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

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    And don't say that smokers pay for their own treatment because that's simply false. Okay?
    Not individually but as a whole group, I'm sure they more than cover the cost.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    Treatment should not be free to those who have knowingly contributed towards their own poor health
    So in other words, basically every ill person?

    And don't say that smokers pay for their own treatment because that's simply false. Okay?
    Well, no. The figures have been produced, so it is clearly true. Indeed, not only are they paying for themselves, but for YOU too.

    Personally I wouldn't like anyone to pay for my healthcare, and I don't want to pay for anyone else's. Which is why I support the abolition of the NHS and the wholesale repeal of tobacco duty.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    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.
    As previously stated, I did not say that they should not be treated! I said that treatment should not be free.

    Besides, for those activies you mentioned, I don't see an issue? If you bungee jump and get injured somehow (the injury being...?) then if it's not your fault, you can of course take whoever is responsible to court and get reimbursed.

    Fat people, people who drink, people who get injured whilst drunk have all done it to themselves, therefore should pay for it. Have you even read any of my posts, or were you dreaming? I've already mentioned fat people and drunks, so why don't you stop cherry picking things you disagree with and trying to contradict for no reason?

    See last few posts and the above...

    I haven't, I've already come up with a general rule which you made a gargantuan effort to miss. I don't cherry pick; explain how I do...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    So in other words, basically every ill person?



    Well, no. The figures have been produced, so it is clearly true. Indeed, not only are they paying for themselves, but for YOU too.

    Personally I wouldn't like anyone to pay for my healthcare, and I don't want to pay for anyone else's. Which is why I support the abolition of the NHS and the wholesale repeal of tobacco duty.
    So.... you're saying someone who developed breasts cancer contributed to their own illness, huh?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    So in other words, basically every ill person?



    Well, no. The figures have been produced, so it is clearly true. Indeed, not only are they paying for themselves, but for YOU too.

    Personally I wouldn't like anyone to pay for my healthcare, and I don't want to pay for anyone else's. Which is why I support the abolition of the NHS and the wholesale repeal of tobacco duty.
    Wow, here's the cherry picking. Quote the full sentence. I've seen you do this countless times; you won't be swayed because of your habit and you'll defend it to your death. You quote half-sentences to make yourself appear correct. I refuse to argue with someone who is inexplicably defensive of an unhealthy habit and tries to link smoking to not exercising... You also cannot justify a solid reason for smoking. 'I enjoy it,' is a pretty poor reason for being treated on the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    And i was implying it wouldn't be covered by that. Try not to get confused next time.
    No.
    Someone said smokers are already taxed to hell - or something similar.
    You then said what I quoted, see my post. A sarcastic comment suggesting smokers pay equal tax to those with sight problems. Nothing else with it.
    Again you look like a moron for being sarcastic again. You can't just make a stupid post like you just did to attempt to redeem some credability when you clearly have none left.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Mwoah)
    No.
    Someone said smokers are already taxed to hell - or something similar.
    Not gonna read the post then and just insult indiscriminately? I'm sure your contribution to the thread will be valued highly.

    (Original post by Mwoah)
    You then said what I quoted, see my post. A sarcastic comment suggesting smokers pay equal tax to those with sight problems. Nothing else with it.
    Again you look like a moron for being sarcastic again. You can't just make a stupid post like you just did to attempt to redeem some credability when you clearly have none left.
    Again, i'm sorry you couldn't understand what i was implying. I'm sure if you practice you will get there eventually .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    As previously stated, I did not say that they should not be treated! I said that treatment should not be free.

    Besides, for those activies you mentioned, I don't see an issue? If you bungee jump and get injured somehow (the injury being...?) then if it's not your fault, you can of course take whoever is responsible to court and get reimbursed.

    Fat people, people who drink, people who get injured whilst drunk have all done it to themselves, therefore should pay for it. Have you even read any of my posts, or were you dreaming? I've already mentioned fat people and drunks, so why don't you stop cherry picking things you disagree with and trying to contradict for no reason?

