It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smokers 'should not get NHS care'

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I think that this is a rather interesting and important discussion which is way overdue. In New York City where smoking is now totally banned in public places including bars its actually refreshing to be able to have dinner in a restaurant and not have to worry that the smoker at the next table will choke you with his/her smoke. It is no secret that smoking is bad for you, its also no secret that second hand smoke is as if not more damaging to your health. All of this is not news, these facts have been around since the 50s and earlier I am sure, however with the current cost for healthy insurance it might be time to reconsider the annoyance aspect of smoking and say "I don't want to pay more for my health insurance because others insist on messing up their health by smoking". This idea ofcourse stems from the cost of health insurance being directly related to the number of claims. I respect fully the right of people to smoke but when their rights start impinging on mine we have a conflict of rights and I am the victim.

I would like to read others opinions on this topic. I have added a recent article concerning a British survey results in this regard.

news.bbc.co.uk...

"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."




posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
So what you're saying is you'll take the tax money from cig's and to hell with the smokers. You just have to intrude further into peoples lives. You don't mind putting your hand in their pocket but you won't give them the space to breathe. You don't like it go somewhere else. Don't like this? Kiss my "butt."



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
We should back off! Smoking is a right and it should not be banned from pubs.

Nor should Smokers get Health insurance, well maybe higher rates and by higher rates I mean higher rates. No kidding.

Smokers have a choice. I think it's a bad choice but I do not think smoking should be banned.

That is crazy. There is obviously way to much governmental power.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   
It's interesting that you started this thread as I was pondering an article I read in a Harvard journal on health tonight. The article had cited studies that found the incidence of heart attack and death in NON SMOKERS dropped dramatically after a ban on smoking in public places. Just being around smokers has an immediate effect on the vascular systems of non smokers, and up the chances for heart attacks and stroke significantly. Not long term living with a smoker, but short term sharing a car or a room with a smoker had this effect.

As much as I hate smoking, I just try to stay away from it when I can.

Banning health care for smokers? No way. One argument always presented is that smokers up the cost of health care for the rest of us - so do the obese and those that eat junk food all day. Kids who skateboard or people that have physically dangerous jobs. Chronic alcoholics. People who have unprotected sex up the costs too when they end up with venerial disease or HIV. People are people and we do stupid things.

So lets say there is a ban on public health care in some form for smoking related illness. Would health care be restricted from the relatives or roommates of smokers who suffer smoking related illness? How would they know the disease was smoking related and not genetic or just chance? What is a smoking related illness - lung cancer or something as simple as high blood pressure?



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I fully support the right to smoke, just as I fully support the right of people to drink alcohol, have sex, perform extreme sports, race cars, get plastic surgery, and anything else not specifically proscribed by federal or state law. Death, disease, injury and long-term medical conditions can be caused by a myriad of pursuits both stupid and mundane. If smokers are denied medical care, what's next? I'd bet if you added up the medical expenses caused by alcohol (from treating alcoholism to liver failure to drunk drivers and their victims), that caused by tobacco would disappear. So should alcohol-related medical expenses be excluded too? And then we move on to sexual matters, which after all involves treatment for STDs, AIDS, abortions and pregnancy, the mother of all medical expenses!

My point is, this type of thing has a snowball effect. It's also another way for the government to suck up to the insurance companies while continuing to profit from and simultaneously grease the palms of the tobacco industry. Classic governmental hypocrisy.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   
It's legal..
Other addictive substances are not.

Should we take all the money from those Drug Re-habs as well?

Besides Smokers are GOOD for Social security, They tend to collect MUCH less of it..



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   
The money raised from the cigarette tax in the UK already exceeds the amount spent on NHS care for smoking related treatment.

Smokers in the UK are actually subsidizing health care for non-smokers.

I'll post some figures later.




[edit on 6-9-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Cigarettes are taxed to death now - perhaps smokers could argue that they make up for the cost to society by paying for it in other areas.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   
errr...I think smokers pay a rediculous amount in taxes as it is (and keeps rising), which goes along way in funding the NHS so damn right smokers should be treated on it, otherwise the taxation should come right down...



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
And its amazing what a pice non-smokers pay for smokers - they pay with their health and convenience. Unlike the other issues raised in previous posts - in unsafe sex the partners choose who to have sex with and therefore should be open to the consequences of their actions, with obesity its the obese person that has to take responsibility for their eating habits, and alcohol use. I am sure that there will be people here that argue that these behaviors have direct consequences for bystanders, but you won't get fat from watching someone eat, you won't get drunk from watching someone drink nor will you get an STD from being around people who have unsafe sex, but you WILL get health problems from being around smokers. Mostly I pity children who have to live in a smoking environment. I have a sister who smokes and so does her husband, their 8 yr old son suffers from asthma but they refuse to take responsibilty or to stop. Smokers have the right to smoke but not the right to affect non-smokers health. I believe the banning of smoking in public places is a great thing. If smokers have a problem with it they should take it up with the tobacco companies who charge premium prices for their addiction. Maybe smoking rooms? As for health insurance - smokers should pay more for their insurance to assist with covering the damage they cause to non-smokers.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
As for health insurance - smokers should pay more for their insurance to assist with covering the damage they cause to non-smokers.


