Obese patients denied operations

[GB4]

It Aint No Bottomless Pit.....

Now that people are having the right to appeal against decisions not to provide care on basis of cost etc., as detailed in the press recently (poor Ladies needing possible cancer cure at £40k a year, AIDS victims from Africa getting Interferon for nothing), some rules are going to have to be laid down to ensure proper allocation of resources or the NHS will be bankrupt in no time. Are you happy to pay more NI contributions to treat other people who make no effort to stay healthy? Thought not. The alternative is going to be US style healthcare / BUPA. I drink, smoke herb, ride my bike, get tattooed and shag. If I fuck myself up it is not for you to pay my bills.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I'm fullyplumped by name and fully plump in real life, and I do see the point of this.

There is no absolute right to treatment under the NHS. Hips and such are weight-bearing and I appreciate that it will increase the likelihood of failure of a new artificial hip if I need one and I don't lose loads of weight. With a new hip, though, I would have time to do this before the work was done.

The NHS (you and me as taxpayers, in other words) has good reason to expect people to comply with personalised advice as a condition of getting treatments which will be relatively costly, and which should last for twenty years or so.

I think similar principles should apply to organ transplants, and other costly treatments. Keep off the sauce if you get a new liver, and if you can't, someone else gets it first.

More than that, I think that car owners should pay the NHS back for the cost of treatment of people they hurt, and crims should pay the NHS back for th cost of treating their victims (and so should the booze trade if perpetrators were drunk when they did their dark deeds). Same principle.

I know how bloody d-i-f-f-i-c-u-l-t it is to lose weight. You have to adopt a lifestyle you don't want to. You have to eat and drink differently (i.e. less) and you have to sweat and pech and gasp and wheeze and not use the car and climb stairs and walk everywhere. It never stops. You fail and get discouraged. But it's worth it and anyway you only get one life. Probably.

 

[Japey]

Would you say the same should apply to those that drink too much and smoke?

We have various financial incentives to change the behaviour of people who are draining the resources of the health service.

We already have it for smoking - in duty on cigarettes. The more you smoke, the more you pay. I've got no idea how much of the duty actually winds its way into the health service, and whether it is sufficient to cover the costs of all smoking-related diseases. But there you have it - a strong financial incentive to quit smoking - or, perhaps more importantly, to deter you from starting in the first place. Certainly the cost of cigarettes is a strong factor in why I've been careful to avoid them.

A free health service is fantastic in so many ways. But one way it fails is that people disregard the health costs of their activities because they only pay for it indirectly through taxation. There are a few activites which are causing a significant drain on the health service - so why not target those?
It doesn't ban people from smoking or over-eating if that's what they want to do - but it at least makes them very aware of the financial costs of doing so.

 

[lewislewis]

If there's a problem, eat less.

 

[WasGeri]

More than that, I think that car owners should pay the NHS back for the cost of treatment of people they hurt, and crims should pay the NHS back for th cost of treating their victims (and so should the booze trade if perpetrators were drunk when they did their dark deeds). Same principle.

This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Someone gets pissed and glasses someone - who are you going to get the money off? Are you going to track down his movements that night and approach all the places he had a drink at?

Do you think criminals generally have the resources to pay the NHS for the treatment of the victims of their crimes? Why do you think a lot of people become criminals in the first place - for fun, or because they are naturally 'bad'?

The NHS is paid for by all, to provide treatment for all. Do you want this country to go the way of the USA, where people who don't have medical insurance can't get treatment?

Fine, if they won't pay to treat someone who is obese - let that person then have the option of not contributing.

 

[spanglechick]

We have various financial incentives to change the behaviour of people who are draining the resources of the health service.

We already have it for smoking - in duty on cigarettes. The more you smoke, the more you pay. I've got no idea how much of the duty actually winds its way into the health service, and whether it is sufficient to cover the costs of all smoking-related diseases. But there you have it - a strong financial incentive to quit smoking - or, perhaps more importantly, to deter you from starting in the first place. Certainly the cost of cigarettes is a strong factor in why I've been careful to avoid them.

A free health service is fantastic in so many ways. But one way it fails is that people disregard the health costs of their activities because they only pay for it indirectly through taxation. There are a few activites which are causing a significant drain on the health service - so why not target those?
It doesn't ban people from smoking or over-eating if that's what they want to do - but it at least makes them very aware of the financial costs of doing so.

actually - i'd agree with a tax on unhealthy foods.

 

[spanglechick]

If there's a problem, eat less.

and to an anorexic : "eat more"?

 

[WasGeri]

actually - i'd agree with a tax on unhealthy foods.

Why should there be though? There is no such thing as an unhealthy food, only an unhealthy diet. You can't compare food to cigarettes.

 

[spanglechick]

Why should there be though? There is no such thing as an unhealthy food, only an unhealthy diet. You can't compare food to cigarettes.

there is nothing healthy about confectionary, and the health benefits of fast food are far outweighed by the negatives. It may not cause overall harm when taken in occasional moderation, but it still doesn't do any good. We pay tax on luxuries - why not pay more on those (like wine,) which will harm us?

 

[WasGeri]

Wine is not a luxury!

I am not in favour of raising taxes.

 

[lewislewis]

and to an anorexic : "eat more"?

Anorexia was unheard of in some non-western countries until they started recieving American television.

 

[spanglechick]

Anorexia was unheard of in some non-western countries until they started recieving American television.

as was binge eating disorder. the relevance to the thread is?

 

[spanglechick]

Wine is not a luxury!

I am not in favour of raising taxes.

but i'd rather pay "duty" on chocolate and takeaways than more NI - since the money has to come from somewhere...

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

there is nothing healthy about confectionary, and the health benefits of fast food are far outweighed by the negatives. It may not cause overall harm when taken in occasional moderation, but it still doesn't do any good. We pay tax on luxuries - why not pay more on those (like wine,) which will harm us?

Fast food tends to be eaten more by people in lower income brackets. Seems unfair to tax them. A subsidy on healthier food funded by high rate taxes would be more appealing to me.

 

[Fullyplumped]

This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

Och I'm sure you've heard worse.

A person who glasses another person should pay the NHS back for the cost of treating his or her victim, for as long as it takes, and whether or not they can easily afford it. Perhaps we could create special labouring programmes, separate from community punishments, for people to work off their debts if they don’t have the readies?

The NHS is paid for by all, to provide treatment for all, but only within the overall limits of affordability set by the elected governments which are sensitive to tax levels that electors are prepared to pay. That’s part of the justification for a fully National Health Service. People whose flagrantly blameworthy conduct involves the NHS in avoidable expenditure should relieve the general taxpayer from that cost.

The whole booze trade must be held complicit in the huge amount of crime and misery caused by the drink culture and drunkenness, so it should pay a fair share to the NHS collectively on top of what it already pays in tax and duty. It should be possible to assess the cost to the NHS of dealing with the consequences of demon drink.

This would free mainstream resources to pay for more treatments more quickly, and perpetrators, and the booze industry, would be aware that they would bear the full and fair costs to the NHS of their crimes.

I am awful, ain’t I!

 

[WasGeri]

but i'd rather pay "duty" on chocolate and takeaways than more NI - since the money has to come from somewhere...

But what of people who are compulsive eaters? People who have eating disorders? Should they be punished by higher taxes?

Unless they are anorexics of course. It's not going to affect them, yet they cost the NHS money.

 

[Random]

"A person who glasses another person should pay the NHS back for the cost of treating his or her victim, for as long as it takes, and whether or not they can easily afford it."

Why not just take resources from those that have resources -- the rich and corporations -- to pay for health services for those that need it most?

'Obseity' is a social problem, not something to do with individual choice. Once upon a time we had an NHS that at least made gestures towards making health our collective responsibility. If failed, but the solution isn't to make things even more individualistic.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Och I'm sure you've heard worse.

A person who glasses another person should pay the NHS back for the cost of treating his or her victim, for as long as it takes, and whether or not they can easily afford it. Perhaps we could create special labouring programmes, separate from community punishments, for people to work off their debts if they don’t have the readies?

The NHS is paid for by all, to provide treatment for all, but only within the overall limits of affordability set by the elected governments which are sensitive to tax levels that electors are prepared to pay. That’s part of the justification for a fully National Health Service. People whose flagrantly blameworthy conduct involves the NHS in avoidable expenditure should relieve the general taxpayer from that cost.

The whole booze trade must be held complicit in the huge amount of crime and misery caused by the drink culture and drunkenness, so it should pay a fair share to the NHS collectively on top of what it already pays in tax and duty. It should be possible to assess the cost to the NHS of dealing with the consequences of demon drink.

