License To Kill???

[Cinderella's Shoe]

I see the government are considering having a £10 permit to smoke which you'd need before being allowed to buy tobacco.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7247470.stm

Once all that bad smoking and drinking kills the majority of us, how are they going to manage to raise the taxes to ruin the country?

[Apologies for the typo that should read run the country. Shouldn't it?]

[northener]

How about the NHS refusing to fund treatment for those who can have their illness directly linked to smoking or alchohol abuse?

Would save us millions and get the medical insurance companies rubbing their hands with glee:D

.

[Cinderella's Shoe]

So if you have a smoking permit, no NHS cancer treatment? That's not a bad idea, but I do think it may force smokers to use illegal tobacco sources.

[Riffman]

So if you have a smoking permit, no NHS cancer treatment? That's not a bad idea, but I do think it may force smokers to continue using illegal tobacco sources.

[unicorn]

so if you pay a license and get no free treatment then all those taxes and duties should be taken off tobacco which should make cigarettes about £1 a pack. It would be cheaper then to pay for private medical insurance, that sounds like a great deal and the NHS can be funded elsewhere. I wonder where the government would make their money then?

[TBH]

Does the cost of treating diseases directly linked to smoking outweigh the revenues the government makes from taxing tobacco companies?

[matelot79]

Forest spokesman Simon Clark said that when the cost of administration, extra bureaucracy and enforcement are taken into account, "the mind boggles".

So how many more civil servants would that be on final salary pension schemes.

[orkneylass]

Does the cost of treating diseases directly linked to smoking outweigh the revenues the government makes from taxing tobacco companies?

No - quite the opposite. Tax revenues from tobacco are around 9 times the cost of treating smoking related diseases. Even taking other costs into consideration, like benefits and social care costs for people incapacitated by smoking related diseases, the government is still in massive profit. In other words, the government is the biggest drug dealer in the country - it gets revenues from alcohol as well. Only a matter of time before they legalise and tax all recreational drugs surely...?

[I'm da Mamma]

I am appalled by this post. I have found this stat:

In fact, when you compare tobacco tax revenues with the alleged cost of health treatment, the former far outweighs the latter. In the UK, for example, tobacco tax revenue currently stands at £7 billion a year compared with the £1.5 billion it allegedly costs to tackle 'smoking-related' diseases. (Taxation revenue should of course be even higher - over £10 billion - but the Government has cleverly 'lost' £3 billion by over taxing tobacco and therefore encouraging smugglers and cross-Channel shoppers to buy the product abroad.)

Where do you draw the line when treating the ill. If a gay man has aids do you not treat him? Should over-weight people not get help for heart problems? My goodness there are some narrow minded people about!

[TBH]

No - quite the opposite. Tax revenues from tobacco are around 9 times the cost of treating smoking related diseases. Even taking other costs into consideration, like benefits and social care costs for people incapacitated by smoking related diseases, the government is still in massive profit. In other words, the government is the biggest drug dealer in the country - it gets revenues from alcohol as well. Only a matter of time before they legalise and tax all recreational drugs surely...?The Government seem to be willing to give up this cash cow. I cannot figure them out, they are twisting my melon.:confused

[Cedric Farthsbottom III]

I smoke cos I want to smoke.I go into the kitchen to take the smoke oot aw ma families lives.Aw I can say is Tax me,tax me for aw its worth,ye'll not stop me smoking.Its ma life.

[sphinx]

well i have never herd the likes off that 10 quid before u can light up thats a bloody cheek!!!!!!!!!

[ciderally]

who thinks these things up i wonder ....live and let live i say

[balto]

How about the NHS refusing to fund treatment for those who can have their illness directly linked to smoking or alchohol abuse?

Would save us millions and get the medical insurance companies rubbing their hands with glee:D

.
totally agree with this one after all these people has self inflicted illnesses, it may be hard but people that smoke and drink so bad they end up ill should be made to go to the back of the q and let the worthy cases to the front, sorry if this upsets anyone but it should be the way it is.

[orkneylass]

totally agree with this one after all these people has self inflicted illnesses, it may be hard but people that smoke and drink so bad they end up ill should be made to go to the back of the q and let the worthy cases to the front, sorry if this upsets anyone but it should be the way it is.

For anyone who feels this way there is a simple solution - ditch the NHS or at least cvhange the way it works so that health insurance pays for treatments. that way, the people whose lifestyles are the most self-destructuve pay the highest insurance premiums. It works in lots of other countries.

