Smokers 'should not get NHS care' (UK)

[salvorhardin]

Smokers 'should not get NHS care'

A quarter of people want the government to ban smokers being treated by the NHS for smoking-related illness, according to a BBC poll.

ICM conducted the phone survey of 1,010 adults in England, Wales and Scotland for the BBC Healthy Britain poll on a range of public health issues.

Some 27% said the government should discourage smoking by introducing the ban while 71% opposed the move.

The survey also found the public wanted to see the legal smoking age raised.

Four out of five people said the age should be changed from 16 to 18 to deter young people from taking up the habit.

<snip>

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/3632080.stm
Published: 2004/09/06 16:52:36 GMT

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Take it a step further.....

And pregnant people shouldn't get prenatal care, overweight people shouldn't get care for heart disease, and people with HepC, HIV, or other STD's shouldn't receive care either.

Some people are just not happy unless they are feeling superior to someone else.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. And don't forget...

care for injuries from "accidents" arising out of stupidity, clumsiness or otherwise one's own damn fault.

[salvorhardin]

5. I found the article interesting

because that's precisely the kind of thing you hear all the time here.

"Well, if someone smokes why should I have to pay for them when they get sick?"
--or--

"Well, if that fat fsck wants to eat theirself into an early grave why should I pay for their healthcare?"

It's idiotic reasoning because I can just as easily say, "Well if 8 million people want to live in a dirty stinking polluted town with bad water and a high murder rate*, why should I pay for their healthcare?"

There's always going to be *some* behavior that's going to be unacceptable to someone somewhere, and let's face it, pretty much every behavior has health consequences down the line. As I see it, the only acceptable healthcare policy is one where every single person is treated with skill and compassion. When everyone has access to healthcare, the whole society wins because on a whole it is a healthier society. This means less sick days at work, a citizenry who enjoy their lives more fully and arguably has positive effects we can not even imagine.

* Please, NYC dwellers. Those are not my thoughts about Gotham, but you wouldn't believe how many times a week I hear similar sentiments where I live.

[anon e mouse]

6. Smoking is not a natural condition...

I had just heard this news story a few minutes ago, i think that they should ban all smoking in ANY public plsce including outside as a person allergic to tobbaco smoke i find it almost impossible to go to any social event because of all the d### smokers, the other step is ENFORCE the laws already in place. i was at the hospital where there is a large sign saying that smoking is prohibited w/in 25 feet and the local idiots walked up to the door smoking. no one was there to stop them. what good is the law if it isn't enforced

[icehouse]

7. Smoking is not a natural condition...

Agreed. Smoking should be banned in public all together. If people want to smoke they can do it in the privacy of there own home. I can not stand being around any smokers. My allergies are already fragile with out having smoking aggrevate them even more.

My first post. I just know I am going to fit in here.

Viva La Kerry

[Occulus]

15. and since landlord are private property owners

they can just ban all tenants who are smokers, regardless of whether they're in "their home" or not, right?

After all, Private Property is, well, Private Property.

Right? :)

[qwertyMike]

48. InCanada

Lanlords can ban smoking - well at least here in Nova Scotia.

[qwertyMike]

49. On Edit

They can make it a condition of the lease - a legal document
(EDIT function not working)

[Almost_there]

53. If they can ban pets, why not smokers?

I thought that land lords could already ban smoking? If "No Pets" is acceptable, then No Smoking should be acceptable too. I have very little sympathy for smokers, I hate to say it, but, I tend to agree with the premise of the article.

~Almost

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

19. Welcome to DU!

And one of the frays that exists to vent in. This, Gun Control and anything to do with the Israel /Palestinian conflict.

That being said, As a smoker, I hate to be around non-smokers because it seems a majority of them feel that they need to remind me of the dangers of smoke as if I have been living in a cave fo the last 20 years. I come from a long line of smokers who have lived into their 90's before passing away from something non-smoking related. Some people just have a better resistance to things than others.

Better genes, I guess. (cough-cough)

Quiting smoking is easy. I ought to know, I've done it thousands of times.

