It's starting...
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#94
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?
#95
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huxley Chick
What worries me most is that if we start down that route, where will it all end?
#96
Originally Posted by Huxley Chick
What worries me most is that if we start down that route, where will it all end?
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??
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Logged Out
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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?
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huxley Chick
But they are addictions & therefore people need help to overcome them, not a blanket ban from treatment on the NHS
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.
#102
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
IMO we should scrap the NHS or it continues to bleed the country dry and provide treatment for all, regardless.
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The land of the pink pig
Posts: 21,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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$ed to look after themselves properly?
In fact that goes for anyone with a chronic illness.
I would fully support the refusal of treatment for somebody who refuses to do anything about their 'addiction', ie, what's the point of treating a smoker for a smoking related disease if they continue to smoke, but even that would be difficult to police
Either the NHS exists to treat everyone, or it's abolished. You can't have degrees because the decision making would be impossible.
People with diabetes, for example, who are poorly controlled & therefore more likely to suffer complications - would they be banned from receiving the treatment they needed because they couldn't be ar$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.
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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?
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huxley Chick
Yes, but where would it stop?
Either the NHS exists to treat everyone, or it's abolished. You can't have degrees because the decision making would be impossible.
Either the NHS exists to treat everyone, or it's abolished. You can't have degrees because the decision making would be impossible.
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
#109
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
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
#110
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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
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
#111
[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.
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.
#113
[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]
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]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
faster than you
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
7
31 July 2013 10:31 AM