[unicorn]

and the heroin addicts should be stopped given methadone but they are not. People who drive dangerously and end up in hospital because of it should also not be treated then. People who climb mountains in terrible conditions and need hospital treatment should not be treated then. A man on a ladder with nobody holding it and falls off should he also be excluded for his stupidity? the list is endless.

[highlander]

So are you saying if a smoker stopped years ago, and then developed a serious illness, they should also stand at the back of the queue because it was a smoke related illness?

[golach]

totally agree with this one after all these people has self inflicted illnesses, it may be hard but people that smoke and drink so bad they end up ill should be made to go to the back of the q and let the worthy cases to the front, sorry if this upsets anyone but it should be the way it is.

So let me get this right, if someone contracts a illness attributed to smoking, they should not be treated? Hmm what if the illness was contracted through passive smoking, therefore no fault of theirs.:eek:

[Cinderella's Shoe]

So let me get this right, if someone contracts a illness attributed to smoking, they should not be treated? Hmm what if the illness was contracted through passive smoking, therefore no fault of theirs.:eek:

Excellent point - and how can you differentiate between the two in order to make a case for treatment? I think the sentiment of "self inflicted - no sympathy - back of the queue" has some merit, but in reality, its never going to happen for a large variety of reasons. It would most likely cause more problems than it could ever solve.

[orkneylass]

and the heroin addicts should be stopped given methadone but they are not. People who drive dangerously and end up in hospital because of it should also not be treated then. People who climb mountains in terrible conditions and need hospital treatment should not be treated then. A man on a ladder with nobody holding it and falls off should he also be excluded for his stupidity? the list is endless.

there is a difference between accidents and a chosen behaviour. Dangerous drivers are penalised - they pay higher insurance premiums. And as it happens, I think people whi have yo be rescued from mountains due to their own stupidity should pay something towards the costs.

[EDDIE]

I smoke cos I want to smoke.I go into the kitchen to take the smoke oot aw ma families lives.Aw I can say is Tax me,tax me for aw its worth,ye'll not stop me smoking.Its ma life.

I would disagree with u on that one u just think u have a choice whether to smoke or not the reality of it is your like me your addicted to smoking make no mistake about it its only when you try stopping is when u relise how much a hold ciggarettes have on you and the only way the government is going to get more people to stop smoking is to make smoking more hasstle than its worth i just wish they would band faggs altogether from the country so people like me that have not got a lot of will power will have no choice but to stop.

Cedric you are addicted to smoking and if u dont believe me then just u try stop smoking and see how long u last?

[EDDIE]

How about the NHS refusing to fund treatment for those who can have their illness directly linked to smoking or alchohol abuse?

Would save us millions and get the medical insurance companies rubbing their hands with glee:D

.

if the nhs is allowed to start refusing treament to self inflicted illness whether its related to smoking drinking drugs or over eating it will be a sad day in the nhs system.
No matter how much people moan about the nhs its still the best system in the world who treat everyone no matter who they are or were they came from and thats something they shouldnt change thats what makes a great.
The government can make an impact on peoples health without changing the nhs for kick off they could band fags,have more strict rules on food manufactures tax alcohol a lot higher this is all things that the government should be doing tackling the source of the problem rather than picking on the individual person

[balto]

So let me get this right, if someone contracts a illness attributed to smoking, they should not be treated? Hmm what if the illness was contracted through passive smoking, therefore no fault of theirs.:eek:
that is totally different of course people who end up with these dreadfull illnesses through passive smoking deserve to get treatment.

[orkneylass]

if the nhs is allowed to start refusing treament to self inflicted illness whether its related to smoking drinking drugs or over eating it will be a sad day in the nhs system.
No matter how much people moan about the nhs its still the best system in the world who treat everyone no matter who they are or were they came from and thats something they shouldnt change thats what makes a great.
The government can make an impact on peoples health without changing the nhs for kick off they could band fags,have more strict rules on food manufactures tax alcohol a lot higher this is all things that the government should be doing tackling the source of the problem rather than picking on the individual person

NHS the best system in the world? You have got to be joking - we are ranked way down against European systems, somewhere with those from former eastern block countries. When is this sacred cow myth going to be put to rest? France has the best healthcare.

[scotsboy]

NHS the best system in the world? You have got to be joking - we are ranked way down against European systems, somewhere with those from former eastern block countries. When is this sacred cow myth going to be put to rest? France has the best healthcare.