    See last few posts and the above...

    I haven't, I've already come up with a general rule which you made a gargantuan effort to miss. I don't cherry pick; explain how I do...
    There are loads of ways to injure yourself bungee jumping. Detatched retina's being one.

    So basically you want an American style system but with free treatment for genitic diseases (most others are self inflicted)? The system known to be appauling compared to most developed countries unless you are rich?

    Fine, but drop tax on ciggys considering its the main reason for it being so much. You cant tax people for the benifit of peoples health then say pay for your own health care. The money smokers saved would more than cover private healthcare. You cant have your cake and eat it.

    I think the fact nearly everyone is disagreeing with you goes a long way to show how bad your idea is.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    No one has been able to prove that smoking costs more than smokers pay in tax any more than the other way round. You can't deny someone free treatment and effectively send them to their death without conclusive evidence.

    I suggest therefore that people stop using the 'but it might cost more than people pay in tax' argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Not gonna read the post then and just insult indiscriminately? I'm sure your contribution to the thread will be valued highly.



    Again, i'm sorry you couldn't understand what i was implying. I'm sure if you practice you will get there eventually .
    Relating to your first sentence:

    Originally Posted by nolongerhearthemusic
    Smokers pay a crapload of taxes already.
    You
    I wasn't aware those with visual impairments were exempt from paying taxes! Clearly my knowledge of tax law is limiting.

    I didn't have to read it again as my memory of the post was correct.
    I wasn't wrong.
    You just seem like a bit of a dic mate who refuses to accept they're wrong and just respond with more arrogance and sarcasm.
    Well done. Speaking to you is like banging your head against a brick wall.
    Goodbye.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Mwoah)
    Relating to your first sentence:

    Originally Posted by nolongerhearthemusic
    Smokers pay a crapload of taxes already.
    You
    I wasn't aware those with visual impairments were exempt from paying taxes! Clearly my knowledge of tax law is limiting.

    I didn't have to read it again as my memory of the post was correct.
    I wasn't wrong.
    You just seem like a bit of a dic mate who refuses to accept they're wrong and just respond with more arrogance and sarcasm.
    Well done. Speaking to you is like banging your head against a brick wall.
    Goodbye.
    bye.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    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.
    Oh dear, read and understand before generalising and turning a blind eye to your unhealthy habit.

    Not really; crossing the road is not unhealthy. I wasn't talking about risk, I was talking about an activity or habit which somoeone knowingly undertakes (you missed out the last part in one of your quotes, conveniently). Unless you cross the road for 'enjoyment'.

    Yeah, but you're not are you?
    Exercise does not need to be done at this time. It takes a few hours a day. Incidentally, smokers would spend that time damaging their lungs and heart.

    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.
    Why would you actively encourage it? I was being objective; you were being subjective. You attempt to justify a plethora of smoker-related illnesses with, 'I enjoy it'. You argument is too personal.

    I'm not socially authoritarian. I simply believe that people who deliberately partake in something which could require pallative care, which is very expensive, or hospital beds, should pay for being there, and not inhibit the treatment of those who have looked after themselves much better. Argue against this please...

    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.
    Bull****. I do no such thing, and would never do so. I think that smoking in a public place affects those in the area. It's also pollution. But people can do what they like on there own private places. I couldn't give a toss what you do, in that case.

    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.
    You can do whatever you like with yourself. The people who would care about whether you smoke are the nurses and doctors who treat people. Also, the taxpayer who funds new organs for people like you (hey, you started the generalising up there ^^^) who damage their bodies, then expect free healthcare while people who have taken care of themselves are pushed down the queue. You are too self-centred, and I'm guessing you will die (early) sticking to your biased smoker 'argument'.

    Really? I personally think it's responsible for many deaths - but I believe life and death is of only secondary concern to morality.
    Can I ask anyone on this thread, if they agree or disagree with this view? I bet many of your relatives have been saved by it. I too wish that 100% of illnesses could be cured... but the NHS will never reach that, nor will any country.

