Should Smokers Get Free Health Care On The Nhs?

[Smo™]

I was talking to one of my friends at school today about this and it really got me thinking. Personally, I don't know, it's such a controversial issue. On one side, smokers know it's damaging to their health to smoke, but continue to do so. Often contracting related illnesses and receive free health care when others who genuinely need it won't receive it. On the other side, the NHS claimed a while ago that it would be 'unethical' to charge smokers for their heathcare seeing as they are taxed a huge amount to fund their habit. Keywords being to fund their habit. What do you guys think?

Edit: Oops, can someone edit the poll to say 'Yes, they're entitled to it.' Or something? Cheers.

Yup, done (Y)

Edited April 18, 2005 by george_seamons

[Michael Hardman]

Technically speaking we as riders go out knowing we could hurt ourselves so should we get free health care.

I think the question is should nhs money be spent trying to encourage people not to smoke. If people choose not to having been given the option then I think they shouldnt get free health care for smoking related problems.

[Jimbo Limbo (Trials Chimp)]

On that basis you could stop people receiving free care for all sorts of things though. Drinking, eating unhealthy food, playing dangerous sports....

[spunkey_monkey_boy]

On that basis you could stop people receiving free care for all sorts of things though. Drinking, eating unhealthy food, playing dangerous sports....

←

all of the above except dangerous sports because eating, drinking smoking etc you ARE damaging your health where as in sports you only damage yourself when you f**k up...

[Stephen Morris]

I think smoking should be banned.

BOOM

That solved the problem.

[tipsy Jock]

I think smoking should be banned.

BOOM

That solved the problem.

←

I could live with that, It will never happen though because the government gains so much in taxes from the sales. Although that i suppose could be seen as a good thing as its more money going into our NHS etc

Pete

[Jonno]

i can see both sides if this (ie, all sorts of things that people recive free health care for is brought apon themselves, trials riding ect) but my personal opinion is that smokers should not recive free health care as they know the risks of smoking, smoking is a discusting habbit in my opinion. as some ones said more money should be spent on trying to get people to stop smoking rather than care for them when it takes its toll on your body.......

[Smo™]

I see where you're coming from comparing knowing the risks of smoking to knowing the risks of other things, however, smoking endagers other people. Passive smoking does as much, if not more, damage to children and passers by/live-in lovers etc. Banning smoking in unlikely to happen, over £9bn has been gained by the government in taxes from cigarette sales. This kind of money is exactly what we need for public services such as the NHS and amenities.

[Brisa]

Like said above, without that money from smokers taxes there would be less funding for NHS etc.

I Think they're entitled to it as much as anyone else. Thats like not offering ethnic minorities health care.

[Jimbo Limbo (Trials Chimp)]

I see where you're coming from comparing knowing the risks of smoking to knowing the risks of other things, however, smoking endagers other people. Passive smoking does as much, if not more, damage to children and passers by/live-in lovers etc.

←

That doesn't effect whether or not they should receive free healthcare or not though. I think there are two main points I want to make here:

1) Smokers pay for the NHS just like everybody else does not to mention the huge amount of extra tax they pay which has already been mentioned.

2) You can't just single out smokers. If you eat high quantities of unhealthy food and later on in life get heart disease for example, under the kind of system that is being suggested, the NHS would simply turn round and say you knew the risks of what you were doing now cough up some cash or your not getting treated, which is wrong as the person affected would have been paying for the NHS (through tax) for the whole of their lives.

Basically you either have an NHS which if free and fair to everyone or you dont have one at all because of how uber complicated things would get and the moral problems that arrise.

[Sikamon]

as much as i hate smoking (never have never will) and wont even date a smoker (she not too happy about that lol)

i have to say that smokers pay for alot more of the nhs than they use due to smoking, so they should be totally entitilled to free health care just like the rest of us.

saying that though i would be happy to pay 1% extra tax if smoking was banned or summit like that cos i do hate it.

[cant_ride]

Sorry to say I'm a smoker ( not hardcore though ) I think 'we' should recieve every priviliege that non-smokers recieve from the NHS but nothing more whatsoever.

Yes, we pay a lot more tax from buying cigarettes but thats our choice... It shouldnt give us any extra rights ( as nice as it would be )

Any extra money spent by he NHS/government should be spent on the anti-smoking advertising curently in use, although they should re-consider their tactics. And if 'we' get any privilege at all, it should be help quitting and not priority treatment when we get sick.

Oli (Y)

[Sam Nichols]

This is something I feel strongly about.

I make no apologies for the lengthy post :)

Smoking just three to six cigarettes a day can double your chances of heart attack. People who smoke are more than twice as likely to have a fatal heart attack than those that don’t and on average one in five people in Britain die as a result of smoking. This Means that by smoking you are knowingly putting yourself at risk and also putting yourself in a postion of strain on the community funds.

With regards to the comments made on "smoking funds the NHS". This in itself is a somewhat 'catch 22' situation... Yes, SOME of the money goes to fund the NHS (only a small proportion though) but of this money that goes towards the NHS, how much of it is actually wasted on those people who need to come in for all manner of smoking related illnesses? It would be interesting to find out whether after all the smokers have been treated for smoking related illnesses there is actually any money left... I'm sceptical. Further to my point, how many donor lungs are used on smokers after a build up of tar destroyed theirs? Could these lungs be used for people who are born with lung defects or contract a cancer through passive smoking (just another way smokers get to us)

Now I'm by no means suggesting that we shouldn't allow smokers health care. This is ridiculous. However, the idea that the public should fund the curing of a health problem that the smokers have knowingly and willingly inflicted upon themselves makes me mad. I believe a price should be placed upon the healing of smokers if they suffer from a smoking related illness.

With reference to the above posts mentioning the fact that if smokers aren't allowed free NHS care, what about people who drink, eat junk food and do extreme sports... The major oversight in these statements is that smoking DOES kill. It's a fact. Smoking is deliberate damage to your body and there is not one positive thing in it's favour (health wise). Eating junk food is not a direct attack on your body, nor is an extreme sport and nor is drinking. With all of these things the rule 'everything in moderation applies'. With smoking it does not.

Just one final note... If somebody quotes a section of my post and comments negatively on it when there point is addressed elsewhere in my post... I won't be a happy bunny (Y)

Just makes me upset when people do that :)

[JT!]

I think they should just work out how much money the NHS need to help smokers, and then make cigaretts (sp?) more expensive acordingly.

So they are paying for themselvs. (Y)

[cant_ride]

I think they should just work out how much money the NHS need to help smokers, and then make cigaretts (sp?) more expensive acordingly.

So they are paying for themselvs.  (Y)

←

apart from the probable ins and outs ( and the unfortunate fact that it'll never happen ) thats a really good idea.

oli

[Tomm]

With regards to the comments made on "smoking funds the NHS".  This in itself is a somewhat 'catch 22' situation... Yes, SOME of the money goes to fund the NHS (only a small proportion though) but of this money that goes towards the NHS, how much of it is actually wasted on those people who need to come in for all manner of smoking related illnesses?  It would be interesting to find out whether after all the smokers have been treated for smoking related illnesses there is actually any money left... I'm sceptical. 

←

You're right. A fact that no-one seems to believe is that smoking costs the NHS (in treating the effects and associated illnesses) much more than the revenue gained in taxation on cigarettes. So any smokers that say "Yeah, well we pay for it in taxes" - They're wrong. At least they don't pay for it completely.

The problem is that so many people smoke, it's a big proportion of the electorate. Any government that banned smoking would get kicked out faster than you can say "Michael Howard is a goon". But increasing the taxes more and more each year seems to do it. I like the way the government is handling it at the moment - No smoking in public places (And soon pubs/cafes too). Make it far more pleasant to non-smokers.

[spunkey_monkey_boy]

i personally hate the fact that me and the missus can't go out for a meal or a drink without having to breathe other peoples smoke, for that one reason i find smokers so f**king ignorant, if they did it in their own space where i didn't have to breathe it i wouldn't mind in the slightest. christ if i came and sat next to you (a smoker) in a restaurant and light up a spliff i'm sure there would be some serious conflict but its ok for you to spark up a fag next to me whilst i'm walking down the street, having a meal or watching a band...

[Ingram]

i put no put i ment to put yes :">

[damo]

I could live with that, It will never happen though because the government gains so much in taxes from the sales.

←

Tis 70% of money goes to the government (Y)

[trials_pimp]

I think smokers should recive the same ammount of health care as anyone.

BUT, if they have a problem that is caused by smoking, they should have to pay for it.

ie breathing, cancer ect.

Like a car warrenty, it will cover anything, but if you mod the car, and the mod causes it to break, you pay.

They should ban smoking, we all know all that tax just goes in someones pocket.

[matthewholdsworth]

yeah they are paying for it when they buy cigs

one thing they should ban is smoking outside hospitals, there is nothing worse than going to a hospital and seeing people hooked up to drips outside smoking away. erm hang on they are being treated with tax payers money, whether its their own or not, and they do something like that. really annoys me, why should they get help if they dont want to help themselves, if i had a lung tumour/heart disease/smoking related illness i would do everything in my power to stop to give myself more chance of a longer life. if you are hooked to a drip because u smoke surely that tells anyone with 1 and a half brain cells to rub together something isnt right.

all this addiction rubbish, its all will power, and not that i ever would, but if ever started smoking i know i could give up. my grandad did and it probably gave him an extra 10 years! he gave up smoking because my mum said he couldnt see me if he still smoked! all it takes is strong will

rant over (Y)

[matt_urban]

simple no for smoking related stuff ie cancer etc (Y)

my sis works at a nurse some of the people have a lung removed and cant walk 20 feet ! but thay still smoke how does that work may i ask? gay if you ask me

[Jimbo Limbo (Trials Chimp)]

With reference to the above posts mentioning the fact that if smokers aren't allowed free NHS care, what about people who drink, eat junk food and do extreme sports...  The major oversight in these statements is that smoking DOES kill.  It's a fact.  Smoking is deliberate damage to your body and there is not one positive thing in it's favour (health wise).  Eating junk food is not a direct attack on your body, nor is an extreme sport and nor is drinking.  With all of these things the rule 'everything in moderation applies'.  With smoking it does not.

←

This is an extreme example but have you seen the Supersize Me film. The guy was told by doctors that they were worried he would do serious irrepairable damage to his liver if he carried on as I remember.

I know smoking does much more damage to you then eating rubbish will but it works on the same principle. If they started charging for smoking related illnesses it would only be a matter of time before they started charging for other problems.

one thing they should ban is smoking outside hospitals, there is nothing worse than going to a hospital and seeing people hooked up to drips outside smoking away. erm hang on they are being treated with tax payers money, whether its their own or not, and they do something like that. really annoys me, why should they get help if they dont want to help themselves, if i had a lung tumour/heart disease/smoking related illness i would do everything in my power to stop to give myself more chance of a longer life. if you are hooked to a drip because u smoke surely that tells anyone with 1 and a half brain cells to rub together something isnt right.

all this addiction rubbish, its all will power, and not that i ever would, but if ever started smoking i know i could give up. my grandad did and it probably gave him an extra 10 years! he gave up smoking because my mum said he couldnt see me if he still smoked! all it takes is strong will

Some people find it easier to give up addictions then others, without actually experiencing what its like to be addicted to something how can you really know how easy it would be to give it up. I've never been addicted to anything, but I imagine it must be incredably hard to give up something like that.

I don't think they should ban it from outside hospitals, I think its cruel for the following reason. A lot of smokers, rightly or wrongly, link smoking with stress relief. Going into hospital is a stressful experience and if someone feels the only way to cope with that stress is to smoke then I think they should have that option. I don't think they should be able to do it in the hospital or in doorways, but it wouldn't be at all difficult to provide some shelters for people to go to.

[tank_rider]

I voted NO, as i have a medical condition which is ongoing and requires three prescriptions a month. However unlike people with diabetes, astma or anything like that which is an ongoing medical condition, i have to pay for all my prescriptions and so am massively worse off through no fault of my own. In my opion i don't think smokers should get free treatment, yes they are paying tax on their cigarettes but in their smokling of them in public places they are degrading the health of everyone around them too. Personally i can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke, and think they should be banned in public places.

[Stephen Morris]

If somebody is smoking in my face: outside the door of a shop I'm exiting, under the bus shelter when it's raining etc, then I usually ask them to put it out because it's making me sick. They often do, but sometimes don't.

People who can't sit on a bus for 15mins, and have to get their cigarettes ready as they're getting off the bus, that's what makes me laugh.