Shard

That is an extremely good point !!

Editha

I agree. The reason the NHS has a funding crisis is because of the ageing population, not the obese or smokers, who, as you say, die young anyway.

I have a cousin who has had a very difficult life. He is obese, which is undoubtedly related to the stresses he has experienced. It would be horrible if he was refused a knee operation, for example, because of his weight problem. And I think it would be very unfair.

Giantaxe

Dying younger doesn't necessarily mean they incur less healthcare costs. Smokers, for example, can have decades of smoking-related ailments before they die. Ditto with obesity making long-term diabetes much more likely.

And the other factor is that those with long-term smking or obesity-related ailments are more likely to be economically unproductive during their working years, and thus contributing less in taxes than their healthier brethren.

I do think it's a very slippery slope to go down.

Editha

I've looked up the figures for smoking. The greatest estimate for the cost of smoking to the NHS that I can find, is £5 billion.

But, this figure does appear to be a simple calculation for the cost of all smoking related ill health, with no adjustment made for the treatment smokers would need for the other chronic illnesses they would suffer in old age if they lived longer.

Moreover, the taxes on tobacco, both duties and VAT, total more than £12 billion.

So on the logic that says people who cost more should pay more, smokers should not be denied hospital treatment, they should go to the top of the list!

Shard

It does seem to me that singling out specific disease causes and penalising such patients through fees is a sure route to an eventual carving up of the NHS and making healthcare insurance-based. It should be free to all eligible, with perhaps some provisions to discourage abuse (such as chronic drunks, inappropriate 999, etc).

formula

That's just the cost to the NHS only, and just for themselves. Passive smoking cost the NHS too. The cost to society that smokers cause, is still greater than the money the government takes in taxes for tobacco.

Back in 2010, it was estimated that each cigarrete smoked, cost the taxpayers 6.5p. Back in 2010, although tobacco brought in 10 billion a year to the treasury, smokers cost the treasury nearly 14 billion a year. You can add the cost to the DWP department, to that figure.

"That total includes £2.7 billion of NHS care, £2.9 billion lost in productivity during smoking breaks, the £342 million cost of cleaning up butts and £507 million spent putting out fires.

Lost productivity due to the deaths of smokers and passive smoking victims costs £4.8 billion and £2.9 billion is lost in increased absenteeism"

Every cigarette smoked costs taxpayer 6.5p think tank warns - Telegraph

Editha

Those figures look very disputable to me.

£2.9 million lost in productivity during smoking breaks? I used to smoke and I'm damned certain I wasn't less productive as a worker as a result. Non-smokers take breaks too.

Lost productivity due to the deaths of smokers is a nonsense figure.

That takes £7.6 billion off the smokers' bill, reducing the cost to the economy to less than 7 billion.

formula

It's nothing new. A quick google brought this up from nearly 3 years ago.

It was revealed last week that fat people are being denied some forms of medical treatment. So are smokers and those who are addicted to alcohol.
Moral judgments about treating smokers or obese patients have no place in the health service - Telegraph

Devon are reducing these too
"The measure include only prescribing one hearing aid, restrictions on shoulder surgery, changes to some medication and changes in a number of services offered."


The NHS is not an never ending source of money.
BBC News - Carwyn Jones criticises Ann Clwyd's attacks on Welsh NHS

Problems remain with NHS finances, warn AMs - Wales Online



"Thousands of elderly patients are needlessly dying because they are being denied treatment on the grounds of their age, a report has found"

"Pensioners are the main group to receive hip and knee replacements but the rates of surgery in England dropped sharply in patients over the age of 70, according to the data which examines the number of operations between 2008 and 2011."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/healt...t-8210908.html

Giantaxe

Why? Anyone who either becomes prematurely disabled or dies prematurely due to smoking related ailments is in effect a net loss to the economy both in terms of foregone productivity and in foregone tax they would otherwise have contributed.

I don't think this is a nonsense figure at all.

formula

They are not allowed to smoke in the office, so it's a 15 minute break for each ciggie. Some firms insist they make up all that lost time.

bigglesworth

But chronic over-eaters, under-exercisers, and total abstainers should pay more or not be admitted? What about people whose BMI is below 20? After all they have a higher risk of early death than those with a high BMI.

Shard

I didn't suggest that at all.

bigglesworth

Sorry! I did not mean to suggest that you did.
I was simply pointing out the inconsistencies in the present attacks on particular groups. We ALL have health issues of one kind or another. That some Health Authorities are suggesting one group or another should not be treated is, IMV, wholly unethical.

Editha

Smokers lose an average of ten years of life. Average life expectancy of whole population is 81 years, so average life expectancy of smoker is 71 years. How much productivity is lost from people between ages 71 and 81?

Like I said, a nonsense figure.

Shard

Yes, I think we're on the same page there.