--Mark Twain
Smoker

[barb162]

39. have you ever had someone tipsy

approach you and tell you not to smoke as they are staggering out to their car (so they can get into it and kill a few innocent people).

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

45. No, but I have had someone walk 50 feet across an open field to

tell me face to face that my smoking bothered them.

[Malva Zebrina]

21. Honestly--I get severe reactions to perfume, some more than others

and I think also, that we should ban all persons from wearing perfume.

It makes me sick--especially in a restaurant. I should not have to be exposed to perfume.

[Scairp]

23. Allergies are not chosen

It's unfortunate, but rare, that a person is allergic to an everyday product like perfume. I am sorry. I do my part for people like you, I hardly ever wear perfume. Unlike perfume, eating is a requirement for life. Some people do too much of it, and can cause themselves health consequences. NOBODY. NEEDS. TO. SMOKE. PERIOD. If they do it anyway, they need to take responsibility for the consequences. I see no problem with denying FREE health coverage to those who choose to make themselves ill with a known carcinogen. In fact, I hope that Medicaid and Medicare start doing the same thing here.

[Malva Zebrina]

24. additionally all of those who overeat and are fat should also

be subjected to the same criteria-- agree?

[Scairp]

41. No

Sometimes being overweight is genetic, sometimes it's metabolic, beyond their control. Food is required. Smoking is a foreign substance not required people choose to indulge in. Not the same in anyway, shape or form. One can choose to quit smoking and your health improves. Food, I'm sure everyone would agree, cannot be eliminated and one remain healthy and alive.

[The Flaming Red Head]

43. Living and working in the shadow of chemical plants

is a known carcinogen.

Unfortunately in the state where I am from, even when there are bad spills of known carcinogens at the plants, the poor in the community are banned and strongly discouraged from seeking basic emergency care.
Poor uninsured smokers are not likely to get any care either, or any care for poor AIDS patients or people with hepC. So I guess if you moved to Louisiana you'd get your wish.

[notadmblnd]

29. Lets ban farting .. being forced to smell someone elses farts

makes me gag and throw up violently. I must be alergic.. We need to ban Farts now!

[Rich Hunt]

50. no shit!

So to speak.

I was once groped on the train by a vagrant with severe body odor. I felt violated and was traumatized. I had nightmares for weeks.

Now I suffer from PTSD and have flashbacks every time I smell bad b.o. I feel like I'm being groped all over again! I think people should be sprayed with Lysol before entering any public building. You just don't know what it is like to have to tolerate other people's b.o.

[lynne]

8. Speaking of allergic -

I'm allergic to perfumes. Talk about suffering in public places! At least most of the smokers now go outside to smoke.

I've been forced to move from my seat on the subway, at the movies and once had to ride in a car in winter with the window down because of the stinking perfume of one of the occupants.

Perfumes are no better than smoke when it comes to allergies. If we get to ban one for health reasons - we should ban them all.

[Child_Of_Isis]

11. Same here.

Many times I have walked by someone who was doused in perfume and not only lost my breath, but have come close to fainting.

[anon e mouse]

13. allergies suck! Period!

Personally i would rather smell sweat than perfume on anyone, for one thing the natural phermones give a clue as to how the other person is feeling. and good hygeine is easier to tell when you don't have other fragances to compete with.

i would not have an objection to banning perfumes too.

[Occulus]

17. Ban ALL odor coverings!

Deoderant, perfume, cologne... who cares!

Let's ALL just stink!

<snerk>

[Occulus]

16. So if a worker wears perfume to their job

the employer should be able to fire them, because it's the employer's business, and he has a right to make a business decision (in this case, being that other workers will be less or un- productive due to the perfume).

Right? :)

[starroute]

35. The employer certainly has a right to ask them not to wear it

I once had a problem with a new employee where I worked whose perfume was setting off my allergies. But I assumed it was only me so I didn't make a fuss about it -- I just tried to avoid being on the same side of the room as her. Then it turned out that everyone in the office was finding her perfume unpleasant and distracting, even those who weren't actively allergic to it.

