Turn on thread page Beta

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

    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by King Pieb)
    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.
    Even if the costs did add up (sceptical, but the evidence seems insufficient), arguments for giving up smoking would be more based on smokers being unable to picture what they are actually bringing upon themselves in the future, and addiction skewing whether cigarettes are actually what a consumer wants or is that just due to addiction?

    I wasn't even arguing for a smoking ban though - how did this happen? :o:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malkmus)
    If you want to carry on believing that then do so. Smokers already get taxed more than their fare share. The least they are entitled to is health care. The point in the NHS is to save lives without discrimination. The life of a smoker is not worth any less or more than the life of anybody else.
    An ill smoker has contributed towards their own illness. They should therefore cost the NHS nothing, but nobody has proved with reliable and complete evidence that this is the case.

    Don't forget that I'm talking about smoker-related illness mainly; if a smoker has a genetic issue then this should certainly be free. But if a smoker has black lungs and lung cancer, then it's pretty obvious where that came from.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Even if the costs did add up (sceptical, but the evidence seems insufficient), arguments for giving up smoking would be more based on smokers being unable to picture what they are actually bringing upon themselves in the future, and addiction skewing whether cigarettes are actually what a consumer wants or is that just due to addiction?

    I wasn't even arguing for a smoking ban though - how did this happen? :o:
    I think I agree with this. :p:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malkmus)
    What do you propose we do with those that do have disease/illness caused by "avoidable circumstances", as you put it? Leave them to die? Or if they're rich enough to be able to pay their way to treatment then fine, but if they don't have the cash then sod them?
    Seems high up there on that moral high-horse of yours. If they have caused their own illness then they should pay for their treatment. If they don't have the money then maybe the government could set up a grant for those people, which is to be paid back at a later date in installments. Also, I know what your response is going to be.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    dont forget about all the money saved by smokers dying young, old people are a FAR bigger drain on NHS resources.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I wasn't aware those with visual impairments were exempt from paying taxes! Clearly my knowledge of tax law is limiting.
    I think they were referring to the tax on cigarettes you sarcastic prick.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    An ill smoker has contributed towards their own illness. They should therefore cost the NHS nothing, but nobody has proved with reliable and complete evidence that this is the case.

    Don't forget that I'm talking about smoker-related illness mainly; if a smoker has a genetic issue then this should certainly be free. But if a smoker has black lungs and lung cancer, then it's pretty obvious where that came from.
    But surely from your view point this should apply to every illness like this? If you are fat you shouldnt get free treatment for related illnesses, if you drink, the same thing, if you hurt yourself doing a dangerous sport, same thing.

    Probably the majority off illness and injury are self inflicted one way or another, you cant just pick one being portrayed as evil at the time and say they cant have it for free.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rich2606)
    dont forget about all the money saved by smokers dying young, old people are a FAR bigger drain on NHS resources.
    The money isn't saved it's just spent treating them for lung cancer etc. when they're younger.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    An ill smoker has contributed towards their own illness. They should therefore cost the NHS nothing, but nobody has proved with reliable and complete evidence that this is the case.
    Well, until somebody does, what do you suggest we do? Refuse to treat people who have smoked themselves towards disease?

    Are you suggesting that there should be a system in place to decide who should and should not receive treatment - a system for effectively deciding the worth of somebody's life? If so, where do you draw the line? Do you refuse to treat the obese, drug users, alcoholics and the like?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    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.
    10.5 billion? Wow I can't even begin to comprehend that number lol. I guess what you say, if it's true, puts it into perspective, but what I was trying to say that the amount of tax paid by an individual would be unlikely to cover the cost of, say treatment for lung cancer, for example. Although if the cost is covered by their fellow smokers, I suppose I shouldn't care :p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    But surely from your view point this should apply to every illness like this? If you are fat you shouldnt get free treatment for related illnesses, if you drink, the same thing, if you hurt yourself doing a dangerous sport, same thing.

    Probably the majority off illness and injury are self inflicted one way or another, you cant just pick one being portrayed as evil at the time and say they cant have it for free.
    Sport is beneficial to health. Why should somebody suffer because they have been doing exercise? Smoking on the other hand... what benefits does it bring? None, apart from 'enjoyment' apparently.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Mwoah)
    I think they were referring to the tax on cigarettes you sarcastic prick.
    And i was implying it wouldn't be covered by that. Try not to get confused next time.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mwoah)
    The money isn't saved it's just spent treating them for lung cancer etc. when they're younger.
    As previously stated, the cost is covered at least partly or, if you believe the statistics, by triple/quintuple by taxation on tobacco.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malkmus)
    Well, until somebody does, what do you suggest we do? Refuse to treat people who have smoked themselves towards disease?

    Are you suggesting that there should be a system in place to decide who should and should not receive treatment - a system for effectively deciding the worth of somebody's life? If so, where do you draw the line? Do you refuse to treat the obese, drug users, alcoholics and the like?
    Not refuse to treat them, I didn't say that...