Really?? They smoke a lot in France as well!

[scotsboy]

Just did a wee Google on this and it appears that Austria currently tops the Euro Health Care Charts:

http://www.ehealtheurope.net/News/3084/austria_named_best_healthcare_system_in_the_eu

The UK is bubbling under at 17.

[EDDIE]

NHS the best system in the world? You have got to be joking - we are ranked way down against European systems, somewhere with those from former eastern block countries. When is this sacred cow myth going to be put to rest? France has the best healthcare.

well if u go to some other countrys were u have to pay or take out insurance to cover your health thats ok if u can afford alot of people cant afford it or for some peoplehave other problems whether there poor or homeless addiction problems and so on there health doesnt stand much chance in systems like that were the nhs will treat anybody at no extra cost the way it should be thats what makes the nhs so good i bet you there is lot of people in other countrys what would love to have a nhs system.
U get people in the uk that moan about anything in life and they fail to relise that were like millionares compared to other countrys.

[Penelope Pitstop]

Personally I'd like to have my own health insurance and not rely on the NHS. That way when I get ill I can get seen quicker and not have to wait months on an NHS waiting list to be seem by some consultant who then puts you on another waithing list....and on it goes.:confused

I wish you didn't have to pay National Insurance contribuitons if you had your own health insurance in place....or at least a drastically reduced NI contribution. For what I pay in NI contributions every month I could have a damn good health insurance. But I'll just keep on dreaming 'cause this will never happen.

With more economically poorer countries joining the EU and folk migrating here from them to take advantage of our very generous welfare system the NHS (to name but one) situation is only going to get worse.

A couple of weeks ago there was a report on TV that was talking about overstretching of maternity services in and around London (London being the example they were using), it said that 1 in 5 births were to foreign mothers, problems arising from this were language problems - interpreters required, etc....

Doesn't matter how you look at it...there are so many hands in my pocket in this country.:~(

[badger]

Isn't there a compromise on this "to treat or not to treat"? There have been many cases where hospitals have warned patients that treatment will either not work well or, in the case of surgery, could even be fatal if they don't lose weight or stop smoking/drinking or whatever. I don't see how we can go down the road of not treating people initially because of their lifestyle, but if they are warned that that lifestyle will affect their treatment and they ignore this advice, why should treatment be wasted?

The classic case was George Best who wasted a liver that could have saved someone else's life because he wouldn't (couldn't ?) stop drinking. If you have lung cancer and continue to smoke that's your choice but don't expect treatment. If you need a heart operation and are seriously obese but won't diet, same thing applies. Surely that's commonsense?

With all its faults, I wouldn't want to lose the NHS. There would always be people who couldn't pay for private insurance, as in the US, and it does give everyone a basic safety net. The rich can still have private treatment if they want it

[Penelope Pitstop]

With all its faults, I wouldn't want to lose the NHS. There would always be people who couldn't pay for private insurance, as in the US, and it does give everyone a basic safety net. The rich can still have private treatment if they want it


No doubt the rich can and do afford to have private treatment....but what about the rest of us hard working mortals who can't!!

I don't see why if I was to take out my own private health insurance I should not get a reduction in the NI that I pay. To pay both just isn't right[disgust]....but then there's alot of things not right about this country!!

BTW, I agree if someone needs treatment but won't stop smoking, loose weight, stop drinking, etc I don't think they deserve much help if they aren't willing to help themself.

[j4bberw0ck]

How about the NHS refusing to fund treatment for those who can have their illness directly linked to smoking or alchohol abuse?

Would save us millions and get the medical insurance companies rubbing their hands with glee:D.

Come off it, northerner. Taxes on tobacco and alcohol raise vastly more than the cost of treating users.

And where do you draw the line? Think of poor old Roy Castle. Made a fortune out of performing in working men's clubs and social; clubs all round the country. Dies of lung cancer; popular opinion - victim of secondary smoking.

Perhaps he should have been refused NHS treatment because he chose to carry on working the clubs even after the risk was known?

As for the idea of having a permit - typical of the incredible stupidity of this Government. They keep saying that the smoking ban has reduced tobacco consumption. They keep saying that raising taxes has cut smoking; it's complete and utter hogwash. Next time you see someone rolling up, check out the tobacco pack - it'll be an import. Simple fact is that people now import tobacco and alcohol from France, and many buy it illegally knowing it's illegal. Stupid taxes, easily got round.

