View comments by: Most Recent - first / last | Most Popular - first / last | Replies - hide / show

Should smokers, drinkers, drug users and obese people be charged to see the doctor?

It 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?


Created By on 27/06/2016

Not 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!

jugsy
29th Jun 2016 15:01:25
1
Thanks for voting!
No not at all. It just would not work and it would split society.
Education is the only way to help with these issues. If someone decides to abuse themselves there should be more help for them not less.
marjorie56
29th Jun 2016 14:45:36 (Last activity: 29th Jun 2016 14:54:32)
0
Thanks for voting!
drug user certainly,they were given free syringes before diabetics,drinkers and smokers,well they should be encouraged to pack in,and if they refuse to try well yes xx
Response from jeanmark made on 29th Jun 2016 14:54:32
That's a little naive, drug users were given free syringes and needles to help prevent the spread of blood borne diseases.
MrsH.
28th Jun 2016 15:06:13 (Last activity: 29th Jun 2016 12:16:56)
2
Thanks for voting!
Again, I agree with "jeanmark". And, we who are fortunate have a responsibility toward those less fortunate. Encouraging a better healthstyle choice is our responsibility thus enabling those less fortunate to make their own good health choices& take responsibility for themselves. Without the tools they cannot, just as we the more fortunate would be less able, if we did not have the tools. Celtwitch, no man is an island - we all need other people in our lives as human beings. That way, if something breaks , we help each other to heal.
Response from celtwitch Original Poster made on 28th Jun 2016 15:32:40
"Celtwitch, no man is an island " That is, unless his name is Madagascar!
Response from MrsH. made on 28th Jun 2016 16:03:45
Is Madagascar a smoker, a drinker or an addict of substance!
Response from jeanmark made on 29th Jun 2016 12:16:56
Well put MrsH.
Pam1960
27th Jun 2016 15:37:33 (Last activity: 29th Jun 2016 11:29:15)
3
Thanks for voting!
I would charge people who turn up at A&E when it isn't an emergency
Response from celtwitch Original Poster made on 28th Jun 2016 08:25:40
Trage separates the genuine from the neurotic, so the doctors can concentrate on real emergencies.
Response from Pam1960 made on 28th Jun 2016 09:47:39
With the extra £350 million a week promised by the leave campaign non of this is going to be an issue
Response from jeanmark made on 28th Jun 2016 13:40:59
Celtwitch triage separates the urgent from the non-urgent but agree too many people will use emergency and trauma units instead of waiting for a GP appointment. This puts additional pressure on services that are trying to meet a 4 hour government set target.
Response from Pam1960 made on 29th Jun 2016 07:03:07
Our local hospital the QMC in Nottingham has recently been requesting that only urgent cases go to A&E as the numbers turning up had doubled from 250 to 500 per day. Doctors and Nurses do a fantastic job in a very pressurised environment but it would help if patients did not take advantage. When people say they cannot get an appointment with their GP they should turn up at the surgery first thing and wait. There are always cancellations and no shows. Coming back to charging smokers, I would be more inclined to charge the Friday and Saturday night binge drinkers who not only cost the NHS more but also the Police. I doubt the smokers are overall not as abusive or threatening as the drunks
Response from celtwitch Original Poster made on 29th Jun 2016 11:29:15
My original question was 'Should smokers, drinkers, drug users and obese people be charged to see the doctor?' Weekend bingers fall into that group, so thank you for agreeing on that.
carlakins
29th Jun 2016 08:24:47 (Last activity: 29th Jun 2016 09:46:38)
2
Thanks for voting!
I disagree. I am overweight at 13s, but if I have a medical issue my weight may have little to do with it. Each time I go to the doctor he would have to either make a judgement on how much my weight had to do with the problem or have an arbitrary charge for everyone who has a BMI over eg 30.
Response from celtwitch Original Poster made on 29th Jun 2016 09:46:38
Or, he could suggest a diet and eating plan for you, couldn't he?
[deleted]
28th Jun 2016 13:47:51 (Last activity: 28th Jun 2016 14:06:06)
