash, large sections of the Army will be declared unoperational because of the number of troops waiting for surgery.

One soldier, who was injured on active duty in Afghanistan, has now been told that he faces a 12-month wait for a knee operation unless he is prepared to pay ÂŁ2,000 for private treatment.

Another soldier who recently returned from Afghanistan after serving with the International Stabilisation and Assistance Force (Isaf) has been told that he will have to wait six months before he can see a specialist about his damaged ankle.

He may then face a further year's wait for an operation. He has, however, been advised that if he were to go private, he could see a specialist immediately and have the operation within three weeks.

The soldiers asked not to be named because military personnel are not allowed to speak to the press without authorisation.

The Ministry of Defence has spent more than ÂŁ5 million on private health care in the last few years to reduce the number of servicemen and women waiting for operations. However, only a fixed amount of money is available to each unit, and commanding officers are being forced to ration the private treatment.

Service personnel whose injury prevents them from carrying out their duties are classified as "medically downgraded". These troops cannot be deployed on military operations and are unlikely to be able to undertake courses which have any physical element.

They can have their pay reduced and may be passed over for promotion until fully fit. A sergeant in the RAF wrote to his service's newspaper, the RAF News, saying he was faced with the choice of paying for a private operation or being unable to perform his duties for a year and a half.

"I have been medically downgraded for the first time in 18 years' service. Although it is temporary, I nevertheless cannot be deployed and I have limitations imposed on my normal duties.

"I find this whole situation unacceptable and as a result I have decided to pay for private treatment."

Soldiers claim that waiting up to a year for NHS treatment would deny them active service or promotion.

It is thought to be the first time in British history that troops are having to pay for surgery for injuries sustained during military service.

Officers are further pointing to the fact that numbers will increase dramatically in the aftermath of the war in Iraq.

Bernard Jenkin, the Tory shadow defence secretary, described the situation as an outrage. "The fact that our servicemen and women are having to pay for medical treatment is nothing short of a national scandal.

"Troops are meant to get priority treatment on the NHS. On Monday I will be demanding a statement from the Government asking why the MoD and the NHS are failing our soldiers." The DMS was meant to treat the Armed Forces after the nation's military hospitals were closed.

Senior officers claim that the crisis has been caused by bad morale, a lack of qualified medical staff and the effects of a savage cost-cutting programme undertaken in the mid-1990s which resulted in the closure of all military hospitals.

For non-emergency operations, soldiers now simply join NHS waiting lists.

A senior officer said this weekend: "How on earth are we meant to recruit for the Armed Forces when soldiers, sailors and airmen and women face the ridiculous possibility of having to pay for their own operations or spend months on a waiting list? It is a shocking and shameful state of affairs. There will be many servicemen and women returning from the Gulf carrying an injury which will get progressively worse and they will eventually need an operation but they will have to go on a waiting list.

"They then face the prospect of having to wait for up to 18 months and accept that their careers will stagnate - or pay for the operation themselves."

A spokesman for the MoD said that it accepted that a problem existed with troops facing long waiting times for surgery. He said a fast-track process was in place for units about to deploy on active operations.
 
man, this is how you people treat your own soldiers? god, i would hate to see how the 'common' person gets treated.

sickening.
 
goes from bad to worse

Aids-infected asylum seekers overwhelm UK hospitals
Telegraph - uk | Sunday June 15 2003 | Francis Elliott, Daniel Foggo and Thair Shaikh

[British] Hospital consultants revealed today that the "National Health Service" is being overwhelmed by hundreds of AIDS sufferers from abroad, who account for up to two thirds of all new HIV patients in Britain.

Doctors across the country said that they felt compelled to speak out because their departments were at crisis point.

The cost of treating infected foreigners - every one costing about USD$25.000.00 a year - is putting hospitals into debt and threatening to halt routine operations for other patients, they said.

The consultants said that the surge in "people arriving with HIV" accounted for most of the recent rise in infection rates, and reported that there was evidence that they were infecting Britons by engaging in "unsafe sex."

A House of Commons Health Select Committee Report last week estimated that the figures for new HIV cases last year would more than double at 6,500. It also revealed that the rates of infection for other sexually transmitted diseases had spiralled out of control, with cases of syphilis up 500 per cent in six years.

Dr Tim Moss, the clinical director and consultant genito-urinary physician at Doncaster Royal Infirmary, told The Telegraph that politicians underestimated the problem and the huge resources needed to treat [The invasion by] "HIV patients" from sub-Saharan African countries, the Far East and India.

"The situation has reached a crisis which requires central intervention," he said. "We are at saturation point. We literally cannot accommodate any more people.

"In the past three months we have had 10 new cases of HIV in Doncaster, six of which have been migrants. For a small town in the north of England, we are getting as many new HIV cases in three months as we would expect to get in two to three years."

Dr Anne Edwards, a consultant in genito-urinary medicine with the Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust, said: "Two years ago the number of cases we were dealing with was in single figures. In the last year it has gone up to about 30, of whom approximately 25 are from outside Britain.

"The situation is the same throughout the country. Two thirds of our new HIV patients are from abroad. We're in a crisis.

"We are now seeing a rise in local infection, which suggests that patients recently arrived in the country are "having unsafe sex." We are seeing some other-than-homosexual spread."

Dr Edwards said that some of her HIV patients were "nurses brought over" to work in the NHS "from countries with AIDS problems."

"Our trust is in an enormous financial hole of around USD$35,000,000.00. Not only do we not have enough money for our own population but we are having to treat lots of people from other countries. We are shelling out huge amounts of money. A lot of people are feeling pretty resentful. Health care workers feel that some of the time we are being taken for a ride.

