Smokers could be required to quit in exchange for NHS rights

Users who are viewing this thread

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
Smokers could be required to quit in exchange for NHS rights
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
Will Woodward, chief political correspondent
Tuesday January 1, 2008
The Guardian


[/FONT] People could be expected to lose weight and give up smoking in exchange for rights to healthcare to be enshrined in a new NHS constitution, Gordon Brown will signal today.The prime minister will pledge to deliver a bill of rights for patients which will establish the "rights and responsibilities associated with an entitlement to NHS care" in a message to staff to mark the 60th year of the health service. Those responsibilities will include keeping appointments, but government sources say there needs to be a debate on whether patients should be expected to play their own part in reducing their burden on the health service. Brown will make a keynote speech on preventive care later this month.

"We need an NHS that gives all of those with long-term or chronic conditions the choice of greater support, information and advice, allowing them to play a far more active role in managing their own condition in partnership with their clinicians," he will say. "Even when healthy, we know all of us will benefit from earlier information about potential health risks and advice. We will set out how we can give all those patients who want it, or would benefit from it, far greater control and choice."Brown has rejected an independent NHS, saying the health service needs to be held to account through parliament and ministers. But he believes the constitution could enshrine rights and responsibilities, and accurately describe the relationships between the Department of Health and primary care trusts and other bodies.

The appeal is likely to be received coolly by the British Medical Association, which is in dispute with the government over attempts to extend GPs' hours, a key part of Brown's personalisation agenda. The BMA supports a constitution but says it should "markedly" cut politicians' interference in the daily running of the NHS. Unison has urged Brown to use the constitution to put limits on the use of the private sector.

Some ministers believe health staff have been slower to embrace personalisation than school staff. But Brown will make a point today of hailing employees' "hard work, determination and innovation".

The review of the NHS by Ara Darzi, the surgeon appointed as a junior minister by Brown, is expected to deliver its final report in the summer, close to the July 5 "birthday" of the NHS.

Brown will say today that the NHS needs "a broadening and a deepening of reform" to ensure it "attaches the same priority to a personal and preventative service as many of you already reflect in your own day-to-day decisions. And I believe they will transform the experience of the NHS for millions of people in this country."

David Cameron will spend two days visiting NHS hospitals this week and the Tories are likely to accuse the government of offering a pale imitation of their ideas.
 
  • 55
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

gLing

Active Member
Messages
4,972
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
What is next? Will they some day require people to exercise so many hours out the week and have the blood pressure below a certain level to get NHS rights?
 

skyblue

KEEP THE FAITH
Messages
27,194
Reaction score
16
Tokenz
0.34z
if they do this does that mean that someone who smokes doesn't have to pay national insurance.........they wont be getting anything for they're hard earned money
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
if they do this does that mean that someone who smokes doesn't have to pay national insurance.........they wont be getting anything for they're hard earned money

:homo: This is more of stupid Labour interfering in people's lives and trying to turn us into a big brother state! I for one will be glad to see the back of them!:mad
 

Breath

Banned!
Messages
3,824
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I've heard this concept before. Let those who choose to risk their health either pay more for health benefits or forego the opportunity to have the health benefit.
On most insurance forms now, it asks if you're a smoker.
 

hubersrj

Active Member
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I've heard this concept before. Let those who choose to risk their health either pay more for health benefits or forego the opportunity to have the health benefit.
On most insurance forms now, it asks if you're a smoker.

Very true here in the States...but the UK and their, ahem, shitty health care system, does things a little different over there. The big news that came out while I was over there is now they're "allowing" annual mammograms after age 45 I believe they said...it's like recommended for 35 here in the States I believe.
 

SRC

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
In a way I agree, its not fair that people have to pay higher rates because people smoke, and that's exactly what is happening. Insurance companies are having to dole out larger amounts of money because people smoke and get sick more often.

I don't think it's fair either.

I rarely go to the doctor and do not smoke, yet I still have to pay the same amount of money that a smoker, who purposefully leave themselves prone to more illness, does.

And I don't find it very cool, at all.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
Hey, it might be shitty but at least I don't have to worry about if I can afford going to the doctors or not when I get something wrong with me.;)
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
In a way I agree, its not fair that people have to pay higher rates because people smoke, and that's exactly what is happening. Insurance companies are having to dole out larger amounts of money because people smoke and get sick more often.

I don't think it's fair either.

I rarely go to the doctor and do not smoke, yet I still have to pay the same amount of money that a smoker, who purposefully leave themselves prone to more illness, does.

And I don't find it very cool, at all.

It works different over here though, the NHS is paid for in tax. This system is suggesting denying people treatment who have paid loads of money toward the system.;)
 

SRC

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
It works different over here though, the NHS is paid for in tax. This system is suggesting denying people treatment who have paid loads of money toward the system.;)
It's techincally the same thing .. people are getting taxed the same rate across the board (smokers vs non-smokers) .. even though they aren't using as much of the healthcare system benefits equally across the board.

Smokers .. generally use up 3 times more healthcare resources as a non-smoker will through out their lifetime. Smokers get colds more often, they have more severe sinus issues, and they tend to get cancer more.
 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I've heard this concept before. Let those who choose to risk their health either pay more for health benefits or forego the opportunity to have the health benefit.
On most insurance forms now, it asks if you're a smoker.

Does that same concept apply to people who drink?
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
Calculating peoples income tax is pretty hard to do based on how fat they are or if they smoke or not, it just wouldn't work. Also the tax on alcohol and tobacco is so high compared to other products it more than evens that out.
 

Breath

Banned!
Messages
3,824
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Does that same concept apply to people who drink?
It's been mentioned about heavy drinkers too. Essentially any "vice" that can potentially impair health is controversial from an insurance company's standpoint. Obviously, they're trying to pay out less. Eliminating risks is potentially profitable.
 

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
And that's why I don't want government-run health care. The way we are now, insurance companies can choose to raise your rate if you're high-risk.
 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
It's been mentioned about heavy drinkers too. Essentially any "vice" that can potentially impair health is controversial from an insurance company's standpoint. Obviously, they're trying to pay out less. Eliminating risks is potentially profitable.

So I guess social/light drinkers would be exempt? Social/light smokers would be too?

And how would they determine who drinks and smoke how much?

Just thinking aloud here is all.
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top