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:
    (Original post by rudyrabbit)
    the other hand it is not fair either that those who have needs should fork out all for themselves.

    Which is strange, cos the way you worded it made it sound really fair.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zap Brannigan)
    Which is strange, cos the way you worded it made it sound really fair.

    The proof is in the pudding. This is how the American system works and their healthcare is shocking compared to most developed countries, no matter how great it may sounds in theory.

    It's allk fine until you find you need a £40k operation and your insurance doesnt cover it, then it's not such a great idea.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    hmm. This could get into a debate. I think that anyone our age who smokes has to be classed as an idiot. Since I was 5 years old, people have constantly been telling us not to smoke, teachers, government, parents etc... However, elderly people who smoked and have illnesses such as COPD, CHD SHOULD have treatment payed as they are social diseases for them, they were never warned of the dangers.

    However, how far do we go... what about obesity, drinking, drugs, rollerblading and falling breaking your wrist, genetics...?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    Smokers pay a crapload of taxes already.
    as do people with eyes?
    Offline

    1
    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?
    I hate being all ****** and political but this is the reality; the injustices of a socialist government. It just proves that the faults are hypocritical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The fact is: if we all want more out of our taxes we'll have to pay more taxes. From September onwards I'll have to pay for my prescriptions, dental check-ups, eyetests etc. I'd be happy to pay more tax if I got more from them.

    What really, really, really urks me (i'm gonna try and say this without being lynched) is that the Scottish and Welsh get free prescriptions and the English don't.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not a smoker, but I agree that the entire smoking argument is totally irrelevant. Yes, I think that eye care should be free, but no, I don't think that it's unfair when compared to smoking because the smokers pay for themselves through tax....
    Offline

    1
    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?

    Healthcare is ******* insurance, not a privilege. You pay your dues (smokers 8x more than it costs to fix them) and your entitled to treatment w/e you do to yourself. just because its a government service, it doesn't mean one isn't paying totally for it. There is nof ree eyecare for adults because no one would use it. 99% of adults who wear glasses buy designer and custom in some shape or form. They want this because its a better looking product. The cost is so infrequent (every two years) that people don't mind paying.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 19becky91 )
    hmm. This could get into a debate. I think that anyone our age who smokes has to be classed as an idiot. Since I was 5 years old, people have constantly been telling us not to smoke, teachers, government, parents etc... However, elderly people who smoked and have illnesses such as COPD, CHD SHOULD have treatment payed as they are social diseases for them, they were never warned of the dangers.
    It feels good, I will pay my taxes when I start to work, why shouldn't I. The dangers don't particularly bother me. Die when I'm 60-70 of lung cancer (like 1/3 smokers) or die when I'm 90 of a degenerative mental disorder after spending the last 10 years being a massive burden on taxpayers money drooling and gabbling away in an old peoples home with no idea who or where I am. Bigger picture babe I'd prefer to die knowing who I am, than dieing as nothing. Fo shizzle
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichaelG)
    as do people with eyes?
    On the tax one pays on ones smoking products, one pays for oneself 8x over in tax. So, if I died of smoking, I would have actually given the NHS more money, in tax, than I had expended (being fixed). The other thing you have to remember is, if no one smoked the government would still need the money it makes off people smoking - so it would chearfully raise your taxes yet you would see no more money spent on things you want. Smokers are doing you a favour, you pay substantially less, for more.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bigfatflanker)
    It feels good, I will pay my taxes when I start to work, why shouldn't I. The dangers don't particularly bother me. Die when I'm 60-70 of lung cancer (like 1/3 smokers) or die when I'm 90 of a degenerative mental disorder after spending the last 10 years being a massive burden on taxpayers money drooling and gabbling away in an old peoples home with no idea who or where I am. Bigger picture babe I'd prefer to die knowing who I am, than dieing as nothing. Fo shizzle
    as long as you don't inflict it on your kids. Passive smoking is horrible.

    Also, your attitude is disgraceful, I lost my mum to ovarian cancer 3 years ago, and that was through no fault of her own.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 19becky91)
    as long as you don't inflict it on your kids. Passive smoking is horrible.

