Do we want the NHS protected?

Cameron thinks so.

This is a complex subject so lets tackle it in small steps.

Was the spending of £2 bn on Swine 'Flu wise? Did we need protecting? (follow the "flu " label for what has been said before)

Are we spending too much money and prescribing too many drugs? (ditto "drugs" label)

It has been found that children who are exposed to germs (including animal shit) end up growing up healthier - though the others die. Do we put too much emphasis in taking over what our bodies have evolved to do naturally?

Is keeping people suffering from dementia, alive with feeding tubes (which is being required in some "Care" Homes) "good" or "evil"? It sounds like living hell to me.

Does the NHS take over our lives with the attitude "We know best how to keep you alive" when we don't want to live anymore thank you very much ? Is not quality of life the most important? Each one of us defines this in different ways, but are we consulted on how we want to live?

Is the purpose of the NHS solely to help our bodies do what they do exceedingly well without interference?

Have we been brainwashed into thinking that living as long as possible is more important than living short quality lives? Do we just want to stay alive as we can't face up to the idea of dying. We can't even use the word "died" but use the euphemisms:"passed away", "joined the great majority" (which is no longer true!)

Richard Nordquist writes concerning taboos

"Some folks in hospital "expire" there. And, according to hospital records, others experience "a negative patient-care outcome" or "a therapeutic misadventure." However, such mishaps can't be nearly as disappointing as the patient who has "failed to fulfill his wellness potential."

So of these answers could lead to the NHS not costing very much at all!