I think somebody eventually got up their courage to ask her to tone it down. It didn't matter much, though, because she didn't last long in the job anyway -- she was generally obnoxious and argumentative, and had been bad-mouthing people behind their backs, so she was let go for those reasons.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

20. Welcome to DU!

Right on!

:toast:

[Occulus]

14. how about requiring

that all monies from all jury decision, past, present, and future, involving tobacco companies, be spent upon health care?

Oh, right. That would involve trial lawyers.

:)

[CitizenWill]

28. I'm allergic to perfume they should band perfumes to. N/T

[DoNotRefill]

51. Coming from somebody with a pot leaf as an avatar...

I'm more than slightly flummoxed by your post.

[livinginphotographs]

54. Your avatar makes an interesting contrast to your statement.

Welcome to DU.

[barb162]

38. how about alcoholics

and anyone else with drug problems.

[onehandle]

2. Nah, just tax the tobacco companies out of existence in the UK. nt

[bpilgrim]

3. smokers should get a discount since most of them die earlier than most

and use up LESS RESOURCES and pay MORE than others via tobaco taxes.

peace

[Chico Man]

12. Trade in your butts for a visit to the doctor

Proof of tax purchase.

Or of course Marlboro could offer healthcare options in their miles program.

[Zynx]

9. They should pay higher premiums for increasing their risk factors,

but should not be denied treatment.

[Occulus]

18. Shouldn't the tobacco lawsuits be paying for the extra cost? nt

[Malva Zebrina]

25. So should fat people

which according to all I have read, lead to diabtetes

All fat people should be charged more also. Obesity and the addiction to food is as bad as an addiciton to tobacco.

[CitizenWill]

30. I think your point is being avoided. But it is a good one. N/T

[JoFerret]

10. But they should get their pensions 15 years earlier.

It's a trade-off.

[Career Prole]

22. Nothing like a good anti-smoker thread to fire up the troops.

Okay...I'll pay my own bill when I go to the doc because of my smoking-related illnesses.
That'll be a whopping 2 or 3 percent of my healthcare.
Now who'll take responsibility for the drinkers, since I don't indulge in that vice?
More interestingly, can we come up with a way that I can charge my sick time and medical expenses to the asshole who gets the perfect attendance record by dragging her ass in to work sick and infecting everybody who comes within sight of her?
Or the knucklehead who sends the kid to school with virii spewing out of both ends because it's easier than finding a babysitter, so the other kids can bring the disease of the week home to share with the family?
Because honestly, I get sick a whole heck of a lot more from other people's germs than from my smoking...I really think they should bear more of my burden.
/sarcasm off
/rant off

[silverlib]

26. I like that...

(this is a tricky thread to weight in - pardon the pun) but since overweight people get diabetes and you hardly ever hear of a smoker having diabetes, unless they are also a heavy drinker, how about having the overweight people start smoking before they come down with diabetes so they will no longer have eat sweets or eat as much and therefore not get diabetes and be up for all that free health care?

I have done medical transcription for three years and have only type notes on one diabetic patient that smoked.

Gee, I have another idea. Why don't we just get health care for everyone and not try to "hog" it all for ourselves and let everyone participate?

We don't need to be judging anyone's actions. We are Democrats for crying out loud. Leave all that judgment crap to the Republicans.

[Scairp]

46. Not all overweight are diabetic

My father got it and he wasn't overweight. We have a genetic predisposition in my family to getting diabetes. No, smoking isn't a primary factor in developing diabetes, it can cause heart disease, the number one killer in America. Of course, there's that pesky lung cancer it's also is responsible for. Avoiding sweets is no guarantee that a person predisposed will avoid diabetes. I think everyone is missing the point. This discussion began over the National Health Service in Great Britain. This is FREE, government-provided health care for all citizens of GB. This system is in trouble, in part due to abuse of the system. If they began to make those who indulge in smoking pay for their own health care, you can bet many, many people there would give up the horrible habit of smoking. I pay for my health insurance. If I get diabetes then no one but me will be paying for my treatment.

