davieG Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 BBC Viewpoint: Katie Hopkins on NHS eating, smoking and drinking costs Former Apprentice contestant Katie Hopkins argues that people who eat, drink and smoke more than is good for them should pay more towards the NHS health care they need, as she sets out her calls for additional payments for some health services. A strange and particularly British trait is revealed when things are free at the point of use. Just like all-inclusive holidays, or theme-park tickets, once you have handed over the money, the cost seems instantly forgotten. The ability to have as much as you want whenever you want it, or to go on as many rides as you can whenever you like, is all that matters. Somehow, everything in this new land of plenty is free. The NHS is rather like this. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote Why do we offer free treatment to those that refuse to listen?†Free at the point of use has been translated to "free" - and 75 years on from Beveridge, the NHS continues to provide free health care to all. Free health care absolves us of all responsibility from the consequences of our actions and transfers them directly on to this great "Disneyland of doctors", called the NHS, that will care for us depending entirely on our clinical needs. Perverse society If I smoke myself into breathing difficulties, the NHS will pick up the pieces. If I drink myself into oblivion, I will be scooped up by an ambulance crew, and if I over eat my way to ill health, a team of medical experts will try to fix the problems I have created. These problems are not cheap. The NHS is spending billions of pounds treating obesity in 2012. As people get fatter, ambulance trusts are forking out thousands of pounds on bariatric ambulances with reinforced tail-lifts and inflatable lifting cushions. Sometimes it seems as if Beveridge's five giant evils have been replaced with new modern evils of overeating and sloth, a perverse society where we provide free health care to those who seem to "suffer" from having too much and doing too little. And it is not as if we can play the ignorant card. We create these problems in the full knowledge that smoking is a killer, that drink destroys your liver, that obesity never going to be good for your heart. We are well aware that we are supposed to take regular exercise. We know this stuff. We are told it every day: in magazines, on product packaging, and on the TV. So why does our overcrowded NHS continue to indulge our stupidity? Why do we offer free treatment to those that refuse to listen? Some people will say they have "earned" their treatment through the billions of pounds in taxes paid on alcohol and cigarettes each year. But should these sin taxes really operate like a get-out-of-jail-free card, enabling you to drink and smoke as much as you choose? Denmark's "fat tax" is clearly a long way from a panacea to solve the overwhelming problems obesity causes. Many say it is a regressive tax, penalising the poor. Unhealthy choices Others say that any solution needs to treat the problem, not simply tax the products that fuel it. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote If you don't care about your body or your health, then as a taxpayer funding the NHS, nor do I†Surely the only way to change behaviour is to recalibrate the whole system and link the consequences of our actions back to the choices we take. Currently the government is standing in the way of the financial reality of unhealthy choices. While NHS provision is decided on clinical need, there is a safety net that promises to catch everybody, regardless of their actions or their ability to pay. We need to strip away this safety net. Stop the government providing a free pass to medical care - and make people pay for their poor choices. Frankly if you don't care about your body or your health, then as a taxpayer funding the NHS, nor do I.
BunkMoreland Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Fair point, but we already have a consumption tax as well as extra taxes on alcohol and tobacco, so what she is asking for already exists.
indierich06 Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Fair point, but we already have a consumption tax as well as extra taxes on alcohol and tobacco, so what she is asking for already exists. Exactly. The tax on tobacco and alcohol is massive and it goes up significantly with every single budget. If everyone followed her advice and stopped drinking and smoking, the money the government would save on the NHS would be far less than the money they would lose. Typical politicians, wanting to have their cake and eat it - they're more than happy to tax the shit out of fags and booze, but if people have the audacity to get ill from overdoing it? Well that's bang out of order and we should get taxed extra for that too. Wankers. If alcohol, smoking and overeating are bad for us, ban the lot and put us on rations if you're that bothered.
Vacamion Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 The logic of charging "per use" of medical services leads you to the following: "And we should also charge for treatment from people who have iffy genetics that make them ill, and people injured in road and factory accidents. And the mentally ill. And those who have the temerity to be old. Or young come to think of it. In fact, just bleedin' well charge everyone, but especially the sick..." Oh. I see where they are going with this.
Captain... Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 The logic of charging "per use" of medical services leads you to the following: "And we should also charge for treatment from people who have iffy genetics that make them ill, and people injured in road and factory accidents. And the mentally ill. And those who have the temerity to be old. Or young come to think of it. In fact, just bleedin' well charge everyone, but especially the sick..." Oh. I see where they are going with this. Perhaps some sort of insurance type deal, where the more susceptible you are to making claims the higher your premiums go... I find that article highly offensive, she warbles on about we should take more exercise, how about providing more facilities for exercise and making them cheaper, instead the government talks of taxing five a-side pitches, gym fees are astronomical and crap food as at an all time low in terms of relative value. How about we do everything we can to stop people becoming fat, lazy and unhealthy rather than withdrawing any treatment should they become like that.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 The logic of charging "per use" of medical services leads you to the following:"And we should also charge for treatment from people who have iffy genetics that make them ill, and people injured in road and factory accidents. And the mentally ill. And those who have the temerity to be old. Or young come to think of it. In fact, just bleedin' well charge everyone, but especially the sick..." Oh. I see where they are going with this. Not really. That is like Blatter being against goal line technology because 'where does it end?' It ends where we say it ends. Just because you introduce something to solve a specific problem doesn't automatically mean it will then spill over into everything else. Each roll out is a separate decision so if there isn't the will for it it wont happen. We aren't talking about unstoppable forces of nature here. On this, I think consumption taxes are the way to go. Already huge taxes on boose and cigs but it is far more expensive to eat healthily than to gorge on junk so something should be done in this area.
