Keeping up with the latest Brexit News

Which option would you prefer?

  • Leave with no deal

    Votes: 114 74.5%
  • Leave with the WA without the backstop

    Votes: 39 25.5%

  • Total voters
    153
  • This poll will close: .

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
People who have chosen to smoke for 20 years have paid for their treatment (if required, although only 1 in 3 get cancer as a result) many times over in the tax paid on cigarettes. Cigarette Tax/VAT £12 billion, NHS spend £3-6 billion. Also by dieing prematurely they save the exchequer from having to spend on their pension payments if they lived until their 80s, or the other health costs which older people generate.
Does smoking cost as much as it makes for the Treasury?
The problem with that idea is quite simple, while the Treasury has raised billions through tax/vat on tobacco products there is no way to know how much of that (if any) has been pumped into the NHS to specifically treat smoking related diseases. If I had my way I'd ban smoking entirely, but I know that's an extreme solution that wouldn't work. I'd fine parents who smoke in front of their children in homes etc. I say that as somebody whose living with the consequences of passive smoking.

But hey ho, No Deal Brexit might make smoking unaffordable. So bright sides and all that.
 

jouster

Moderator
The problem with that idea is quite simple, while the Treasury has raised billions through tax/vat on tobacco products there is no way to know how much of that (if any) has been pumped into the NHS to specifically treat smoking related diseases. If I had my way I'd ban smoking entirely, but I know that's an extreme solution that wouldn't work. I'd fine parents who smoke in front of their children in homes etc. I say that as somebody whose living with the consequences of passive smoking.

But hey ho, No Deal Brexit might make smoking unaffordable. So bright sides and all that.
I have to agree with your point about smoking in the house with children...can't see it being any different to smoking in a car with a child which is of course illegal
 

psikey

Well-known Member
I have to disagree on a few of those I think...but I appreciate your points....giving a single mum with 8 kids fertility treatment is ridiculous...but a couple who can't fall pregnant without assistance shouldn't be penalized for that

Totally agree on correcting cosmetic anything though..same with gastric bands
Fertility treatment in the UK costs around £5,000 per cycle (just quick link I found).

Not out of reach if you really must have your own kid, certainly only a 1/4 the cost of a typical car replacement every 4 years.

If you can't afford to save for that you could argue you can't afford to raise the kid anyway.
 

jouster

Moderator
Fertility treatment in the UK costs around £5,000 per cycle (just quick link I found).

Not out of reach if you really must have your own kid, certainly only a 1/4 the cost of a typical car replacement every 4 years.

If you can't afford to save for that you could argue you can't afford to raise the kid anyway.

Not everyone can afford a car at all...again...maybe you'd feel differently if you couldn't have kids and couldn't afford to pay for the treatment yourself...I've been lucky and had three kids without it..not everyone is so lucky
 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
totally agree re nanny state....I eat healthily and look after myself, as do my family...don't dictate what the masses can do for the few who decide their children or their own health isn't important

I think it's criminal that so much is paid for on the NHS now....but I also think its a farce that people who have chosen to smoke for 20 years can have their treatment free on the NHS when prescription bills get higher and higher each year....you make your bed you lie in it.

I agree it won't change but that's life...I just hate having change forced on me because of the percentage of people who just don't care
One of the key issues regarding the NHS and the treatment of people regarding lifestyle choices is that I don't think that people are very aware of how personal choices affect NHS costs.

For example, if you ask the general public they would probably assume that on average, a smoker costs the NHS more than a non-smoker. (It certainly seems to be an assumption that people make when they discuss whether the NHS should treat smokers.)

However, research has shown that smokers on average actually cost the NHS less than non-smokers. (Both in terms of average cost per-year of life and total cost over a lifetime.) This is because smokers are more likely to get cancer, require a few months of intensive treatment and then die before they reach old age. The few months of intensive treatment are generally less costly to the NHS than someone reaching old age.

The main determinant of your cost to the NHS is your age. Once someone reaches their 50s their average cost to the NHS starts to rise quickly. Someone in their 80s costs the NHS on average 7 times as much as someone in their late 30s.

One of the primary causes of increased stress on the NHS system is the increase in the numbers of elderly patients. In 2016 there were more than 1.5 million people in the UK aged 85 or over. That was 4 times as many as there were 50 years earlier. By 2066 it is expected that the number will increase to 5 million.

So in terms of lifestyle choice affecting NHS costs, a choice that leads to living longer (e.g. not smoking) will generally result in costing the NHS more money. How does that change the discussion on lifestyle choices and rationing treatment?

