Smokers may be refused NHS treatment

This sounds like bollocks to me.

It goes against everything the nhs is supposed to stand for- I can't think of any doctors or nurses who would support it.

How would you prove someone was smoking? Who would tell them they were smoking? How do you decide if an illness is smoking related?

Never goin to happen.

Fuckin hate smokng mind.

i dont support refusing to treat people but people who make themselvs ill by smoking and the like need to be encouraged to quit! smoking should be baned if the gov thinks its getting that bad but they wont coz they get too much tax from it.
:angel:

and can you imagine the extra crime etc a black market in tobacco would cause!

it would be impossible to ban altogether!

was just saying that if the gov are that worried bout peoples health they should take a better action towards it but they wont coz of the money they recieve
:angel:

I thought I was paying for my lung cancer treatment in advance, with the tax I pay on every packet of cigarettes I buy?!

Re: Smokers may be refused NHS treatment

~

Assuming your figures are right, and I can't be arsed to check that they are, they only take account of the cost of healthcare for primary smokers, not the lost working hours and passive smoking costs. The total cost to society of smokers is undoubtedly more than the total tax revenue.

Add on top of that that no tax revenue is ever going to give someone their lungs back when they get cancer from passive smoking, and I have no sympathy for smokers tbh, although I do agree that it is out of wack charging for healthcare ( on ideological grounds only, mind ).

Keep the healthcare free, ban the fuckers in public, everyone is happy. Except the smokers when they die in droves, but free choice can be a bitch.

:/

Harry

Re: Re: Smokers may be refused NHS treatment

yeah but we're talking about charging for the health care costs. there's no doubt of the wider implications - which brings up the point of why not a total ban then if it's so evil so us the general public. i can't see passive smoking being more the the primary smokers cost of health care, but a good point on sick time and lost working hours - but again - thats the wider issue of the dangers of tabacco - the goverment want to charge us for health care that we say we're taking up.

but smoking is a choice - and i pay my taxes.

although, i take helz point - i feel shamed when i go to a hospital and see people hanging around the front door ways sneaking a sly fag - even i would give it up for a few weeks i was in hospital - might even be a good chance to stop all together.

I cant see the problem with refusing treatment to people who are unwilling to help themselves by giving up smoking.

What is the point on wasting money on people aren't willing to take responsibility for there own healthcare and help themselves.

Its your life, its your body. Take some responsibility. Its a nanny state where everyone expects treatment but they don't think they should have to change their lifestyles in order to help.

Id much rather my taxes went towards helping a kid with cancer, or a road crash victim, than giving a lung transplant to someone who is going to continue smoking.

:laugh:

The NHS already does that! If you have a crash then the cost of treatment gets paid for by ur insurance company. Another reason my car insurance is sooooooo much.

eh? the NHS is treatment for all - thats the point - thats why we all pay NI.

and paying for insurance doesn't DIRECTLY pay for your medical bills.

If thats the way it's going, the NHS system should be scraped and we follow a US style health system.

Re: Re: Re: Smokers may be refused NHS treatment

not to mention we won't be needing geriatric care like healthy do-gooders who will need to be fed and have their arse wiped when they're 120 years old in a state run nursing home. we're freeing up beds - we're doing people a favour!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Smokers may be refused NHS treatment

perhaps they shud pass a law saying that you cant get NHS treatment if your dying from smoking related diseases.

but it only applies to people who start smoking after they decided this.

If you started smoking after you know that you cant get NHS treatment, then its ur fault...but if youve been smoking for years, then they decide this, you should still be allowed.


btw, where duz this leave people like roy castle?
he died of a smoking related disease...would people who have cancer from passive smoking be allowed treatment?


smoking sucks nehow.

good points!

If smokers can't get free treatment for smoking related diseases, then people should not be treated for drug-related illnesses, weight related illnesses, injuries from dangerous sports, the list could be endless!

Either everyone gets treatment, or we swap to a private health care system where your premium varies depending on your lifestyle.

which would be another step closer to being officially declared the 51st state

Is this not the case for alcoholics or am I wrong?

you're wrong. there's just lots of drunks in glasgee.