• This topic has 60 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by G.
Viewing 21 posts - 41 through 61 (of 61 total)
  • Smokers v NHS
  • molgrips
    Free Member

    In the USA its costs more than double the cost per person

    That's cos it's a commercial system. Stuff is done because the hospital makes money from it and the insurance company pays (if you're lucky).

    tankslapper
    Free Member

    RichPenny – Member

    Private healthcare is more costly for worse outcomes than teh NHS

    Yep, what no-one so far has done on this thread is point out that the NHS is great.

    The NHS is great!

    joemarshall
    Free Member

    I wasn't recommending privatisation (nor condeming either). Health incurance would cost less than the saving on tax. Priave companie cost less and are more effient than publics one, there is a lot of uneeded treatment on the NHS.

    It is weird that people still persist in believing this kind of rubbish, when if you look at the numbers private companies are more expensive (about twice as expensive) and less efficient (significantly more people die) at providing healthcare .

    Like in the US those who can't afford it (even with the saving on tax) are generally subsidied by the goverment.

    No they're not. People in the US regularly suffer serious health problems with no cover because they simply don't have insurance. Even with their limited cover for the very poor, they have massively worse outcomes for poor people than in countries with a civilised healthcare system. This is a country where if you get knocked out and put in an ambulance, you get charged thousands of dollars for the journey and can end up in serious debt just because you had the bad luck to fall down or whatever.

    Also, going back to the actual point, what about other social costs of smoking – smokers have way more time off work, are probably less productive when they are at work, cleaning up litter (which cigarette ends etc. are a large proportion of, and most smokers seem to litter pretty much anywhere). I dunno how that compares with the NHS savings.

    Joe

    joemarshall
    Free Member

    That's cos it's a commercial system. Stuff is done because the hospital makes money from it and the insurance company pays (if you're lucky).

    It's also a lot because of the legal system – firstly a lot of the cost of medical treatment is covered by other people's insurers, for example if you fall over at a friends house, your insurer will typically try to sue theirs to recover the costs. The legal costs involved in this kind of case are basically just money wasted due to their system. Secondly, they do a lot more pointless tests and investigative procedures on rich patients, because if you do end up having something and a hospital doesn't find it first time, again they will quite likely get sued.

    Oh yeah, and they have way way more paperwork, partly because of people needing to cover their arses to avoid being sued, and partly because there are so many companies involved, eg. insurer, your gp, hospital, some of the people actually treating you, ambulance that takes you to hospital etc. may potentially all be working for different companies, which will all have paperwork on your case and overheads. Oh yeah and they may not have standardised ways of communicating these between companies, so there is a burden there, of sharing information / entering it into different systems.

    edit:oh yeah, not forgetting the obvious difference which is that private companies want to make as much profit as possible.

    Joe

    G
    Free Member

    I think we should have euthanasia on the NHS, its the way forward, cheap, effective and with no long term cost implications…. just savings…

    waits for the inevitable tongues of flame to spit forth

    BigDummy
    Free Member

    I agree G. People worry about vulnerable people being pressured into dying. They never seem to worry about people who no longer care being pressured into endless costly treatments by doctors. As long as there is decent palliative care there as an alternative it seems to be one necessary way of dealing with an ageing population and increasing healthcare costs. I don't want to be an endless financial dead weight on the kids once I've had my turn.

    G
    Free Member

    Cheers BD, I was expecting a right kneeing in the nuts for that one.

    People seem to forget that there are finite resources available, and we will never be able to pay for absolutely everything. So for my money once things get to an intolerable stage, (and thats the individuals decision as to hwen that is IMHO), why not allow a dignified exit to stage right??

    So what about hotel charges for hospital stays?? Personally, I'd be happy to pay a bit more for some privacy and decent food, and if in so doing that put money into the kitty that ultimately benefited those less able to pay then that'd be a result IMHO…….

    do you reckon they'd do you a receipt that'd show the porn channel as breakfast or something??

    uplink
    Free Member

    What about kids that are seriously disabled & will never be able to look after themselves?

