Should socialized health care deny/delay treatment to smokers and the obese?

[MD]

According to England, yes they should. What do you think?

https://www.theguardian.com/society...s-by-denying-surgery-to-smokers-and-the-obese

 

[Augustus]

According to England, yes they should. What do you think?

https://www.theguardian.com/society...s-by-denying-surgery-to-smokers-and-the-obese

No.

It is part of a worrying trend in the West to scapegoat certain groups of people as a 'burden' on society who 'cost' you money. Also it seems a bit hypocritical to have a society that promotes a sedentary lifestyle and allows the aggressive promotion of unhealthy diets yet then punishes people for becoming what many organisations want them to be and are spending millions to influence their behaviour towards..

 

[Thanda]

No.

It is part of a worrying trend in the West to scapegoat certain groups of people as a 'burden' on society who 'cost' you money. Also it seems a bit hypocritical to have a society that promotes a sedentary lifestyle and allows the aggressive promotion of unhealthy diets yet then punishes people for becoming what many organisations want them to be and are spending millions to influence their behaviour towards..

That may be true of food - but smoking?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No.

It is part of a worrying trend in the West to scapegoat certain groups of people as a 'burden' on society who 'cost' you money. Also it seems a bit hypocritical to have a society that promotes a sedentary lifestyle and allows the aggressive promotion of unhealthy diets yet then punishes people for becoming what many organisations want them to be and are spending millions to influence their behaviour towards..

I was actually going to say 'yes' because smoking is an irredeemably selfish habit that causes direct harm to everyone around the smoker when they light up. Smoking - including second hand or 'passive' smoking - is one of the leading causes of cancer in the UK too. But you have a fair point.

That may be true of food - but smoking?

Augustus is right. Up until quite recently in Scotland cigarette packets were advertised freely and in full view behind the tills at a lot of shops and you could smoke just about anywhere you wanted. It's only in the last few years that smoking in public buildings has been banned and shops have been made to cover up their cigarette displays. I don't know what it's like elsewhere. It's not right for a society to give its citizens such easy access to such a harmful vice, to then punish them for using it by denying them healthcare access. That doesn't make sense.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Most certainly YES they should !!

Regardless of what society promotes - or fails to promote - we each INDIVIDUALLY can tell if our lifestyle choices are healthy or not - cant we..?....

Its OBVIOUS - smoke like a chimney - its bound to make you ill with recognisable diseases and symptoms DIRECTLY related to the smoking alone - or similarly eat like a gluttonous pig and take little to no exercise is bound to make you fat and unhealthy with again diseases and symptoms related DIRECTLY to the lifestyle CHOICES..

CHOICES Folks - no body forced them to smoke or become obese - they CHOSE it...If they CONTINUE to choose it - then WHY should other people be expected to fund their poor and self harming lifestyle choices and the repercussions thereof..?..

Speaking AS a smoker I have actually thought of this a good deal - and I am pretty sure that should I get ill because I spent my life smoking, then I will just have to say that is my own stupid fault - and yes of course I knew full well what the end results would (may) be - and yet chose the risks anyway - and so if those negative results happen to me - tough Sh^t as we say here - I will have bought it on my Self and so would not even feel entitled to burden my free national healthcare service, for even though it IS a very good service it is indeed under immense pressures BECAUSE of such selfish people and their lifestyle CHOICES....

Remember Folks - to treat people costs money time resources - those resources are best spent treating people who actually WANT to be well and healthy...Clearly those who smoke or allow obesity to overtake them, (or drug addicts for example) desire no such healthy life at all - and should be in all honesty, left to their own devices and receive only basic healthcare for free...They CHOSE it and bought it upon themselves after all and as I say, fully realising that is the case, I personally would be too ashamed to even go ask for healthcare - I and they made our own beds - now we have to put up with the results Im afraid...its only fair to the rest who CHOSE a more HEALTHY lifestyle and so are far more DESERVING of those resources than I or any other who CHOSE their damaging lifestyle........

 

[Rick O'Shez]

According to England, yes they should. What do you think?
https://www.theguardian.com/society...s-by-denying-surgery-to-smokers-and-the-obese

Rationing of treatment in the National Health Service is inevitable, the question then is how decisions are made about it. It generally comes down to cost-benefit analysis. For example, patient A with a healthy lifestyle will get much greater benefit from treatment X than patient B with an unhealthy lifestyle.

And don't we have a responsibility to look after our own health?

 

[Augustus]

Remember Folks - to treat people costs money time resources

What percentage of the price of cigarettes is tax? 90%? Smokers contribute more tax than others to offset the cost.

In a modern society people pay tax which is spent on all sorts of things that benefit some but not others. People who don't drive still have to pick up the tab for expanded road networks, environmental damage, etc. People who send their kids to private schools still pay for public education.

When people start viewing others as parasites and 'costs' it does not bode well for the future of liberal society.

.its only fair to the rest who CHOSE a more HEALTHY lifestyle and so are far more DESERVING of those resources than I or any other who CHOSE their damaging lifestyle........

