Daven Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 Why the furore? Approx 10% of the population has diabetes, so 10% of the budget sounds like 'fair dos' to me, and pretty proportionate. Not all diabetes is caused by being overweight or sedentary. Type I diabetes, particularly, seems to be linked very strongly to the patient having autoimmune issues. Other autoimmune conditions are linked, such as coeliac disease, rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid problems, and uveitis, to name but a few. But for the vast majority of those suffering Type 2 diabetes it is and is wholly avoidable - this is the tragedy. What people don't realise is that diabetes causes damage to the eyes, kidneys and circulation leading to strokes and heart attacks. This damage will have been done even if said person loses weight and becomes non diabetic. The timebomb has stated ticking. Type 1 diabetes is a different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballista Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 What is a drunk though? Is it somebody who has: Drunk so much alcohol they cant ambulate Drunk a lot of alcohol and been assaulted Drunk some alcohol and been assaulted Drunk a lot of alcohol and had chest pains Drunk a small amount of alcohol and had chest pains Where is the line drawn? There can be non drink related problems in someone who is drunk. And how do you know they are drunk until they are treated- hypoxic or hypoglycemic until proven otherwise. And how many wouldnt access help as they are worried about the cost? In particular the older in society, for example little Mavis sat in her flat convincing herself those chest pains probably are indigestion and she cant afford to spend £10 sorting out indigestion. As well as a section of society who abuse A&E there is a section who suffer in silence as they "dont want to bother anybody", these would be more affected by a charging system IMO A drunk in this context is a person who has imbibed a level of alcohol sufficient to make their behavior such that they have injured themselves or are feigning injury in such a way as to cause loss inconvenience or inappropriate deployment of resources from an A&E unit. Regarding Mavis, the savings made by properly funding the NHS, abandoning nuclear weapons, and forgetting the ridiculous construction of unnecessary trains lines would ensure that we had social services worthy of the name. Properly run, she and those like her (god bless them all) would have the confidence to call on the services that she and those like her have paid for all their working lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 If people are taking part in dangerous sports or indeed any sport that is likely to cause injury they should be appropriately insured. We would not expect anyone involved in motor sport to be uninsured. You could easily extend road accidents into insurance liability areas. But this is not my major point, why should the taxpayer pick up the bill for people who abuse themselves by misuse of drink drugs or food? ---------- Post added 12-06-2014 at 11:19 ---------- You are looking at the loss of income through taxation, that could easily be shifted elsewhere, maybe to fast unhealthy food. You forget the savings that would be made by not having to treat the illnesses caused by smoking. ---------- Post added 12-06-2014 at 11:23 ---------- Absolutely correct, I fully agree, but that doesn't mean we should squander money on people whose lifestyle means they become a burden on the NHS. It's not just drink, drugs and smoking that is a burden on the NHS though, is it? Many sports are highly dangerous. Where would you draw the line? Maybe putting an end to the war on drugs would be the answer. That would save the government billions every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballista Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 It's not just drink, drugs and smoking that is a burden on the NHS though, is it? Many sports are highly dangerous. Where would you draw the line? Maybe putting an end to the war on drugs would be the answer. That would save the government billions every year. I apologize if I have not made my position clear regarding dangerous sports and activities. I would make it mandatory for persons taking part in such activities to be insured. Clearly where a person was injured and as not insured he/she would not be refused treatment but would incur a charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 We can't stop people getting old, but we can encourage young people to lead an healthier life style so that when they do get old they don't become such a burden on everyone else. An healthy younger generation will also mean more resources available for them when they get old. Yes we can, we can also instruct the state (NHS) to completely envelope our freedom of decision making to the point where none is left. We get older, we get more diseases, we die later. It costs money, simple as that. Sadly this is not the case. Type 2 diabetes is becoming more common in young people due to obesity. The cost of care due to the complications of diabetes in the future is frightening - not to mention the human cost. http://consumer.healthday.com/encyclopedia/diabetes-13/misc-diabetes-news-181/type-2-diabetes-and-kids-the-growing-epidemic-644152.html That is an American article, no doubt that this also applies to the UK, but I don't think we can talk of an epidemic amongst young people. Provided ten percent of the population has diabetes it is quite remarkable that only 2,4% of men between 34-44 does and 1,2% of women in the same age-group. In the 44-54 group it is 6% and 3,4% respectively. In other words, to get to that 10% absolute figure the elderly must make up the massive majority of the diabetic population. I have started a topic on the true cost of getting older some months ago, this is part of that whole picture. We can try and unraffle the truth as much as we like but the simple truth is (and I am repetitive): We are getting older, it costs money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vwkittie Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Would it be a good idea to have health checks on a periodic basis? I mean you go to your dentists and opticians regularly, why not your GP for a quick check of blood sugars, cholesterol, BP etc? Not sure if it would be economically viable but if it detected problems earlier then maybe? People with this 'pre-diabetes' would then actually know about it and get advice on what to do. I get an annual health check through work and it's really good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I apologize if I have not made my position clear regarding dangerous sports and activities. I would make it mandatory for persons taking part in such activities to be insured. Clearly where a person was injured and as not insured he/she would not be refused treatment but would incur a charge. Thus making it more difficult for poor people to participate in many sports. Increasing their level of sedentariness and harming their health overall. You sound like a rather short term conservative thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I apologize if I have not made my position clear regarding dangerous sports and activities. I would make it mandatory for persons taking part in such activities to be insured. Clearly where a person was injured and as not insured he/she would not be refused treatment but would incur a charge. Things like motor sports are expensive enough as it is. Families with gifted youngsters have to stretch their budgets just to allow their child to take part in such sports. Can you imagine the size of the insurance premium for an 8 year old who wants to take part in motor cross, for example?! Just not viable, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Never mind motorsport. Football is one of the sports most likely to cause injury, and A/C ligament repairs are not cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daneha Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yes we can, we can also instruct the state (NHS) to completely envelope our freedom of decision making to the point where none is left. We get older, we get more diseases, we die later. It costs money, simple as that. So at what age would you want the state to euthanize people, or would you just let people die at any age if the cost of caring for them was excessive? As fit healthy people get older they have fewer diseases that unfit unhealthy people and cost less to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.