Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UK Doctors back denial of treatment for smokers and the obese

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Fodder76 View Post
    The discussion is far from moot when some modern drugs for conditions like breast cancer are not allowed on the NHS due entirely to the cost of treatment. Do the women (and men for that matter) not deserve the best treatment available if they contract a life threating disease through no fault of their own? After all they pay for the NHS in their taxes.

    The NHS cannot afford to treat every condition, and, frankly, was never intended to by the people who conceived it.
    If the NHS can say they wont treat my diseases because of this and that, then I should be able to say that I wont be paying for it.
    You can have as much bias as yo are prepared to pay for.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Fodder76 View Post
      This, in my humble opinion, is the most pertinant comment in the whole article.



      I think there has to be a realisation that the NHS in the modern age cannot afford to be a catch-all service, and in many ways it isn't already. In assisted pregancy for example if you already have a child or have had three attempts you have to go private.

      The problem is what to cover, where to draw the lines? Should the NHS be purely for life threatening conditions? If so should things like treatment for depression be covered?

      If non-lifethreatening mental health issues are covered should breast augmentations, for example, also continue to be covered where a patient's chronic negative self image and associated mental health issues would be improved?

      When it comes to smoking, I admit I fall into the virulently opposed ex-smoker camp, but when someone voluntarily takes up a habit that has absolutely no positive effects but will be severly detrimental to their health then my position is sure, smoke if you like but don't come crying to me as a taxpayer when you end up with emphysema.

      It may come as no suprise then that I completely back proposals to have blank packets stored out of sight.
      As an ex-smoker I do have some sympathy with the argument that is being made - the NHS does, after all, have finite resources. And people are making a choice to inflict an incredibly dangerous practice on themselves. But a smoker could very well turn around and point out that as a group smokers contribute far more to the state in tax and VAT than the NHS spends taking care of them. Having said that I hope society will continue to be increasingly intolerant of smoking. There really is no good argument for allowing smoking, or drinking for that matter, and then banning other drugs.

      How far does this approach go - do you provide less healthcare to those who do extreme sports or those who do not exercise enough? What about those who take other drugs - if someone comes in suffering from a heroin overdose should they be left to take their chances? If not why not - they chose to take it.
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
      G.B Shaw

      "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
      Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

      Comment


      • #18
        would be interested to know how much tax is collected from the sale of tobacco and how much tobacco related health care cost the NHS, that is the key stats on this for me.

        I did smoke, now on electronic smokes, as good as the real thing for any curious and no harm, or annual tax hike for that matter.

        I am with private health care because I can afford it but I would not like to see the NHS butchered this way, its a slippery slope.
        I know for a fact the the NHS does not use its resources without a shed load of waste, id rather it mused over that than wether or not to treat the sick.

        All I can say is that I am fully behind knocking their pensions into shape asap.

        If a smokers Tobacco tax does not pay for his operations then surely his tobacco tax should not fund the doctors and nurses retirements either.
        Sealion would have failed..............runs,

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by UGLYGUTS View Post
          I did smoke, now on electronic smokes, as good as the real thing for any curious and no harm, or annual tax hike for that matter.
          Really?

          Electronic cigarettes? How does that work?

          Is the smoking sensation the same as with real cigs?


          Philip
          "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by philiplaos View Post
            Really?

            Electronic cigarettes? How does that work?

            Is the smoking sensation the same as with real cigs?


            Philip
            Does for me, plus there is no smell to the smoke as its just water vapour, technically I can now smoke in the cinema, still gives a dose of nicotine etc, also its much cheaper than the real thing,
            You have to drag on it a bit harder but thats the only real difference, it took a few days to get used to, bit like switching brands of something, tasted a bit different but after a few days my taste buds adjusted and the E-cig was my brand as it were.
            The worst part of it is starting out, cost me 50 pounds but I got a 1000 cigs worth of smoking time for that, 1000 cigs at 5 pound per pack of 20 (and its way more than a fiver these days)= 250 so I have cut my smoking bill by a 5th. plus its 100 percent tar free etc,
            Happily recommend them to any who do not actually want to quit, I didnt but the new girl didnt like me smoking so I went onto this, can now smoke next to her, no smell, bad breath etc and no cancer risk.

            I love smoking and can now do it with no risk and cheaper, its been an utter god send.

            Without my misses nagging I would still be on normal cigs but I am glad she did, the money ive saved has been put to much better use.
            Reckon ive save well over a grand so far and not lost my vice as such.

            Our tobacco is very expensive though, abroad the savings might not enter into it depending on where you live.

            Can provide links to where I got mine if wanted, though if you shop around there might be newer makes or better deals now.
            Sealion would have failed..............runs,

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by UGLYGUTS View Post
              Does for me, plus there is no smell to the smoke as its just water vapour, technically I can now smoke in the cinema, still gives a dose of nicotine etc, also its much cheaper than the real thing,
              You have to drag on it a bit harder but thats the only real difference, it took a few days to get used to, bit like switching brands of something, tasted a bit different but after a few days my taste buds adjusted and the E-cig was my brand as it were.
              The worst part of it is starting out, cost me 50 pounds but I got a 1000 cigs worth of smoking time for that, 1000 cigs at 5 pound per pack of 20 (and its way more than a fiver these days)= 250 so I have cut my smoking bill by a 5th. plus its 100 percent tar free etc,
              Happily recommend them to any who do not actually want to quit, I didnt but the new girl didnt like me smoking so I went onto this, can now smoke next to her, no smell, bad breath etc and no cancer risk.

