Home Politics & Debate

What about the Smokers and the Obese?

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Smokers contribute more money to the NHS than they take.

    Bollox, its already been said.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Sofie wrote:
    Surely they try to make the situation as safe as possible?
    :lol:

    By your rules, a Firefighter won't get treatment.

    How the FUCK do you make an situation like 9/11 "safe as possible"? A burning towerblock? And more besides, tehy do this sortof thing daily, put thier lives at risk.

    Because it is techinacall thier own fault if they get injured... you think they shouldn't get free pay.

    Alcoholism, the way you dismiss it as "they can't control thier own drinking" isn't true. It's an addiction, like smoking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    :lol:

    By your rules, a Firefighter won't get treatment.

    Surely they'd assess the situation before rushing in and just spray water at the fire?
  • littlemissylittlemissy knit chick Posts: 9,972
    Sofie wrote:
    Surely they'd assess the situation before rushing in and just spray water at the fire?
    So, if in the spur of the moment they judge the situation wrongly, they shouldn't get help from NHS? I don't understand.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can't support the NHS, and then say that only some people should get treatment on it. You either support the NHS, or you support private healthcare for everyone. So which is it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I pay my taxes just like every other working person in the country, therefor I should be entitled to treatment on the NHS regardless of how my illness/injury came to be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    Surely they'd assess the situation before rushing in and just spray water at the fire?
    You mean like deciding if it was arson or not? Because if it were a home accident then the home-owners are responsible and can put out their own damn fire.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    I don't think they should receive treatment for free on the NHS because it's self inflicted.
    :banghead:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Randomgirl wrote:
    :banghead:

    What?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    What?
    Reading your thoughts on this subject makes me want to hit my head against the wall. Of course I would risk a self-inflicted injury but isn't that part of the fun.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    What?
    The implication I would say was that you haven't thought through your point of view.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    Surely they'd assess the situation before rushing in and just spray water at the fire?

    Leaving the people inside to die?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Leaving the people inside to die?

    Maybe the firemen would also have to assess to see if the fire itself was caused by self-infliction? Well, no, I guess 999 could screen that, without having to even send a team out if that's the case!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You either accept that the concept of the NHS, and accept that it must treat the obese, smokers, people who injure themselves doing dangerous stunts, people who take overdoses, or you support everyone having to have their own health insurance instead. I don't think you can have any half measures.

    The only time someone should be denied treatment on the NHS is when their doctor doesn't believe it will benefit their health, or believes that it would be unsafe to carry out treatment as a result of obesity of smoking.

    Depends on your concept of the "NHS".

    It occurs to me that if a group of individuals provide a service which is a coercive monopoly then it IS up to that group of individuals to decide who the recipients of said service are.

    If you accept that a coercive monopoly is "necessary" then surely it is foolish to complain ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Leaving the people inside to die?

    Depends what is meant by assess. I'm pretty sure they don't spend ages sitting around formulating a plan, but I assume they take all steps to minimise the risk. That includes trying to find out how many people could be in, where they are and the likelihood they are alive. The last thing firemen will want to be doing is blundering around a burning building when a quick word with the people standing outside could have told them that everyone is out safely.

    So Sofie is probably right in that they do more that just rush in and spray the building with water.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Depends on your concept of the "NHS".

    It occurs to me that if a group of individuals provide a service which is a coercive monopoly then it IS up to that group of individuals to decide who the recipients of said service are.

    If you accept that a coercive monopoly is "necessary" then surely it is foolish to complain ?

    You're being deliberately stupid again. I've never heard a record as broken as you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    What?

    So then, are you going to answer my questions?

    Where would you draw the line at "self-inflicted"? Simply eating too much, drinking too much and smoking too much? How would you define "obese" when most professional rugby players are obese according to BMI?

    Which hobbies are "self-inflicted"- if none, why none? Skiing is more dangerous than eating a Big Mac, so why should a skier get NHS help? Marathon running is dangerous, should those who collapse and die during marathons have to pay? If not, why not.

    And in addition, I hope you're going to explain how mental illness is "self-inflicted", because that is something only a braindead twat would say.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    smokers maybe no but some people (like me) are obese because of a medical problem
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm technically overweight, but I dare anyone to truthfully say I look it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    So then, are you going to answer my questions?

    Where would you draw the line at "self-inflicted"? Simply eating too much, drinking too much and smoking too much? How would you define "obese" when most professional rugby players are obese according to BMI?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most rugby players have alot of muscle, which BMI doesn't take into consideration?

