Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't agree, mainly because it's difficult to say where an illness is caused by lifestyle or otherwise. It will just open the floodgates, because I'm sure many illnesses have a cause linked with lifestyle, hoever indirect.

    Further, studies suggest that the average smoker pays more in tax to the NHS than they are likely to receive in healthcare for smoking-related illnesses. So, if they pay for it, they should get the treatment, whether they are ill because of their own stupidity or otherwise.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by L i b)

    That said, I believe people should be responsible for themselves - which is why, of course, I believe in abolishing the NHS.
    :yikes:

    Blasphemy! *covers ears and runs*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cup of Inspiration)
    The tax made on things like cigarettes, alcohol etc is rather high and a fair percentage of that does go towards the NHS, in a way smokers pay for themselves. Plus, bringing this type of decision leads down to a slippery slope in society, could lead to the NHS to not treating those who attempted suicide, or weren't paying attention to the road, leading to something which the NHS wasn't set up for.
    the problem with that point is this pulls resources away from other which cannot be increased massively by tax revenue, there is only a limited amount of nurses that can be recruited for example and it can only be increased by a fraction by the income from tax.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by re-animator)
    the problem with that point is this pulls resources away from other which cannot be increased massively by tax revenue, there is only a limited amount of nurses that can be recruited for example and it can only be increased by a fraction by the income from tax.
    CVD, cancer- are massive killers, and a HUGE part of healthcare, are you suggesting more money should be sent on other conditions than this then? Plus things like being overweight, or smoking are merely risks towards the condition, not the cause!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i say ban alcohol, drugs and ciggies, and while there at it, sex, guns and knives, and rock and roll.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Let me put it this way lung cancer would be a tenth of the problem it is today if people didnt smoke
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by re-animator)
    Let me put it this way lung cancer would be a tenth of the problem it is today if people didnt smoke
    I wasn't aware Captain Obvious had taken to writing in medical journals.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabaidee)
    How about the taxpayer doesn't have to contribute to healthcare full-stop, and we end this insane communist policy of having a state monopoly on healthcare that is a total failure on every level?

    That way everyone can live whatever life style they want, however decadent, without everyone resorting to blaming each other for a problem that actually lies with our wannabe-communist 'free health care for all' (which isn't even free since we are forced to pay national insurance and now extras vaccinations and dental treatment...) culture and nanny-state...
    Are you a troll? I hope so.

    Without the NHS I wouldn't have been able to afford any of the healthcare I have received throughout my life. For example, the £100,000 surgery I had last week to make sure I won't be restricted to a wheelchair for the rest of my life. Or would you resign me to that fate because I would be unable to finance the procedure myself?

    And on what planet is the NHS a "total failure on every level"? As far as I know, it cures the majority of people who attend state hospitals (in simple situations without complications) - and has successfully benefitted me a number of times. :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok guys I think you have read a little too much in my original post. I think I may have implied that all lifestyle related accidents should not be covered by the NHS. However, I didn't, this would be impossible to enforce and a nightmare logistically. I did only mean the original three (smoking, alcohol and obesity (perhaps that is a bit difficult as well), where we can be certain that prolonged abuse of alcohol, food or cigarettes have led to health problems.

    Especially in a donor situation where we have a person who has abused cigarettes versus a person who has suffered through environmental causes, they both have a serious lung condition. This is a hypothetical, and we will assume that we have evidence to suggest 100% smoking abuse for person 1 and 100% environmental causes for person 2.

    Only one pair of healthy lungs, who should get it? The one who doesn't get a transplant will die.

    What do you guys think?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eagleeye1234)
    Ok guys I think you have read a little too much in my original post. I think I may have implied that all lifestyle related accidents should not be covered by the NHS. However, I didn't, this would be impossible to enforce and a nightmare logistically. I did only mean the original three (smoking, alcohol and obesity (perhaps that is a bit difficult as well), where we can be certain that prolonged abuse of alcohol, food or cigarettes have led to health problems.

    Especially in a donor situation where we have a person who has abused cigarettes versus a person who has suffered through environmental causes, they both have a serious lung condition. This is a hypothetical, and we will assume that we have evidence to suggest 100% smoking abuse for person 1 and 100% environmental causes for person 2.

    Only one pair of healthy lungs, who should get it? The one who doesn't get a transplant will die.

    What do you guys think?
    The one who will benefit most from the transplant i.e. in terms of years of life gained and chance of success. Almost certainly there will be a difference between the two people that you can make a decision on, regardless of their 'personal responsibility'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eagleeye1234)
    Ok guys I think you have read a little too much in my original post. I think I may have implied that all lifestyle related accidents should not be covered by the NHS. However, I didn't, this would be impossible to enforce and a nightmare logistically. I did only mean the original three (smoking, alcohol and obesity (perhaps that is a bit difficult as well), where we can be certain that prolonged abuse of alcohol, food or cigarettes have led to health problems.
    What about prolonged use of coffee and caffiene containing products?

    What about the various illicit drugs?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    Are you a troll? I hope so.

    Without the NHS I wouldn't have been able to afford any of the healthcare I have received throughout my life. For example, the £100,000 surgery I had last week to make sure I won't be restricted to a wheelchair for the rest of my life. Or would you resign me to that fate because I would be unable to finance the procedure myself?

