Health are for the Healthy?

[The Peasant Pretender]

This may sound like a funny idea and will almost defiantly be widely criticized. First of all the closest relative of mine to die was a Great Aunt and all four of my grandparents are still alive. One of my grandfathers is in and out of hospital with heart and lung problems due to smoking and he falls in to the category of people i want to moan/produce a radical idea about.

I find it sickening how people can receive thousands of pounds worth of treatment and help from the free British health service and can stride out a hospital and then light up a cigarette or celebrate by boozing all night long. My idea is that health care is given free by the NHS (National Health Service paid for my British taxes) only to people who are in part/full time education and employment and full tiem mothers with a child under 16 recive free health care and people deemed unfit by their local doctor (smoker, heavy drinker and morbidly obese) receive no health care what so ever.

After recent discussion about this in both my a-level history and biology lessons I received more criticism than support. I don't know how people of other nationalities will take this but I'm sure fellow Brits will have an thought to share. I do not want to end the NHS just keep it for people who deserve it. I am not a conservative either i like to think i am left of centre.

Thoughts?

[RusskiSoldat]

That would completely defeat the purpose of health care and make it an instrument of the (health) elite, where everyone pays the tithe but only a select few enjoy the benefits.
What is even the point of having national healthcare if the people who most needed won't get it? The main reason it's even made is out of humanitarian regards. If you want something monetarily efficient, you could cut back on quite a few things.

[Mythos]

people deemed unfit by their local doctor (smoker, heavy drinker and morbidly obese) receive no health care what so ever.

Health care is supposed to heal, not kill.

[LoZz]

This may sound like a funny idea and will almost defiantly be widely criticized. First of all the closest relative of mine to die was a Great Aunt and all four of my grandparents are still alive. One of my grandfathers is in and out of hospital with heart and lung problems due to smoking and he falls in to the category of people i want to moan/produce a radical idea about.

I find it sickening how people can receive thousands of pounds worth of treatment and help from the free British health service and can stride out a hospital and then light up a cigarette or celebrate by boozing all night long. My idea is that health care is given free by the NHS (National Health Service paid for my British taxes) only to people who are in part/full time education and employment and full tiem mothers with a child under 16 recive free health care and people deemed unfit by their local doctor (smoker, heavy drinker and morbidly obese) receive no health care what so ever.

After recent discussion about this in both my a-level history and biology lessons I received more criticism than support. I don't know how people of other nationalities will take this but I'm sure fellow Brits will have an thought to share. I do not want to end the NHS just keep it for people who deserve it. I am not a conservative either i like to think i am left of centre.

Thoughts?

the nhs does tell people to lose weight, cut out drinking and smokeing as a way to improve there health. but it cant refuse to not treat people on those grounds, its unethical. fat people who are thought to be too much a risk to operate on can be refused said operations till they lose weight, but thats as far as it goes.


there is nothing wrong with smokeing or drinking. i know we are told to think about it as the next biggest sin after rape, but its not that bad a thing. some people drink for serious problems, like depression, and some people smoke because they are stressed, i dont agree with refuseing them.

[Yorkshireman]

(National Health Service paid for my British taxes)

Well, your profile say's your a student, so I presume you don't pay tax. Maybe you should'nt recieve treatment from the NHS then aswell, freeloader!

The system's there to treat everyone, you can't start making exceptions, though as Lozz points out, this does happen in some cases now. Alcohol and tobacco are also taxed heavily so I suppose pissheads and heavy smokers have paid for their treatment in advance.

[Dunecat]

When you drink, your problems have puppies.

Don't drink if you're depressed. See a shrink, or- failing that- walk in on an appointment and say, "What if this is as good as it gets?"

[GrnEyedDvl]

I should qualifiy this by stating up front that I am not British.

I find it sickening how people can receive thousands of pounds worth of treatment and help from the free British health service and can stride out a hospital and then light up a cigarette or celebrate by boozing all night long.

I find it sickening that you call it "free" Nothing is free, its all tax based. I dont know about Britain, but I know here in the US that smokers are taxed HEAVILY. The same with alcohol and many other things. This is commonly known as the Sin Tax. You would deny people that put money into the system access to the system?