The problem is, where do you stop? Drinkers shouldn't get treatment too? A bodybuilder who injures his back chose to try to lift such massive weights? A broken leg playing football? A fight on a night out?

People who walk regularly live longer than those who jog regularly. Why should we subsidise these joggers with their unhealthy lifestyle choices?

Universal healthcare needs to be universal, not elitist. There are also significant class issues, and arguably racial/genetic issues as regards obesity. There would be no problem paying for healthcare if major corporations paid all their taxes, yet this is never the cause of lack of funding, it is usually the least powerful who are blamed. Smokers and obese people are disproportionately represented in the working class, so again they bear the brunt of society's anger.

Many people are obese by the time they are 15, should children also be punished for their parents' poor choices?

I've lived in places with universal healthcare, and I've lived in places without it. A healthcare system that is designed around making profits is awful. I want my doctor to have an incentive not to give me medicine or treatment, rather than the other way round. Unnecessary medicines, unnecessary operations, excessive hospital stays that bankrupt poor families. You won't realise how lucky you are until you have experienced a system built on greed and self-interest.

Once politics gets involved in healthcare, you have similar problems to privatised healthcare systems. Doctors taking into account things other than the patient's best interests.
.

 

[Valjean]

I'd prefer the cost discrepancy be made up by taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and unhealthful "food." This seems to me simpler than a complex, bureaucratic triage every time someone presents for medical care.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks.

Augustus ; Yes I see and concede your points here - its very complicated int it..?..Some things though - very plain and obvious..Smoking and obesity - purely self infliicted damage - as is drug abuse and alcoholism of course...

And yes - money and resources - drive the society always - but look those who actually RUN society COULD devise a much better system and force that upon us instead - seems they are quite happy with the way things are set up at present though - of course they are - for we are all confused so as we see - and this means THEY can come along claim to be "experts" and so tell us what to think or how to act - thus they invent problems and give us solutions ALWAYS and this allows and guarantees ever more control for them always..As I say - INDIVIDUALLY we all can see the results and therefore know what is good or bad for us despite what they say...

Money power control - that is all those who run society are really interested in here...As I hinted at earlier - take the issue of ALCOHOL - everyone KNOWS how utterly devastating it is to society as a whole on every level directly so, from the family dynamic through to direct healthcare burdens through to direct violence on the streets because of its free use - and yet such things are PROMOTED and fully condoned BY the leaders of that society - and therefore the soceity EMBRACES what those who lead tell them to embrace - and as we see - the leaders are to blame OFTEN for the things they tell us to accept as "normal" - and as we see, the leaders clearly WANT society to be at least a little "damaged" and so lead us into dmaging scenarios all the time - this just means of course they continue to guarantee their own status as these "leaders" will always be needed to fix the mess the leaders actually caused in the first place - and al the ay through that they will twist it to make it lok like it is is OUR own fault for being stupid or ignorant - which most clearly are as society literally leads them by the nose in all things and literally tells them how to think act and behave...

As my Mate warned clearly - and every aspect of society here only confirms His truth - those who profess to lead - actually MISLEAD, and often do that on purpose He warned

We could soon have a much better fairer society of course - but it would require these "hard choices" to be made....And first it would require a new breed of human leader - one who would not become greedy and corrupted by the power we give them over us and who would use that power for the good of ALL equally as best they could....Sadly such a one is very rare these days with most of these "leaders" doing what is best for self and status primarily..Clearly though for society - anyone who is deliberately harming their own health - or knowingly willfully harming their own health - should not be fully entitled to the resosurces of all those who are responsible and conscientious..

 

[Lyndon]

A "healthy" person that lives to 100 ends up being more of a drain on the health care system than a smoker or obese person that dies at 60, the net shorter lifespan of unhealthy people tends to erase the greater health care costs because you don't pay anything for health care once you're dead, the healthy people start out healthy, by the time they're 90 they can be a huge drain in health care costs. Years ago a study on smokers found that because they died on average sooner, smokers used no more dollars in health care than non smokers, not to mention all the taxes they're personally paying every time they buy a pack. Maybe what we need is a jogger's tax, to pay for the health care of joggers that make it to 90 and use more and more health dollars in their old age!!

 

[Thanda]

Augustus is right. Up until quite recently in Scotland cigarette packets were advertised freely and in full view behind the tills at a lot of shops and you could smoke just about anywhere you wanted. It's only in the last few years that smoking in public buildings has been banned and shops have been made to cover up their cigarette displays. I don't know what it's like elsewhere. It's not right for a society to give its citizens such easy access to such a harmful vice, to then punish them for using it by denying them healthcare access. That doesn't make sense.

The west is a very big place. I think he should have been more specific. In many countries in the west cigarette advertisements have been banned entirely and some are even contemplating plain packaging for them. But cigarettes are addictive and that is why people buy them regardless of the how well advertised they are or are not. Take herione as an example - it is not advertised anywhere, has no alluring packaging and is banned from being taken everywhere. But not withstanding all these obstacles people still take drugs in huge numbers.

