The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery with the NHS

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
so much writing so little facts
Awful deal for smokers who pay like £7 in tax per 20 cigarettes. This should be the end of the NHS imo but of course the tories have done this purposely
Reply 62
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
Smoking is good for you LOL.
Reply 63
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
Original post by Betelgeuse-
Awful deal for smokers who pay like £7 in tax per 20 cigarettes. This should be the end of the NHS imo but of course the tories have done this purposely


If smokers don't want to pay through the nose for cigs, they should stop, there is plenty of help from the NHS to stop.
Original post by WBZ144
There are so many people who already struggle financially and can't afford healthcare, what about them? Is it ethical to just send them back home because they don't have adequate health insurance? That has happened in America.

So many illnesses are not what one can call self-inflicted, and the additional worry of falling ill but not being able to afford treatment can't be good for the public.


There are a number of ways to fund healthcare. Charities and non-profits, for instance, and a number of government-funded loans and support payments could be implemented to assist people who cannot afford it.

Smoking and obesity are unnecessary burdens on public healthcare systems. If you want to destroy your body, that's your choice, but it's only reasonable that you pick up a fair share of the bill when you eventually have to fix what you've done to yourself.
Reply 65
Avatar for tr.12
tr.12
6
A good idea maybe
But BMI is an awful indicator, you can have a bmi of 30 without actually looking fat or being unhealthy.
Original post by Betelgeuse-
Awful deal for smokers who pay like £7 in tax per 20 cigarettes. This should be the end of the NHS imo but of course the tories have done this purposely


No, the awful deal for smokers is lung cancer. If they don't want to pay the money for them (tax on cancer sticks should be 10 times what it is anyway), they can give up. Simple. I have zero sympathy for any smoker.
Reply 67
Avatar for Shaq298
Shaq298
I support the ban because people need to realise that they're actions, are consequential therefore they brought it upon themselves to have lung cancer or heart disease.
We shouldn't feel sorry for them, it's their personal choice to over eat or carry on smoking. The NHS have brought out many ways of persuading people not to do so, they can only hope that people listen and change their ways.
But for them to keep spending money on these thoughtless people's actions is ridiculous.
Original post by MeYou2Night
No, the awful deal for smokers is lung cancer. If they don't want to pay the money for them (tax on cancer sticks should be 10 times what it is anyway), they can give up. Simple. I have zero sympathy for any smoker.


Original post by Maker
If smokers don't want to pay through the nose for cigs, they should stop, there is plenty of help from the NHS to stop.


The post wasn't a moan about the cost of cigarettes. When you consider how much tax smokers pay banning them from surgery is incredibly unreasonable


Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm sorry if I'm wrong but I really don't know how the healthcare system works in the UK.

Isn't everyone paying taxes in order to have certain benefits? If everyone from fat people,smokers,drunks etc to super healthy ones is paying their taxed shouldn't they be allowed the same treatment? Haven't they all in a way paid for it?
Original post by venetiaan
I'm sorry if I'm wrong but I really don't know how the healthcare system works in the UK.

Isn't everyone paying taxes in order to have certain benefits? If everyone from fat people,smokers,drunks etc to super healthy ones is paying their taxed shouldn't they be allowed the same treatment? Haven't they all in a way paid for it?


This would be the case if everyone pays the same amount of tax.

The top 10% earners pay approximately 75% of income tax while the bottom 50% earners are responsible for just under 10%. Therefore statistically, there will not be an equal basis if level of treatment is determined by tax contribution.

Not saying this should be our system, but your analogy is flawed as we are a welfare state.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 71
Avatar for viffer
viffer
16
Original post by difeo
Agree for obese people, not for smokers. They pay more than enough tax.
Fuel/alcohol/cancer stick duties and VAT go in a central Treasury pot to help fund overall public spending. Tobacco duties are not for smokers to regularly put a little aside for THEIR own (almost inevitable) personal treatment. It's not like a Christmas Club.