As this has been pointed out already, what's you're point? If you want to start something you better look elsewhere, I don't think you are going to find many "friends" here. Smokers have been slapped down enough.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Eating hamburgers and huge amount of chocolate is not healthy either.
Should those who enjoy this be treated differently?
There is so much in the world that is "not healthy", how should this be done?
Those who have risky or unhealthy jobs?
Those who have a habit of getting into fistfights every weekend?
Those who drink alcohol?
And I dont buy that "passive smoking" BS. Its highly exaggerated.
Cars are more unhealthy to your lungs than the man smoking a sigarette on the other side of the street.
Of course if I lit a sigarette and blew the smoke right into your face on purpose, yes that would be bad. But I dont do that.
When I smoke (yes, I smoke), I dont blow the smoke in kids faces like they do on those antismoke-commercials.
I saw one once where a big hairy butcher-like bad type of guy blowing smoke from a big sigar right into an infants face.
The slogan on that "commercial" was, "This is what we want to stop!"

Those who drink a lot of instant coffee, should they be treated differently then.
As instant coffee increases the risk of cancer...and potato-chips too.

Smoking is bad for you, as we all know.
You can go blind...



EDIT: Typing...


[edit on 2004/9/6 by Hellmutt]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
I have a sister who smokes and so does her husband, their 8 yr old son suffers from asthma but they refuse to take responsibilty or to stop.


No offense but they're just inconsiderate arseholes! Around children I will always take my smoking outside, it's the considerate thing to do. I love that "smokers" are blamed for such things, but it's not smokers it's just general arseholes and idiots, and they're in every walk of life. I will not take responsibility just because other idiots happen to smoke, just as I shouldn't take responsibility as a drinker if some moron who's been drinking decides to take a drive.



I believe the banning of smoking in public places is a great thing.


hmmm...well most public smoking has been banned already and I don't have problem with it, such as restaurants, cinemas e.t.c
I wouldn't light up anyway out of general respect for other customers, but to try and ban smoking on the streets, and it bars/clubs is rediculous.

In the case of bars/clubs you're not going to suffer any effects of passive smoking unless you're in the bar/club with rediculous regularity, in which case someone who drinks that much and does that much damage to their liver has a bloody cheek moaning to smokers about health.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
No offense but they're just inconsiderate arseholes! Around children I will always take my smoking outside, it's the considerate thing to do. I love that "smokers" are blamed for such things, but it's not smokers it's just general arseholes and idiots, and they're in every walk of life. I will not take responsibility just because other idiots happen to smoke, just as I shouldn't take responsibility as a drinker if some moron who's been drinking decides to take a drive.

hmmm...well most public smoking has been banned already and I don't have problem with it, such as restaurants, cinemas e.t.c
I wouldn't light up anyway out of general respect for other customers, but to try and ban smoking on the streets, and it bars/clubs is rediculous.

In the case of bars/clubs you're not going to suffer any effects of passive smoking unless you're in the bar/club with rediculous regularity, in which case someone who drinks that much and does that much damage to their liver has a bloody cheek moaning to smokers about health.


"You have voted John Nada for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month."

Thanks a lot mate, now I've got only one.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Thanks a lot mate, now I've got only one.


hehe, glad I could be of service. thanks.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I quit 6 weeks ago but the thing is 99% of smokers know what's going on and do their best to not inconvenience nonsmokers. Yet the same people that smokers take into consideration just KEEP slapping them. Enough is enough.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
And its amazing what a pice non-smokers pay for smokers - they pay with As for health insurance - smokers should pay more for their insurance to assist with covering the damage they cause to non-smokers.


We do! In fact, we pay more for life insurance and car insurance as well. Believe me the fact that I choose to smoke does not cost you a dime - it's all my dime.

But since you brought up the subject, why not increased premiums for any health risk:



"Unfortunately, poor diet and a lack of exercise have almost caught up with tobacco as being the leading cause of death in the United States," Gerberding told a meeting of the National Health Council, which groups companies and non-profit health advocacy organizations.


The difference between obesity/sedentary life style deaths and those attributed to smoking - 400K to 435K. Not much of difference, but I don't see a $2.50 tax on twinkies, coke and all things frito lay.

[sarcasm]And just to make it interesting, what about families with histories of cancer. They seem to abusing the system - lets make them pay a little extra for having bad genes.[sarcasm off]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
OK, here's the site I was looking for earlier:


Action on Smoking and Health:
Clive Bates, Director, Action on Smoking and Health, London:

It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to 10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is 1.7 billion.


As smokers are paying more into NHS than they are pulling out of it, I really don't think it would be fair to exclude them from benefiting from that service.

Here's a table of what smokers pay in cigarette taxes in Europe:

NDM Annual report 2003 (3.5MB PDF)



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
[sarcasm]And just to make it interesting, what about families with histories of cancer. They seem to abusing the system - lets make them pay a little extra for having bad genes.[sarcasm off]


And let's not forget those pesky elderly, if any one group of people is a money-sucking megavacuum, those people are.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Here's a table of what smokers pay in cigarette taxes in Europe:


If Norway was a member of the EU, they would have topped this list...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join