At no point do they do that.
There are many many things they can cut before that. IVF for instance.
Out of curiosity if there were major cuts in the NHS at what point do hospitals say 'look, there's been enough advertising to make you realise that smoking causes cancer and you will die therefore since you took up smoking in the past 10 years we will not be treating you for self-inflicted smoking related illness?'
Same answer.
I'm firmly anti-smoking. I dont think they should be sold full stop.
But I would fight tooth and nail for smokers with cancer to get treatment on the NHS. Thats what its for.
How different is smoking through choice from cycling down a hill and falling off from choice?
David.
who chooses to fall off their bike?
You dont choose to fall of your bike, but you know it there is a risk of it happening....
I know I don't
Who chooses to get cancer from smoking - it's not guaranteed, it's a risk, just like falling off your bike.
who chooses to fall off their bike?
I choose to ride on terrain I know will sometimes get the better of me. I could make safer choices but I don't.
BTW Tankslapper's post seems to be empty...
How different is smoking through choice from cycling down a hill and falling off from choice?
The duty on cigarettes is more than that on cycling equipment?
but you're more likely to die of being a big fat lazy biffer than you are of falling off your mountain bike and big fat lazy biffers put a huge load on the NHS.
Some of it (looking at you here fox) lasts for less time than a cigarette as well...
but you're more likely to die of being a big fat lazy biffer than you are of falling off your mountain bike and big fat lazy biffers put a huge load on the NHS.
And again they should get treatment. Fat smokers with BMW's are still people!
if you can prove that my respiritory disease is directly linked to the cigarettes i roll and not in any way linked to the emmissions from the combustion engines i share space with every day when i commute to work.......
my alternative is to sign on, sit on my increasingly wide arse, watch J Kyle and eat junk food - still my lungs will not be required to do so much.
As ever we have the usual rants about the NHS with smokers, drinkers, the obese and foreigners being blamed for all of its ills.
"according to the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and Environment, which found that while "a person of normal weight costs on average 210,000 pounds over their lifetime", a smoker clocks up just 165,000 pounds and the obese run up an average 187,000 pound bill."
Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/
Another article showing the same thing can be found here:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/misc/saving-the-nhs-money-20080208876/
Obviously the figures will vary from nation to nation yet the underlying trend will remain.
Then when we take into account the amount of extra taxation paid by smokers and drinkers:
According to the National Audit Office figures for 2008 alcohol-related diseases cost the NHS 2.7 billion pounds per year, in the same period receipts from alcohol taxation were more than 8 billion pounds leaving more than 5 billion pounds left over to pay for policing and other costs associated with drinking.
Someone smoking 10 cigarettes a day is paying about 800 pounds tax a year on them, that's 32,000 pounds if they smoke for 40 years.
For someone on 40 a day that goes up to 128,000 pounds over their 40 year smoking lifetime.
The total tax revenue on cigarettes for 2007 was 10 billion pounds.
Source: http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx
So smokers, drinkers & the obese are subsidising the NHS for the rest of us while at the same time costing less to treat than a non-smoking, non-drinking person of average build.
I'm not a smoker by the way nor am I obese but I do like a drink or three
there we have it then: smokers, saviours of the NHS, subsidising the selfrighteous health freaks :o)
& the obese
oh you mean through the tax on the extra food they scoff ? Isn't food zero rated for VAT ?
Isn't food zero rated for VAT ?
not nice food just horrible stuff like VEGETABLES! ! !
quoting the [url= http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/diet_and_fitness/article432591.ece ]Times[/url]:
“A 0% Vat rate is applied to frozen chips and pizzas, meat pies, pastries and beefburgers, yet 21%, the highest rate, is levied on bottled water and tomato juice, which are healthy options. It just doesn’t make any sense.”
[i]So smokers, drinkers & the obese are subsidising the NHS for the rest of us while at the same time costing less to treat than a non-smoking, non-drinking person of average build.[/i]
Serves 'em right, the fat stinky buggers. Who's laughing now fatty?!
O.K. I used smokers as an example to get things moving but there is a real point here. With REAL cuts on the way where would you draw the line?
*and mods apologies this was meant for the chat forum :oops:*
I am not a smoker (Except the occasional cigar) nor am I an excessive drinker. But the goverment makes a LOT of money off both of those, MUCH MUCH more than it cost to treat the average illness caused by these bad habbits. (especailly if you take into consideration those who get lucky and don't fall ill from excessive drinking and smoking paying for those that do.
There are plenty of things that should be cut fisrt, including IVF, benfits (not NHS but still)...
Oh, hey, what about cutting funding to patching people up who do extreme sportd, cause they are puttng them self in harms way for an adenline fix? Not treating someone is stupid.
