What costs the NHS most....

Once again, I'd say smoking because smoking affects non smokers as well, less than what it did now the ban is in law, but non smokers can also get cancer and such from inhaling the smoke. Alcy just affects drinkers and occasionally the poor person some drunk idiot decides to beat up
 
shauncr91 said:
'Drug' abuse won't even be near as costly tbh.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is most illegal drugs are less harmful than alcohol, GHB for example is effectively non-toxic alcohol, if GHB replaced alcohol the number of patients with liver and kidney problems would drop massively causing a huge ease on the transplant list, saving billions.
 
Vanilla said:
My opinion. Alcohol, then drugs, then smoking.

Although there are far more smokers, other drugs have stronger effects on the body, faster, and the drugs cost more. Then factor in all the post rehabilitation facilities and staff associted with illegal drugs - this is massive. Almost every hospital has a rehabilitation center.

Also remember that they seem to pin every problem a person has on smoking even if unrelated, so any figures are often skewed.
Click to expand...

Is rehab actually paid for by the NHS though? I know someone who was in the Priory to treat anorexia and it was paid for by her local council rather than the NHS.
 
Edward01 said:
I see. So everything that could potentially hurt someone should be banned? Well smoking and drinking obviously. Then I guess fast food would have to go, cause you know, obesity and all that. I suppose then next on the list would have to be sports off all kinds, extreme right down to football. I mean you choose to play them so when you break a leg it's your own fault correct? Therefore it should be banned?

I suppose cars would have to be right up there as well. I mean you don't technically need to drive do you? We survived 100years ago with out them we could again. And besides, you choose to drive therefore it's your own fault if you crash and get ill.

Any kind of manual labour, oh and computer work as well, repetitive strain injury and all that. All the forces boys.

Hell if we just lock everyone in a padded cell we wouldn't need an NHS at all. What a great idea, I'd defiantly prefer you to run the country over George Orwell...
Click to expand...

Way to fly off the handle and blow my comment completely out of proportion :) Substance abuse is quite clearly not the same as playing football, driving cars etc. If you think that they can all be put under the same umbrella then thats your problem, not mine.
 
Skeeter said:
Email an NHS trust to their FOI address and ask for the financial costs of treating those areas for the last financial year. Make it a Foundation trust as they are more likely to have the information to hand.

Argument solved.
Click to expand...

Won't work for a start. How do you judge the amount smoking actually costs. Do you limit to direct cost, illness made worse by the use of, or anything which is worsened by smoking.

I'd say alcohol certainly costs the country more, police hours side effects etc. As for NHS cost, its likely alcohol also, but smoking costs a lot more in morbidity than it does in mortality. All the old codgers on inhalers for their 'asthma' adds up, when none of them have asthma, its all lung damage due to smoking. Even taking dental disease, and the amount the NHS spends on smokers, gums, extraction, cleanings and false teeth for those who lost teeth due to smoking. God knows where the figure would end up, certainly I doubt nayone can project it as the statistical science related to it is wishywashy at best.

I'd say alcohol top, but smoking costsing more than anyone will admit.
 
I'm quite biased in this. I'd say on a saturday night the majority of calls we receive are for people that are drunk. Nothing more. I agree that people who are genuinely in trouble (I.E. completley un-concious) beacause of drink then by all means call 999 but for the simple idiots that are drunk. This is not a medical emergency :)
 
What the government gains in tax revenue is astronomical compared to the expense of both alcohol and smoking costs.

Its the same reason why on the one hand they all want us out of the cars and onto public transport - but don't mind us paying extra for using the fuel/driving cars because they rely on the revenue to spend elsewhere.

Plus smokers are a lot less likely to cash in their state pension. Kerr-ching £££
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom