I saw a thread here recently that said smokers and drinkers shouldn’t be able to receive same quality of care and it got me thinking.
A pack of fags is like £15, and a pint is like £5.
The sheer amount of tax in those purchases means that smokers and drinkers actually contribute way more money to the healthcare system.
Imagine £5-10 of that pack of fags is tax, and you smoke a pack a day. That’s thousands of pounds a year. Thousands of pounds more than non smokers contribute.
Why should they not be able to receive same healthcare as seemed to be popular opinion here recently?
Edit: just to clarify I agree everyone should get equal care and I’m posting this because I was amazed at the shortsightedness that I witnessed here recently. People were saying smokers and drinkers shouldn’t receive the same care but didn’t understand that those people are paying way more tax.
41 comments
Yes everyone should have first class healthcare irrespective of your opinion of their life choices.
I think that, if we start putting limitations on who is able to access services on the NHS, it goes against the constitution of the service. It should offer free healthcare for all.
Why stop there. What about drug users?, or the overweight? Or drivers?
It’s a very risky game when you start deciding who can and can’t have healthcare. I’d much rather just give it to everyone that start down that road. Besides, it’s Britain, the majority of us drink. Wouldn’t be much of an NHS is only about 30% of the population can use it.
They should indeed. I’m an NHS nurse. My job is to care for people, not judge them. Our lifestyle choices are informed by our upbringing, mental health, environment etc. It’s much more nuanced than fault, blame and judgement.
Drinkers and even more so smokers pay a lot of tax and then die young. They are _not_ a drain on the NHS. Even cheaper if they’re overweight (another group that it’s common to suggest should be left out of services).
It’s those wiry, clean-living types who live for 20 or 30 years after they retire who are expensive to maintain.
I remember reading years ago that smokers actually cost the exchequer less over their lifetime because they are more likely to die before they need social care. So they pay more to receive less already.
If anything they should receive more healthcare.
The best way of combating the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco is *preventative* healthcare to help them moderate or stop their drug use.
When the NHS first started running stop smoking workshops the rates of successful giving up went through the roof!
If you have an alcohol problem, you have to go to your GP, have a conversation about a social stigma, and probably not get very useful support.
We need to invest significantly in this area if anything, especially for something like alcohol with the harm it causes others.
If you have a healthcare system whose top principle is ‘free at the point of use’ then it is not coherent then to restrict it, other than in the ways that are being done now, e.g. if you don’t turn up for your consultant’s appointment, you can be cascaded back to your GP.
What about sports injuries is it their fault for playing sport in the first place? What if you fall off a horse is it your fault that you’ve broken your back because you took the risk of riding the horse? It’s no different to smoking or drinking imo, In fact as an ED nurse I would rather look after a copd patient than a posh woman in a gillet that’s been thrown off her horse for the 5th time this month
It’s a very dangerous precedent to start refusing NHS care based on life choices. If this happens, then what’s next? How far does this end up going? Eg genetic conditions not being covered as the family knew the risks etc.
Denying access would go against everything that the NHS believes in imo
| Why should they not be able to receive same healthcare as seemed to be popular opinion here recently?
Cause lots of people don’t actually know where the money come from and goes to. But they only want something that suits their immiedate need regardless of all other consequances and they really don’t think these idea / suggestion though properly.
eg Change this status tomorrow and assume every consumer goes cold turkey on drink. This puts up to 500,000 bar workers out of employeement a week later and that would only be the start of the industry collpasing…..
I think everyone deserves healthcare and starting down the path of ‘you brought this on yourself’ is a bad way to protect the country’s health as a whole.
Do wish people would stop banging on about the taxes on drink/cigarettes like that alone entitles them though. If we follow down that train of thought, you’re OK with drug addicts not getting treatment / people who pay a lot of income tax getting better treatment.
Yes. Sports? Obesity? Driving?
I’m glad it doesn’t work like this, I was diagnosed with heart failure caused by pregnancy so I technically caused this myself – I’d have died lol
everyone should receive the same amount of car no matter who they are or what they do
They should receive the same care because where do you stop? You’re fat you don’t get treatment. You had an accident whilst skateboarding/cycling/playing football (any sport) you don’t get treatment.
If they’re paying the same tax/ni as everyone else then they have as much right to access the NHS as anyone else.
