If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
This is gonna cost you...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Story
The on going care of the people affected will cost the NHS a fortune in the future and there is the added issue of the ongoing rise.
So, how do you think that "society" can do to remedy this situation?
The on going care of the people affected will cost the NHS a fortune in the future and there is the added issue of the ongoing rise.
So, how do you think that "society" can do to remedy this situation?
0
Comments
I mean, we could always try investing more into developing cures instead of fighting stupid wars?
To be honest, and it really breaks my heart to admit this, then I don't think that anyone apart from the sufferers are eager to find a cure. The medicinal companys are making billions and the state is benefitting on this.
I seem to forget this so much... it is a cruel circle we seem to be stuck in here.
So where do you draw the line? Cyclists? People who drive a bit fast? People who don't eat their 5 portions of fruit and veg a day?
How will you decide whether a person got Diabetes due to obesity or not?
There's no clear boundary I agree, although smoking and obesity related illnesses are a clear examples of a conscious lifestyle choice, and develop over a long period of time, you know what the consequences are.........if you cycle in a city (and i do) you are not really at fault for getting hit, driving fast is a tricky one, again i think that you are not consciously aware that you're putting yourself at risk, you might be rushing to work or the hospital........if recklessness can be proved that's different, i do think drunk drivers in accidents should foot the bill for being so bloody stupid.......as for 5 fruit and veg a day,
i think doctors could make a pretty good analysis, if you're obese you are at risk of a whole bunch of diseases..........let me make it clear, i don't think fat people should be rejected treatment straight off, i think they should be educated and given a course of action to take, which if they do not follow and continue to be unhealthy, medication/treatment should not be freely offered.........same with smokers.......i know they are addictions and we are human, but i have been fat and a smoker and i knew exactly what i was doing to my body.....
Smokers put far more into the NHS than they take out. I can't find the true figures offhand, but Forest say smokers put £7billion into the economy and only take £1.5billion out again- 89% of the cost of a packet of cigarettes is tax.
If smokers are paying so much for the NHS, surely they should get first dibs on it?
Should skiers get treatment if they crash? It's an obviously dangerous sport. What about athletes who pull muscles or break legs, should they? They're choosing to put themselves at risk of injury, especially vaulters and rugby players.
Either we have treatment for all or treatment for none.
Honestly, are the people of britain really so stupid that they want the best health-care, education, defence and social support, but don't want to pay for it?
Aye but what can your average person do about it in the meantime?
Get the treatment they need on the NHS. I'm saddened cost has to even come into it tbh considering Diabetes is a potential killer that massive numbers of people carry about without realising it, of all shapes and colours.
If I had to give a list of that that maybe you should pay for they would be minor non-life threatening preventable/self-attributed injuries (i.e. falling over pissed, coming off a bike without wearing a helmet at low speed, jackass stunts) but even then it would be a big maybe.
I love it when people say things like this becuase it always opens up a can of worms.
Everything we do in life carries a risk or injury. When we decide to walk or drive, cycle or take the bus we open ourselves up to risk of injury. Yet no-one ever suggests that cyclist/drivers shouldn't get treated if they get hurt.
However, it's only smoking which carries a huge tax bill - one which more than pays for their NHS treatment. And yet this is the one which people object to.
Because we couldn't afford it. Problem is that we have to "ration" care because otherwise the tax burden would be huge.
What needs to be addressed is public expectations and we should review what the NHS should really be there to do.
Funnily enough, that's me advocating the kind of discussion which apollo had started...
We should have an excellent service in some areas but should refuse to treat in others. The difficulty is where do you draw the line, morally that is...
If the government provided no healthcare then people could rightly be angry if the government told them to be healthy. But it has to pay for that ill health so it is the business of the government what you put into your body.
The NHS has to change I think to become far more preventative rather than just reactive. There are lots of things we pay for now that could be prevented for less cost.
All the more reason to expect something decent for it then.
Why should those who pay for it get shunted out for those who don't?
I wasnt really advocating dictating, but encouraging would be a good start and helping those at the bottom get access to fresh fruit, veg and the ability to do something with it.
Yes, thats more like it. Unfortunatly theres more money to be made in selling people processed crap so its unlikely to happen.
There are Sure Start nurseries in some area's surely that kind of thing could be extended to Sure Cooking Centre's or something.
Well maybe not totally along the model of Sure Start which is quite crap, but even though it is crap it does show that the government could do it.
It's the right idea though.
Of course, new Labour didn't bother to fund it, and just did it for the headlines, but that's an entirely different argument.
Only if you are a taxpayer.
To a certain extent I would agree, things like turning up for appointments. Not wasting NHS time...
Indeed. The problem is that we are talking about long term solutions there. Investing today in services which won't prove beneficial for another ten/twenty years at least.
In the meantime you will also have to pay for the existing needs, so in effect you have huge costs now with only a promise of lower costs later. It's not a guarantee that costs will reduce either...