On an anecdotal note, my father died earlier this year in his 90s. For the last few years of his life he was very frail and had a number of emergency admissions due to falling or infections. The first time I visited him in A&E I was shocked not just how over stretched A&E was but mainly that nearly all of the admissions were other elderly frail people. These patients were particularly difficult for the hospital to treat because (a) they recovered slowly, if at all and may not have anyone to look after them when they are released (b) they often had multiple, complex health issues. For example, a high proportion seemed to have dementia or some other mental issue - meaning that some of them could not be left alone and required intensive one-to-one care.
 
Last edited:

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
When generations are so fat that they are costing the NHS billions, they can and should decide for you if you do not know when to stop eating. If we were in america and you covered your medical expenses directly, then sure.
That must be why Americans are so slim and nobody there is obese.....

Expect more of this after Brexit when people are going to realise there is actually going to be less money for the NHS. You can kinda see the direction already: instead of people talking about that £350m being used on the NHS we are talking about how we can reduce obesity even more. And I am happy that we do: I see oversized children daily taking the bus 1-2 stops, while munching on chips after school. When you got to that level, you have to start forbidding stuff. In time, don't be surprised if your doctor will select who he will see depending on their condition: ie if it's self-inflicted, you will be waaay down on his priority list.
The NHS and government have been trying to address obesity and smoking long before brexit.

And as you may not know, NHS funding will increase by £394m per week by 2023/4. It's not reducing.
 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
There are many things the NHS does that I'd question should be funded privately

To name three:
  • Fixing cosmetic surgery fudge ups (i.e. breast implant fiasco thanks to French company)
  • Gender realignment treatments & surgery
  • Fertility treatment (enough people on planet already and loads of kids awaiting good homes in care system)
They should refocus back to repairing injuries/diseases etc.

PS. I do appreciate reconstructive cosmetic surgery is needed after cancer, major trauma etc.
OK - but I doubt that the NHS spends more than a few hundred million a year on such treatments. In other words not financing the above would make very little noticeable difference to a system that spends more than £400 million a day.

One of the most pressing issues with NHS funding is the growing costs of elderly patients. It is not easy to see a solution to that problem. :-(
 

Stuey1

Well-known Member
OK - but I doubt that the NHS spends more than a few hundred million a year on such treatments. In other words not financing the above would make very little noticeable difference to a system that spends more than £400 million a day.

One of the most pressing issues with NHS funding is the growing costs of elderly patients. It is not easy to see a solution to that problem. :-(
Smoking :laugh:
 

klaxhu

Well-known Member
Flaming. Inciting an argument
That must be why Americans are so slim and nobody there is obese.....
The NHS and government have been trying to address obesity and smoking long before brexit.

And as you may not know, NHS funding will increase by £394m per week by 2023/4. It's not reducing.
What does that have to do with what I was saying? Did you even read the discussion you were quoting? I never said there is a correlation between obesity and tax contribution.

Also, what you say makes no sense: just increasing contribution does not mean you fix the underlying issues. We recently threw 4 billion at the NHS and it was nowhere to be seen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

psikey

Well-known Member
Not everyone can afford a car at all...again...maybe you'd feel differently if you couldn't have kids and couldn't afford to pay for the treatment yourself...I've been lucky and had three kids without it..not everyone is so lucky
We did one lot of paid fertility treatment which failed then Adopted 2 lovely kids (6mth old & 2 yo). One now 20 at Uni the other 22 with a granddaughter.

Feels great knowing I saved two from the fostering/care system.

Was paying mortgage and driving 5+ yo car like many basic tax payers at the time (interest rates hit 15%!). People have to plan for their own priorities or do without if you can't afford.

I do feel in our generation (and before) benefits were seen as a safety net, not a way to plan living off other tax payers.

I do realise that housing costs are stupid these days compared to wages but still think you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to raise them yourself.
 
Last edited:

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
Getting back to Brexit...

Apparently there has been "some very significant movement by the British on the customs issue" following the PM's meeting this afternoon.
 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
....but I also think its a farce that people who have chosen to smoke for 20 years can have their treatment free on the NHS when prescription bills get higher and higher each year....you make your bed you lie in it.
Given that smokers on average cost the NHS less than non-smokers does that mean that the NHS should refuse to treat non-smokers? A choice not to smoke is a choice to cost the NHS more.

