Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mipmapped)
    Wonder how much of the £10.5bn tax collected has come straight out of DSS cheques...
    I thought this was quite funny, even though it is the Department for Work and Pensions now...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Livilah)
    I define need as something necessary to live normally.
    Firstly, 'normal' life is a complete cop-out. There's no such thing as a normal human life. Even if you did have a proper definition of that your argument would still be an is/ought fallacy.

    But more importantly, you've yet to define why you 'need' to live. Other than your natural human desire to live, I can't see much of an argument for it.

    I need glasses
    You really don't.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    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?
    Riiight, so everyone who doesn't eat their state-prescribed 5 portions of fruit and veg and drink their 8 glasses of water and do their half an hour of exercise a day; or who ever smokes, takes drugs, or exceeds their weekly alcohol units allowance (4 whole pints! so generous of you.) deserves to die?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ilora-Danon)
    But, conditions like Glaucoma are treated above things like myopia.
    I wasn't going into specifics really but my general idea is that if there is a need on behalf of the patient then the NHS is obliged to help if can do so.

    Disparity does exist, unfortunately,but I was not contesting that fact nor ignoring it, but I was putting forward the idea of parity. So again - Why should genetic eye conditions recieve precedence over acquired?

    I think that's a fair question - surely one's persons needs would be the same as another person's in this regard?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Allthewayhome)
    I think that's a fair question - surely one's persons needs would be the same as another person's in this regard?
    That was my point. I think eye conditions in general should be focused on (scuse the pun) more than they currently are. More money should be put into the pot for eyecare generally.
    Offline

    19
    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.
    I don't think there are a lot of people who have cancer and have done none of those things. However I can certainly think of several ways in which any person can reduce their risk of cancer.

    And you say "Nothing should be free!"..... Why are you breathing then? Do you pay for air or something?
    Nobody owns air, nor is anybody capable of owning it. It's not 'free' insofar as there has been no transfer of ownership. The same does not hold true for goods and indeed human labour.

    You're definitely the most selfish arrogant person I've encountered on this forum so far.
    Believe it or not, I take that as a complement. I am selfish - totally and utterly. If you can think of some good other than the self-interest of the individual human being on this earth, then I'd happily hear you out. Until such times, the idea that I should sacrifice myself for other people is simply anathema to me. I won't do it, and I won't insist of it in others.

    As for arrogant, perhaps a bit. More likely, however, is that you're simply mislabelling confidence - which, when it comes to politics at least, I have in spades.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    i wonder how people feel about paying to see the dentist, cos you still have to pay for that

    you can't say one group should pay for their personal action, over wise where do you stop, drinkers will be next, people that eat fatty food, drivers, where do you stop, end up no one getting free health care, smokers do pay a lot of tax into the pot, people do have freedom to choice to smoke or not

    in the prefect world it would all be free
    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?
    That was sort of my point. It doesnt seem fair that some eye conditions do get free tests and others dont, regardless of how or why they got it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Firstly, 'normal' life is a complete cop-out. There's no such thing as a normal human life. Even if you did have a proper definition of that your argument would still be an is/ought fallacy.

    But more importantly, you've yet to define why you 'need' to live. Other than your natural human desire to live, I can't see much of an argument for it.



    You really don't.
    Jeez, not my arguement but if you want to go down the meaning of need route.

    Without glasses alot of people cant see, read etc and hence cannot work.
    If you cant work and cannot claim benifits due to not being classed as disabled and once you get kicked off job seekers for not applying for jobs (how can you if you cant read and find one?) you will have no money.
    No money means no food, housing, clothing etc etc. so some people need glasses to live.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    Jeez, not my arguement but if you want to go down the meaning of need route.

    Without glasses alot of people cant see, read etc and hence cannot work.
    If you cant work and cannot claim benifits due to not being classed as disabled and once you get kicked off job seekers for not applying for jobs (how can you if you cant read and find one?) you will have no money.
    No money means no food, housing, clothing etc etc. so some people need glasses to live.
    Again, 'to live' is an arbitrary destination. I do not accept living as some sort of universal, unquestionable good to which all action must be directed. Indeed, I probably define the concept of living quite differently to you.