    Also, your attitude is disgraceful, I lost my mum to ovarian cancer 3 years ago, and that was through no fault of her own.

    Well, it's hardly disgraseful. You may have prefered your mom to live till she's 90 or w/e - I don't want to live till 90. I don't know whether I want to have kids - if I do then I'd probably try and stay heathly for them, if not then its my body to do what I want with.

    Passive smoking does not exist realisticly. In the most unventilated houses, studies have proven that if they spend all their time in the house you would passively smoke about 29 **** a year. If you were home schooled in a totally unventilated house till you were 18, you would passivly smoke about 522 ****. The average 20 a day smoker will smoke 7300 over a year. One can smoke for a year while having no lasting damage. You would passivly smoke about 7.1% of that over 18 years. It will not do you any damage realisticly . Just because the NHS says it will, it doesn't mean it will.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Halophyte91)
    What really, really, really urks me (i'm gonna try and say this without being lynched) is that the Scottish and Welsh get free prescriptions and the English don't.
    Excuse me, but you're bluntly wrong there. As a Scottish person resident in Scotland, I can tell you I have to pay for my own damn prescriptions just like everyone else.

    Anyway, why should that urk you more than, say, the fact a Cuban gets his prescriptions free?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by botchok5)
    And your reply is supposed to be mature? Wow you sound like you've been spending too much time on the internet.
    Personally I think you've been spending too much time with your head up your arse, but in the normal course of things I'd be much too polite to say so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Personally I think you've been spending too much time with your head up your arse, but in the normal course of things I'd be much too polite to say so.
    And defending an immature person makes you better?... Seriously Lib read all your posts and you'll be able to see for yourself what an absolute **** you are. And PS, if someone called you 'SELFISH' I wouldn't take it as a compliment, you love to sound smart but actually you're trying too hard and making a fool of yourself.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bigfatflanker)
    Well, it's hardly disgraseful. You may have prefered your mom to live till she's 90 or w/e - I don't want to live till 90. I don't know whether I want to have kids - if I do then I'd probably try and stay heathly for them, if not then its my body to do what I want with.

    Passive smoking does not exist realisticly. In the most unventilated houses, studies have proven that if they spend all their time in the house you would passively smoke about 29 **** a year. If you were home schooled in a totally unventilated house till you were 18, you would passivly smoke about 522 ****. The average 20 a day smoker will smoke 7300 over a year. One can smoke for a year while having no lasting damage. You would passivly smoke about 7.1% of that over 18 years. It will not do you any damage realisticly . Just because the NHS says it will, it doesn't mean it will.
    Well, if you don't want to live until 90, you can always jump off a bridge. A lot less painful, for yourself and your family.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Smokers simply don't get the NHS for free. If you work out the amount of tax each individual smoker pays across their lifetime as a result of purchasing overpriced cigarettes, then this surely covers the cost of their treatment on the NHS, and beyond.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Smokers don't really get the NHS for free. i smoke and i still pay for all my prescriptions for my anti depressants (and whatever else they decided to drug me with).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by botchok5)
    And PS, if someone called you 'SELFISH' I wouldn't take it as a compliment
    Yes, you probably wouldn't. More fool you, eh?

    but actually you're trying too hard
    Trying to hard to do what? Anyway, I'm not sure I appreciate how one can try to hard to achieve something if they particularly desire it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Taxes on cigarettes are pretty high and probably subsidise the health care of us non-smokers as well as the smokers themselves.

    Also, even though there is a general link between smoking and cancer, it is impossible to prove in individual cases that one's cancer has been caused by one's smoking -- one could well have got cancer even if one hadn't smoked, there is no way of knowing.

    I do believe that government should be proactive in giving health advice though, and not only our government. Not to mention the inherent amorality of capitalism, British American Tobacco is a top FTSE company and its growth largely derives from Asian and African markets where health legislation (e.g. the "smoking kills" stickers that we have in the EU) and/or advice is often inexistent: there does seem to be a moral issue there. If people understand the risks and wish to take them nonetheless, they should be allowed to so do; if people do not understand the risks, they are giving mere blindfolded consent.
 
 
 
  • 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.