    And on what planet is the NHS a "total failure on every level"? As far as I know, it cures the majority of people who attend state hospitals (in simple situations without complications) - and has successfully benefitted me a number of times. :confused:
    You pay national insurance for your NHS treatment. It isn't free.

    Under a private system or semi-privatisated system you'd still pay insurance.

    Not sure why you came to the conclusion that i'd "resign you to your fate".

    The NHS doesn't rate highly in Europe. Just because you've experienced good treatment doesn't mean other people have had it so good...Waiting lists are very long and it's unacceptable (especially cancer patients waiting to recieve treatment). We get about 5 minutes to see a GP, then they want to get rid of us as quickly as possible because resources are overstretched...Try living in a different country with a high quality health care system and you will realise just how bad it is here...

    There are better ways other than full-privatisation to run the health system...
    For example, the parallel system in Germany: http://www.justlanded.com/english/Ge...alth-insurance
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Sabaidee)
    You pay national insurance for your NHS treatment. It isn't free.

    Under a private system or semi-privatisated system you'd still pay insurance.

    Not sure why you came to the conclusion that i'd "resign you to your fate".

    The NHS doesn't rate highly in Europe. Just because you've experienced good treatment doesn't mean other people have had it so good...Waiting lists are very long and it's unacceptable (especially cancer patients waiting to recieve treatment). We get about 5 minutes to see a GP, then they want to get rid of us as quickly as possible because resources are overstretched...Try living in a different country with a high quality health care system and you will realise just how bad it is here...

    There are better ways other than full-privatisation to run the health system...
    For example, the parallel system in Germany: http://www.justlanded.com/english/Ge...alth-insurance
    I actually just spat out my frosties reading that

    Go, go speak to a cancer patient- I work in a palliative care house, and the patients have nothing BUT praise for the NHS, drugs they've recieved, care given etc, and start treatment or care straight away

    Waiting lists long? Almost halved in the past 10 years

    Resources at gp's are over stretched? Is that the NHS's fault? Er no, GP resources are down to the GP managers, they deal with how the money is distributed NOT the PCT

    I lived in america for 5 years, and i got the same level of care (if not better) in the NHS compared to america where they pay insurance, for free..regardless of my income.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabaidee)
    You pay national insurance for your NHS treatment. It isn't free.

    Under a private system or semi-privatisated system you'd still pay insurance.

    Not sure why you came to the conclusion that i'd "resign you to your fate".

    The NHS doesn't rate highly in Europe. Just because you've experienced good treatment doesn't mean other people have had it so good...Waiting lists are very long and it's unacceptable (especially cancer patients waiting to recieve treatment). We get about 5 minutes to see a GP, then they want to get rid of us as quickly as possible because resources are overstretched...Try living in a different country with a high quality health care system and you will realise just how bad it is here...

    There are better ways other than full-privatisation to run the health system...
    For example, the parallel system in Germany: http://www.justlanded.com/english/Ge...alth-insurance
    I have studied alternative health care systems around the world and still have come to the conclusion that the NHS comes out top. I have had quite a bit of exposure to hospitals and GP's surgeries over the years, so I am speaking from more than just the token visit to hospital.

    I have also been sent to a private hospital (on the NHS) for surgery due to waiting lists in public hospitals being too long. Therefore I am in a good position to make a direct comparison between NHS provided healthcare and the private sector. In my experience the only difference between the two was in the private hospital I got my own room with en suite, which is nice and novel but sometimes is the case in NHS hospitals too. And tbh this (pretty insignificant, health-wise) benefit doesn't really outweigh the added costs of private healthcare.

    In terms of paying for the health service through national insurance, that's a valid point. However if I were to have to get health insurance to pay for private healthcare, again I state that I would not be able to afford it. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that the insurers wouldn't cough up the financing for the surgery I had last week, leaving me to cover the costs myself or suffer the consequences of no surgery.

    I think it's very easy to slate the NHS when you've had it all your life and don't really know any different. The reality of private healthcare is very different. See: 'Sicko' by Michael Moore.

    xxx
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I find this pretty amazing, my experiences and expereinces of friends and family have been completely different...

    I think it's very easy to slate the NHS when you've had it all your life and don't really know any different.

    Don't talk down to me sweetheart. I've probably seen far of the world than you will ever see...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabaidee)

    I think it's very easy to slate the NHS when you've had it all your life and don't really know any different.

    Don't talk down to me sweetheart. I've probably seen far of the world than you will ever see...
    Excuse me?! You're criticising me for 'talking down to you' (and I fail to see how I have; I think it is easy to criticise something which you have been able to rely on when you have not lived without it. Simple as.), and then patronise me to the nth degree. Ridiculous. And by doing so, you make me less eager to take you, and your argument, seriously. :rolleyes:

    At the same time you have failed to address the actual issues I raised in my post: differences between private and NHS hospitals, being unable to pay insurance premiums and most care falling outside the boundaries of what HMOs are willing to pay, etc.

    If you want to discuss this topic, let's discuss it! Less of the patronising personal attacks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lulz.

    No point honeykins...I've realised from experience it's a waste of oxygen trying to discuss anything with the animal rights/vegan subculture, they are so preoccupied with their self-righteous socialist crusade to blow up science labs to save the ickle bunny rabbits...Sometimes it makes me think General Pinochett had the right idea with Operation Condor
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.