It think this is why a private health care is beneficial you pay for what you, and your insurenace covers it; you don't need to complain about other poeple, if you smoke you pay for the treatment (rather than pay extra for the fags).
It think this is why a private health care is beneficial you pay for what you, and your insurenace covers it; you don't need to complain about other poeple, if you smoke you pay for the treatment (rather than pay extra for the fags).
Who pays for those who can't pay?
dunno, I'd cut treatment for smokers a long time before i cut IVF funding (unless your infertile due to smoking/drinking).
If I were in charge.......
If we were going for real cuts, I'd be declaring a cut-off age for treatment for most illnesses across the board, rather than penalising particular groups of people for behaviour that particular fanatics get their knickers in a twist over. The most important risk factor for cancer particularly is age.
[i]dunno, I'd cut treatment for smokers a long time before i cut IVF funding (unless your infertile due to smoking/drinking).[/i]
So a life that already exists is less important than a life which doesn't yet exist?
What if the child grew up to smoke? Could there be some test to determine future lifestyle choices the manufactured baby might make before we dismiss the smoker's life?
I'd be declaring a cut-off age for treatment for most illnesses across the board
I can imagine it now - the waiting room will be like that scene from Dad's Army where they all made up to try to look younger
About 3:30 in
MTBers cost the NHS far less than smokers do*. We may fall off occasionally but we're also fit and healty because of our sport. Especially into old age where it counts - we fall off less cos we're old but smokers get worse with age and require more treatment.
* That is a guess but I'm sure I read something similar somewhere.
dunno, I'd cut treatment for smokers a long time before i cut IVF funding (unless your infertile due to smoking/drinking).________________________________________
So a life that already exists is less important than a life which doesn't yet exist?
A tricky one here (as someone who has just been through self-funded IVF as my LHA doesn't fund it).
I would say that any life that exists deserves all the care it can get. If a smoker gets lung cancer, I would expect they would get all the treatment they deserve, just like any other cancer sufferer. If a smoker was told their life was at risk as a direct result of their smoking and be advised to stop smoking, yet ignore the advice then need treatment as a result, they should not get treatment.
As for the IVF - it is not a primary care condition (unlike cancer) funding is decided locally, meaning the good old 'NHS lottery' comes into play. So some authorities provide the service, others don't. If the NHS and NICE decided it should be cut in favour of better treatment for all cancer sufferers (providing they will take any medical advice such as stopping smoking) then all well and good. IMO.
There was also a similar argument a week or so ago about the young lad who was an alcoholic I believe...
Who pays for those who can't pay?
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. Like in the US those who can't afford it (even with the saving on tax) are generally subsidied by the goverment.
Private health care is a different way (with its own pro and cons) that is not more expensive. We have just got used to public.
molgrips, did you look at MTB-idle's post?
I'd have thought that spending cuts will bring longer waits for treatment of a non essential nature.
One of those links suggested that cancer rates are the same for everyone, with the exception of lung cancer. I found that surprising. Heart disease would thus be the biggest difference.
is it just me who can't see tank slappers original post?
If there are any regular smokers on this thread maybe a read of the survival statistics will help you give up.
**DO NOT READ if you are close to someone going through lung cancer or don't wish to be scared shitless**
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/survival/
jimmy - Memberis it just me who can't see tank slappers original post?
Yes! Its a cloaking move - you need to log in to a new website to see it....
As MTB-idle points out smokers contribute more in tax revenue than they cost the NHS (guess they have short illnesses and die pretty quickly so don't require as much treatment). Therefore their noble gesture of sacrificing themselves so that I can pay less tax should ensure they retain full access to the NHS.
contribute more in tax revenue
As long as it is all ploughed back into the NHS so others get full access to services and not sp*nked on [b](OOPS!)[/b], and the like...
dobby156 - MemberI 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. Like in the US those who can't afford it (even with the saving on tax) are generally subsidied by the goverment.
Private health care is a different way (with its own pro and cons) that is not more expensive. We have just got used to public.
Wrong on many counts. Private healthcare is more expensive than public - even tho the public services subsides the private one by training the staff.
More unneeded work is done in private healthcare than public.
In the USA its costs more than double the cost per person to cover 70% of the population. 30% have virtually no cover. 20% od GDP compared to 10%
The NHS does more with less and with lower admin costs than any comparable system. In the USA routinely unneeded testing is done to placate people.
Private healthcare is more costly for worse outcomes than teh NHS
So let me see that's leave smokers alone, no money for IVF and people who may actually care enough to give a child a loving home and not once has anyone mentioned increased funding for compulsory sterilisation for people who shouldn't even be placed in charge of a pit bull!!!!!
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.
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).
RichPenny - MemberPrivate 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!
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
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
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