My idea is that health care is given free by the NHS (National Health Service paid for my British taxes) only to people who are in part/full time education and employment and full tiem mothers with a child under 16 recive free health care and people deemed unfit by their local doctor (smoker, heavy drinker and morbidly obese) receive no health care what so ever.

Again, its not free. Someones tax money is paying for it.

Only full time employment? What about retired people? or disabled?

Again, deny service to smokers and drinkers.... What if they are involved in a car accident that has nothing to do with smoking or drinking? Or just fall down the stairs and break a leg?

I am not a conservative either i like to think i am left of centre.

Far left of center.

[Sidmen]

I find it sickening that you call it "free" Nothing is free, its all tax based.

I find it sickening that someone has to point this out every friggen time its brought up. WE KNOW ITS NOT FREE. There, you never have to bring it up again.

Anyway, as to the OP.

It was brought up earlier by GrnEyedDvl, a 'sin tax' or taxes on cigarettes and alcohol could be implemented to cut back on the use of these substances, and to help fund the NHS. In an effort to counter the higher expense involved in treating these patients.

Obesity, well - short of being a fascist you can't do anything to counter it directly, or to help offset the costs. Short of taxing sugar... which would be stupid.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I find it sickening that someone has to point this out every friggen time its brought up. WE KNOW ITS NOT FREE. There, you never have to bring it up again.

If they dont call it free anymore I wont

Pet peeve of mine I guess. Especially when people love these "free" services because it doesnt cost them anything directly. Sometimes not even indirectly. For example most of the Medicare/Medicaid recipients in the US are net tax receivers, they receive more in government benefits than they pay out in taxes. Some of this cant be avoided, but throwing that term "free" around makes it more acceptable.

But I have a few more questions for the OP too.

Basically the way I read it, you want to deny services to someone based on a lifestyle choice, such as smoking. How many other lifestyle choices would you agree to applying your rule to?

All you people with STD's, you chose to have unprotected sex. Your condition is not covered.

All you people that werent wearing seat belts when you got in a wreck, you are not covered.

I could come up with others, but they are as pointless as both of my examples and the OPs two examples.

[LoZz]

well it depends how much of your tax goes on NHS and how many times you use, obviously your tax is based on income not how much you use it, so i imagen those very poor people who a seriously ill proberly get out more then they put in, so in theory some/most of what they get is "free"

[Mythos]

Basically the way I read it, you want to deny services to someone based on a lifestyle choice, such as smoking.

I don't want to bring the whole private or public healthcare thing up but in the US HMOs deny healthcare for someone with a preexisting condition, something you can't even change.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I don't want to bring the whole private or public healthcare thing up but in the US HMOs deny healthcare for someone with a preexisting condition, something you can't even change.

There are cases where that does happen, but a lot of times those conditions are limited to conditions caused by someone getting injured at work and their previous workmans comp is expected to cover it.

Also when HIPPA passed there were limits placed on what could and could not be done with pre-existing conditions:

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, was passed on July 1, 1997. While this act involves many aspects of health care, it has had a profound effect on the availability of health care in the United States. Thanks to HIPAA, there are rules limiting the maximum length of time a pre-existing exclusion can be applied in a group plan, and there are even ways in which you can reduce or eliminate this exclusion period altogether. Under the HIPAA guidelines, the maximum amount of time that you have to wait in order to get coverage for your pre-existing condition cannot exceed 12 months, or 18 months for late enrollees.

[Cliomhdubh]

well in ireland we are heavily taxed on cigarretts to make up for the associated health problems

[Big War Bird]

The NHS already does some of what you ask, pretender, and certainly is moving in your direction. Already the obese are denied certain treatments, and smokers can expected to be permanently placed at the end of waiting lists for transplant surgery.

The bristish government operates a system it knows cannot treat all of its citizens effectively and each passing year it becomes less so. Some would like to deny this so they come up with this convienient excuse. Those that live unhealthy (generally fatties and chimneys) are bringing ruin upon themselves so to punish them and their lifestyle they should be denied treatment. Advocates for he the great and wonderful NHS will never admit the real reason - cost. To admit that would expose the NHS for what it is - a promise not kept, a convenent broken, a hoax, a swindle, a grand fraud.