And just going back for a moment to people bringing things on themselves; northerner, do you think people who drive fast cars or motorbikes should be refused NHS treatment? And should people who have a genetic predisposition to illness be sterilised by law? And what about soldiers injured on active duty? They volunteered, didn't they? The hell with them, then.

It's a difficult case to argue. Especially if it was your teenage kid who ended up on a stomach pump.

[j4bberw0ck]

I don't see why if I was to take out my own private health insurance I should not get a reduction in the NI that I pay. To pay both just isn't right[disgust]....but then there's alot of things not right about this country!!

It's sometimes said that you pay for medical care three times in this country; once in your taxes, once in charitable donations to buy pieces of equipment or services which the NHS "can't afford", and once in private medical treatment abroad when the NHS can't or won't help you.

And yes, why shouldn't an individual be able to opt out and not pay the taxes? The NHS costs "an average family" £3,780 a year in taxes, except of course many families don't pay that much in tax so the burden falls elsewhere - which is to say, on other people.

Why shouldn't the woman whose case was heavily publicised recently, be able to spend her savings on a breast cancer drug her own NHS Trust won't prescribe on cost grounds? Why should that exclude her from any care by the NHS? It's a scandal.


BTW, I agree if someone needs treatment but won't stop smoking, loose weight, stop drinking, etc I don't think they deserve much help if they aren't willing to help themself.The Government spends billions a year trying to persuade us all to exercise more, not smoke, drink less, eat better. And it fails dismally, every time. How much better, at least in principle, to have compulsory private health insurance that in return for "standard" premiums covering people with preexisting conditions offered reductions in premiums for non-smokers, people who exercise, people who aren't obese.

[mccaugm]

I am appalled by this post. I have found this stat:

In fact, when you compare tobacco tax revenues with the alleged cost of health treatment, the former far outweighs the latter. In the UK, for example, tobacco tax revenue currently stands at £7 billion a year compared with the £1.5 billion it allegedly costs to tackle 'smoking-related' diseases. (Taxation revenue should of course be even higher - over £10 billion - but the Government has cleverly 'lost' £3 billion by over taxing tobacco and therefore encouraging smugglers and cross-Channel shoppers to buy the product abroad.)

Where do you draw the line when treating the ill. If a gay man has aids do you not treat him? Should over-weight people not get help for heart problems? My goodness there are some narrow minded people about!

A gay person does not choose to be gay but a smoker chooses to smoke. There is no point in saying its an addiction, they took the first cigarette knowing full well it was addictive. They then expect the NHS to help them when they get a smoking related illness. You cannot have it both ways!

[TBH]

Come off it, northerner. Taxes on tobacco and alcohol raise vastly more than the cost of treating users.

And where do you draw the line? Think of poor old Roy Castle. Made a fortune out of performing in working men's clubs and social; clubs all round the country. Dies of lung cancer; popular opinion - victim of secondary smoking.

Perhaps he should have been refused NHS treatment because he chose to carry on working the clubs even after the risk was known?

As for the idea of having a permit - typical of the incredible stupidity of this Government. They keep saying that the smoking ban has reduced tobacco consumption. They keep saying that raising taxes has cut smoking; it's complete and utter hogwash. Next time you see someone rolling up, check out the tobacco pack - it'll be an import. Simple fact is that people now import tobacco and alcohol from France, and many buy it illegally knowing it's illegal. Stupid taxes, easily got round.

And just going back for a moment to people bringing things on themselves; northerner, do you think people who drive fast cars or motorbikes should be refused NHS treatment? And should people who have a genetic predisposition to illness be sterilised by law? And what about soldiers injured on active duty? They volunteered, didn't they? The hell with them, then.

It's a difficult case to argue. Especially if it was your teenage kid who ended up on a stomach pump.Totally agree Jabberwock, there is a black market now operating which our 'enlightened' government are responsible for creating.

[TBH]

A gay person does not choose to be gay but a smoker chooses to smoke. There is no point in saying its an addiction, they took the first cigarette knowing full well it was addictive. They then expect the NHS to help them when they get a smoking related illness. You cannot have it both ways!Do the taxes that a smoker pays not entitle them to treatment? By your logic, smokers know the risks of smoking, fair enough. Homosexuals don't choose to be gay, fair enough. Your argument loses credence when you consider the amount of information there is now about aids. So by your logic homosexuals should not get treatment for aids because they are well informed about the dangers of unprotected sex. You reckon there is a difference between smokers knowing the danger of smoking and homos knowing the dangers of aids?:roll: