King Charles diagnosed with cancer

[RenegAde 20,560]

I know the comments are gonna be diabolical lmao

[Nemo 4,411]

18 minutes ago, HelloHangoverz said:

This man is the head of state and anything he does is subject to rightful scrutiny. The bigger issue is that he is the head of state using private healthcare, instead of the national health service.

I would only suggest that his position is ceremonial, and he and his family aren't responsible for the state of the NHS.

Of course royalty should be abolished etc.

[HelloHangoverz 17,452]

11 minutes ago, Nemo said:

I would only suggest that his position is ceremonial, and he and his family can't be blamed for the state of the NHS.

Of course royalty should be abolished etc.

No of course they can't be blamed. I'm just saying it's disgusting we're paying for their private healthcare when the whole argument they use to argue for themselves (and extract a ridiculous amount of tax payer money to fund luxury lifestyles and Prince Andrew's ego) is we symbolize Britain. Okay, well use the NHS then lmfao

[chun li 3,056]

I can’t wait for the royal supporters disguised as "no matter who you are everyone deserves love xxx" to show up so I can block them from my view 

[HelloHangoverz 17,452]

1 minute ago, chun li said:

I can’t wait for the royal supporters disguised as "no matter who you are everyone deserves love xxx" to show up so I can block them from my view 

None of whom are likely to be British and appreciate 0 context

[AndrewJC 400]

5 minutes ago, HelloHangoverz said:

No of course they can't be blamed. I'm just saying it's disgusting we're paying for their private healthcare when the whole argument they use to argue for themselves is we symbolize Britain. Okay, well use the NHS then lmfao

I get your argument and I'm no royalist but to play the devil's advocate;

There was a debate when Rishi said he loved using the NHS but it transpired he went private. Alot of people were like you and enraged but alot of people did mention that if they can afford it then they should use private because it would mean they clog up our NHS. One comment was on the lines of "selfish thinking you can use our NHS when we're waiting for weeks for appointments, you have the money do go private so go private and don't weigh down our NHS!"

Would you want the royals to use the NHS, regardless as to whether we pay for them or not then it means one less space for us normal people. I know I'd rather people who can afford to use private do so and give people who can't a fair chance.

Idk I just don't think there's a black and white with issues like this. Yes it'd **** they earn alot of money and we pay for them but do we really want them clogging up a service meant for the normal people? 

[Fuffy 1,049]

32 minutes ago, HelloHangoverz said:

This man is the head of state and anything he does is subject to rightful scrutiny. The bigger issue is that he is the head of state using private healthcare, instead of the national health service. He was diagnosed a few days ago and he's already in private treatment funded by the taxpayer. Meanwhile:

I feel like you're targeting the wrong person if you actually want to do anything about it.

Charles is the head of state, but he doesn't actually govern. It's the government that fund and supervise the NHS in its activities. Surely your MP is a much better person to scrutinize? 

The NHS routinely provides and pays for private outsourcing, particularly in the last few years to stop the care from getting any worse. This is how the system operates in much of Canada and Europe at a larger scale where the government pays all or part of the bill to the outsourcing entity. I had a relative who was redirected through the NHS to a private clinic for a scan because of the urgency. I wouldn't necessarily see this as just special treatment when this does happen quite regularly. 

I agree, it's not perfect but it's more practical than trying to maintain a fully empowered and resource public service while keeping taxes and spending relatively low. It just isn't feasible since the public's interests will conflict. I don't disagree the NHS needs more money, but it's much more complex than it appears.

And let's face it, making jokes about Diana and Charles isn't real scrutiny.

[HelloHangoverz 17,452]

22 minutes ago, SourAndy said:

I get your argument and I'm no royalist but to play the devil's advocate;

There was a debate when Rishi said he loved using the NHS but it transpired he went private. Alot of people were like you and enraged but alot of people did mention that if they can afford it then they should use private because it would mean they clog up our NHS. One comment was on the lines of "selfish thinking you can use our NHS when we're waiting for weeks for appointments, you have the money do go private so go private and don't weigh down our NHS!"

Would you want the royals to use the NHS, regardless as to whether we pay for them or not then it means one less space for us normal people. I know I'd rather people who can afford to use private do so and give people who can't a fair chance.

Idk I just don't think there's a black and white with issues like this. Yes it'd **** they earn alot of money and we pay for them but do we really want them clogging up a service meant for the normal people? 

I really don't have a problem with people going private. I think if you can afford it, it would make sense with the state of the NHS. Not even because it frees up space for other people within the NHS, but I just wouldn't begrudge anybody skipping the queue entirely if they had the means.

However, with Rishi Sunak - he spends his life creating, then downplaying, the problem. He talks to the country like a children's television presenter because he thinks we're no more intelligent. We've slashed waiting times by a record amount, don't trust Labour, they'll make the problem worse as if they've done anything to fix it. In a situation like that, I do take issue. Not with the fact he's using private healthcare, but in the fact he needs to to get an adequate service in the first place. Like okay so you're creating the problem then just exempting yourself from it? Who do you think you are? You are supposed to be a leader. You should be owning the consequences of your actions. Not just visiting them on everybody else and exempting yourself.

With regards to Charles, he's spent 70+ years vacuuming money from the British taxpayer. I know they say monarchy is a life of duty but let's just be for real he's never done a day's proper work in his life. Cutting ribbons and being a symbol is not work. The only way I can sympathize for the role of royal is the scrutiny you have to endure that you were just born into and didn't ask for. Fair enough. But then again, I think a lot of people would choose to endure it, if the pay was a life of luxury and never fighting for a basic necessity. Like you might be in a cage, but it's a golden cage with all the luxury you'll ever need. You're no victim.

