Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Tonights hangover will cost NHS 23 million quid.

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    But not all motorbike accidents are the motorists fault. Yet, if a smoker develops a disease related to smoking, then that's obviously their fault.

    And why should I (as a non-smoker who rarely drinks) have to wait for treatment, because you think smokers should get treatment first for the amount of tax they pay? (or have paid, in the case of ex-smokers)

    To use your logic:

    I've never been to hospital before in my life apart from my birth. Nor have I ever used the NHS apart from my innoculations as a wee lad. Yet why should I have to continue to have to pay for a service I'm not using?

    Likewise my parents have never used the state education system, nor do I ever intend to with any kids I may have in the future. Yet why should I and they, continue paying for it?

    I could also give many, many more examples of public services I pay for yet never use. Yet I do pay for them. That's how tax works.

    I wasn't being wholly serious about being given the red carpet treatment for having contributed more to the system than non-smokers. However, if you start discounting treatment on the grounds of lifestyle choice, I could quite legitimately counter it with financial contribution. I mean, why should you get preferential treatment when I pay for it more than you?
    Melian wrote: »
    Do you have a link to this, please?

    The first figure was off, granted, I think it was one that was true a while ago. The second, however, was spot on.

    Clicko:

    http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_eyhkq96u.htm (this even comes from the fascist scumbags Ash, October '07) - £2.7bn
    http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx (from HMRC) - £10bn

    Therefore, for every £1 of NHS care I receive for smoking related illnesses, I'm contributing £3.70 towards it. Sounds like the Gov't are getting a good deal out of me, n'est pas?

    There is also an argument which runs along the lines of since I will, statistically, live less long because I choose to smoke, I will be less of a drain on public services as I will live for a shorter time. Makes you think.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know this is being anal here, but the ambulance drivers, the doctors, the nurses et al, wont they have all been paid anyway, regardless of however many drunks have to get treated?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I disagree, why should they pay? It undermines the whole basis of the NHS.

    You might as well charge the insurance company for the motor accident. There's usually fault and if people didn't drive then car crashes wouldn't happen...

    I thought the NHS did charge the insurance companies
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wasn't being wholly serious about being given the red carpet treatment for having contributed more to the system than non-smokers. However, if you start discounting treatment on the grounds of lifestyle choice, I could quite legitimately counter it with financial contribution. I mean, why should you get preferential treatment when I pay for it more than you?

    Well, for a start, none of my health problems are self-inflicted and I haven't had a say in them, but you've chosen to smoke.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So what about people who get lung cancer and have never smoked in their lives?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    Well, for a start, none of my health problems are self-inflicted and I haven't had a say in them, but you've chosen to smoke.

    None of your health problems are self-inflicted at all? Not even partly so? So I'm guessing you have always had an ultra health diet, taken a perfect amount of exercise etc. If you have frankly I feel quite sorry for you as you can't have taken any risks at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    None of your health problems are self-inflicted at all? Not even partly so? So I'm guessing you have always had an ultra health diet, taken a perfect amount of exercise etc. If you have frankly I feel quite sorry for you as you can't have taken any risks at all.

    I am not joking at all. Most of my problems are caused by other problems I have.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest, a lot of health problems can be seen as self-inflicted in some way (apart from say genetically inherited diseases)... just because of lifestyle choices.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    I am not joking at all. Most of my problems are caused by other problems I have.

    Yet I have to pay for them... Explain how that's fair to me?

    I am the very picture of health. I eat well, take plenty of exercise, my blood pressure is well below normal and my BMI is right in the middle of the healthy zone. I have no health problems.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    I thought the NHS did charge the insurance companies

    Nope. They might still charge them for the RTA fee (actually it's a charge on the injured person), but I don't think that's actually part of the law anymore.

    Otherwise no, if you have a car crash then the NHS gets nothing but more work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    I know this is being anal here, but the ambulance drivers, the doctors, the nurses et al, wont they have all been paid anyway, regardless of however many drunks have to get treated?

    It's possible that there would be fewer staff but not by many.

    However that's not how NHS funding works. Everytime someone goes into hospital the taxpayer pays a fee to the hospital (a tariff) depending on what they go in for. It's a fixed amount nationally. So the more people attend hospital, the more money the hospital gets.

    From a hospital pov therefore it's "a good thing". However, those funds come from out of the total pool, so there's less money for something else - e.g. mental health - and that's where the issue is for me. It isn't that drunks cost more, it's that they divert what funding there is from places where its actually needed to treat people with real health problems.

    As an aside, it's an interesting debate about smoking. The biggest cost risk to the NHS is the next 10 years isn't smokers, it's dementia. The population is living longer generally and older people cost the NHS more. From a purely health economics standpoint, stopping people smoking is a bad idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    I am not joking at all. Most of my problems are caused by other problems I have.

    You’re either lying, or you are so poorly that you begrudge others for what you cannot enjoy yourself, medium/high risk activities which obviously DON’T involve smoking.

    If we followed your logic that you shouldn’t pay for self inflicted injuries then…

    Obese people shouldn’t get treatment because binge eating is a self-inflicted condition and I’ll be dammed if my taxes support a group of fatties that comfort eat!
    Self-harmers/the suicidal/the alkies should not get the support that they need since those stoopid saps chose to fuck themselves up, we should be more concerned with dealing with the living of course…
    The next time I’m fit and healthy enough to do some martial arts and I end up breaking my fingers because I didn’t listen to sensai I shouldn’t get treated since it’s my own silly fault.
    The search and rescue team shouldn’t be bothered with people lost or dying on the moors/mountains because it’s their own silly fault for going into a potentially dangerous environment.

    Woot! I can’t wait to see the new improved NHS, that is until everyone withholds their taxes and the privileged go private…
    MrG wrote: »
    So what about people who get lung cancer and have never smoked in their lives?

    DING DING DING!

    WE HAVE A WINNER!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Basically, in my opinion the NHS could never get away with not dealing with self-inflicted illnesses.

    Firstly... Who decides whether in each case these are self-inflicted or not? An example I read about was... a woman has unprotected sex with her husband of many years - she trusted him. He had unprotected sex with another woman and acquired HIV and didn't tell his wife. So for the wife... was this self-inflicted, how can one know that she didn't just lie to get treatment and in actual fact she took lots of risks.

    Other reasons:
    -Psychological reasons
    -Damaged relationships with doctors if people feared they would be refused treatment
    -Public health - some self-inflicted illnesses need to be treated (STIs) to protect other people.
    -Lots of illnesses (some may even say most) can be classed as self-inflicted due to lifestyle / normal risk taking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    saying the NHS should start not treating self inflicted problems is an antithesis to the foudning of the NHS

    overall societal gains well outweigh any individual costs

    and about smoking, was gonap ost a yes minister clip about smokers laying down their lives to fund the government lol
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Should voting Tory be considered self-harming enough to deny them NHS treatment?

    I think there are good basis for it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Should voting Tory be considered self-harming enough to deny them NHS treatment?

    I think there are good basis for it.

    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    More demands for minimum alcohol pricing cos the NHS is struggling or will struggle with the demands being put on it cos of the massive increase in drinking.
    Have a spliff instead and help the NHS out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wish I could remember the newspaper article that said that smoking a spliff was much better on the brain than txt tlk....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wish I could remember the newspaper article that said that smoking a spliff was much better on the brain than txt tlk....
    TBH I don't need to see a link to a scientific study to believe that...
Sign In or Register to comment.