This would free mainstream resources to pay for more treatments more quickly, and perpetrators, and the booze industry, would be aware that they would bear the full and fair costs to the NHS of their crimes.

I am awful, ain’t I!

I disagree. I don't like the general principle of the health service overseeing people's lifestyle choices, and I think it would be a slippery slope to getting rid of it altogether.

Also, if someone needs treatment as a result of something unhealthy but can't afford to pay, are you prepared to let them die?

 

[tobyjug]

Basically NHS treatement in future is going to be reserved for the fit. Smokers, drinkers, drug users and porkers need not apply

 

[_angel_]

Basically NHS treatement in future is going to be reserved for the fit. Smokers, drinkers, drug users and porkers need not apply

you missed out the elderly, disabled (either physically or mentally).

 

[WasGeri]

Basically NHS treatement in future is going to be reserved for the fit. Smokers, drinkers, drug users and porkers need not apply

But if they're fit, why do they need treatment?!

I suppose they might get attacked by a fat, drunken, smoking drug user.

 

[In Bloom]

Are you happy to pay more NI contributions to treat other people who make no effort to stay healthy?

Yes. At least more so than seeing my money go towards those useless fucking inbred scroungers on the civil list or an MPs second home, not five minutes away from his first.

 

[spanglechick]

Fast food tends to be eaten more by people in lower income brackets. Seems unfair to tax them. A subsidy on healthier food funded by high rate taxes would be more appealing to me.

but i can't afford to eat fast food

but anyway - duty on fast food to subsidise fruit and green veg. cool - i'd go for that.

 

[spanglechick]

But what of people who are compulsive eaters? People who have eating disorders? Should they be punished by higher taxes?

Unless they are anorexics of course. It's not going to affect them, yet they cost the NHS money.

ok - as an ex sufferer of binge eating disorder, i'll point out two things.

Firstly, i went into debt to feed my compulsion anyway. £40 a session on food was beyond my income, so would £60 be. I'd have found the money somehow.

Secondly, when I was binging i binged on healthy foods too. I binged on uncooked wholemeal pasta once. Raw dry oats were a favourite. (With pints of water). Don't worry about the binge eaters, they'll find a way.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I disagree. I don't like the general principle of the health service overseeing people's lifestyle choices, and I think it would be a slippery slope to getting rid of it altogether.

Well most of my rant was about crims and the NHS rather than "lifestyle choices" and I don't agree that glassing someone is a "lifestyle choice", even if the glass wielder is intoxicated.

Failing to follow personalised advice about solving a serios health problem along with reasonable offers of practical support is a genuine choice, though - would you not agree?

 

[ViolentPanda]

If there's a problem, eat less.

What simplistic bollocks.

Weight loss is as much about exercise as diet control, what about those who become obese because of injuries which don't allow them to exercise as much as they need to? Where do they come in your incredibly simplistic worldview?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Well most of my rant was about crims and the NHS rather than "lifestyle choices" and I don't agree that glassing someone is a "lifestyle choice", even if the glass wielder is intoxicated.

Failing to follow personalised advice about solving a serios health problem along with reasonable offers of practical support is a genuine choice, though - would you not agree?

It's a choice, but not an easy one, and I don't think the NHS is there to force people to make those choices.

Personalised advice and practical support doesn't come cheap either.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Anorexia was unheard of in some non-western countries until they started recieving American television.

"Unheard of" doesn't mean "unobserved" or "unquantified" though, does it?

 

[Fullyplumped]

It's a choice, but not an easy one, and I don't think the NHS is there to force people to make those choices.

The NHS is a HEALTH service, not a treatment of illness service and it should prompt such choices. Look, if you need a new hip, you are advised not to drive, or do lots of other stuff, in case you break, especially in the first few months. If they don't think you can follow that advice, they won't do it. This takes that principle just a little bit further.

Personalised advice and practical support doesn't come cheap either.

It's a lot cheaper than the alternatives! look at http://www.haveaheart.org.uk/PAGES/PHYSICAL.HTM for an example of advice and support from the Council and NHS working together.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

The NHS is a HEALTH service, not a treatment of illness service and it should prompt such choices. Look, if you need a new hip, you are advised not to drive, or do lots of other stuff, in case you break, especially in the first few months. If they don't think you can follow that advice, they won't do it. This takes that principle just a little bit further.

It should. But you're suggesting taking it to the point of forcing someone, through the threat of not being treated in future. I think that's too far.