"The Government needs to come up with a system which rules on people's eligibility."

"Human rights" legislation means that HIV positive "visitors to Britain from third world countries" are "entitled" to stay indefinitely while they "receive British-taxpayer-funded care." The cost could ultimately reach USD$1,670,000.00 per AIDS refugee over a lifetime. The Home Office's stipulation is that they will be treated if there is no medical care for their condition available in their own countries.

Dr Edwards added: "If you look at all the people coming here for NHS treatment who are not eligible there are likely to be important repercussions, like the fact that your Grandma does not get her hip replacement. [Or her vital-to-her-life cancer operation] The [Taxpayer-looted] "pot of money" is finite.

"The UK is known to be soft. It is known that if you get to the UK you can present yourself for check-up and testing."

The experience of Dr Edwards is mirrored elsewhere. Figures released by the Royal Leicester Infirmary show that it has 241 HIV positive patients, a rise of 61 per cent on pre-2000 levels. More than half the men, and almost 80 per cent of the women [Are third-world invaders who] "have been resident in Britain" for less than a year.

More than half of them are "claiming asylum."

As a response to the growing problem, the Government has decided to implement compulsory screening of all foreigners coming into Britain from countries where HIV and AIDS are rife.

The Telegraph has learned that one of Alan Milburn's last meetings as Health Secretary last week was with David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to discuss the screening of migrants for infectious diseases.

A senior Whitehall official said: "We have moved from considering whether to introduce screening to what form it should take. We are drawing up a list of high-risk countries." [Translation: "We'll put a bureaucratic finger in the dyke" -- BA]

Trevor Phillips, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality, said: "Every patient should be treated equally. I can't imagine any British doctor would suggest his patients should be treated differently based on their origin." [True. As in America, it's not a "medical problem," it's a National Security issue]

"If there are budget constraints then a case needs to be made for more resources." [Try patroling the bloody borders and deporting all criminal aliens! -- That'll work!]
 
Imnotdutch said:
'you people' insinuates that the common man likes this. Let me put it simply for you........WE DONT!!!!

i'm not saying the average person likes to see this, but you people should be held responsible for voting in these politicians who routinely continue to fuck you and your country over.

and you people in the US wonder why i am so against socialized medicine....
 
p0ink said:


i'm not saying the average person likes to see this, but you people should be held responsible for voting in these politicians who routinely continue to fuck you and your country over.

and you people in the US wonder why i am so against socialized medicine....

Our system guarantees a reasonable standard of health for everybody..........I see no problem with that.

As for who voted who in.........last time I checked no party said that they wanted to abolish the NHS. In fact they all had similar policies towards the NHS. So it was not possible to vote for a party that might improve this area in some way.
 
As far as your article goes I am inclined to agree that we have a serious problem on our hands. We are taking in asylum seekers at an unacceptable rate. Furthermore, we are attracting short-term visitors (e.g. students). These people do little to help pay for the benefits we have in this country........I am beginning to think that our own people should come first.

For example, we attract people from India and Pakistan who want to come here for a few years to study. As students they make little monetary contribution to society.......and as short term visitirs are unlikely to in the future. Yet they still expect free services........I think these people should have to have private medical insurance (they can afford to support themselves so why cant they pay out these few extra bucks?).
 
Imnotdutch said:


Our system guarantees a reasonable standard of health for everybody..........I see no problem with that.

As for who voted who in.........last time I checked no party said that they wanted to abolish the NHS. In fact they all had similar policies towards the NHS. So it was not possible to vote for a party that might improve this area in some way.

you have no problem with HIV infected illegals taking over your health care system, thus forcing legitimate citizens to have to wait to get health care? you dont mind that these people are sucking up all of the funds for treatment, while at the same time soldiers have to wait to get operations?

as long as your country continues to offer something for 'free' (i use that term lightly since you people pay out the ass) such as health care, expect every subhuman piece-of-shit top come there and abuse it on your dime.

i hope and pray socialized medicine does not come to america.
 
Imnotdutch said:
As far as your article goes I am inclined to agree that we have a serious problem on our hands. We are taking in asylum seekers at an unacceptable rate. Furthermore, we are attracting short-term visitors (e.g. students). These people do little to help pay for the benefits we have in this country........I am beginning to think that our own people should come first.

For example, we attract people from India and Pakistan who want to come here for a few years to study. As students they make little monetary contribution to society.......and as short term visitirs are unlikely to in the future. Yet they still expect free services........I think these people should have to have private medical insurance (they can afford to support themselves so why cant they pay out these few extra bucks?).

you people really need to get your guns back.
 
CASS said:
p0ink always seems to come up with these anti british posts.

i'm not anti-british, i just point out what a dismal failure some of your programs are and hope they never make their way here. that's all.

if it's any consolation you guys have cool accents.
 
p0ink said:


i'm not anti-british, i just point out what a dismal failure some of your programs are and hope they never make their way here. that's all.

if it's any consolation you guys have cool accents.

LOL! ok i'll let you off!! LOL!

You like oour accents then?
 
you could take the stupidest american you can possibly find, make him stay in the UK long enough to pick up an accent, and when he comes back, people will assume he is educated based solely on his accent.
 
p0ink said:
you could take the stupidest american you can possibly find, make him stay in the UK long enough to pick up an accent, and when he comes back, people will assume he is educated based solely on his accent.

really, they would think that just cause of his accent!!!!!


yes i did try it, sorry i forgot to PM you. it was great, loved it! that is a recipe that im gonna keep. i think i'll have it 2 or 3 times a month.

thanks for that bro.... i loved it!
 
you should try some of my food...

it's a lot better than your diet of beans on toast and brain and kidney pie. ;)
 
Top Bottom