    And I give up - I'm not going to sit here explainign myself to you lot when you just put words in my mouth...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am supposedly very overweight according to my bmi but that doesnt take into account that i have pretty big tits so are more heavy! should i have to pay for treatment because of my bra size?
    My mother is apparently obese but shes only a size 18 and thats because she for somereason was never able to loose weight after having children, should she be denied treatment?
    what about anorexics? why should they get free treatment thats obviously self inflicted as much as obesity is!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And I give up - I'm not going to sit here explainign myself to you lot when you just put words in my mouth...

    As far as I can tell, people have only drawn out what you stated in your premise. If you're not prepared to back up your statements and explain yourself, then run off everytime people challenge you on something, why are you in P&D?
    why should they get free treatment thats obviously self inflicted as much as obesity is!

    I wouldn't say either issues are polar opposites, but I think I get the point you were trying to make.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    And I give up - I'm not going to sit here explainign myself to you lot when you just put words in my mouth...

    You've said that smokers and the obese shouldn't get free NHS treatment because their illnesses are "self-inflicted". I'm asking you to justify that opinion- an opinion I find abhorrent.

    If you are justifying it on the actions of the person, then why should skiiers and marathon runners and fellwalkers get free treatment? They are as cuplable, if not more so, for their injuries than someone who eats too many Big Macs.

    But if you can't be bothered to justify your stance then what's the point in coming into a debating forum?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most rugby players have alot of muscle, which BMI doesn't take into consideration?

    And I give up - I'm not going to sit here explainign myself to you lot when you just put words in my mouth...

    Yes it is muscle mass that screws with BMI because it's 40% denser than fat, which is why I'm overweight, but not. We asked you to define obese, what is it if not according to BMI? Should we lay down a minimum level of fitness, because disabled people would have trouble running a 10min mile...

    If I self-harm, because I am depressed, should I be treated on the NHS? Yes/No [Please delete as appropriate] just to make it easy to understand your point of view you understand...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:

    If you are justifying it on the actions of the person, then why should skiiers and marathon runners and fellwalkers get free treatment? They are as cuplable, if not more so, for their injuries than someone who eats too many Big Macs.

    Thats total rubbish. All three of the analogies you cite have net health benefit. Injuries are not inherent to skiing, marathon running, or fell-walking (that is to say, you will not necessarily sustain them if you take part). They do occur, but there is no way you can know before you commence the activity that it will have a negative health effect. In fact, negative health effects in these cases effect a small minority of those taking part, with the possible exception of skiing (which cannot be said of "eating too many Big Macs" or smoking). Any negative health effect sustained by a competent practioner these activities is due to misfortune, which the NHS is supposed to minimise the impact of. Perhaps you mean negligent pursuers of these activities (although I doubt it), if so, a case could be made that they are not deserving of NHS treatment, but a very weak one.

    On the other hand, somebody who eats "too many" Big Macs - by definition - has willingly undertaken an activity which they know can only have a negative impact on their health. The same goes for smoking. These activities always have a negative effect on a person's health, even if only a minor one and not the worst case scenario (heart disease, lung cancer, for instance). But there is no way either of these activities can have a positive effect on a person's health, and if the person doing it knows this (which I think we can safely assume nowadays) then they have made a conscious choice to disregard a certain future negative effect on their health. Thus a case can be made that they are not deserving of NHS treatment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On the other hand, somebody who eats "too many" Big Macs - by definition - has willingly undertaken an activity which they know can only have a negative impact on their health. The same goes for smoking. They always have a negative effect on a person's health, even if only a minor one and not the worst case scenario (heart disease, lung cancer, for instance). But there is no way either of these activities can have a positive effect on a person's health, and if the person doing it knows this (which I think we can safely assume nowadays) then they have made a conscious choice to disregard a certain future negative effect on their health. Thus a case can be made that they are not deserving of NHS treatment.

    That's an interesting point, but what about those people, for instance, who would eat a diet high in fat e.g. too many big macs as your example, and don't show outward physical symptoms? I have a friend who eats shite, one day may have a heart attack because of it, but because she's slim, would she fall out of the scope for not getting treatment because she's not obese? You could argue you could measure her cholesterol levels for testing, but another friend of mine has a condition where she has naturally high levels of cholesterol, it runs in her family.

    I mean, is it just the obese who wouldn't get treatment, or those who partake in the activity, even if they rarely show ill health because of it? How could that be measured?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Thats total rubbish. All three of the analogies you cite have net health benefit. Injuries are not inherent to skiing, marathon running, or fell-walking (that is to say, you will not necessarily sustain them if you take part).

