eat donuts for breakfast? pay for your own health care

[dr_volki]

I'm no doctor, but I would have thought there are other tells in the condition of a person's lungs beyond lung cancer that would indicate that they are a smoker.

Perhaps some sort of rolling coverage based on a person's unhealthy choices? If you do something that actively increases the risk of developing something, you have limited coverage of that something.

If you don't smoke, you get full treatment for lung cancer and the like.
If you do smoke, you only get £x treatment before you have to start paying for yourself.
If you are obese, you get limited amount of free treatment from illness resulting from your obesity.

This might actually give a few people a kick up the backside to change their ways. At the moment, people just do what they want as any issues in the future will be covered.

while i kind of see you point still very faulted system

first up we covered smoking and fatties.

what about people that like to do extreme sports which are more prone to injure themselves. surely they shouldn't get free treatment from the NHS?

what about people that spent their entire free time in front of a PC and start getting RSI? guess they shouldn't be covered either. same goes for alcoholics. guess you could also say sharing the room with someone who has a cold or flu is irresponsible behaviour. why would you put yourself at risk to catch that

as i said i do get your point, but the only way to do this would be if we get rid of the NHS and change to private healthcare

 

[piggeh]

Diabetes from glucose intolerance is a rising trend but more worryingly is the link between diabetes and alzheimers. That will be much more costly to treat and care for than diabetes. There needs to be something to persuade people to look after themselves more as the current system is unsustainable in that people are not sufficiently motivated to live healthily. Personally I'd welcome tax on any food that can lead to diabetes as the financial implications are quite staggering, although it is somewhat worse in the USA where they have a greater obesity problem. The money should be used to subsidise health facilities, preventative advice and subsidise healthier food options. And I'd bring back cooking into the curriculum so that people are encouraged to cook their own food more of the time, rather than relying on takeaways or premade meals.

 

[Begbie]

So why should they spend £millions on people who are ill through smoking?.

It's your choice to smoke, you know the consequences (i hope!) so if you're ill because of it then that's your fault.

So if you get ill through exercise then you should pay for your own bill too?

Or you get ill through alcohol?

So many different ways that is self induced, other than smoking.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

stop selling them then? they're an addictive product.

not going to happen. they would lose way to much revenue from it

And create a whole new crime scene that makes smuggling tobacco to avoid tax look like petty shoplifting.

 

[Will21st]

How do you prove that the smoking causes lung cancer though? It happens to people that don't smoke as well as those who smoke. You just wouldn't be able to police such a policy.

Small-cell lung cancer is typical for smokers. However it is indeed true that about 50% of lung cancer cases occur in non-smokers.

 

[piggeh]

The answer isn't to ban things, people will still have a choice of smoking (illegally), you just push the problem underground and create an opportunity for criminals to profit from society's wants & needs. Most drugs should be legalised to encourage a system that enables people to seek help and support and to make a move towards a healthier lifestyle, it is the only way to go. The current system of banning substances simply makes profit for criminals and we spend way more trying to close down criminal networks (which never works as is evidenced form their continued supply), which could instead be used on education and support instead.

 

[smelly_legend]

Oxygen kills you, it should be banned.

 

[^TANK^]

How do you prove that the smoking causes lung cancer though? It happens to people that don't smoke as well as those who smoke. You just wouldn't be able to police such a policy.

Four heavy smokers in my family died of cancer and my girlfriends dad who was also a heavy smoker died from cancer, what an amazing coincidence they all smoked.

 

[joeyjojo]

Tax junk food to make it a luxury, keep prices down on veg.

 

[krooton]

while i kind of see you point still very faulted system

first up we covered smoking and fatties.

what about people that like to do extreme sports which are more prone to injure themselves. surely they shouldn't get free treatment from the NHS?

what about people that spent their entire free time in front of a PC and start getting RSI? guess they shouldn't be covered either. same goes for alcoholics. guess you could also say sharing the room with someone who has a cold or flu is irresponsible behaviour. why would you put yourself at risk to catch that

as i said i do get your point, but the only way to do this would be if we get rid of the NHS and change to private healthcare

Oops, I should have been more clear to avoid any strawmen

Whilst certain activities pose a greater risk to injury, for the most part they are beneficial should no injury occur (exercise with horse-riding or extreme sports).

I'm talking about things that have no positive outcome, such as smoking, drinking excessively, and being obese.

This also means the whole 'tax unhealthy foods more' angle, which I dislike as the odd burger will not impact your health in any noticeable way, isn't needed, so people who enjoy the odd drink or kebab aren't penalised for the people who go overboard and cause themselves harm.

 

[Ahleckz]

Four heavy smokers in my family died of cancer and my girlfriends dad who was also a heavy smoker died from cancer, what an amazing coincidence they all smoked.

lol Tank, yes because non smokers NEVER get cancer. Oh wait, they do.
I'm not saying that smokers are of the same risk as non smokers, as that's clearly not true. However it would be unfair and wrong to bill someone for treatment for their lung cancer if it wasn't proved that it was caused solely by smoking.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I'm no doctor, but I would have thought there are other tells in the condition of a person's lungs beyond lung cancer that would indicate that they are a smoker.

Perhaps some sort of rolling coverage based on a person's unhealthy choices? If you do something that actively increases the risk of developing something, you have limited coverage of that something.

If you don't smoke, you get full treatment for lung cancer and the like.
If you do smoke, you only get £x treatment before you have to start paying for yourself.
If you are obese, you get limited amount of free treatment from illness resulting from your obesity.

This might actually give a few people a kick up the backside to change their ways. At the moment, people just do what they want as any issues in the future will be covered.

Having to paying for health care, insurance would probably skyrocket and a lot of people would be unlikely to get coverage due to pre-existing conditions, what happens if a fat person is dying from a related illness, should you just let them die just because some holier than thou person who lost weight thinks its easy for everyone to do?

 

[krooton]

Having to paying for health care, insurance would probably skyrocket and a lot of people would be unlikely to get coverage due to pre-existing conditions, what happens if a fat person is dying from a related illness, should you just let them die just because some holier than thou person who lost weight thinks its easy for everyone to do?

I saw the ninja

See above, if anything, it's a pretty good incentive for people to not smoke, drink responsibly, and have a healthy diet and exercise plan.

 

[Energize]

No VAT on essential food, just on biscuits etc

Well actually you'll find VAT on many healthy pure fruit products like smoothies and juice etc.

However foods like biscuits are exactly why these people are diabetic.

 

[Raikiri]

See above, if anything, it's a pretty good incentive for people to not smoke, drink responsibly, and have a healthy diet and exercise plan.

Because that works so well in America

Well actually you'll find VAT on many healthy pure fruit products like smoothies and juice etc.

However foods like biscuits are exactly why these people are diabetic.

One small fruit smoothie (250ml):

Calories 170.0
Total Fat 0.0 g
Sodium 750.0 mg
Total Carbohydrate 43.3 g
Dietary Fiber 3.0 g
Sugars 36.5 g
Protein 1.3g

2 Chocolate Digestives:

Calories 172
Protein 2.4g
Carbohydrate (Sugars) 22.4g
Fat 8.2g
Fibre 0.8g

Uh huh, those healthy smoothies

 

[manic111]

It's a daft idea - where do you draw the line if someone injures themselves whilst cycling? Climbing? Doing DIY? These are peoples lifestyle choices as well, and it makes more sense to do what they do currently, which is to tax cigarettes, cakes etc. at the point of sale.

I'd also assume that obese people will on average have a much lower lifespan, so I guess that's a money saving mechanism built in.

To be fair, if you want decent treatment for a sports injury you need to go private currently. NHS were useless when I did my medial ligaments playing football. As long as I could walk again, that was as far as they'd treat me.

 

[^TANK^]

lol Tank, yes because non smokers NEVER get cancer. Oh wait, they do.
I'm not saying that smokers are of the same risk as non smokers, as that's clearly not true. However it would be unfair and wrong to bill someone for treatment for their lung cancer if it wasn't proved that it was caused solely by smoking.

Very unusual for non smokers to get lung cancer though isn't it?

 

[Ahleckz]

Very unusual for non smokers to get lung cancer though isn't it?

Quite.

Around 86% of lung cancer deaths in the UK are caused by tobacco smoking and, in addition, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) states that tobacco smoking can also cause cancers of the following sites: upper aero-digestive tract (oral cavity, nasal cavity, nasal sinuses, pharynx, larynx and oesophagus), pancreas, stomach, liver, bladder, kidney, cervix, bowel, ovary (mucinous) and myeloid leukaemia. 6,7

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/can...ng/smoking/lung-cancer-and-smoking-statistics

But not unheard of.

 

[^TANK^]

fair enough.

 

[Energize]

Because that works so well in America



One small fruit smoothie (250ml):

Calories 170.0
Total Fat 0.0 g
Sodium 750.0 mg
Total Carbohydrate 43.3 g
Dietary Fiber 3.0 g
Sugars 36.5 g
Protein 1.3g

2 Chocolate Digestives:

Calories 172
Protein 2.4g
Carbohydrate (Sugars) 22.4g
Fat 8.2g
Fibre 0.8g

Uh huh, those healthy smoothies

How about comparing the things that actually matter like vitamins and nutrients?

Given that smoothies are pure fruit, you are saying fruit isn't healthy.