    Treatment should not be free to those who have knowingly contributed towards their own poor health, by way of an unnecessary habit or activity which does not have any benefit to their own health. And don't say that smokers pay for their own treatment because that's simply false. Okay?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    Sport is beneficial to health. Why should somebody suffer because they have been doing exercise? Smoking on the other hand... what benefits does it bring? None, apart from 'enjoyment' apparently.
    What about someone bungee jumping, sky diving, go karting? No health benifits, purely enjoyment, should they be treated?

    Fat people, people who drink, people who get injured whilst drunk (big thing for students!), what about them?

    Surely if smokers dont get treated, neither should they?

    You cant cherry pick things you dont like and say not them.

    Edit: and smoking does bring in alot more money than it costs no matter how much you deny it. I cant find one source that says otherwise.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serrellen)
    I'm not generally one to go on about the need for smokers to help subsidise all the health costs they are incurring (really, I'm not... slippery slope blah blah) but the other day I realised the injustice that adults in the UK have to pay all costs towards their eye care, even though their short/long-sightedness is not due to a poor lifestyle (more likely genes).

    I've worn glasses since I was five and am still getting free eye tests but this will stop soon... then I will have to pay for
    a. the eye tests
    b. the glasses frames
    c. the lenses.

    Why is it that healthcare for people who are careless with their health - smokers, the obese, and even some dental care for people who don't floss - is free on the NHS, and yet those who are burdened with poor eyesight due to genetics must cough up so that the world doesn't remain a funny-coloured blur to them?
    Agree totally with you. Luckily my parents said they will let me have laser eye treatment when I'm eighteen. It costs a fortune, but at least i won't need glasses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Smokers and drinkers pay for the majority of the NHS? It's obese people I take exception to.
    They need a fat tax on McDonalds and such
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    But some behaviour is unhealthy and has known adverse health effects.
    Yet there is no human being alive who engages in completely healthy behaviour throughout the entire course of his or her life. Life wouldn't be worth living if you tried.

    Indeed, in terms of risk, simple things like crossing the road are very unhealthy indeed.

    Perhaps I am taking a rest from exercise. It is actually during rest that muscle recovers after being damaged from exercise. Muscles repair themselves and become stronger and larger. Hence, your habit of contradicting everything in a chosen post is completely irrelevant.
    Yeah, but you're not are you?

    I wouldn't expect anything more from most smokers. You talk about the fact that I am contributing to my illness above, but don't you think lecturing me about not exercising 24/7 is a little hyprocritical? For a start, you have a habit which can lead to known health issues. It's not a coincidence. There are actually plenty of good reasons not to smoke. You are trying to justify a known factor in heart disease with, 'I enjoy it'. Not smoking saves money, improves health, etc.
    It's not remotely hypocritical, I am pointing out the flaws in your argument not accepting the argument. I thought that was quite clear. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't give a toss what you do; I don't ascribe to socially authoritarian ideas.

    Of course there are good reasons not to smoke (well, of course, this again depends on the desires of an individual - there is no such thing as a universal good). But clearly I have decided that, for me at least, the positives outweigh the negative. Indeed, in this little exercise in felicific calculus, I can say that - again, for me - the positives outweigh the negatives by an enormous margin. Not only do I think smoking is a very good thing, I'd encourage it in others.

    You haven't once considered the possibility of giving up, which would give you a much larger span of people to socialise with. Notice how many places have signs which say 'no smoking' but I haven't yet seen a sign which says 'no non-smokers'.
    Yes, that's because people like you hold these establishments at the barrel of a gun and force them not to allow smoking on their premises.

    Are you admitting, then, that most non-smokers do not want to socialise with smokers?
    No, I'm saying that anyone who cared about whether I smoked or not would probably be the sort of dingbat I'd rather not associate with.

    The NHS has saved many lives... :rolleyes:
    Really? I personally think it's responsible for many deaths - but I believe life and death is of only secondary concern to morality.

    Fundamentally, I don't support the NHS - but I am not so arrogant as to further my arguments by force. Pro-NHSers think it is perfectly legitimate to take money by force, via taxation, because they believe they are right and that disagreement should not be tolerated.

    If you wanted to go and create your own hippy commune with a shared health service, I wouldn't stop you. You, however, would stop me - indeed, you'd throw me in jail - if I attempted to opt out of the NHS system entirely.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChunkymunkyDJC)
    Seems high up there on that moral high-horse of yours. If they have caused their own illness then they should pay for their treatment. If they don't have the money then maybe the government could set up a grant for those people, which is to be paid back at a later date in installments. Also, I know what your response is going to be.
    Under such conditions, I'm sure you'd have a different view if you were forced to pay for, say surgery on liver disease, if you were known to be a drinker? Smoking is much less socially acceptable for some reason, which is why people are much more willing to consign smokers to the scrapheap.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    Not refuse to treat them, I didn't say that...

    Treatment should not be free to those who have knowingly contributed towards their own poor health, by way of an unnecessary habit or activity which does not have any benefit to their own health. And don't say that smokers pay for their own treatment because that's simply false. Okay?
    So who would get treated then?:confused:
 
 
 

1,483

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.