The national health care dillema

[epiphany]

There is a great liberal argument that people should be allowed to eat, drink and smoke whatever they choose. It's their body and their choice.

 

But we have a national health service, so actually the ill effects of people eating, drinking and smoking whatever they choose are everyone's liability. In other words, you ultimately pay for someone else's unhealthy choices.

 

This creates a dillema in that the government must seek to minimise the strain on the NHS, on behalf of its benefactors and beneficiaries, but at the same time not be seen too nannying or authoritarian over its citizens.

 

How do we reconcile the values of individual freedom with those of a socialised health system?

[ampersand]

Be thankful there are so many smokers and drinkers out there - they pay a much larger contribution of their disposable income to the Treasury

[sharrowman]

"In other words, you ultimately pay for someone else's unhealthy choices."

 

We pay for all manner of unhealthy choices. Road building and war mongering spring to mind as particularly unhealthy. These choices share tax take in common with eating, drinking and smoking, but war and roads have little of the simple pleasure associated with them.

 

Additionally, honestly, I think little of the money that goes in tax to support health services even if a significant proportion of these is used to support the obese, drug users, alchoholics or smokers. Jeez, life is tough without moralising about the ill habits of others! Where as the money used to bomb johnny foreigner properly gets under my skin.

[lesterman]

The original argument falls flat on its face for smokers. The duty that they pay on their habit actually leaves a surplus after paying for all the ailments caused by smoking. Smokers tend to die younger anyhow and thus not burden the state by lingering on and on and on .

[epiphany]

The original argument falls flat on its face for smokers. The duty that they pay on their habit actually leaves a surplus after paying for all the ailments caused by smoking. Smokers tend to die younger anyhow and thus not burden the state by lingering on and on and on .

 

Does all that surplus really get funneled into the NHS?

[lesterman]

Does all that surplus really get funneled into the NHS?

 

Where the surplus is directed probably changes from year to year.

The fact however remains that smokers produce a tax surplus. Many non smokers tend to linger on and on and on and can cost us all a substantial amount of money in medical care.

I do not smoke just for the record.

[Daven]

The original argument falls flat on its face for smokers. The duty that they pay on their habit actually leaves a surplus after paying for all the ailments caused by smoking. Smokers tend to die younger anyhow and thus not burden the state by lingering on and on and on .[/QUOTE]

 

Smokers do die younger, but their final years are likely to involve a high level of health care requirements and, because health care in this country is so good and the medical profession are committed to maintain life, they tend to live a lot longer and,so, cost the NHS much more than they would have done 10 or 15 years ago.

[Mecky]

I always the "Yes Minister" sketch on the pros and cons of smoking

[lesterman]

The original argument falls flat on its face for smokers. The duty that they pay on their habit actually leaves a surplus after paying for all the ailments caused by smoking. Smokers tend to die younger anyhow and thus not burden the state by lingering on and on and on .[/QUOTE]

 

Smokers do die younger, but their final years are likely to involve a high level of health care requirements and, because health care in this country is so good and the medical profession are committed to maintain life, they tend to live a lot longer and,so, cost the NHS much more than they would have done 10 or 15 years ago.

 

Despite what you say smokers do produce a tax surplus. Heart attacks are widely caused by smoking. Death is often instantaneous.

[Daven]

 

Despite what you say smokers do produce a tax surplus. Heart attacks are widely caused by smoking. Death is often instantaneous.

 

This is not the case. Although heart disease is caused by smoking - less heart attacks cause instant death than you would think The most common health problem caused by smoking is Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease which is progressive, debilitating and very distressing towards the end. Patients with COPD can exist for many years in a very poor state of health and can suffer a very poor quality of life and cost the NHS a lot of money for many years.