Healthcare Rationed by Lifestyle Choice?

[mushroom25]

http://www.dailymail....thier-lifestyles.html

according to the survey, some doctors would be in favour of witholding treatment for smokers or the obese. I don't smoke, and am probably a little under-weight when compared to a typical sample of my age group. But I wouldn't support the denial of treatment to those who choose to smoke, or who cannot (for whatever reason) lose weight - it would be the thin end of the wedge, wouldn't it? where could such a policy ultimately lead?

[jamesnan]

I would support the requirement for people who are given treatment for drunkeness, especially in A & E at the hospital, to be made to pay for such treatment. Often it is the same people week after week requiring help, when it is self inflicted in the first place. No pay - no treatment !!!

[ludwig]

I agree mushroom. The trouble is deciding where to stop with the selective treatments. What about someone who gets injured playing football or rock climbing? Both risky and unecessary activities just like smoking.

[welshlibranr]

what about the folk that may be overweight, or a smoker, and they have worked and paid National Insurance for 40 years, and never needed much treatment from the NHS?.........surely not very fair!...........

[micmak]

Not fair at all. In my opinion we are moving away from the NHS. We are getting to the stage of, no money sod off, You can pay Sir, please come in. Would you like coffee whilst you wait.

[Nibble]

The NHS is still going to be there after 1 April 2013 - it'll just be different. Certain care (like cancer treatment) is still going to be commissioned centraly - there will be more local commissioning of all other care, the new Clinical Commissioning Groups will have direct contracts with the hospitals and other care services. They're doing it in shadow form already. Private companies are already taking over several GPs practices round here, forming groups of practices, over the last couple of years. We haven't noticed any detrimental differences in staffing or in patient care - if anything, services have been expanded.

[micmak]

Nibble, I thought you were a lorry driver? Or am I mistaken

[New Judge]

“no money sod off, You can pay Sir, please come in. Would you like coffee whilst you wait.”

Not quite relevant to mushroom’s question but, micmak, I fear you are about 180 degrees off track. Many of the services provided by the State in the UK are only available to those “with no money”. To name a few examples, social housing, “Healthy Start” vouchers, most types of Legal Aid. There are many more.

People who “have money” (and who generally pay taxes) have to pay for all these services for themselves whilst their taxes are used to pay for the for those who “have no money”.

[boxtops]

micmak ^^ sorry, that was me posting - I forgot to log nibble out :-)

[andy-hughes]

I am fundamentally opposed to using any sort of moral barometer to measure peoples' purported entitlement to NHS care.

It depends entirely on the decision maker, and humanity being as it is, some people have a different approach to what conditions and lifestyles deserve free care.

The way to avoid arbitrary conditions is to impose no conditions at all. Yes the apprently 'undeserving' get treated, but who would decide otherwise?

[ludwig]

I fear you are about 180 degrees off track

Is that possible NJ? Surely you'd still be on the right track, just going in the wrong direction.

[Kathyan]

Maybe if they stopped all the 'health tourists' getting treatment and not paying would be a better idea? When we go abroad we have to have insurance, surely it should be the same here?

[emmie]

not sure i agree with withholding treatment, but i do agree about health tourists, why should some come here and get treatment and not have to pay a penny, or skip town when the bill arrives. Then the binge drinkers, have a drunk tank away from the hospitals A&E, and when they come round, make them pay a fine. If you have enough money to get bladdered then you can pay for the clean up.

[jake-the-peg]

Is this Health tourism really an issue or is it just another one of these right wing fictions spread on the back of a couple of isolated incidents?

As far as I'm aware foreigners can get
emergency treatment
*Compulsory* pschiatric treatment
treatment for some infectious diseases
and familly planning

http://gouk.about.com...p/emergencydoctor.htm

The expression "health tourism" makes it sound as if half the world's cancer patients are queuing at the doors of NHS oncology wards which is not the case.

Don't suppose anybody has any actual facts about how much the NHS spends on treating visitors do they?

[emmie]

doesn't give figures, but it obviously is a problem. Government going to crackdown apparently?

http://www.google.com...N0614251335705185812A

[jake-the-peg]

Oh come on!

"campaigners have said"

What campaigners?

Oh it's "migration watch"

Obviously a problem then!

In other shock news Ian Paisley says "Pope is not an ideal leader"

This is exactly the problem with the press - pressure groups like Migration Watch stitch together rabble rousing press releases with no facts and figures to back them up and lazy journalists reprint them as if they were fact.

And if you believe stuff like this without thinking about where it's coming from and why they're telling you it then you're part of the problem too!

[d9f1c7]

very dodgy area to get into, virtually anything that a person needs treatment for can be put down to a lifestyle choice. Broken leg playing Football, self infilicted! car crash injuries? lifestyle choice! etc etc. I don't think as a society we can feasably get into that game.

[FredPuli43]

True jake, though the minister did give the claim a shred of respectability by his defensive answer. And some foreigners do bring money in; the private NHS facilities and private hospitals get foreign patients who travel with insurance or have the money.