    But simply for the point of disputing nonsense, you really don't need glasses to survive. Millions of years of human evolution have demonstrated that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    i wonder how people feel about paying to see the dentist, cos you still have to pay for that

    you can't say one group should pay for their personal action, over wise where do you stop, drinkers will be next, people that eat fatty food, drivers, where do you stop, end up no one getting free health care, smokers do pay a lot of tax into the pot, people do have freedom to choice to smoke or not

    in the prefect world it would all be free
    Would these 'prefects' be little state henchmen?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Allthewayhome)
    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.
    And your reply is supposed to be mature? Wow you sound like you've been spending too much time on the internet.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why smokers and people who need glasses are comparable in any way, OP.

    Smokers do pay for their healthcare. For a start, the tax on cigarettes is many times the cost that smokers put on the NHS. A packet of cigarettes would be a huge amount cheaper if the tax wasn't on it. If it makes you feel better and superior, imagine smokers are just paying a pound for their cigarettes, and then giving the NHS three times the cost of their treatment cash in hand when they're admitted to hospital.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serrellen)
    poor eyesight due to genetics
    who the **** told you that?

    poor eyesight is completely avoidable, JUST EAT SOME ************* CARROTS

    thats why my vision it 6/5 :littleangel: (was 6/4 but i stopped eating carrots)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    what about smokers who wear glasses

    they getting doubly shafted over
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serrellen)
    And everybody who needs glasses does so because it is in their genes..
    Where's the evidence for this?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Can I just elevate the debate a little bit here? Passions are running high, because there is no answer to the questions so everyone will have to accept that there are differing opinions.

    In the case of smokers, the issue is fairly clear since the habit is very visibly contributing to the enhanced morbidity. But consider this: let's just say that I have a cholesterol problem. We know that most of cholestertol problems are linked to family history and that, although diet is a contributing factor, it only has a minor (though not negligible) impact. If I am given anticholesterol medication by my GP, do you think I am responsible? After all I still each cheese and occasionally go to Macdonalds, so some would argue that unless I stop eating cholesterol-full food then I should not get given the pills. These same people would argue that the medication only increases life expectancy by 3 years, so why pay for 40 years of treatment for just an extra 3 years?

    On the other side of the argument, some people eat a lot of crap and never get any associated health problems.
    Should we argue that people who play sport and injure themselves should pay for their own care too?
    That someone who is pissed and turns up in A&E on Saturday evening should pay for it?
    That people who overdose should not receive care unless they pay?
    That people who are pregnant should not get abortions unless they were raped (and how do we prove that?)

    The truth is that the vast majority of conditions are linked to lifestyle to some extent. At a push you can even argue that, even though some people are predisposed to cancers through theur genes, you cannot rule a lifestyle link. For example, maybe if they had not been so stressed the cancer would not have been triggered.

    So if we exclude self-inflicted illnesses, then no one will ever get treated.We have to draw the line somewhere. In fact, I believe we should treat but spend a lot more on prevention. If you take the issue of smoking, the vast majority of those who smoke themselves to death come from underpriviledged backgrounds. So surely we need to address the root cause. For others, it may be a stress factor. The smoking is just a symptom of something else. As is eating junk food.

    It is a fine balance between the interest of society and individual freedom of choice. We will never get it right. A little tolerance and understanding would not go amiss though ....
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoliceStory)
    Would these 'prefects' be little state henchmen?
    nothing wrong with little state henchmen, running about the place making sure all it well
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    That was sort of my point. It doesnt seem fair that some eye conditions do get free tests and others dont, regardless of how or why they got it.
    Fairness is exactly where the problem lies. It is impossible to achieve because there are too many contradictory forces.

    It is not fair either that everything should be free so that everyone has whatever treatment they want on the cheap and those who are never ill should pay for them. On the other hand it is not fair either that those who have needs should fork out all for themselves.

    No system is actually fair. Let us not forget that money is also an issue. I am sure we could receive more for free but then we would also need a top rate of tax of 70%, as they have in some scandinavian countries. So, you have to pay somewhere, either through taxes or at point of care. A half way system where some things are free and other, more marginal things, or cheaper things, are to be paid for, seems fair overall.
    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.
    It's a sad day when an oxford medic is the last stop on the clue train.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.