|
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by spouse of scouse
(Post 11499589)
If it's cutting or refusing services to people who are 'to blame' for their condition we're talking about, then please include:
People who don't maintain good oral hygiene and subsequently require dental treatment. They should have known better. So yes, the people who eat/drink lots sugary food or/and smoke, increase their risk of gum disease and tooth decay and have to pay more at an NHS dentist. They also have to pay for any dental treatment that isn't covered by the NHS. |
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by spouse of scouse
(Post 11499589)
Lot of talk about the burden smokers and obese people put on the NHS.
If it's cutting or refusing services to people who are 'to blame' for their condition we're talking about, then please include: People who have had a few too many drinks, and subsequently do something stupid and injure themselves. They should have known better. People who don't take the full course of antibiotics prescribed by their GP, and subsequently require further medical care. They should have known better. People who develop high cholesterol due to eating too much of the wrong thing, although they're not obese. They should have known better. People who don't maintain good oral hygiene and subsequently require dental treatment. They should have known better. People who have an increased genetic risk of having a child with a disability, and subsequently give birth to a child with a disability. They should have known better. People who have acquired the HIV virus, by whatever method of transmission. They should have known better. Every bloody person who doesn't rigidly obey every bloody 'rule' about what they should and shouldn't do, and instead just live their lives as best they can, according to their level of intelligence, education and experience. Because, of course, all those people should have known better. By all means explore ways to reduce NHS spending (although you pay people a hell of a lot of money to do just that). For my money, demonizing particular groups isn't the way to do it. |
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by formula
(Post 11499597)
We don't get free dentist treatment on the NHS. We pay for our dentist treament by NHS bands. The more extensive treatment we need, the more we pay. Some treatment isn't covered by the NHS bands, so we pay privately for that. So yes, the people who don't have good oral hygiene, have to pay more.
|
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11499600)
What exactly is your point?
The obese and smokers aren't going to like having further free NHS restrictions put on them, but at least you choose to put unhealthy things in your mouth. Elderly who have paid into the UK all their working lives, miss out on free NHS too and they don't choose to get old.
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11499600)
Are you arguing for a smaller NHS, for example?
|
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by formula
(Post 11499618)
In the example of mine you quoted, I was pointing our that the obese and smokers already pay more for their NHS dental treatment.
The obese and smokers aren't going to like having further free NHS restrictions put on them, but at least you choose to put unhealthy things in your mouth. Elderly who have paid into the UK all their working lives, miss out on free NHS too and they don't choose to get old. Interestingly, the British national health service is the 4th largest employer in the world. Is use to be the third until Walmart bought out Asda. A tiny island employing that many; I think there is room for some middle management fat trimming. Divide and rule is the best way to break the whole thing up. Then that bit you are guarding for yourself will be gone too. |
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 11499621)
In what way do 'elderly miss out on free NHS'?
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 11499621)
Divide and rule is the best way to break the whole thing up. Then that bit you are guarding for yourself will be gone too.
|
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by formula
(Post 11499623)
Read this thread or google.
Does this mean that you have finally realised that the NHS doesn't pay for everything?:rofl: |
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 11499626)
I don't know what you're talking about. In fact I think you're slightly mad.
|
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11499560)
Healthy workers create demand and pay taxes. Those that are disabled (or die) create less demand. The more unhealthy workers we have (for example, due to premature death or disability due to smoking) the less demand there will be in the economy. Your claim was that smoking would only cause a decrease in GDP if there were full employment. That is clearly erroneous. Demand in an economy is not a static thing and an unheathly population will tend to reduce it due to lost productivity.
The more unhealthy workers we have (for example, due to premature death or disability due to smoking) You have forgotten that we are not debating the lost productivity due to sickness caused by smoking. Your think-tank gave a separate figure for the loss of productivity caused by ill health: 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 "No, you really haven't. So I will state again "the closer life expectancy is reduced to retirement age, the more productivity will be lost through death or disability in years that otherwise would be productive and tax-paying." How does the lump of labour fallacy apply to all this? I do not assume there is a lump of labour, but by factoring in loss of productivity caused by death, it seems to me the think-tank is engaging in a lump of labourers fallacy. I guess you missed the "I agree" part of my reply :confused Also note that people who are prematurely disabled due to smoking ailments will have a larger call on public resources such as disability payments in earlier years. So whilst it is true that those that die early will make less demand on the public purse for things such as pensions, you have to factor in their earlier calls on said purse. Incidentally, I'm disputing the think-tanks' logic, but I also question the figures. I looked it up: Around 10,000 people die prematurely from smoking each year, before the age of 65, who would not have died prematurely anyway. On the think-tank's figures each individual death is responsible for the loss of £480 million in productivity. As I said it is a nonsense figure. Sorry about the crap editing on this. Pst my bedtime. |
Re: Future of the NHS
Your post is largely unintelligible - hence I haven't quoted it - but you seem to be basing it on false logic anyway.
The £2.9 billion is the number for increased absenteeism whilst working. It is not a figure for productivity loss for premature disability (i.e. an inability to work) before death. Here are a couple of other studies that peg large figures for increased absenteeism of smoking employees: Smoking employees cost $6,000 a year more, study finds - NBC News http://www.ohscanada.com/health-safe...ys/1002712796/ Note that both studies are focused on absenteeism of employees, not on disability. Here's the complete Policy Exchange report. Not sure why you called it my think-tank seeing it was formula that posted the link to the article about it: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...march%2010.pdf Here's their rationale behind their figures for the cost of smokers dying early: Loss of productive output A loss of output refers to the loss of economic activity that is caused by smokers of working age dying early. We use the human capital approach24 to calculate the expected life time output that would have been realised had each death caused by smoking been avoided. Using this methodology we calculate the loss of productivity to cost £4.1 billion. ... places a monetary value on loss of health as the lost value of economic productivity due to ill health, disability or premature mortality. The one thing that I would question about the report is whether there is overlap between "absenteeism" and the "ill health" component of the human capital approach. However, the two reports on absenteeism that I linked to seem to point the finger at smoking breaks. |
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 11499626)
I don't know what you're talking about. In fact I think you're slightly mad.
|
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 11499626)
I don't know what you're talking about. In fact I think you're slightly mad.
|
Re: Future of the NHS
One guy in our office smokes. He's got the lowest absenteeism in the whole office and always has done in the nearly 21 years I've worked here. He's 44 now though obviously it may be he gets ill when he's older.
|
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by formula
(Post 11499597)
We don't get free dentist treatment on the NHS. We pay for our dentist treament by NHS bands. The more extensive treatment we need, the more we pay. Some treatment isn't covered by the NHS bands, so we pay privately for that.
So yes, the people who eat/drink lots sugary food or/and smoke, increase their risk of gum disease and tooth decay and have to pay more at an NHS dentist. They also have to pay for any dental treatment that isn't covered by the NHS. |
Re: Future of the NHS
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 11499626)
I don't know what you're talking about. In fact I think you're slightly mad.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 2:28 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.