[LoZz]

The NHS already does some of what you ask, pretender, and certainly is moving in your direction. Already the obese are denied certain treatments, and smokers can expected to be permanently placed at the end of waiting lists for transplant surgery.

The bristish government operates a system it knows cannot treat all of its citizens effectively and each passing year it becomes less so. Some would like to deny this so they come up with this convienient excuse. Those that live unhealthy (generally fatties and chimneys) are bringing ruin upon themselves so to punish them and their lifestyle they should be denied treatment. Advocates for he the great and wonderful NHS will never admit the real reason - cost. To admit that would expose the NHS for what it is - a promise not kept, a convenent broken, a hoax, a swindle, a grand fraud.

BWB how many threads must you be proved wrong on this view point before you give over?

fat people are refused certain treatments because there weight makes it to dangerious (such as surgery) this is a common practice that happens all over the world, includeing in your private system.

smokeing and extra weight cause health problems, the NHS is about prevention as much as cure. therefor them telling people to stop smoking or lose weight is perfectly reasonable.

organ donations are done on a priority bases. and sadly there are never enough organs to go around. so its only fair that those who need a lung transplant threw no fault of there own are put ahead of those who choose to ruin there health and lungs by smoking.

everything else you say, is pure fantisy, it doesnt refuse people treatment due to life style choices. it doesnt refuse anyone on the grounds of cost. your talking rubbish to be frank, and i think i know more about my health system then you do.

health in the uk is improveing, as is treatment, cancer survival rates are going up, and its why the average brit lives longer then the average american. the idea that the british government cant treat everyone and each year the situation is getting worse is laughable and it did make me chuckle a little bit. you seem to know nothing on the NHS if you belive what you just said.

[Big War Bird]

BWB how many threads must you be proved wrong on this view point before you give over?

fat people are refused certain treatments because there weight makes it to dangerious (such as surgery) this is a common practice that happens all over the world, includeing in your private system.

smokeing and extra weight cause health problems, the NHS is about prevention as much as cure. therefor them telling people to stop smoking or lose weight is perfectly reasonable.

organ donations are done on a priority bases. and sadly there are never enough organs to go around. so its only fair that those who need a lung transplant threw no fault of there own are put ahead of those who choose to ruin there health and lungs by smoking.

everything else you say, is pure fantisy, it doesnt refuse people treatment due to life style choices. it doesnt refuse anyone on the grounds of cost. your talking rubbish to be frank, and i think i know more about my health system then you do.

health in the uk is improveing, as is treatment, cancer survival rates are going up, and its why the average brit lives longer then the average american. the idea that the british government cant treat everyone and each year the situation is getting worse is laughable and it did make me chuckle a little bit. you seem to know nothing on the NHS if you belive what you just said.

Exhibit A on just how successful the fraud is. I have shown numerous examples of how the NHS limits access to control costs yet there are those that continue to believe the thoroughly disproved excuses given by government apologists.

[Ramashan]

Although I have issues with the fact that I am a healthy active person and have to work hard to pay my rent and bills while I do have several friends whose life style has gained them a monthly 'salary' because they have lung, liver, and weight issues. I have to keep it in the back of my mind that they didn't wish for such a hand out and that I would rather be healthy than not. Also, that if I need health care, I can get it.

I do think in the US, it needs to be more universal, and because of this I have no problems with a 'sin tax'. To me, if the statistics show those who smoke, drink heavily, and eat certain foods are more likely to have to use the health care beyond what they pay into it, then the the tax is justified.

But as far as I know, countries with a national health care system do tend to pay higher taxes then those without. So, as grneyeddvl said, nothing is free.

Bottom line, you can't make something 'national' or 'universal' and then exclude people from it. But you can make those who use it more because of adverse life style choices pay for it more in other ways such as 'sin taxs' as some would call it.

[Kiljan Arslan]

LOL!