Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

We have to pay for the opticians, but smokers get the NHS for free? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anti-smoking groups say it costs the NHS £3 billion a year for treating smokers (which is probs an over estimate due to the source) and tax on smoking brings in ~£9 billion a year so cost of operations etc for smokers is not an issue really.

    The point is more why they get free eye tests when people with bad eyes normally dont (which isnt always the case it seems now).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    By that same logic (smokers paying for themselves through taxes) people should not receive jobseekers allowance until they have paid for what they should receive through taxes they should have paid from working.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that eye care should be free on the NHS but you don't need to attack every other free treatment because you think you deserve it more.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Livilah)
    I disagree with the fact that because smokers are paying more tax they are more entitled to healthcare than people who can't see.

    so you think the 'entitlement' on healthcare should be on the amount of 'tax' a person pays?

    The whole point of the NHS is "free for all", smokers pay their way via taxes in their cigarettes, the nhs should be equal and non-judging, if smokers get charged or aren't allowed free healthcare, its the start of a very slippery slope, and IMO the end of the NHS
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I'd like to see the figures for tax revenue on cigarettes and the expenditure to the NHS. I assure you, though, that they are not equal.

    Not that i'm calling for them to be banned - i was trying to point out that this is more about why optics is not funded rather than why smoking is.
    No, they're not, smokers pay more.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...r-1700509.html
    http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I'd like to see the figures for tax revenue on cigarettes and the expenditure to the NHS. I assure you, though, that they are not equal.

    Not that i'm calling for them to be banned - i was trying to point out that this is more about why optics is not funded rather than why smoking is.

    You can assure all you want, but the figures will show that more money is made than is spent


    Tax year 06 - 07 Total tax revenue from cigarettes - £10Billion

    Source: http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx

    NHS Spending - £500million

    Source: http://www.healthdirect.co.uk/2007/1...iled-anti.html

    (Admittedly that is only stop smoking programs, as I can't find the other data.)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99p And A Flake)
    I realise that you have to pay tax on cigarettes and drinks, but it's not like that covers the whole cost of treatment.
    Actually, cigarette taxation amounts to �£10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is �£1.7 billion.

    I'm not sure about alcohol, but given the massive taxes on that too, I think the picture would be fairly similar.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Yet another problem with a single payer system...

    Oh, sourcing:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7654153.stm 2008 £2.7bn cost for smoking
    http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx 2007-08: £10bn revenue from tobacco excise & VAT
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i guess this applies to those who drink. alcohol taxed goes to the nhs? that's the same assumption? still alcohol and smoking are choices. if someone is shorted sighted, i agree with those moaning about costs. whilst it can be environmental factors, those with high prescriptions can't really blame the computer screen etc either if it's in their genes to be affected.

    those with complex lenses - a prescription higher than -10 do benefit more on the nhs, but then -10 is really bad and without glasses they are incapable of seeing clearly at all. i wouldn't know if it is classed as a disability. very few people will have bad sight as far as this, but -6 or above is still very bad too and they can't get around the nhs costs. those with -9.5 are only 0.5 off the line drawn between becoming free or not, but sight is still really poor. how fair is it then?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No to socialism.

    Yes to free NHS.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    No, they're not, smokers pay more.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...r-1700509.html
    http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx
    Do you think this will increase or decrease over the coming years? Also;

    "But the authors warned that their figures were an underestimate. "First, we have not included indirect costs in our economic analysis; second, we have not included the burden due to passive smoking; and, third, we have not considered all conditions related to smoking," they wrote."

    Factor in the potential tax revenue they would get from other ways in which that money would be spent, and tbh i doubt it would add up. A bit speculatory though.

    (Original post by King Pieb)
    You can assure all you want, but the figures will show that more money is made than is spent


    Tax year 06 - 07 Total tax revenue from cigarettes - £10Billion

    Source: http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx

    NHS Spending - £500million

    Source: http://www.healthdirect.co.uk/2007/1...iled-anti.html

    (Admittedly that is only stop smoking programs, as I can't find the other data.)
    that £500m is a bit irrelevant. Think healthcare costs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Do you think this will increase or decrease over the coming years? Also;

    "But the authors warned that their figures were an underestimate. "First, we have not included indirect costs in our economic analysis; second, we have not included the burden due to passive smoking; and, third, we have not considered all conditions related to smoking," they wrote."

    Factor in the potential tax revenue they would get from other ways in which that money would be spent, and tbh i doubt it would add up. A bit speculatory though.
    That article is the highest figure I can find, and it's still only half of the money made in the taxing of tobacco products.