I am not in any way suggesting that people smoke. I just think it is important to acknowledge that while you can argue against smoking on grounds of individual health, individual cost, passive smoking and general unpleasantness to others - you cannot argue against smoking on the grounds that it costs the NHS additional money - as that is factually incorrect.
 

Goooner

Distinguished Member
Also agree on the nanny state issue.

As for the burden on the NHS, the next one is the decision to treat on line gaming addiction in children as a recognised illness, again something that can be controlled by their parents. Skype sessions though for those outside of London, where the treatment centre has been set up, doesn't seem like a sound medical decision to me.
Totally agree. Waits wrong with parents saying “you get 1 hour a day gaming (or whatever) and if it doesn’t I’ll take it away for a week”?
 

doug56hl

Distinguished Member
The problem with that idea is quite simple, while the Treasury has raised billions through tax/vat on tobacco products there is no way to know how much of that (if any) has been pumped into the NHS to specifically treat smoking related diseases. If I had my way I'd ban smoking entirely, but I know that's an extreme solution that wouldn't work. I'd fine parents who smoke in front of their children in homes etc. I say that as somebody whose living with the consequences of passive smoking.

But hey ho, No Deal Brexit might make smoking unaffordable. So bright sides and all that.
Immaterial surely. Even if none of the money raised went directly to the NHS, that's £12 billion per year which would have had to have been found elsewhere in the budget for the NHS. The money is going into a pot which funds many things. Might be the NHS, might be two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and a squadron of F-35Bs to go on them. Could even pay for the UK annual net contribution to the EU....

To put the amount raised from cigarette tax into perspective, it's around the amount that would be raised by increasing basic rate income tax by 2.5p to 3p in the £.
 

hunt808

Suspended
Getting back to Brexit...

Apparently there has been "some very significant movement by the British on the customs issue" following the PM's meeting this afternoon.
So much for Johnson's, "take it or leave it", final deal.

Maybe we'll actually see some grown-up politics from him? I won't hold my breath.
 

Stuey1

Well-known Member
Given that smokers on average cost the NHS less than non-smokers does that mean that the NHS should refuse to treat non-smokers? A choice not to smoke is a choice to cost the NHS more.

I am not in any way suggesting that people smoke. I just think it is important to acknowledge that while you can argue against smoking on grounds of individual health, individual cost, passive smoking and general unpleasantness to others - you cannot argue against smoking on the grounds that it costs the NHS additional money - as that is factually incorrect.
My comment was a flippant remark with all of the talk about what smokers cost the NHS. There are lots of valid points around the tax revenue generated from smokers, the shorter life expectancy so savings from pensions, passive smoking effects and most importantly how much of the tax generated is passed to the NHS.

Basically, there is certainly no-one in this forum that can effectively answer the question of whether smoker cost more to treat than they generate in tax for the government as there are far too many variables.

The only comments that make me laugh are those suggesting smokers should be at the back of the line for treatment, they are not doing anything illegal and they pay taxes, so there is no reason why they shouldn't be treated the same as anyone else.
 

psikey

Well-known Member
Jeremy Corbyn: No Brexit referendum before election


Surprised as I was sure he would have preferred a referendum. He must still be deluded thinking he can win a GE.

If Boris does get the deal there is no way Corbyn would win a GE. Most would just see Labour as trying to block a Democratic vote while Boris battled against all to get the deal.
 

psikey

Well-known Member
So much for Johnson's, "take it or leave it", final deal.

Maybe we'll actually see some grown-up politics from him? I won't hold my breath.
You sure you know how politics (and even business) works?

Its why MP's and top business people need to be accomplished liars. High stacks poker.
 

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
So much for Johnson's, "take it or leave it", final deal.
Where did he say it was take it or leave it?

He said it was "a broad landing area for a deal" and invited the EU to negotiate on it.
 

psikey

Well-known Member
"What a difference a day makes" well 2hrs actually!


Brexit: Varadkar says new agreement 'possible' by end of October after talks with Johnson


I wonder how many Remainers are disappointed with this if their honest? A Deal means not cancelling A50. If these two are agreeing (so supposedly DUP will still be onside) then I can't see parliament/EU voting against the eventual deal if it meets the rest of the WA.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest news

Netflix reveals how viewing metrics determines a show's success
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Discovery launches dplay AVOD service in UK and Ireland
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Cyrus announces ONE Cast Smart Audio System
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Chord Electronics debuts ULTIMA 3 power amp at UK Hi-Fi Show Live
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Virgin Media unleashes Gig1 home broadband in Manchester
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom