choice and their effects on the nhs

[badger man]

i smoke drink and eat way too much and find that people always have something to say about the strain put on the nhs by smokers. however that is where it ends. england, in several countys, has higher levels of obesity than america and one of the highest levels of drink related violence and illness in europe. this puts a lot more strain on the nhs,not to mention the police force, than smoking figures. so two questions, 1. why does no one seem to draw any real attetion to this when it is clearly an issue and 2. do you think it is right to make a choice to screw your body over and then expect to have this put right just because we pay tax. personally i accept the riskof the things that i do and face the fact that they will mean i live a shorter but all together more fullfilling life. although smoking only takes an average of 6 years off your life its still a long time i guess.

badger man.

[Mr stabby]

They do kick up a fuss about this.
Where is the evidence to back up your facts? I don't believe we have a higher obesity rate than America. Or did the (newspaper we all seem to pick on) say so.

Personally I think smokers shouldn't say "yeah but fatties and alkis harm themselves too"
So what? You're still adding to the problem. But you pay some tax towards NHS, right? So I suppose you have the right to free health care. Just don't complain when you're last on the donor list for a new lung. Just as (I think, I have no evidence though) in somewhere like Norwich, they put obese people down on the list for some organ.

If you want to fuck up your body, fair enough. But if I even cough a little on someones smoke in the street, I get real pissy. Why the fuck should I have to breath in the dirty second hand smoke? Why should a smoker get a lung that someone who just developed lung problems naturally and would treat it right needs just as much?

[Rhiophe]

Choice, well. With an informed experience of time on the inside, it offers quick solutions in the short time that rapidly calm the angry public - but in the long term it seems to only offer the prospect of seriously damaging the health service.

This is manly because far from, the right solution being offered to the right person at the right time, the right solution tends only to be available dependent on the specificness of the health issues in the community.

The problem is rather than making right the problems that seem to spring leaks in the service the nhs can supply, new money seems to be pored wholeheartedly into new projects that really offer no better service, yet cost a load more money.

Also the information supplied to the public is totally inaccurate and usually data is at least a year late. So therefore all figures you tend to hear in the news are completely meaningless.

Concentration on the wrong thing needs to stop.


Lets stop filling the publics head with nonsense about super bugs (which tend to get stronger the more you attack them with chemicals, I wonder sometimes why we bothered to spend millions of years evolving an effective immune system).


Lets stop trying to force feed patients through A&E just to counter a stupid 4 hr waiting policy (that tends to only harm the patients later treatment, and results sometimes in ambulances queuing for 8hrs).


Please, while your there ditch the rest of the targets, after all mechanics servicing your car engine get all (and sometimes more than) the time they need where if its: you, or your child , or parent, or loved one everythings:



check 'em over (GP health checks)
drug em' up (statins, need I say more)
ship em in (with there lovely community acquired infections, thanks)
patch em' up ( in a time thats unreasonably, and unmorally quick using tools that are as cheep as possible when possible)
chuck em' out (asap - bedspace = £)

[badger man]

They do kick up a fuss about this.
Where is the evidence to back up your facts? I don't believe we have a higher obesity rate than America. Or did the (newspaper we all seem to pick on) say so.

Personally I think smokers shouldn't say "yeah but fatties and alkis harm themselves too"
So what? You're still adding to the problem. But you pay some tax towards NHS, right? So I suppose you have the right to free health care. Just don't complain when you're last on the donor list for a new lung. Just as (I think, I have no evidence though) in somewhere like Norwich, they put obese people down on the list for some organ.

If you want to fuck up your body, fair enough. But if I even cough a little on someones smoke in the street, I get real pissy. Why the fuck should I have to breath in the dirty second hand smoke? Why should a smoker get a lung that someone who just developed lung problems naturally and would treat it right needs just as much?


i ask no one to breath my smoke or give e teir organs when mine fuck up.thats my point, surely people should be willing toface the consiquences of their actions before they do them. i am one of the few smokers that agrees with the ban. i dont think it is right to force a filthy habit onto other people and i am also notpassing the buck of my choice to people that over eat and drink. my point is mre tothe fact that why when smoking is technically the lesser f several evils is it the most concerntrated on. smoking doesnt make you beat the crap out of innocent people or decide that while you cant say your own name that youare still ok to drive.

you can find the facts from any decent medical journal because i dont read the paper but true they are. i feel my point has not really got across but my question is who are these magical invisable people bringing up the other problems mentioned. if you are refering to the three old ladies on the school board fighting for longer pe lessons or the mighty jamie oliver ad his quest to save the world then i feel you have placed importance in the wrong kind of people. anyway enough ranting for today. have fun all.

[gembird]

my point is mre tothe fact that why when smoking is technically the lesser f several evils is it the most concerntrated on. smoking doesnt make you beat the crap out of innocent people or decide that while you cant say your own name that youare still ok to drive.

True, but I think what bothers people is that eating too much doesn't have a harmful effect on the people around them, other than maybe making them feel a bit sick... Same goes for alcohol. I get what you're saying, but you have to bear in mind that someone has to have a hell of a lot of alcohol to get into a state where they're a danger to themselves and others, at which point there are plenty of laws to stop that/punish them. The whole thing about smoking isn't about the tobacco- it's about all the other chemicals that fuck up your insides, like formaldehyde and so on. If you want to breathe it in, that's fine, and fair play to you for keeping out of people's way if they don't like it, but the point is that smoking is definitely linked to an earlier death and that's only true for extreme amounts of alcohol, ie cases of addiction. Seeing as nicotine is (allegedly) the most addictive legal drug, I'm going to assume that's why such a fuss is made.

[AngryPaul]

Apparently - according to GMTV so take it with a pinch of salt - seriously obese people are claiming unemployment and disability benefits because they can't really work/function correctly.

I know there are reasons for the way they are, but it annoys me that I'm paying for it.

[Cjw]

Apparently - according to GMTV so take it with a pinch of salt - seriously obese people are claiming unemployment and disability benefits because they can't really work/function correctly.

I know there are reasons for the way they are, but it annoys me that I'm paying for it.

Speaking as someone who is pretty overweight-I would be embrassed to even consider doing something like that. And bloody miserable as well.

If we arn't going to give people who are alcoholic/overweight new organs though, wouldn't it be hypocritical not to roll it out across the board?

I mean, if you push enough, i'm sure you could make the majority of medical cases the persons fault

[AngryPaul]

I mean, if you push enough, i'm sure you could make the majority of medical cases the persons fault"I'm sorry Mr Garrett, your leg will have to remain broken. We have warned you about your clumsiness before..."

[Pilk Man]

Raise extortionate taxes on/Ban smoking t b h.

Cancer rates would plummet, although the government would lose millions (unless they were taxed to extortion, in which case the government, NHS AND public would benefit).

[AngryPaul]

Raise extortionate taxes on/Ban smoking t b h.

Cancer rates would plummet, although the government would lose millions (unless they were taxed to extortion, in which case the government, NHS AND public would benefit).Taxes on cigarettes are already erally high and I believe thats the main reason that smoking hasn't been banned outright. The government would lose too much money from it.

I also think thats why the won't legalise cannabis. They can't control its growth and production, so they can't tax it enough.

[Aladdin Sane]

The amount raised from taxation on tobacco far outstrips the cost put on the NHS by smoking-related illness. We're paying our taxes, so why should we be refused healthcare? Just because we're doing something bad for us? What about people who drink a lot? What about people with poor diets? What about people who partake in extreme sports where likelihood of injury is increased? The point of the NHS is that it give healthcare to everyone - not just the people who we think 'deserve' it, and it would be a sad day for this country if such a thing should ever happen.

And now onto the usual stuff about smoking. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but myself and all of the people I know who smoke are not horrible black-hearted people. I'll stand away from non-smokers, I'll make sure to stand so that the wind doesn't blow it into their faces, if I am passing people on the street I'll make sure not blow smoke at them; in fact I would say I go to quite some lengths to make sure other people aren't covered in smoke, so I really don't see how I am harming anyone else.

And smoking is never going to banned outright. It's far too ingrained into British culture for that to happen, and its pretty much impossible to remove things when they are. Look at America during prohibition. Alcohol consumption was a big part of their culture, it got removed and it just didn't work. As far as I can see smoking will continue to remain legal.

[Pilk Man]

The amount raised from taxation on tobacco far outstrips the cost put on the NHS by smoking-related illness. We're paying our taxes, so why should we be refused healthcare? Just because we're doing something bad for us? What about people who drink a lot? What about people with poor diets? What about people who partake in extreme sports where likelihood of injury is increased? The point of the NHS is that it give healthcare to everyone - not just the people who we think 'deserve' it, and it would be a sad day for this country if such a thing should ever happen.
My problem with this POV is that you probably wouldn't need said medical care if you didn't smoke (at least not for smoking related problems).

It seems a little selfish to me when smokers with self-inflicted cancer get treatment off the NHS when there are people who can't get cancer treatment at all and die of it, only to have the smokers turn round and say the basic equivelent of "hey, fuck you! we pay taxes!", as if it makes everything alright.

The fact is YES, you do deserve health care that your taxes pay for. If you are genuinly and inavoidably diseased or have a horrible accident, I'm all up for my tax money being used to care for you. But NO it's not ok if you use up medical resources that could be spent on people who truly need them, rather than those who decide to continue poisoning their bodies every day despite being warned almost continuously of the obvious and clearly-identifiable detrimental health damage involved.

[Aladdin Sane]

However, my point is; if we started denying treatment to people because they smoked and were therefore less 'deserving', this opens up a whole minefield of issues. Do we just stop there? Why should we give treatment to (illegal) drug users? Someone overdoses and has fallen unconscious, why should we treat them? After all, they knew the risks and decided to mess up their body, they shouldn't expect free treatment and deny it to those who really need it; and they didn't even pay any tax on their drugs. Should we then leave them to die whilst other more "deserving" people get healthcare? Who is to be the arbiter of who gets healthcare and who doesn't?

[Pilk Man]

I suppose you're right, but at the end of the day it would come down to a simple and obvious solution. If you want good healthcare from the NHS, don't shit up your body with smoking. You wouldn't break all the windows in your car and go crying to your insurer for damage you caused, so don't do it to your body/the NHS.

/nazi.

[badger man]

:bb:Raise extortionate taxes on/Ban smoking t b h.

Cancer rates would plummet, although the government would lose millions (unless they were taxed to extortion, in which case the government, NHS AND public would benefit).


well cutting out eones choice to do something completely legal to cut down on cancer and increase the strain on government funds is ott. i mean we are not banning mc donalds or people that carry umbrellas. you all know they are evil, they never look where they are going and im tall so a normal persons umbrella is held at my eye height. you know who you are! anyway the point is there is a choice to smoke. and besides canabis is legal and yet 70 percent of the population say that they have smoked it by the time they are 18, most of which was on a regular basis. so making something ilegal doesnt stop anything. oh and do you even realise how much tax we pay on fags?

[Smartie]

Personally, i'm in favour of the American way of doing things.

You pay health insurance - no insurance no treatment.
This eliminates the "it's my tax money that's paying for xyz"

The UK government carries too many people who fake illness or are unjustifiably classified as "ill". End free health care and see what changes happen.
Or could the government never do that because they get too much revenue from people like me who are never ill? [/cynic]

[Steak]

Out of all the "western" healthcare systems, America has one of the worst life expectancies.

Putting healthcare into the hands of money-grabbing organisations is a hideous idea. Treatment should be based on need, never on ability to pay.

[argh]

Because of the high Canadian dollar people who live close enough to the Canadian/American border are taking trips down there to buy cheap American good, and a lot of them are not decalring these items so they won't have to pay the duty (tax) on them when they come back to Canada.

America is getting their money, not Canada.