              I love smoking and can now do it with no risk and cheaper, its been an utter god send.

              Without my misses nagging I would still be on normal cigs but I am glad she did, the money ive saved has been put to much better use.
              Reckon ive save well over a grand so far and not lost my vice as such.

              Our tobacco is very expensive though, abroad the savings might not enter into it depending on where you live.

              Can provide links to where I got mine if wanted, though if you shop around there might be newer makes or better deals now.
              Very interesting.

              They deliver some nicotine? So I suppose that satisfies the addiction.

              Yeah...links would be great if you've got them.

              Thanks.


              Philip
              "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

              Comment


              • #22
                I've seen these advertised in the newspapers. Not of any interest to me as a non-smoker, but I did have a character in RP use one.
                Silent Hunter UK
                Member of Phoenix Roleplaying

                Personal Blog

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by UGLYGUTS View Post
                  would be interested to know how much tax is collected from the sale of tobacco and how much tobacco related health care cost the NHS, that is the key stats on this for me.

                  I did smoke, now on electronic smokes, as good as the real thing for any curious and no harm, or annual tax hike for that matter.

                  I am with private health care because I can afford it but I would not like to see the NHS butchered this way, its a slippery slope.
                  I know for a fact the the NHS does not use its resources without a shed load of waste, id rather it mused over that than wether or not to treat the sick.

                  All I can say is that I am fully behind knocking their pensions into shape asap.

                  If a smokers Tobacco tax does not pay for his operations then surely his tobacco tax should not fund the doctors and nurses retirements either.
                  That raises an interesting point.

                  Does the tax levied on tobacco more than offset the extra demands placed upon the system by the legacy that smoking bestows upon its victims ?
                  "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                  Samuel Johnson.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                    That raises an interesting point.

                    Does the tax levied on tobacco more than offset the extra demands placed upon the system by the legacy that smoking bestows upon its victims ?
                    By a huge, massive amount. Even more so when you consider smokers as a group will be drawing pensions for a far shorter period than non-smokers.

                    It should be encouraged

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of you. (For our non Brits that is Yes Prime Minister The Smoke Screen)
                      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                      G.B Shaw

                      "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                      Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by philiplaos View Post
                        Guess there's likely to be no cheap medical upside for me returning to the UK then.

                        More at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-smokers-obese
                        OK.

                        Even as a non smoker I can't agree with the smoking thing. My parents smoked and I know why. They needed a cheap relaxant and became chronically addicted on the 10 second fix. They didn't know better and until real anti-smoking education kicks in, people will still do it. Its simply too addictive to stop without extreme effort.

                        However...

                        In terms of the (voluntarily) obese I have no sympathy whatsoever and agree with non treatment. Ignorance is simply no excuse as even the dumbest person knows (by how they feel and function bodily) that over eating, taking no exercise and becoming a sixteen-plus stone lard bucket isn't good for you.

                        There is simply no excuse for being voluntarily over weight.

                        Gaz

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
                          In terms of the (voluntarily) obese I have no sympathy whatsoever and agree with non treatment. Ignorance is simply no excuse as even the dumbest person knows (by how they feel and function bodily) that over eating, taking no exercise and becoming a sixteen-plus stone lard bucket isn't good for you.

                          There is simply no excuse for being voluntarily over weight.

                          Gaz
                          How about homosexuals who frequent gay bathhouses or otherwise engage in risky behaviors, and contract STI's? Should they not also be denied treatment on the taxpayers' dime, as they're victims of their own poor choices, as well?

                          How about motorcycle riders? Skiers? People who drive too fast?

                          Just wonderin'.
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                            How about homosexuals who frequent gay bathhouses or otherwise engage in risky behaviors, and contract STI's? Should they not also be denied treatment on the taxpayers' dime, as they're victims of their own poor choices, as well?

                            How about motorcycle riders? Skiers? People who drive too fast?

                            Just wonderin'.
                            Bolshi' bastard up for a debate eh?

                            Gays = no treatment, as they should now (as should straights) be well aware of the problems of unprotected sex. Therefore probing unprotected up some dirty front or back hole seems deliberately courting (sick pun intended) disaster and so I would argue, no treatment.

                            Accidents = Yes to treatment. As most 'dangerous' activities now come with a host of mandatory safety requirements which you can be prosecuted for not following, then accidents in the most part are simply random events. Therefore its assumed, unless you have a death wish, that you have followed the safety requirements and just been unlucky and so you get treated.

                            Gaz

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I have a better idea, one that would keep the political busy-body class out of people's lives altogether:

                              disband the NHS.
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                                I have a better idea, one that would keep the political busy-body class out of people's lives altogether:

                                disband the NHS.
                                Cheap shot and very unworthy...

                                If I were to reply in kind I would answer better the NHS than the US system where literally millions of children aren't covered by health insurance.

                                However, as I'm above that kind of reply I will answer by saying that as you well know, the NHS in the first few years after its founding was a great success. The problems came with that success in that as people lived significantly longer the requirements on the NHS outsripped its subscriptive economics, and since the late 50's tax subventions have kept it going.

                                Not perfect yes, but it works and has worked for me though my lifetime.

                                Gaz

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X