    You're just making stuff up now, please admit you were wrong.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serrellen)
    And everybody who needs glasses does so because it is in their genes. Poor eyesight is not something you can inflict upon yourself; it is not a lifestyle choice in the way that smoking or drinking is. I need a -8 prescription because there is not a single person in my family who is not short-sighted. And yet I will be paying for this for the rest of my life, despite living in a state with a proclaimed free health service. It's mad.
    An excellent point.

    Smokers, heavy drinkers and drug addicts should all have to pay for their healthcare, due to results of their lifestyles. I don't know why people complain about being taxed so much on these; you got yourselves addicted in the first place. There is no good reason to smoke at all. People say it's sociable, but it isn't to non-smokers.

    IMO, genetic issues should come way before self-inflicted health issues (such as obesity; fat people are fat because they eat too much).

    And don't call be biased because a relative of mine smokes, drinks etc. and I've seen the detrimental effects, as have many.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Do you think this will increase or decrease over the coming years? Also;

    "But the authors warned that their figures were an underestimate. "First, we have not included indirect costs in our economic analysis; second, we have not included the burden due to passive smoking; and, third, we have not considered all conditions related to smoking," they wrote."

    Factor in the potential tax revenue they would get from other ways in which that money would be spent, and tbh i doubt it would add up. A bit speculatory though.



    that £500m is a bit irrelevant. Think healthcare costs.
    Well if you read the rest of my post, in the search I did I couldn't find the full costs, which I said. But it still proves my point - as other people have said, the government is still making in the region of £7 - 8Billion each year on taxing cigarettes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    so you think the 'entitlement' on healthcare should be on the amount of 'tax' a person pays?

    The whole point of the NHS is "free for all", smokers pay their way via taxes in their cigarettes, the nhs should be equal and non-judging, if smokers get charged or aren't allowed free healthcare, its the start of a very slippery slope, and IMO the end of the NHS
    I don't think that was said:
    (Original post by Livilah)
    I disagree with the fact that because smokers are paying more tax they are more entitled to healthcare than people who can't see.
    In other words 'just because smokers pay more tax, it doesn't mean they are entitled to healthcare rather than people who cannot see'. That's how I interpreted it. They actually think the opposite to your first paragraph; smokers should not get more healthcare, just because they pay more tax - and I completely agree.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    IMO, genetic issues should come way before self-inflicted health issues (such as obesity; fat people are fat because they eat too much).
    I suggest you google Prader-Willi syndrome and underactive thyroid...

    Smokers, heavy drinkers and drug addicts should all have to pay for their healthcare
    Smokers and drinkers do - it's called tax.:rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Livilah)
    No one forces smokers to pay the tax
    LOL.

    , no one needs to buy cigarettes, it is a personal choice.
    You cannot define need without defining a result you wish to achieve. Nobody needs to do anything, they are only ever pursuing personal desires.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What is hard to understand? Smokers pay for their NHS treatment through extra taxes on cigs - why should they have to pay more than their treatment is worth?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Titch89)
    I suggest you google Prader-Willi syndrome and underactive thyroid...



    Smokers and drinkers do - it's called tax.:rolleyes:
    I did.

    "PWS is a genetic condition that occurs in one in 15,000 to 20,000 live births."

    What happened to the other 7999
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    Smokers, heavy drinkers and drug addicts should all have to pay for their healthcare, due to results of their lifestyles.
    Virtually every illness can be in some way connected to chosen behaviour.

    You might get heart disease when you're older - now perhaps you could have averted that from going out and doing exercise instead of posting on TSR. Hence, essentially, you have contributed to your illness.

    I don't know why people complain about being taxed so much on these; you got yourselves addicted in the first place. There is no good reason to smoke at all.
    People smoke because they want to. As Hume pointed out, pretending to be somehow able to analyse a hierarchy of human desires is completely idiotic.

    I smoke (well, I haven't for a few weeks, but I am still a smoker) because I enjoy it. What other 'good reason' could you possibly want?

    People say it's sociable, but it isn't to non-smokers.
    Yeah, but who'd want to socialise with them?

    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    so you think the 'entitlement' on healthcare should be on the amount of 'tax' a person pays?

    The whole point of the NHS is "free for all", smokers pay their way via taxes in their cigarettes, the nhs should be equal and non-judging, if smokers get charged or aren't allowed free healthcare, its the start of a very slippery slope, and IMO the end of the NHS
    Good. Can't come quick enough.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.