Canada is still footing the bill for their healthcare. Should we try and stop paying for their healthcare because they are avoiding paying into our government coiffers*? How can you suggest picking and coosing the people who deserve care? Also, what about verterns who smoke? Everyone loves veterns, but would you deny them treatment because they smoke or drink? (Remember it's only recently they've realised post-traumatic strss disorder, so these people will have had to find their own ways of dealing with the deaths they've seen and done.)

(*There was an article in the paper of this, these people are spending hundreds or thousands of dollars and are maybe declaring a small portion of it to not arouse suspicion, but they have quote people saying they've taken the tag off things and thrown out the boxes on laptops to aviod paying the tax, so it is a fair chunck of change the govenment is losing to this.)

[badger man]

i dont really understand the whole american /canadian thing. surely all they are doing is giving theyre money to american companies over canadian ones. i know they are not paying the canadian government duty on the goods but people have the right to go abroad for health care so surely this is no different unless it is on a huge scale. i dontthink you should pick and chose people to offer health care with either tho. all i think is that surely there comes a point of screwing your body over where rather than being denied health care you should be a lower priority. i mean why slit your wrists if your going to call an ambulance right? as for veterans they are a group of people not given the respect they deseve anymore. people are to busy hating the government and the incurrent wars to remember that they didnt go and fight through hell and high water for oil or some terrorist or what ever reason we are fighting for at the minute but for a good and noble cause. as off topic and patriotic as it sounds i think that we owe a lot to them.

[livewirekitty]

Personally, i'm in favour of the American way of doing things.

You pay health insurance - no insurance no treatment.
This eliminates the "it's my tax money that's paying for xyz"

That isn't totally the American way. You forgot the screwing over of anyone who doesn't have insurance/medcaid/medicare or not enough insurance.

The UK government carries too many people who fake illness or are unjustifiably classified as "ill". End free health care and see what changes happen.
Or could the government never do that because they get too much revenue from people like me who are never ill? [/cynic]

I personally never understood why a premium wasn't paid to begin with. The government shouldn't blow the premium out of proportion to the income, but couldn't having one in place help offset the costs of running the NHS? Maybe if there was some extra money in the coffers people could get their tests done faster and not have to wait until for so long. Also, don't let doctor's fuckups be paid by the NHS. If they screw up why should they get paid? Paying a premium would probably be a hard sell considering how long free medical care has been offered, but what would be better, throw a few extra pounds into the kitty or have your taxes raised even more?

Every choice you make/have made for you affects the NHS. Whether you smoke, drink, or just eat to much of the wrong things. Your body is going to tell you to sod off eventually, so there isn't much point in being pissy to people based on their choices in life.

Apparently - according to GMTV so take it with a pinch of salt - seriously obese people are claiming unemployment and disability benefits because they can't really work/function correctly.
I know there are reasons for the way they are, but it annoys me that I'm paying for it.
Don't choke down to much salt because it's probably been happening for a good while but garnered attention now since the obesity rates have been rising. It was probably a matter of time before someone took a peek at the records and saw this. It's happened here as well. I don't think that it's fair but what can be done? It's one of the things that has to accepted at the moment. There isn't really any point pissing and moaning over that money.

[badger man]

not to berude but you all seem to be forgetting that tax doesnt just pay for the nhs. tax will rise anyway mainlydue to inflation and the governments terrible idea to invest using a ten year turn over with a private investor that we cant afford to repay without a massive rise in tax and more loans. even harder now that they are looking at an imediate repayment to northern rock as well. either way i think the premium idea is not such a good one. noteveryone can afford premiums just like not everyone can afford health insurance and implementing a structure that allows said people to avoid paying with out the pit falls of the benefit system is just notwith in the capability of the government. more liquidity is needed in the nhs but you could actually just restructure the way that it is run as the efficiency of the whole thing is weak at best. did you know two out of three hospitals built in the last ten years are rented rather than owned, just like police stations, fire stations and doctors surgeries. seems a large waste if you ask me.

[livewirekitty]

Why not do both then? Restructure the NHS and do a premium? Could someone afford say 5% of their income as to go towards a premium? Think of it as a change jar, it seems like a little bit, but over time it adds up to being a good chunk of change.