 

[Thanda]

A "healthy" person that lives to 100 ends up being more of a drain on the health care system than a smoker or obese person that dies at 60, the net shorter lifespan of unhealthy people tends to erase the greater health care costs because you don't pay anything for health care once you're dead, the healthy people start out healthy, by the time they're 90 they can be a huge drain in health care costs. Years ago a study on smokers found that because they died on average sooner, smokers used no more dollars in health care than non smokers, not to mention all the taxes they're personally paying every time they buy a pack. Maybe what we need is a jogger's tax, to pay for the health care of joggers that make it to 90 and use more and more health dollars in their old age!!

Most of us have no problem prolonging the lives of those who care about their own health. Every dollar spent on some who tries to keep healthy is equivalent to 100 dollars spent on those sabotage their own health

 

[Lyndon]

Most of us have no problem prolonging the lives of those who care about their own health. Every dollar spent on some who tries to keep healthy is equivalent to 100 dollars spent on those sabotage their own health

So you believe in a Jesus that only cares about the healthy and says to heck with everyone else???

 

[Augustus]

Most of us have no problem prolonging the lives of those who care about their own health.

I have no problem prolonging the lives of everyone.

A "healthy" person that lives to 100 ends up being more of a drain on the health care system than a smoker or obese person that dies at 60, the net shorter lifespan of unhealthy people tends to erase the greater health care costs because you don't pay anything for health care once you're dead, the healthy people start out healthy, by the time they're 90 they can be a huge drain in health care costs. Years ago a study on smokers found that because they died on average sooner, smokers used no more dollars in health care than non smokers, not to mention all the taxes they're personally paying every time they buy a pack. Maybe what we need is a jogger's tax, to pay for the health care of joggers that make it to 90 and use more and more health dollars in their old age!!

Obese smokers should get to retire early and get bigger pension payouts. It's only fair.

 

[Augustus]

So you believe in a Jesus that only cares about the healthy and says to heck with everyone else???

Can you remember him curing any obese lepers?

And Lazarus never died from the effects of smoking either.

 

[Glaurung]

So you believe in a Jesus that only cares about the healthy and says to heck with everyone else???

He also said to go and sin no more. You can see where I'm going with this.

I actually agree with you in regards to helping everyone, but I also think that people ought to take responsibility for their own health. A responsibility smokers shrink which does make sympathy for them a little tenuous.

 

[Lyndon]

Its a common misconception that obese people are overeaters, and cannot control how much they eat, when the principle cause of obesity is slow metabolism, not overeating. Athletes are the biggest overeaters and can easily consume 3 times the calories of a morbidly obese person.

 

[Lyndon]

He also said to go and sin no more. You can see where I'm going with this.

I actually agree with you in regards to helping everyone, but I also think that people ought to take responsibility for their own health. A responsibility smokers shrink which does make sympathy for them a little tenuous.

I bet you feel the same way about lepers, everyone knows they are responsible for their own ailments, not to mention being a huge drain on the health care system!!

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Augustus;

I have no problem prolonging the lives of everyone.

Hmm - yes I agree with the philosophy and intent - but - in very real world sense - this is simply not at all feasable nor will it ever be so..There are simply ALREADY way way WAY too many of us for this planet to actually comfortably support...We should not really be enhancing our lifespans at all I dont think...

Unless we find somewhere else to go occupy also - then mankind has already gone beyond its sustainable limits HERE on this planet - and so should we REALLY be developing our healthcare to prolong life and thereby hasten the overall collapse of society itself..??.. To keep extending life NOW in these conditons is to actually hasten and cause the end of society as a whole, for society as it is now cannot sustain itself and many regions are right now on the brink of collapse, regarding food and money, shelter and basic living needs - we cal them "3rd world " whereas really we should all by now have left such problems far behind - and longer lifespans of none productive members will only further and quicken the depletion of already limited dwindling resources - wont it..??..

Trouble is - of course - we are INDIVIDUAL and MORTAL at present - and so it seems to us here and now that the individual life is all important and vital...But I assure you (all) - we are far more than a mortal physical life - but an eternal Soul in truth - and this one life - is really not that important at all - even the individual will realise that on the day they die - if only we all got to realise first, here and now within life, it would make it all so much easier to bare and understand...

On that bigger far reaching scale - the actions we take now will have great consequences indeed - to keep forcing people to live long lives, is to actually cause misery and suffering directly for future generations as the Earth presently cannot support this ever increasing population - and if we add to it with more unproductive members, then that demise can only be quickened...

 

[Glaurung]

i bet you feel the same way about lepers, everyone know they are responsible for their own ailments.

First off, don't misrepresent me. I agreed with you that denying healthcare to smokers and the obese is a nasty idea. But unlike leprosy, emphysema caused by smoking is an entirely self-inflicted condition. No one can claim ignorance about the risks of smoking. Nor can they if they eat an idiotic diet accompanied by a sedentary lifestyle.