Rincewind Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Who decides what is too much? If you eat a chocolate bar over how will they know? Do you get a refund if you have anorexia?
breadandcheese Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 This is all nothing new. We already have taxes on alcohol, petrol and tobacco to cover the negative externalities of the activity. Therefore the principle of the producer pays is already in operation. The question of whether these cover the costs of consuming these items is down to the Treasury to calculate. There is of course a debate to be had about taxing unhealthy foods as the NHS now has increased costs from the externality of eating fatty foods.
BunkMoreland Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 The logic of charging "per use" of medical services leads you to the following: "And we should also charge for treatment from people who have iffy genetics that make them ill, and people injured in road and factory accidents. And the mentally ill. And those who have the temerity to be old. Or young come to think of it. In fact, just bleedin' well charge everyone, but especially the sick..." Oh. I see where they are going with this. The difference is that you don't choose to have "iffy genetics", whereas you do choose to drink.
Alf Bentley Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Didn't someone publish statistics suggesting that the people who cost the NHS most are all the health freaks? They live long enough to cost the NHS millions in care for the sort of chronic illnesses that mainly affect the very elderly and that require a lot of care, such as dementia and long-term, but non-fatal debility of the major organs.... Whereas the unhealthy among us cop it quicker and earlier from shorter fatal illnesses... Yes, I know that it costs the taxpayer plenty if someone needs extensive hospital care or is unable to work while they are still young, but most of those with unhealthy lifestyles die in their 60s/70s instead of their 80s/90s, only a minority (and not always the unhealthy) before that.... I want a rebate before the cirrhosis gets me. I promise to spend it on a large curry with plenty of additives and saturated fats!
AdamN Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 You know who else costs the NHS money? People who fail to stop look and listen when they cross the road. People who don't wear the correct safety gear at work. People who eat/smoke/drink/text while driving. People who get into fights. Do we start charging these people as well? After all, they too only require treatment because of their own stupidity. Where do you draw the line?
Captain... Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 You know who else costs the NHS money? People who fail to stop look and listen when they cross the road. People who don't wear the correct safety gear at work. People who eat/smoke/drink/text while driving. People who get into fights. Do we start charging these people as well? After all, they too only require treatment because of their own stupidity. Where do you draw the line? Quite simply you pay for what treatment you need, it is the only fair way...
Mark 'expert' Lawrenson Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 If you smoke drink or eat too much but have paid your national insurance (worked) then you deserve medical help whether you have self inflicted illnesses or not. Otherwise if you want to smoke drink eat more than is good for you and have not paid your contributions take out medical insurance and stop being a drain on everyone else.
Steven Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 If they represent such threats to the NHS why are alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy foods not made illegal? After all other substances are made illegal for their perceived "harm".
Carl the Llama Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Quite simply you pay for what treatment you need, it is the only fair way... And let anyone who can't afford it suffer painfully. USA! USA!
Captain... Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 And let anyone who can't afford it suffer painfully. USA! USA! Exactly, to be honest we are overcrowded we could do with a bit of a cull, and the poor are always the best place to start, if not we will have to fabricate another war to thin out their numbers.
Guest MattP Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 If they represent such threats to the NHS why are alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy foods not made illegal? After all other substances are made illegal for their perceived "harm". Becomes it raises an obscene amount of money for the treasury.
BoneDog Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Some bird sent me shop to get her 20 benson or something recently. Couldn't believe the price. I'm sure it was nearly a tenner for some fags. Blummin mentalists! You could put two decent bets on with that money.
Rincewind Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Exactly, to be honest we are overcrowded we could do with a bit of a cull, and the poor are always the best place to start, if not we will have to fabricate another war to thin out their numbers. Have you and Moose had a brain transfer?
Guest MattP Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Exactly, to be honest we are overcrowded we could do with a bit of a cull, and the poor are always the best place to start, if not we will have to fabricate another war to thin out their numbers. Workshy, not the poor. Big difference.
Alexikokopops Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 No wonder she didn't win the Apprentice.
Parafox Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Without commenting on what's been said, this woman is an arrogant, pompous, privelidged nobody
Parafox Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Didn't someone publish statistics suggesting that the people who cost the NHS most are all the health freaks? They live long enough to cost the NHS millions in care for the sort of chronic illnesses that mainly affect the very elderly and that require a lot of care, such as dementia and long-term, but non-fatal debility of the major organs.... Whereas the unhealthy among us cop it quicker and earlier from shorter fatal illnesses... Yes, I know that it costs the taxpayer plenty if someone needs extensive hospital care or is unable to work while they are still young, but most of those with unhealthy lifestyles die in their 60s/70s instead of their 80s/90s, only a minority (and not always the unhealthy) before that.... I want a rebate before the cirrhosis gets me. I promise to spend it on a large curry with plenty of additives and saturated fats! Yeah.. before healthcare people got ill and died, usually from an unknown or untreatable condition. Now we have whizz-bang medicines and surgical interventions to keep people "artificially" alive. The very process of doing this increases the cost burden to the NHS, not least because people want and expect to be cured. Plus the cost of research and development of ever more extreme surgery and highly complex machines.
cambridgefox Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 Without commenting on what's been said, this woman is an arrogant, pompous, privelidged nobody yeah,you should see what she said about Leicester in her new book!!
FoxyPV Posted 21 November 2012 Posted 21 November 2012 We already pay for the NHS through tax and is there for those who need it, regardless of their problems. That's the way it should be. I would prefer the focus to be on prevention rather than cure.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.