Halibut Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Maybe we could substitute their fags for clinically clean heroin, after all your constantly reminding us of how good it is for you. Certainly less harmful than fags, so actually not a wholly crazy idea AJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Isn't this wide open to abuse by the shameless class? "I'll just stick a mint in and tell em I quit and get paid innit?" Or really do quit for two weeks if a breathing test is involved, then start again. I've seen plenty of people quit weed for a month for an upcoming drugs test. Ka-ching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Certainly less harmful than fags, so actually not a wholly crazy idea AJ. Well if they will swap fags for coke then I'll have to consider kicking off a new ciggie smoking habit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 It's a silly idea frankly. People are only able to successfully quit smoking when they really want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandie Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 It's pretty simple, you pay them to stop doing things now that will cost much more in the future. And what next pay people not to drive, not to do sports, not to have children,not to take drugs, not to go to the pub for a drink or visit your doctor. I am getting close to 60, I drink and smoke and have never been to the hospital or a doctor, because of drink and smoking. I have paid my NI from the age of 16= 44 years and I feel that the argument this will save the NHS IS RUBBISH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Whos paying for this survey I wonder ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 I am getting close to 60, I drink and smoke and have never been to the hospital or a doctor, because of drink and smoking. I have paid my NI from the age of 16= 44 years and I feel that the argument this will save the NHS IS RUBBISH. The plural of anecdote is not data. It's a known fact that smoking- and drinking-related illnesses, and obesity-related problems, cost the NHS a vast amount of money - even if none of it was actually spent on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defoe Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 The plural of anecdote is not data. It's a known fact that smoking- and drinking-related illnesses, and obesity-related problems, cost the NHS a vast amount of money - even if none of it was actually spent on you. There is actually an £8million annual surplus on smoking due to the massive duty paid on cigarettes. Having taken into account the NHS costs and all there is still that massive surplus. Smokers die younger too and so do not get as much pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandie Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 The plural of anecdote is not data. It's a known fact that smoking- and drinking-related illnesses, and obesity-related problems, cost the NHS a vast amount of money - even if none of it was actually spent on you. So if we all lived without smoking and drinking and had healthy foods the hospitals would be empty and we would save a boat load of money. What would the Nurses, Doctors and the rest of the staff have to do. So when we have no addmitions we let staff go then when we get a Majax we have no staff. I would like to see what the percentage of thease people you identify are responcable for the NHS costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 So if we all lived without smoking and drinking and had healthy foods the hospitals would be empty and we would save a boat load of money. What would the Nurses, Doctors and the rest of the staff have to do. So when we have no addmitions we let staff go then when we get a Majax we have no staff. I would like to see what the percentage of thease people you identify are responcable for the NHS costs Do you think we should just not bother at all then? Being reactive with health is always more expensive than proactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.