Nobody needs to smoke and everyone can eat more healthily. Doctors should be able to tell if someone's obesity is health or gluttony related. The former can be exempted, the latter can exercise (pun intended) and power walk past Greggs to work their way up the free treatment waiting list.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 72
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
Original post by Underscore__
The post wasn't a moan about the cost of cigarettes. When you consider how much tax smokers pay banning them from surgery is incredibly unreasonable


Posted from TSR Mobile


Smokers cost the NHS in all sorts of ways because smoking causes numerous diseases like cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung disease and dementia. The cost is not just on the NHS because people who get seriously ill from smoking can't work and have to live on benefits and can't pay income tax. They are all preventable by stopping smoking.

The tax argument is nonsense since money not spent on tobacco could be spent on less harmful things like the gym which doesn't impact the NHS.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CherishFreedom
This would be the case if everyone pays the same amount of tax.

The top 10% earners pay approximately 75% of income tax while the bottom 50% earners are responsible for just under 10%. Therefore statistically, there will not be an equal basis if level of treatment is determined by tax contribution.

Not saying this should be our system, but your analogy is flawed as we are a welfare state.


But the ones who earn the same pay the same right?
If a smoker or a fat person earns the same as a thin non-smoker they're also paying the same taxes more or less.
Reply 74
Avatar for difeo
difeo
18
Original post by viffer
Fuel/alcohol/cancer stick duties and VAT go in a central Treasury pot to help fund overall public spending. Tobacco duties are not for smokers to regularly put a little aside for THEIR own (almost inevitable) personal treatment. It's not like a Christmas Club.

Nobody needs to smoke and everyone can eat more healthily. Doctors should be able to tell if someone's obesity is health or gluttony related. The former can be exempted, the latter can exercise (pun intended) and power walk past Greggs to work their way up the free treatment waiting list.


Obviously. No one said that's what happened.

Nobody needs to smoke, but the fact that people do is good from a monetary perspective, so they shouldn't be withheld from treatment.
Original post by difeo
Obviously. No one said that's what happened.

Nobody needs to smoke, but the fact that people do is good from a monetary perspective, so they shouldn't be withheld from treatment.


Original post by Underscore__
The post wasn't a moan about the cost of cigarettes. When you consider how much tax smokers pay banning them from surgery is incredibly unreasonable


Posted from TSR Mobile


If thy can afford cancer sticks, they can afford private healthcare.
Original post by Maker
Smokers cost the NHS in all sorts of ways because smoking causes numerous diseases like cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung disease and dementia. The cost is not just on the NHS because people who get seriously ill from smoking can't work and have to live on benefits and can't pay income tax. They are all preventable by stopping smoking.

The tax argument is nonsense since money not spent on tobacco could be spent on less harmful things like the gym which doesn't impact the NHS.


The simple fact is smokers contribute more through tax than they take out with cancer treatment and it's not even close


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by venetiaan
But the ones who earn the same pay the same right?
If a smoker or a fat person earns the same as a thin non-smoker they're also paying the same taxes more or less.


Yes but as I said we don't all earn the same and do not pay the same, so your 'if' scenario isn't very useful in the real world.

If the NHS runs on such principle then at least 50% of people will not be eligible for treatment as they are net recipient of the state ie. the state spends more on them vs. their tax contribution.

I think what you are trying to suggest but didn't, is that the ban is discriminatory on obese people and smokers, however one could argue that rule are discriminatory in nature. Personal wealth or tax paid should not be part of the argument because we are a welfare state and there is no equal basis when it comes to tax contribution, unless you want to decline free health care to 50%+ of people.
I think this is ridiculous. Many obese people have binge eating disorder, which is a mental illness.

The NHS treats both the physical and mental symptoms of those with anorexia, which is also a mental illness. Why won't it do the same for the obese?

You can't argue that "it's their own fault they are obese, so they should pay for it", because it is arguably just as much the fault of the anorexic person that they are critically underweight. Both have disordered eating due to a mental illness which is making them physically unwell. Either this means both are responsible and should not receive free treatment, or both are not.

Spoiler

Original post by MeYou2Night
If thy can afford cancer sticks, they can afford private healthcare.


You could replace 'cancer sticks' with any word though. If you can afford a gym membership you can afford private healthcare; if you can afford clothes you can afford private healthcare. It's completely immoral to ban people from using an NHS service when they contribute so much more than they take.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you