The NHS puts on a particular service to help smokers stop, they have specific clinics and treatments available for quitters
Reducing access isn’t a way to fix the NHS, the problems starts at the top and shit rolls downhill… unfortunately that means frontline staff are getting hit in the face and back by a constant torrent of shit
Smokers involuntarily contribute 5-8 billion sterling in tax per year. The cost to the NHS of treating smoking related illness looks to be about 1 billion….
Yes, for several reasons. There are plenty of other activities people choose to do that increases the chance of requiring medical attention (assuming this is what OP is referring to). Extreme Sports is an obvious one, but how about drivers, pedestrians, over-eaters, under-eaters, people who don’t exercise or people who exercise too much? How about people who didn’t cook their food properly, or missed a use-by date? Or those who simply decide to have kids? All of these are personal choices in most cases (even when those things weren’t necessarily what that person had in mind).
Next, where do you draw the line? How many cigarettes or how much alcohol are we talking? Does being an ex-smoker count? If not, why would I admit to being a current smoker? I would just say I gave up before the cut-off date, how is anyone going to know different?
There are many conditions that happen to both sets of people, with a higher risk for smokers/drinkers – but how do we know if a condition was specifically caused by it? Lung cancer, for example, happens to people regardless. If you’re going to exclude smokers, they’ll only lie about usage (understandably) and then it will only make future research that much more difficult.
It’s not a great idea, culturally speaking, to encourage dishonesty. When you make it attractive to lie about one thing, it makes dishonesty less taboo in general. Trust enables us to function far better as a society.
Letting citizens die arbitrarily is also not conducive to a successful or trusting society.
Everyone should receive the same healthcare regardless of their life choices, however I think it is a good thing if foods/drinks/products that cause people to develop health issues have extra taxes on them to cover the costs, this just makes sense to me.
Here in Australia, I believe cigarettes are AUD$50+ a pack which is roughly £28. Most of that is for taxes, and I believe the taxes goes directly to health care.
I haven’t bought beer in decades, and I now only buy bottles of spirits and hard liquor from the bottle shop – which isn’t cheap. I assume that there’s also a huge tax on liquor again, to go towards health care.
Apparently smokers and heavy drinkers use up more of the healthcare system than the non-smoker/drinker. In a round about way, they are paying extra for this extra service.
Other groups that cost society more than an average person;
• Extreme sports
• Drivers
• Motorcyclists
• Drug users
• Obese and inactive people
Etc etc.
The issue here is two parts:
– Should they pay more in tax
– If so, how could you make them pay more
Either way you can’t discriminate on level of care received. If you made an exhaustive list, almost everyone would fall into one of these categories.
Alcohol, cigarettes and driving (esp polluting vehicles) are easy to tax compared to extreme sports and obese people for example.
Drug Users are entirely different because for X reason we don’t legalise some drugs that we could tax like cigarettes and alcohol.
TLDR – slippery slope, this logic could be used to deny almost anyone lesser healthcare.
Of course smokers and drinkers should receive health care. If it comes to a organ transplant though, I think they should have to prove they are off the drink before they get one otherwise its a precious organ wasted.
Should people that insist of pumping iron, and do their backs in get the same healthcare?
How about the people who insist on running as a hobby, then fck up their ankles knees and hips? The hikers too?
How about the rock climbers, the skydivers, the couch potatoes, the internet addicted?
Actually the fools that drive around daily at speeds of between 20 – 70 miles per hour on horribly congested roads. Bloody asking for it!
What about all the illegal drug takers, the prescription drug addicted. Man, they chose their path, why are they given the same access as law abiding citizens?
Yes, smokers and drinkers that buy there smokes and drinks through legal avenues, actually more than pay for the NHS treatments given to said people, through excise duty paid on those ourchances..
What do cyclists, runners eT pay extra to afford unnecessary demands on the healthcare system. Answer, nothing extra!
Let’s not deny people healthcare……. What’s with the undercurrent of authoritarian attitudes in the UK the last few years?
Getting bad health (due to drinking/smoking) is more than enough ‘punishment’ in and of itself
How do you prove they are a smoker/drinker?
Take their word or investigate their lifestyle through monitoring? The former wont work. Medical evidence alone doesn’t prove symptoms cause albeit a strong indicator.
