On 11 Jan 2012 at 7:09pm Deelite wrote:
Good isn't it? About time that we encouraged citizens to look after their own health. It starts here, with Hertfordshire (oddly). National Health should be free too all those who look after themselves! Yeah.
Next Eugenics and why the state thinks it has the right to decide when we die.
Fodder for Paul. Maybe for once we'll agree.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 12:14am AYATOLLAH HOGMANNY wrote:
What about junkies and alkies, or are they putting all their money into them as they have no choice in how they live!!!! If we were all forced to be totally healthy the NHS would have nothing to do and they could then all be made redundant, maybe they should consider this before they start pontificating. Maybe we should all give up smoking etc and the lost revenue taken out of their budget, after all they wont need it if we are all so healthy...maybe we could get rid of it altogether. Maybe a taste of the dole queue is what these people need, they would probably turn to drink...oops sorry most of them have already!!!!
On 12 Jan 2012 at 8:59am Me-mo wrote:
What about people who do dangerous sport (mountain climbing, quad biking) Or if they ride a motorbike (as if you crash you are more likely to get injured) How about we stop giving them free care when they get in an accident, that way the nhs wont have to do anything except move all the dead bodies off roads. Oh and then we have people who dont use a cross road, we can take them off this list, and children are always falling off bikes and hitting their heads or finding the pain killers in their house. Lets not treat them as well as lets face it if they didnt own a bike they wouldnt be able to fall off and hit their heads and their parent can really just live with the migraine.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 9:09am DFL wrote:
People who take up dangerous sports, usually do so after training and aquiring specific skills, hence they manage and minimise the risk of injuries. People who smoke do so knowing that they could die as a result, and therefore pay no attention to the risks involved, and, unfortunately, there are no training courses (that I'm aware of !) that can help smokers minimise the risk of death (other than give it up!). Likewise alcohol, at least one is able to cut down on drink to lessen the effect on ones liver and kidneys. As for "fatties", a term which I find just a tad derogatory, lets just say that they are "corpulent" - this condition is not as clear cut as one may think and needs individual diagnosis.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 11:17am Me-mo wrote:
They may take the training which minimises the risk or injury but it does not stop it. Not all smokers die of smoking related diseases. Not all cancer victims smoke. Alcohol has killed people in a single drinking session smoking has never done this. People who smoke also pay a lot of tax on their cigarettes with some going towards the NHS. If people stoped smoking this country would be a lot worse off as the money from the tax wouldnt be there.
As with not treating people who are over weight, maybe they should go down the route of putting health warnings on large clothes and making larger clothes cost more than say a size 6. Which then brings you to the other scale. Are anorexic people going to be refused medical help. Because they are willingly harming their bodies
On 12 Jan 2012 at 11:48am Me-mo wrote:
Just another thing about NHS not treating smokers and fatties. Shall Myself (a smoker) and the thousands of others smokers and fat people stop giving blood. As if they are not willing to help us if needed maybe we should all stop our willingness to give blood (for free) for them to use
On 12 Jan 2012 at 12:26pm DFL wrote:
Well Me-Mo, at least you have something to bargain with ! I am an ex-smoker (the worst to criticise !) and I gave up because my father used to smoke and he died of smoking related problems at the tender age of 54.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 12:56pm jrsussex wrote:
As I have said previously on here, my father was a genuine chain smoker of Player's Weights. I would estimate he smoked between 60/70 cigarettes each day, died at the age of 75yrs of no smoking related illness, neither did he throughout his life suffer any such illnesses.
Which is why I believe the argument put on passive smoking to be flawed, despite much searching I have yet to discover any scientific evidence to support the theory.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 1:05pm Mr Forks wrote:
Smokes pay National Insurance and tax and therefore should be entitled to the NHS. This is just another example of health fascism, in this Health and Safety obsessed era we have the misfortune to live in!
On 12 Jan 2012 at 1:46pm Clifford wrote:
I think you may misunderstand what 'Health and Safety' is Mr Forks. Have a read round the HSE website and you may begin to see. A clue - it's got nothing to do with 'health fascism'.
Having said that, my idea of a National Health Service is that it treats everyone who lives here, regardless of what they suffering from and how they got it.
Check it out here »
On 12 Jan 2012 at 2:04pm Me-mo wrote:
This is also saying that smokers and over weight people have less rights to a free health service than those detained for proven crimes - which in effect the NHS saying its ok to kill that person or torture that child as long as you dont smoke you will still get our support. If they want to save money why not start at the prisons health service?
On 12 Jan 2012 at 3:28pm jrsussex wrote:
I forgot to say I am a non-smoker, stopped about 15yrs ago.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 4:57pm Clifford wrote:
What would you suggest Me-mo, that people in prison aren't given any medical treatment?I thought one of the things that separates us from criminals is that we have a higher moral standard than they do.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 5:32pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Smokers pay loads of tax on their fags and then save us all a fortune by dying young and not claiming their pensions for long. Smoking should be encouraged imo.
The same could well apply to fatties, as VAT is paid on sweets and cakes.
On 13 Jan 2012 at 7:16am Deelite wrote:
Smokers tend to die slowly, painfully and expensively.
On 13 Jan 2012 at 8:11am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
So do those with any degenerative illness, though. At least smokers don't tend to hang around claiming their pensions till they're 110!
I think living a really long time is overrated, tbh. It's all right if you manage to stay pain-free, mobile and in full possesion of your faculties, but pretty grim if you don't.
On 13 Jan 2012 at 9:07am DFL wrote:
ACT, I think I'll start smoking and binge drinking again !!
On 13 Jan 2012 at 4:12pm bastian wrote:
ACT, tough but true.
On 13 Jan 2012 at 8:25pm Deelite wrote:
Maintaining your healthful longevity with full faculties is helped by good diet, active mind and exercise. Life is beautiful and unique. Live it and make it last. SmokIng is not living.
On 15 Jan 2012 at 12:08pm bastian wrote:
given that we now have to work to 67 and possibly 68 we won't be needing the health care in our old age, why?, because my dad had a non smoking related heart attack at 69..I expect to follow in his footsteps. Depressing? well,yes.
On 15 Jan 2012 at 6:34pm Huh? wrote:
What happened to your mother?
On 19 Jan 2012 at 6:32pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I don't want to outlive my marbles. Both my parents had dementia (different types, too, just to maximise my chances of getting it) and I really don't want to go through what they did.
On 21 Jan 2012 at 7:04am gofLoureIrory wrote:
In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
On 21 Jan 2012 at 11:54pm gofLoureIrory wrote:
You have hit the mark. It seems to me it is very good thought. Completely with you I will agree.
On 22 Jan 2012 at 5:37pm gofLoureIrory wrote:
I think, that you are not right. I am assured. Let's discuss it. Write to me in PM, we will talk.