eat donuts for breakfast? pay for your own health care

[Superficial]

Because smokers pay millions in taxes.

12.1 Billion Actually this fiscal year: http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/

the costs of smoking related diseases costs £5 Billion - and that was back in 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8086142.stm

---

diabetetes costs around 10 billion rising to ~17 billion and obesety costs us £5.1 billion

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/nhs-diabetes-costs-cases-rising.aspx

http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/category/policy-areas/public-health/obesity-healthy-living/

EDIT: edited due to mistake on smoking tax receipts.

 

[Raikiri]

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.

Sugar causes insulin resistance and eventually type 2 diabetes, some vitamin c isn't going to stop that.

So while yes, an apple is definitely better than a biscuit they're still a lot worse than veg or meat.

 

[LordSplodge]

The NHS treats all. That's the point, it's free-at-the-point-of-entry healthcare, not healthcare-for-a-select-few.

You solve the problem of smoking, alcohol and fat by education and penalisation. Worked very well for smoking but needs fpwrok on booze and food.

Denying people treatment isn't fair, it's barbaric. Not surprised some on these forums are suggesting it though.

 

[piggeh]

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.

I don't get why you dislike it. People who have an occasional burger will pay a one off tax charge. Those that eat them regularly will pay a recurring tax charge. Shouldn't that be how it works, rather than the cost being spread out across taxation more generally?

General taxation (eg VAT, income tax etc) should cover general provisions eg accidents, basic level of care, sustenance, education for everyone etc. More specific product or activity taxes should be to influence behaviours or choice to encourage healthier decision making. Taxing bikes because people have an occasional accident does not encourage anything but sedantry behaviour and would be very short sighted, as sedantry behaviour is more likely to lead to long term ill effects than cycling would lead to.

 

[krooton]

The NHS treats all. That's the point, it's free-at-the-point-of-entry healthcare, not healthcare-for-a-select-few.

You solve the problem of smoking, alcohol and fat by education and penalisation. Worked very well for smoking but needs fpwrok on booze and food.

Denying people treatment isn't fair, it's barbaric. Not surprised some on these forums are suggesting it though.

Pretty sure only allowing a limit of free treatment for certain things counts as penalisation.

 

[Bloomfield]

2.6 Billion Actually this fiscal year: http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/

unfortunately the costs of smoking related diseases costs £5 Billion - and that was back in 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8086142.stm

---

diabetetes costs around 10 billion rising to ~17 billion and obesety costs us £5.1 billion

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/nhs-diabetes-costs-cases-rising.aspx

http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/category/policy-areas/public-health/obesity-healthy-living/

What? Did you even read what you posted? This year smokers have paid 9.5Billion in Excise and 2.6Billion in VAT.

So that's 12.1Billion total (although the VAT shouldn't be counted when comparing cost of treatment to revenue since that's just a general tax).

 

[Cleeecooo]

There's no point making it harder for people who need help because they're too ignorant/stupid to seek it themselves to actually get it.

The real problem is education.

I'd consider myself a relatively intelligent chap, one with an incredibly privileged upbringing, but I knew nothing about a healthy diet more than fast food = bad. Hell, I thought Subway made some of the healthiest food money could buy!

It's sad that there's so little understanding in such a rich country like the UK (don't you dare mention the recession in this context) about how to eat healthily. Even worse, is there's NO incentive at all to eat healthily unless you want it for yourself.

At pretty much all the smaller chicken shops you can get 8 wings, box of chips and a drink for ~£3. That requires next to no effort and cooking healthily with fresh ingredients costs a little more, on average, unless you have the time to shop around for current deals and/or go to wholesalers and it requires time and effort to cook!

I could walk into Tesco and probably cut my grocery bill by at least 10% from my current, healthy diet, to one comprised of ready meals and similar crap. We can all bitch and moan about the fatties taking up the NHS' budget, but until we educate them, can we really blame them for what they've done to themselves?

 

[dr_volki]

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

The real problem is education.

this is it. i was shocked when my fiance told me she never had cooking lessons in school and now i'm the one in the kitchen every night
now cooking isn't hard but when no one ever showed you, you're not going to try i guess. i was lucky to have 2 years of cooking at school so i know what i shouldn't have and what i should have (even though my diet is pretty bad, it is changing though )

 

[piggeh]

this is it. i was shocked when my fiance told me she never had cooking lessons in school and now i'm the one in the kitchen every night
now cooking isn't hard but when no one ever showed you, you're not going to try i guess. i was lucky to have 2 years of cooking at school so i know what i shouldn't have and what i should have (even though my diet is pretty bad, it is changing though )

I made the same point, cooking (and possibly nutrition) need to be a part of peoples' curriculums. We should get back to 'old school' days where people learnt some valuable skills rather than just text book teaching of subjects.

 

[Energize]

Sugar causes insulin resistance and eventually type 2 diabetes, some vitamin c isn't going to stop that.

So while yes, an apple is definitely better than a biscuit they're still a lot worse than veg or meat.

You're missing the point. Fruit provides essential nutrients, ergo they're healthy. Yes eating them to excess is harmful, but just because something has sugar in it doesn't make it unhealthy. And in reality the obese diabetics aren't eating two digestives but loads of chocolate ones besides others, so it's not much of a useful comparison.

Besides all this, tax is charged on smoothies anyway as I said. So there's loads of money going towards the government from these people.

 

[No1newts]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dr-phillip-lee-conservative-mp-1458840
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20508405

he's got it in for type 2 diabetes sufferers.

as a smoker, i'm obviously not over the moon about the possibility of me being landed with a bill if i were to be hit with an illness due to smoking, especially with the amount of tax on a packet of cigarettes, plus my NI contributions but mainly because if the government sees smoking as such a negative thing, why not just ban them? i would welcome a ban. addiction is no fun thing.

however, i do agree on the eating thing, which may be what dr lee is getting at with the diabetes though i do understand that having diabetes is not necessarily caused by obesity.

obesity in this country is rising and i don't see why the nhs should continue to spend £millions on the problems caused by people who quite simply, eat way too much and don't move enough.

So their bad habits should make them pay but not you? Really? Reeeeeeeeeally? No! One or the other.

 

[Superficial]

What? Did you even read what you posted?

!!

looks like i made an error - My apologies I took the excise figure as total sales with the VAT as the tax into the government coffers.


that'll learn me for being quick off the trigger and not analysing my sources more closely.

This year smokers have paid 9.5Billion in Excise and 2.6Billion in VAT.

So that's 12.1Billion total (although the VAT shouldn't be counted when comparing cost of treatment to revenue since that's just a general tax).

I disagree actually the VAT figure would not exist without the cigarettes to sell general tax or not.

 

[Raikiri]

You're missing the point. Fruit provides essential nutrients, ergo they're healthy.

So does Red Bull, doesn't make it healthy.

Yes eating them to excess is harmful, but just because something has sugar in it doesn't make it unhealthy.

It makes it less healthy than something that doesn't contain sugar, assuming all else is equal.

And in reality the obese diabetics aren't eating two digestives but loads of chocolate ones besides others, so it's not much of a useful comparison.

And they're not only drinking a little 250ml serving of an innocent smoothie, either.

Besides all this, tax is charged on smoothies anyway as I said. So there's loads of money going towards the government from these people.

Yes, but you made it sound like it shouldn't be because they're 'healthy' when in reality they aren't great. If you're going to have fruit then have fruit, it's a lot more filling than a drink that's 15-20% sugar.

 

[LordSplodge]

Pretty sure only allowing a limit of free treatment for certain things counts as penalisation.

Penalisation in the form of increased tax. Withholding treatment shouldn't be considered.

 

[Pneumonic]

Not really, my carb::insulin ratio changes based on the time of day, I suspect in other people it is the same. External factors do play a big role, currently I am on a low fat diet, where basically I just look at what I eat and for last few weeks have changed my eating habits to lower fat content stuff. Doesn't mean I cut it out completely, but I noticed I need far less insulin now for the same amount of carbs.

Yes your ratio changes dependant on the time but you still cover 1g of carb irrespective of what "type" of carb it is with the same value of insulin.

 

[Pneumonic]

But what about the time aspect?

How long for the same amount in porridge vs same in white sugar?

There really isn't a massive difference time wise.. processed carbohydrate breaks down pretty quickly.. say 45 mins for the porridge vs. 20 mins for the sugar.. the only thing that considerably slows glucose absorption is a higher fat content.. something like a pizza for instance which is high in carb and fat you might expect to have a peak effect at say 3 hours post meal...

GI can be used as a guide.. better if you want a real idea to use the Insulin Index which is a measure of insulin response (not all carbohydrate containing food requires an insulin response; pulses for instance we generally don't digest and thus although they contain carbohydrate you would not normally cover for them with insulin).

 

[cm1179]

So their bad habits should make them pay but not you? Really? Reeeeeeeeeally? No! One or the other.

have you compared the tax on a pack of cigarettes to the tax on a pack of donuts?

 

[Orcish-Horde]

After a life time of eating healthy or so I thought am now in the process of removing or greatly reducing from my diet all sugar, rice, pasta and other foods that after being eaten turn to glucose. Meats, animal fats and vegetables will become my stable over time.

The glucose is a source of inflammation, or rather triggers inflammation though out the body. A few weeks after cutting it out you can feel the difference, its just to energy rich for my body.

 

[Cleeecooo]

have you compared the tax on a pack of cigarettes to the tax on a pack of donuts?

I'm pretty certain that tobacco causes more harm than a donut.

Let's put this into a scenario; A crazed mad-man kidnaps a kid and yourself and tells you that you must harm the kid using the two methods he will provide you. The two methods are making the kid smoke a single ciggy or have to eat a 12 pack of donuts, fresh from Krispy Kreme comprised of chocolate, strawberry and caramel dreamcakes - warm and (ok, sorry, got a little carried away).

Anyways, my point is, your point doens't really stand up because cigarettes do more harm in less time and the effects aren't always visible. They're addictive too. Donuts on the other hand, you'll usually see the results of the harm that's being done and they aren't addictive.

 

[Bloomfield]

!!

looks like i made an error - My apologies I took the excise figure as total sales with the VAT as the tax into the government coffers.


that'll learn me for being quick off the trigger and not analysing my sources more closely.




I disagree actually the VAT figure would not exist without the cigarettes to sell general tax or not.

Well, that would depend on whether or not smokers would buy other VATable stuff with the money saved from not smoking. I imagine a lot of it would still be there from people spending their money on other stuff.

Either way smokers as a group pay enough in duty to cover their medical bills from all the evidence I've seen .

And that doesn't account for the amount saved from not paying pensions/elderly medical care etc.