So we are left with monitoring/ policing and enforcement. How much of the NHS budget you save are you happy to be offset by monitoring, policing, admin, and legals on this? Presumably this will also lead to more bankruptcy, businesses going under etc as people end trying to pay for the lack of healthcare; so economic and tax impacts also. Is your cost/benefit still there? Is this a world we want to live in?
And that’s before we go into the taxation of these products for which people are then denied services, which trust me would be liable to become a *very* hot potato.
It’s just nonsense daily mail resolution thinking. A right to free healthcare is a right and all citizens are morally equal that’s why the term ‘universal’ is used.
Pretty certain the government would go bankrupt without sin taxes
Yes of course they should, or where does it end?
Should sugar eaters receive the same healthcare as non-sugar eaters? Should sedentary people receive the same healthcare as active people? Or should active people have different access because they may be more prone to needing physio or suffering MSK injuries?
Should people with high stress careers receive the same healthcare as people with low stress careers? Should people who sleep 8 hours a night receive the same healthcare as people who sleep 6 hours or less?
Should people who had a high number of ACE’s (adverse childhood experiences — big links with health outcomes in adulthood) receive the same healthcare as people who had a low number of ACE’s?
Or what if the smokers and drinkers are active and don’t eat sugar and sleep 8 hours a night and have low stress jobs and had low number of ACE’s?
It’s just daft. I mean is it even a question, really.
I’m trying my absolute hardest to overcome my smoking addiction. Its really really hard
Yes, because everyone should have a right to healthcare.
All people all the time are making decisions that are bad for thier health, drinking too much, smoking too much, eating too much, speeding, not looking properly when you cross the road, doing DIY without the proper safety equipment. If healthcare is only available to those who made good choices no ones ever getting healthcare.
Also addiction is an illness not a choice.
Yes, they should.
Not even because of tax – but because its a very slippery slope to start selectively stopping healthcare because of x y and z.
You’re overweight? Ok, no free healthcare
You injured yourself driving? Eh, that’s your own fault and no free healthcare
Broke your leg playing Rugby? Eh, thats your own fault and no free healthcare
Eventually there would be very few people actually getting free healthcare because you can make out ***most*** things as being the persons fault.
And those bloody snowboarders….they know the risks, going out there, breaking limbs and expecting the NHS to fix them…..as for people doing MMA, boxing, getting in the ring and hitting each other, why would they expect free medical treatment, it’s disgusting
Smokers and drinkers contribute far more relatively than non smokers and drinkers. I bet the people complaining are also the ones complaining about “benefit scroungers”. Uneducated or ignorant middle class wankers.
This is how they privatise the NHS. They pick a group of people the public don’t like, and start charging then. They’ve already done it with immigrants. Then they move it on to drinkers, drug users, smokers, fat people. Before you know it they’re charging all of us.
Anyone who swallows it is a fool.
If we start discriminating against people on the nhs, it will never stop. First smokers and drinkers, then the obese, then people who don’t eat vegetables, then people who forget to take their insulin, then people who do dangerous sports, etc. None of us will be safe.
Smokers and drinkers pay significantly more into the system by way of tax.
Infact I think I read recently that smokers actually contributed more than they use because of the amount of tax they pay
No. Terrible idea. What’s to say for definite that smoking/ drinking caused their ailement? Could be any number of environmental factors that caused it, such as living in a heavily polluted area.
It doesn’t matter how much tax they do or don’t pay, or whether their ailments seem to be self-inflicted. The only way the NHS can work as an institution is if it treats each patient in its care to the best of its ability without prejudice. That is what universal healthcare means.
Besides which, if we start allowing exceptions and qualifications for people we don’t care about then sooner or later they will be applied to people we do care about.
A lot of people are saying no because the exclusion criteria can grow from that easily. But also just on a fundamental level smokers and drinkers are still entitled to healthcare because they are human beings.
My grandmother committed suicide when my uncle was 12. He was an alcoholic for decades in and out of rehab until his grandson was born and he finally was able to kick the addiction. A lot of alcoholics/smokers are battling very different things and not all of them are self inflicted- and whilst it doesn’t excuse their choices it does mean as a society we should shame them less and support them more.
Yeah let’s cut healthcare for people who are literally just trying to fucking cope