OllyK

That's 2 threads about to be simultaneously dragged in to muppets

TelBoy

No, you're right Olly. Back on track;


Like i say, DBW, i think there *could* be criteria within which the NHS could effectively operate. The example that this thread is centred upon is just one of them. I just don't think we need to hold up our hands and say "it's all TOO complicated, we'll treat everyone as equal, whether or not it's somebody who's been smoking 60 **** a day against all medical advice or not". That just smacks of defeatism, and does nothing to deter people from doing the very things that are killing them, in my opinion.

Huxley Chick

What worries me most is that if we start down that route, where will it all end?

fast bloke

Buy where do you draw the line - if someone makes a choice that they know has an associated risk they don't get treated? - Walking the kids to school on an icy morning has its associated risks. If you fall and break your leg do they just leave you lying there?

OllyK

It won't that's the problem. In which case stop pi$$ing about with an NHS service. Ambulances remain free and after that you need health insurance. If you don't have any, you sign yourself over to medical research

Neverguess

I agree.

I do understand why it's being suggested, but I am not sure how it can be managed. I know I wouldn't want the job of working it out.

What about people who used to smoke?? What about people who live with smokers??

Spoon

I think they should at least push you to the side to prevent anybody else from tripping over you.

TelBoy

Sure, i'm not saying it would be *easy* to define the parameters. But why not start at the source - the smokers themselves, the alcoholics themselves, and as per the subject of this thread, the obese themselves? Or just scrap the NHS altogether. Or what's probably going to happen - precisely nothing.

fast bloke

scrap the NHS and cut income tax to 10%. I have PMI anyway

Huxley Chick

But they are addictions & therefore people need help to overcome them, not a blanket ban from treatment on the NHS

TelBoy

Yep, help to overcome them is one thing. Paying for all operations as a result of them is another. This country spends *billions* each year treating ailments which are wholly preventable. It's a scandalous waste of resources.

OllyK

But how far are YOU prepared to go? All car accidents are preventable, just ban cars, and so we go on.

IMO we should scrap the NHS or it continues to bleed the country dry and provide treatment for all, regardless.

Huxley Chick

Yes, but where would it stop?

People with diabetes, for example, who are poorly controlled & therefore more likely to suffer complications - would they be banned from receiving the treatment they needed because they couldn't be ar$ed to look after themselves properly?

In fact that goes for anyone with a chronic illness.

I would fully support the refusal of treatment for somebody who refuses to do anything about their 'addiction', ie, what's the point of treating a smoker for a smoking related disease if they continue to smoke, but even that would be difficult to police

Either the NHS exists to treat everyone, or it's abolished. You can't have degrees because the decision making would be impossible.

The Zohan

Perhaps all of the people who do not fit into the healthy lifestyle bracket should not pay onto the same NHS scheme but onto a separate one along with all the tax on cigarettes and alcohol, takeaways and eating and their proportion of other taxes that are used to fund the nhs out for example.

That way the NHS for the healthy liestylers would be relieved of the burden and all of the fatties, druggies and alchies, etc would be on their own.

Just a thought.

However these fat unhealthy ******* intend to live a shorter life so will less affect your pensions and burdening the NHS into later life so what do we do then – give them a rebate?

How about people who try to commit suicide or are mentally ill are they a worth while cause?

What about people who do dangerous sports and get themselves injured or incapacitated. I could be said they did it to themselves so they should be excluded.

What about if you are the cause of a car accident, have no insurance say because if unclaimed mods and need £ 10,000'ss of treatment on the NHS - should you forfeit you right?

What about Asylum seekers or immigrants who have never paid in and then use the system - should they be allowed - if they have never contributed before?

Huxley Chick

See, can of worms

Neverguess

Everyone can come up with different situations to add to the policy, Paul.

I'm still unsure which way is right. All I think is *something* needs to be done.

The Zohan

That is exactly what is at stake!

If this is the case then abolish the nhs and everbody who can afford to goes private and the others can go **** themsleves are they are the new uberclass.

That part of this is black and white - no grey areas, i do wonder what the govenrments ultimate goal is

OllyK

Leslie

The country has on the other hand a majority of people who have paid their NI throughout their working lives on the premise that they would be eligible for medical treatment free at the point of delivery.

A cop out like the one under discussion cannot be justified because the NHS is cluttered with an enormous number of incompetent and unnecessary managers and administrators whose salaries are draining the money from where it should be going!

Les

OllyK

If they weren't being paid £800 per week to do that we'd have to pay them £25 a week un-employment and...and...damn. Sack the civil servants

Luan Pra bang

[quote]The Treasury earned £8,093 million in revenue from tobacco duties for the financial year 2003-2004 (excluding VAT/[quote]

Add the VAT on and thats a lot of money considering that smokers don't live as long so us less natural resources it becomes clear that smokers contibute alot more to society than non smokers so should be treated with repect and reverence for keeping the economy going.

Luan Pra bang

no NHS for drinkers or smokers ?

Luan Pra bang

[quote]Dutch researchers have shown smokers may actually save society money because they do not live so long. The study, conducted by the Erasmus University Department of Public Health in Rotterdam, compared the health care costs of smokers to those of people of more advanced years.

They concluded that in the long run, if many people stopped using tobacco products, costs would actually rise as a healthier population eventually moved into nursing homes and into the relatively expensive diseases of old age.

They calculated the average lifetime costs of a smoking man to be $72,700 - much less than $83,400 for the non-smoking man.

/[quote]