Should smokers, drinkers, drug users and obese people be charged to see the doctor?
Watch this postIt seems reasonable to me, after all, they consume a very large chunk of the NHS budget, so I think it's entirely appropriate that they stump up for their treatment. What do you think?
Log in to comment
You need to be logged in to interact with Silversurfers. Please use the button below if you already have an account.
LoginNot a member?
You need to be a member to interact with Silversurfers. Joining is free and simple to do. Click the button below to join today!
Join- « Previous
1
2
3
4
Next »
Community Terms & Conditions
Content standards
These content standards apply to any and all material which you contribute to our site (contributions), and to any interactive services associated with it.
You must comply with the spirit of the following standards as well as the letter. The standards apply to each part of any contribution as well as to its whole.
Contributions must:
be accurate (where they state facts); be genuinely held (where they state opinions); and comply with applicable law in the UK and in any country from which they are posted.
Contributions must not:
contain any material which is defamatory of any person; or contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory; or promote sexually explicit material; or promote violence; promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age; or infringe any copyright, database right or trade mark of any other person; or be likely to deceive any person; or be made in breach of any legal duty owed to a third party, such as a contractual duty or a duty of confidence; or promote any illegal activity; or be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; or be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person; or be used to impersonate any person, or to misrepresent your identity or affiliation with any person; or give the impression that they emanate from us, if this is not the case; or advocate, promote or assist any unlawful act such as (by way of example only) copyright infringement or computer misuse.
Nurturing a safe environment
Our Silversurfers community is designed to foster friendships, based on trust, honesty, integrity and loyalty and is underpinned by these values.
We don't tolerate swearing, and reserve the right to remove any posts which we feel may offend others... let's keep it friendly!
Eating Disorders - Anorexia/Bulimia and so on ......
people who go into hospital time after time, need help from other bodies, they need support and to find out what the cause is. someone who drinks may have been abused as a child,so we cannot judge everyone the same some people cannot deal with loss a lot of people need after support to help yes some people don't want help and are beyond help.. drinkers and drug users wont care about paying because its an adiction .. some may turn to crime to feed their addiction or to pay for treatment and so crime goes up .. if we don't find the cause we cannot find the cure..
we use money to fight senseless wars to send bombs and guns to other countries to kill each other we build rockets to send to the moon , when we cannot even help people living on this plannet, think of all the many billions that are waisted just in this country alone .. all this money can be used better..
in so many ways to support many people overcome addictions and support many people..
i don't have any figures of the zillions that are waisted on wars, weapons, rockets and many more things .
perhaps those who condemn others for their adictions could help by training to be a counillor and help in their own way ..
love and peace 🙂
I think it's easy to "judge" if you are lucky enough to enjoy good health. If you are not that lucky and have problems that are not your fault perhaps we could wind our necks in and be a tad less judgemental.
that it meet the needs of everyone
that it be free at the point of delivery
that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay
These three principles have guided the development of the NHS over more than 60 years and remain at its core.
If you want to start changing all of this in bits and pieces then get rid of the NHS altogether. Let's go back to the Dark Ages.
The NHS was never envisaged, though, for the world of medicine to become so wonderful it can save lives that previously would have been beyond the realms of medicine. That part is true. But don't make judgements of people based on your narrow opinion of the tiny bit of their lives you maybe can see.
Foreigners are particularly adept at milking our welfare system and many of them top up their benefits with sickness benefits as well.
I've had more than my fair share of NHS treatment and find it difficult to be unbiased in their favour but my last visit late last year made me think. There was so much waste of time and resources, not to mention abilities, so much discord in and between NHS staff, that I realised "that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay" was a double edged sword:
Taking an overview, the country's ability to pay is now in question. There must be a cut off point that balances the individual patient's needs with the individual taxpayers needs, not to mention the individual NHS employee's needs.
Satisfying the needs of unavoidable and or unexpected illness and disability for everyone is a marvellous idea but achieving it without attracting, encouraging and perpetuating would-be abuse is the real-world reality and task in hand. NHS staff have face this reality all the time, they can't afford politician's ideologies.
Like it or not, every need has to be evaluated against every other and resources allotted fairly and affordably. We all take risks with our everyday life choices, we have to face up to risk management and who foots the bill for it. So, for me, the debate is not should needs be assessed against costs but how to do it fairly down to the last penny. Personally, I'm looking after myself a lot more, physically and mentally, and enjoying it.
The nett value of the unholy quartets contribution is probably minimal, and in some cases negative.
Most cancers are indeed costing the NHS a fortune, but almost all cancers are preventable!
My question can be broadened out to include all risky behaviours, from smoking, which is the height of stupidity, to sky diving. If there is even a small chance that it will cause you serious injury, or ill health the risk taker should buy appropriate insurance.
I am not discriminating against anyone, I'm merely asking pertinent questions in the best spirit of debate.
But being self - righteous when judging whether someone else makes poor decisions is not where I want to go, and not a country I want to live in.
There will always be people who take advantage, and people who despite help offered, continue to make poor decisions, but that is true no matter what we do, and it is true on all levels of life, social status or income, yet somehow it is deemed ok to interfere with those on the lower ends of social strata. Leave people alone to decide how to run their own lives and free to make their own errors but have a system that helps when it can.
When I was a climber and caver I took out critical injury insurance.
'I have paid my taxes, therefore I'm entitled' (to treatment that might span decades and cost hundreds of thousands) they wail, like petulant school children.
I don't smoke, I have never done drugs and the amount of alcohol that I consume annually is unlikely to do me any harm.
Many years ago I earned my crust as an outdoor pursuits instructor, I was vary aware that a fall could either kill me, or disable me for life, so I took out critical injury insurance.
Shouldn't people who take risks with their health do the same?
If they can afford cigarettes, liquor, drugs or take-aways, surely a few quid for insurance would be money well spent.
I think that perhaps you have spent too many years molly-coddling people who are responsible for the hell they have made for themselves?
It would reduce the number of unnecessary visits to the GP and also lessen the load on A&E staff. We pay for our food at home, so why not in hospital, and it might improve if we are paying for it?
Okay, start shouting me down!
I certainly think we should pay for our food while in hospital, we would have to pay for it if we were at home. They could have menus like a restaurant. Or, the choice for a relative to bring food in if you didn't want to pay for the hospital food. The hospital catering should offer more choice than it does at present.
I do not think we should pay to visit the Doctor. However, I do think we should be charged £5 if we miss an appointment without cancelling it first.
Should they be charged for wasting our time?
However, I have smoked for 40 years and paid 35% (at least) in tax to the Treasury from each packet........and I still say 'hell mend me - I have known the dangers of smoking for years and still kept at it' (I also took and still take a drink and pay tax on every bottle of alcohol too) - so despite a lifetime of multiple contributions I won't penalise others or use fragile NHS budgets for something I might have avoided.
Sad to say I find celtwitch comment rather judgemental and cloistered ....... many cases of addiction/dependence I have come across could actually be defined as 'coping mechanisms' eg The lady who has 2 disabled children and very little assistance, choses not to take the tranquilizer meds prescribed - but depends on a bottle of wine to help her sleep; or the lonely widower who goes for a pub lunch and stays on for the sake of company - but keeps drinking to be 'social'.
But for the grace of God.......
.
Celtwitch, I still wouldn't target specific people because of their lifestyle!
.
By 'take drugs' I assume you mean those people who use illegal substances? If not a large number of us are going to have to pay for treatment because we 'take drugs' a number of which can cause side effects that require treatment. We do have a choice of course, we don't have to take a prescribed drug!