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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If they didn't buy ****, they'd buy something else which would also be taxed. They contribute little more than they otherwise would.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Smokers and drinkers pay for the majority of the NHS? It's obese people I take exception to.
    Aha! i agree totally, and got neg repped for saying so!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No one 'deserves' anything for free.
    Not even anything as basic as health?

    I mean it's all well and good to say you don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare and you don't want others to pay for yours, but it's simply selfish and heartless to deny those most vulnerable (i.e. people without enough money to pay for their own healthcare) treatment just because you want to keep hoarding all the £s.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That reminds me when I was doing a summer job in the City once. No one was taking exception to smokers spending 10 minutes every hour smoking outdoors, whereas they would if I had a chat for 5 minutes to one of my colleagues about non-work related issues.

    One of the issues with smokers and the NHS is that if you don't pay for their care through the NHS they will only end up costing more anyway through other benefits. It's one of these things. I am personally very myopic and get free eye test on the NHS because of that (Saving: £20!!!! but I am only allowed it every other year - hardly worth it). However I have to pay for special lenses which cost a fortune because they are not mass produced. The main problem with eyesight is that there is a wide range of options. What would you say for example if they NHS told you: "Okay we will sort you out for free but that will have to be those horrible plastic purple frames and really thick glass. Do you see what I mean? Where do you draw the line? nowadays many people wear lenses. That costs £1 per day. So that could be £365 per year for say 60 years. They would only increase taxes accordingly to pay for it so in the end you would probably end up paying anyway, just in a different way.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    That's such a dumb ignorant and arrogant thing to say, it makes you sound like a ****, there's a lot of people who suffered from cancer without consuming cigarettes, alcohol or radiation from the sun or tanning saloon.

    And you say "Nothing should be free!"..... Why are you breathing then? Do you pay for air or something? You're definitely the most selfish arrogant person I've encountered on this forum so far.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ummm, if people are on benefits then the NHS pays the optician fees. But smokers should pay nevertheless!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    If they didn't buy ****, they'd buy something else which would also be taxed. They contribute little more than they otherwise would.
    It doesnt work like that as the tax on them is much higher.

    Say the smoker saves £50 a week and spends it on, say, starwars action figures (or whatever :P), the tax from ciggies would be ~£40 whereas on the action figures would only be £8.75 which is a massive difference.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Goodness this thread has exploded. I shouldn't have gone out for the evening!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    LEAVE SMOKERS ALONE!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Smokers and drinkers pay for the majority of the NHS? It's obese people I take exception to.
    this
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wonder how much of the £10.5bn tax collected has come straight out of DSS cheques...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    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
    Exactly, it should be free for all, but it isn't, as i said I have to pay more than £100 for glasses that I can't function without. I am not saying that smokers shouldn't get help on the NHS, just that it is not equal.
    (Original post by L i b)
    You cannot define need without defining a result you wish to achieve. Nobody needs to do anything, they are only ever pursuing personal desires.
    I define need as something necessary to live normally. People do not need to smoke (they may become dependant, but that stems from personal choice). I need glasses otherwise reading is a huge struggle, I could not pass school exams, work or even cook a meal from a recipe without them. Why should I pay to be able to do these things when someone else gets free help for a self-inflicted problem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should be offered MORE help towards our glasses, whether we smoke or not. I don't think you can justify one for the other tbh.

    I get something like a free eyetest and £30 towards my glasses. My last pair cost me a total of £510, which I have to change yearly.
    I don't begrudge anyone free NHS treatment, but I do have a problem with the pitiful help we do get in terms of 'eye healthcare' from the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ilora-Danon)
    I think we should be offered MORE help towards our glasses, whether we smoke or not. I don't think you can justify one for the other tbh.

    I get something like a free eyetest and £30 towards my glasses. My last pair cost me a total of £510, which I have to change yearly.
    I don't begrudge anyone free NHS treatment, but I do have a problem with the pitiful help we do get in terms of 'eye healthcare' from the NHS.
    Dang! Why so much? Mine only cost something like £50 :s
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serrellen)
    Goodness this thread has exploded. I shouldn't have gone out for the evening!
    Thats devotion. Friday night? And Tsr wins. Shish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    Dang! Why so much? Mine only cost something like £50 :s
    Firstly because my overall prescription is -11 with an astigmatism of -4 (which is very severe for an astigmatism). I was screwed in the optical gene pool. And secondly, because I can't walk around wearing jam jar lenses, so they have to be ultra ultra ultra thinned which is ultra ultra ultra expensive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ilora-Danon)
    Firstly because my overall prescription is -11 with an astigmatism of -4 (which is very severe for an astigmatism). I was screwed in the optical gene pool. And secondly, because I can't walk around wearing jam jar lenses, so they have to be ultra ultra ultra thinned which is ultra ultra ultra expensive.

    That sucks
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    Smokers bring in more money via tax than they cost the NHS, so if anything they are keeping the cost down. But I agree, I dont see why eye tests are not free to those who genetically need glasses.
    Surely if you need glasses then you need glasses?

    Why should someone who was born with an impairment receive it over someone who developed a glaucoma due to a industrial accident for example?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Allthewayhome)
    Surely if you need glasses then you need glasses?

    Why should someone who was born with an impairment receive it over someone who developed a glaucoma due to a industrial accident for example?
    But, conditions like Glaucoma are treated above things like myopia.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by botchok5)
    That's such a dumb ignorant and arrogant thing to say, it makes you sound like a ****, there's a lot of people who suffered from cancer without consuming cigarettes, alcohol or radiation from the sun or tanning saloon.

    And you say "Nothing should be free!"..... Why are you breathing then? Do you pay for air or something? You're definitely the most selfish arrogant person I've encountered on this forum so far.
    He's expressing an opinion you ignoramus - something people tend to do now and then.

    Stop sensationalizing his bloody post. You just read the words breast breast cancer and assumed he was attacking them - admit it.
    Read the post properly.

    Here's my impression of you:

    "OMGz, facccing eh! How darz he spek about cansarssssssss!"

    Gobble, gobble and STFU.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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