    G
    Free Member

    Good question? What about them? Have they been watching the porn channel too???

    You can hardly blame them for that, apparently they couldn't turn it off.

    uplink
    Free Member

    d'you think they'd be eligible for your euthanasia program?

    tankslapper
    Free Member

    G – Member

    Good question? What about them? Have they been watching the porn channel too???

    You can hardly blame them for that, apparently they couldn't turn it off.

    Christ! The PC brigade just landed!

    This could be a thread on its own 'Who should be elligible for euthanasia?'

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    tankslapper – Member

    This could be a thread on its own 'Who should be elligible for euthanasia?'

    good idea. Now I think we can agree that there are too many folk on this planet and on this island.

    Estate agents, BMW car drivers, anyone who does the school run in a car, 4×4 drivers, bankers, anyone who has ever said "have a nice day now", people who use americanisms such as switchback or fireroad when they mean hairpin or forestry road, singlespeed riders, architects, Latte "coffee" drinkers, lager drinkers,

    and of course anyone who has ever voted tory. right thats me done my bit to get the pupulation down. I'm sure you can add a few more

    tankslapper
    Free Member

    TJ

    Agree with all except single speed riders

    And you missed the following

    Anyone who wants to be a politician
    Taxi drivers
    The population of Weston-Super-Mare (they'll be dead soon anyway)
    Anyone who wears 'bling'
    Puff Daddy
    Cliff Richard
    and the cast of Harry Potter

    RichPenny
    Free Member

    TJ

    I agree with Tankslappers list 😉

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    How about instead of persecuting dying smokers, we put the bosses of the tobacco companies up against the wall and use them for target practice, or something as painful as the deaths their customers get?

    Their huge political donations are all that has saved them so far.

    samuri
    Free Member

    The NHS is great!

    absolutely 100%. The systen blows 900% but the ideal and the vast majority of the people who work in it could have my babies any day they liked. It completely rocks and while it gets knocked by frenchies paying a fortune into their own system and yanks having a good old dig at our teeth, they've just jealous that we have something in place that ensures if you live in blighty then you're going to get looked after. You can have nothing or you can have 20 billion, you'll get into hospital and a doctor will come and see you and try to help you and you'll not have to sign any cheques.

    read that johnny foreingner(sp) ahem

    shoefiti
    Free Member

    What illnesses does smoking cause anyway? Heart Disease, cancer (many types), impotence….. the list is huge.

    In the UK around 120,000 people die each year from smoking-related diseases. 50% of long-term smokers die prematurely from smoking, a large number of them when they reach middle age.

    Now if MTB_idels statistics are correct then these folk are saving us from the cost imposed on society of a long goverment pension and subsequent home help/hospice care that a normal 'healthy' person often imposes.

    If they die before retiredment age, then they have paid money into the tax system (provided that they have worked)and taken less from it, so i believe that they should get treatment, give em a break, they'll proabably be dead soon anyway.

    oneoneoneone
    Free Member

    im was smoker, and i wish it was as easy as some people say it is quit. its not i have been smoking since i joined the army (4-5 years ago) i have given up for months before but 1 drunken night starts it all over again….

    i have now given up (smoking tabs still enjoy a large cigar at weddings etc) it was one of the hardest thing to do it is hard and i can see why or even how some people dont give up.

    every thing has a positive and negative force/action/risk

    G
    Free Member

    Euthanasia free on the NHS for People who wear helmets when they ride, People who moan about the Police, but wouldn’t cross the road to help someone being mugged, People who talk about tax cuts without realising that the loss of services that goes with it is a function of their own greed, People who moan about benefit cheats, but would happily fiddle their tax if they could, People who moan about crime, but patently fail to do anything about it apart from bleating for longer sentences……

    Soz, having a TJ day 😉

    simonfbarnes
    Free Member

    apart from bleating for longer sentences……

    like that one ?

    G
    Free Member

    Nice 😀

Viewing 21 posts - 41 through 61 (of 61 total)

The topic ‘Smokers v NHS’ is closed to new replies.