    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.
    Go private then. You probably already are. Next time you visit an NHS hospital, tell the doctor what you think about them.

    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.
    Hippy commune? What the hell is wrong with you? Deluded and emotional over the sacred cancer sticks, clearly. I think taking the piss out of a technologically advanced and underfunded health service which has probably saved you, your family and your friends multiple times demonstrates your ignorance. It's not like there isn't enough help out there to get off smoking. You are blinded by your addiction, overcome by a dirty habit that brings you to such a low level; criticising something when you could do no better.

    Do you take offence when I say that smoking is an unhealthy and pointless habit? It's pretty factual.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    Wow, here's the cherry picking. Quote the full sentence. I've seen you do this countless times; you won't be swayed because of your habit and you'll defend it to your death.
    I'm self interested? Imagine!

    You quote half-sentences to make yourself appear correct.
    No, I didn't quote the rest of the sentence because it was irrelevant to the point.

    You also cannot justify a solid reason for smoking. 'I enjoy it,'
    You've just answered your own question.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pheonixx)
    No one has been able to prove that smoking costs more than smokers pay in tax any more than the other way round. You can't deny someone free treatment and effectively send them to their death without conclusive evidence.

    I suggest therefore that people stop using the 'but it might cost more than people pay in tax' argument.
    The point was that I do not care either way; smokers (not exlcusively, although people keep reverting to the topic they think they know the most about; see the rest of my posts...) deserve the right to smoke, but don't deserve free treatment. It's irrelevant how much smokers cost or bring to the NHS; they should pay for their treatment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by botchok5)
    So.... you're saying someone who developed breasts cancer contributed to their own illness, huh?
    To some extent, most probably. If they have ever exceeded the recommended intake of alcohol, fat, radiation they have increased susceptibility to breast cancer.

    Or indeed, smoked, given birth, worked shifts (yep, that's been identified as a contributing factor for breast cancer!) or simply not been as physically active as they could have been.

    Everyone can make adjustments to their lifestyle to reduce their chances of illness; however if this was taken to extremes, it would simply involve a life not worth living. We take risks with our health in virtually everything we do.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    don't deserve free treatment.
    No one 'deserves' anything for free.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't floss and I don't have any problems with my teeth? Are we all supposed to floss now?? WHAT?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm self interested? Imagine!
    I think your self-interest is of such a huge scale, it's probably beyond most people's imagination.

    No, I didn't quote the rest of the sentence because it was irrelevant to the point.
    It was. You started talking about crossing the road for Christ's sake! You ignored the rest of the sentence which went into further detail about it being restricted to activities and habits... Get it right.

    Oh I see, you're that strange fellow from the other thread who thinks building houses will cause the population to increase. Now I see why simple concepts are being so hotly objected to.
    I'm not... :confused:

    I think your points should be hotly objected to. If you were above me on a waiting list, I'd be disappointed with the NHS. Perhaps you've experienced this.

    By the way, you're the strange fellow who brings up 'hippy communes' which have nothing to do with... anything, just because I disagree with a smoker.

    You've just answered your own question.
    Substantiate it, then.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No one 'deserves' anything for free.
    Some people get it free though...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    To some extent, most probably. If they have ever exceeded the recommended intake of alcohol, fat, radiation they have increased susceptibility to breast cancer.

    Or indeed, smoked, given birth, worked shifts (yep, that's been identified as a contributing factor for breast cancer!) or simply not been as physically active as they could have been.

    Everyone can make adjustments to their lifestyle to reduce their chances of illness; however if this was taken to extremes, it would simply involve a life not worth living. We take risks with our health in virtually everything we do.
    The recommended intake is an educated guess, and cannot be seen as a concrete figure to go by.

    Anyway, not everyone takes radiation in on purpose... is this a new trend?
 
 
 
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.