1
Thanks for voting!
[deleted]
Response from jeanmark made on 28th Jun 2016 14:06:06
Agree with you ford focus but then I worked those good old days when people wouldn't dare not turn up for an appointment. As for the 4 hour wait, you can't admit in the front door, if the back door is closed!
bluemoon239
28th Jun 2016 09:21:22 (Last activity: 28th Jun 2016 13:49:35)
0
Thanks for voting!
That should cover just about most of the patients ! No, really I think people should be treated and helped to change lifestyle. I stopped smoking 3 years ago and feel much better and healthier . Now I've decided to join a gym and lose some weight, collected my trainers and pants yesterday. I think people need more information about the benefits of getting rid of bad habits be that cigarettes, alcohol or food.
Response from jeanmark made on 28th Jun 2016 13:49:35
I think there is plenty of information its persuading people to change that's the challenge.
Pam1960
27th Jun 2016 15:41:40 (Last activity: 27th Jun 2016 20:39:57)
2
Thanks for voting!
I would also charge the people who take up the appointments to see a GP when they can purchase over the counter remedies from the Pharmacy. What is wrong with people that they would want to waste time sitting in the doctors waiting room where they are likely to pick up all sorts of viruses when they only have a cold.
Response from celtwitch Original Poster made on 27th Jun 2016 19:59:55
A chat with a pharmacist is a poor substitute for a consultation with your doctor. I have spoken to pharmacists in the past but have never yet been sold something that actually made me better.
If you are worried about your health, then you need to see your GP, that's what they are there for, and that's what we pay them for.
Response from jeanmark made on 27th Jun 2016 20:39:57
I don't agree, a chat with a pharmacist, whose training is on par with a doctors, can often prevent a visit to the doctor depending on what you are asking. Any competent pharmacist will tell you when you should seek medical advice.
jeanmark
27th Jun 2016 19:29:35 (Last activity: 27th Jun 2016 20:35:06)
1
Thanks for voting!
Smokers pay so much tax on their cigarettes they probably already pay for their care, why only pick on certain people in society when a number of life styles can contribute to the need to see a doctor or use NHS facilities. If we use life styles as a marker for charging where do we stop? How do you define drug users or would you discriminate here as well?
Response from celtwitch Original Poster made on 27th Jun 2016 19:55:00
If we take smokers, as an example, and their contribution to the exchequer, the figures look something like this.
A 40 a day habit will cost approximately £14.00 per day, or £98.00 per week, which works out at around £5,000 per annum (think what you could do with that dough!)
Multiply that by say, 50 years and you have a figure of £50,000. But, that's at today's prices and current rate of Vat and duty. The true 50 year figure will be much less.
When the smoker is struck down by lung cancer and lingers for several years in pain, unable to work, needing oxygen therapy 24? and the services of carers, then the ££££'s start to stack up.
If a lung transplant is tried, that could cost £30,000 and then the ongoing cost of anti-rejection drugs add significantly to the overall costs of treating just ONE silly smoker, and there are MILLIONS of them in the UK.
Smokers, drinkers and the obese will never be able to say, in truth and honesty, that their taxes entitles them to free treatment when their habits have made them morbidly ill.
Response from celtwitch Original Poster made on 27th Jun 2016 20:03:18
Sorry, that should be £250,000 not £50,000 but I did say that the figure is at today's pries.
50 years ago fags were dirt cheap and the tax on them tiny.
Response from jeanmark made on 27th Jun 2016 20:35:06
But they often die earlier which means they no longer draw a state pension. If someone develops a smoke related disease but has never smoked should we charge them as well if it is found they lived with a smoker? My point is a number of diseases are potentially preventable and can be attributed to life style so where do you draw the line. Why discriminate against some and not others?
Page 4 of 4

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!