[silverlib]

47. Bad wording on my part...

Certainly I know that not all overweight people get diabetes and diabetes is often genetically predisposed. I wasn't very clear on that. I will add that not all people who smoke get cancer and people get cancer who never smoked a cigarette. In older people, those who smoke rarely develop diabetes.

The tobacco companies are huge lobbyist, so I suggest that perhaps education is the answer, and also that poverty has a part in smoking.
(I'm not sure how, but I've read before where older children from poorer households start smoking sooner and more often than others in the same age group).

I offer if there are stipulations on health care (no matter what country) that the health care will become as flawed as the American tax system.

[napi21]

27. Well, thank god this is in the UK! I'm sure lots of you would love it

here in the US too! Well, I smoke. I always am concious of people who don't like it, and never even ask to smoke in someone's home if I don't see them smoke first. I just assume they object. I respect your preferences...for whatever reasons. Why then can you not respect mine? I'm for separate resturants, separate bars, separate clubs too. I'm not even going to get excited about segregation of smokers. That's fine. JUST LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE!!!!

[CityDem]

31. This is a reasonable proposal

If people want to indulge in high risk behavior, they should carry a higher burden of the cost. This approach is already used in life and auto insurance. Try and get a low cost life insurance policy if you smoke and have are 150 lbs overweight. The cost of the policy will be affected by your behavior.

I for one would like to be pooled with other low risk people to reduce the costs of my health insurance premiums. I would like the benefit of lower premiums because I do not smoke and maintain a healthy lifestyle. If someone wants to smoke, eat excessively or participate in high risk behavior, charge them with a premium that is commensurate with the risk. We are not talking about discriminating against people because they have allergies or are born with a some illness. These are personal decisions that people are making that affect their health.

[CitizenWill]

32. What about people living in polluted cites like LA?

[Randy4Randi]

33. Idiots

Nuff said.

[Demonaut]

34. At 8-10 bucks a pack smokers are already paying for the NHS

I was just in England and the cigs are really expensive.

[napi21]

36. Hmmm, I guess it's not the poor or unemployed who are smoking, huh?

That's what you always hear in the US. It's the uneducated, poor, and unemployed who smoke and they're just stupid. Well, I couldn't nor wouldn't pay $10.00/pack!

[autorank]

37. Shows just how stupid the English are!

In addition to letting that twerp murderer Tony Blair stick around (they can kick him out anytime), they don't understand the politics of death. Smokers die earlier, therefore they uses less health dollars over the course of their lives. When they do die, it's generally not as prolonged a process as other conditions. Ironically, it's a habit that has it's health care costs over time; however, at the end, when most health care dollars are spent, it is relatively low on the scale of costly nasty habits.

The English are behaving in a ridiculous fashion. Just what I'd expect from a country that allows the pansy-beast to stay in office.

[Massacure]

40. I don't think it should be banned outright, but I think that

The money to pay the healthcare for them should come from tobaco taxes.

[mike_c]

42. pay for smoking related health costs with taxes on tobacco....

I don't think it's right to discriminate against sick people because we don't like the circumstances under which they contracted their diseases, but if they have a choice about whether to indulge in risky behavior then I think it's perfectly appropriate to use that behavior's cost to subsidize the health care they'll need.

And yes, I would support an equivalent "sin tax" on alcohol and on junk food, the sugar industry, etc.

[johnfunk]

44. Tobacco, not marijuana, is the "gateway " drug to a life of addiction...

... and yes, if society would start calling smoking what it really is -- an addiction -- and start referring to tobacco as the deadly, addictive drug it is, that would do more to deglamorize and discourage smoking than any of the ludicrous ad campaigns I've seen on cable.

And yes, pay for all of it with taxes on cigarettes. You know the tobacco lobby would try to claim that "liberals" are taxing the "poorest" in society -- until we liberals start calling Philip Morris on their marketing to minority communities and kids.

[SoCalDem]

52. How republican of them

:(

Let's ban pizza-eaters, donut-eaters, boozers, speeders, helmet-less bikers, jaywalkers...etc etc etc