    Just as a point of fact, but you won't necessarily get heart disease or lung cancer from smoking, nor obese from eating a poor diet.

    ETA: The next question is, at the point that treatment is to be offered how do you define whether the person has led a "fit" life and never smoked. Is it at the point of the Ambulance arriving or once they arrive in A&E.

    Given international links between deprivation and poor diet/increased levels of smoking, as well and international evidence linking deprivation and ill health generally - wouldn't this just be another kick in the teeth for the deprived section of our population. You know those with most health need and least money to afford it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i_am_bex wrote:
    smokers maybe no
    Even after the evidence on the amount of revenue generated by smokers was presented?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just as a point of fact, but you won't necessarily get heart disease or lung cancer from smoking, nor obese from eating a poor diet.

    You won't necessarily get heart disease or lung cancer from smoking, you're right - those are at the extreme end of the spectrum. But smoking does necessarily have a negative effect on your overall health, and makes you more susceptible to other 'unrelated' illness. For instance smokers are seven times more likely to contract a common cold or other respiratory infection than non-smokers, and the incubation period is considerably longer. Same goes for a poor diet - whilst it may not make you obese or give you a heart attack, it will have a negative effect on your overall health.
    ETA: The next question is, at the point that treatment is to be offered how do you define whether the person has led a "fit" life and never smoked. Is it at the point of the Ambulance arriving or once they arrive in A&E.

    Given international links between deprivation and poor diet/increased levels of smoking, as well and international evidence linking deprivation and ill health generally - wouldn't this just be another kick in the teeth for the deprived section of our population. You know those with most health need and least money to afford it?

    I'm not actually arguing for a denial of NHS treatment for smokers and the obese. As you point out there is no effective scale to measure the lifestyle of an individual seeking treatment, or it could be a genetic problem which the victim is unable to influence (more appropriate for obesity than smoking). Also as I think has been pointed out, revenue from sale of tobacco far exceeds expenditure on smkoing related diseases by the NHS (as ar as we can tell). I was simply rejecting the moral equivalency Kermit made between pursuing potentially dangerous outdoor sports such as marathon running or skiing, and eating Big Macs or smoking.

    However I do believe that a sterner attitude should be taken by doctors, nurses, and the public in general towards these sorts of activities. Some sort of social pressure should certainly be brought to bear on those who consciously and brazenly ruin their own health. For instance, I am a smoker myself, and as I have been moving from place to place over the last 5 years or so have come into contact with a fair number of doctors, when having to register. You have to declare on their forms if you smoke, and how many - and not one has challenged me about my smoking habit. This seems to me ridiculous. They know its taking a serious toll on your health, but seem to take the attitude that having a go at you isnt going to help. Personally I think it would help a great deal, I want them to bollock me and tell me I'm an idiot, because thats the only way their going to overcome the addictive qualities of smoking. Taking the attitude that its a personal choice and that it should be tolerated is certainly not the right position for a doctor, in my opinion. Similarly with the public, contemporaries, friends, etc. The best way to make people give up smoking, I reckon, would be for all non-smokers to make it clear how repulsive and unfair it is to them. If you let people get away with it, they'll do it, because of the power of nicotine. Hence I wholeheartedly support the smoking legislation thats due to come in next year.

    Clearly this is not so relevant for the obese, mainly because health wise it only affects them, although it costs everyone money through their NHS treatment. Really I feel that the problem lies more with the massive excess we take for granted in contemporary western society, which is inevitably going to tempt some people to self-destructive gluttony.

    But it is self-destructive, rather than destructive to society. Yes, we have to pay for their treatment when the inevitable illness comes, but I'd rather be a healthy person having to pay for someone else who is suffering than the suffering person getting free medical treatment. Its not like they're enjoying it is it?! The NHS simply spreads the burden financially that some people would otherwise have to face by themselves because they lack self control or are unfortunate genetically.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    For instance, I am a smoker myself, and as I have been moving from place to place over the last 5 years or so have come into contact with a fair number of doctors, when having to register. You have to declare on their forms if you smoke, and how many - and not one has challenged me about my smoking habit. This seems to me ridiculous. They know its taking a serious toll on your health, but seem to take the attitude that having a go at you isnt going to help. Personally I think it would help a great deal, I want them to bollock me and tell me I'm an idiot, because thats the only way their going to overcome the addictive qualities of smoking.

    So, what you're saying is that you want someone to take responsibility for your bad habits instead of wearing big boy pants and just quiting?
Sign In or Register to comment.