The royal family gaslight the nation into thinking they're doing this for us to extract ever increasing sums of money from hard working people who have to wait months for their own treatment. Then, when Charles himself gets cancer, all this I'm a symbol crap goes out of the window and he expects us to pay for a standard of care far beyond the dreams of the average person.

I do recognize that his choosing to go private will of course be helping out the NHS. But I don't actually think that's his reason for doing so. He wants the best our money can buy.

[HelloHangoverz 17,452]

18 minutes ago, Fuffy said:

I feel like you're targeting the wrong person if you actually want to do anything about it.

Charles is the head of state, but he doesn't actually govern. It's the government that fund and supervise the NHS in its activities. Surely your MP is a much better person to scrutinize? 

The NHS routinely provides and pays for private outsourcing, particularly in the last few years to stop the care from getting any worse. This is how the system operates in much of Canada and Europe at a larger scale where the government pays all or part of the bill to the outsourcing entity. I had a relative who was redirected through the NHS to a private clinic for a scan because of the urgency. I wouldn't necessarily see this as just special treatment when this does happen quite regularly. 

I agree, it's not perfect but it's more practical than trying to maintain a fully empowered and resource public service while keeping taxes and spending relatively low. It just isn't feasible since the public's interests will conflict. I don't disagree the NHS needs more money, but it's much more complex than it appears.

And let's face it, making jokes about Diana and Charles isn't real scrutiny.

I'm not blaming him for the state of the NHS, I'm criticizing his hypocrisy.

 

And actually, I'd argue you can properly scrutinize him by cracking jokes about him and Diana. Satire. A devotion to a life of duty and the values of the church of England meanwhile he spent most of his marriage begging for a divorce. More hypocrisy. Not that I care about divorce, I'm not ancient. But still, it's hypocritical of him.

[bionic 50,111]

Figurehead or not, the British monarchy have been the face of oppression and colonialism for many countries across the world. Sad for him to get cancer as a person with friends and family. Not so sad for him as a political institution...  

[Natalia Kills 420]

3 minutes ago, HelloHangoverz said:

I really don't have a problem with people going private. I think if you can afford it, it would make sense with the state of the NHS. Not even because it frees up space for other people within the NHS, but I just wouldn't begrudge anybody skipping the queue entirely if they had the means.

However, with Rishi Sunak - he spends his life creating, then downplaying, the problem. He talks to the country like a children's television presenter because he thinks we're no more intelligent. We've slashed waiting times by a record amount, don't trust Labour, they'll make the problem worse as if they've done anything to fix it. In a situation like that, I do take issue. Not with the fact he's using private healthcare, but in the fact he needs to to get an adequate service in the first place. Like okay so you're creating the problem then just exempting yourself from it? Who do you think you are?

With regards to Charles, he's spent 70+ years vacuuming money from the British taxpayer. I know they say monarchy is a life of duty but let's just be for real he's never done a day's proper work in his life. Cutting ribbons and being a symbol is not work. The only way I can sympathize for the role of royal is the scrutiny you have to endure that you were just born into and didn't ask for. Fair enough. But then again, I think a lot of people would choose to endure it, if the pay was a life of luxury and never fighting for a basic necessity. Like you might be in a cage, but it's a golden cage with all the luxury you'll ever need. You're no victim.

The royal family gaslight the nation into thinking they're doing this for us to extract ever increasing sums of money from hard working people who have to wait months for their own treatment. Then, when Charles himself gets cancer, all this I'm a symbol crap goes out of the window and he expects us to pay for a standard of care he does nothing to acquire for his own subjects.

To be fair, what you've said is more your opinion than facts.

It's still valid stuff (not trying to disregard that at all) but a lot of it comes down to how you define work, contribution, privilege etc. and they're all pretty relative concepts. Someone might see attending charity appointments a breeze while others might feel exhausted from maintaining an image without fail. Hard work is relative to what you consider hard. As an introvert it sounds pretty exhausting and I'd much rather do something different that gave me better WLB.

The only thing I disagree particularly on is the last part. I don't think the royals are purposely acting like villains and demanding care because of their status. It's just more the expectation and what comes with the job. They see themselves as important because they're surrounded by people who treat them that way. It's not a bad thing to feel important, it holds you accountable.  

[HelloHangoverz 17,452]

1 minute ago, Natalia Kills said:

Hard work is relative to what you consider hard.

Yeah I get that and can appreciate it. I think when I talk about that stuff, I'm also talking about the realities that come, for an ordinary person, with a life of work and all the **** that comes with it. Worrying about money when you need time off sick, having a manager on your back with ridiculous and unachievable targets, abusive co-workers and bosses....like he doesn't have to deal with that aspect of work at all or, if he does, it's delegated to his secretaries.

4 minutes ago, Natalia Kills said:

I don't think the royals are purposely acting like villains and demanding care because of their status. It's just more the expectation and what comes with the job.

Also I'd agree with you there. That's more a criticism of the institution that in is of Charles.

[Gagaism 12,471]

1 hour ago, Borisapillar said:

The ghost of Diana is hard at work, I see 

I- 

[RAMROD 117,257]

That's sucks.

Meanwhile I don't like him. I'll never joke about cancer condition for anyone 

[Notorious Bean 8,542]

I really find it disgusting to see people making fun of someone with cancer, even if he’s the King no one should make fun. Cancer is an awful, devastating disease that affects so many people, it killed my mothers best friend and it broke my mums heart…