Sex God
No
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
fat tax/smokers tax etc
Sex God
Like what blue said
Sex God
I'm a fat smoker
More seriously, if I have to pay for health-care for whatever reason should I not be allowed to stop paying that proportion of tax/social security I already pay for my health care ?
edit:
NATIONAL INSURANCE that's what I meant...it just wouldn't come to me tip of my tongue and all....bugger it I'm getting old
More seriously, if I have to pay for health-care for whatever reason should I not be allowed to stop paying that proportion of tax/social security I already pay for my health care ?
edit:
NATIONAL INSURANCE that's what I meant...it just wouldn't come to me tip of my tongue and all....bugger it I'm getting old
because as soon as you start sectioning one part of the community you cause unrest and possibly a reaction.
Everyone who pays national insurance is entitled to treatment regardless of the complaint.
Do we start saying to fat people unless you stop eating your not getting help?
then do we say to the alcoholic dont come here sleep it off in the gutter when they are in need of help.
Do we say to gambling addicts your therapy sessions and counciling are stopping because its your problem and not ours?
every addiction or illness regardless of the person needs help and thats what the nhs was set up for, not to turn people away because they do not fit in with one persons policy.
Because if we are going to do this then these people who were getting help and now are not will turn their anger on others and you will see doctors and nurses getting brutally attacked and not just at the hospital.
Once someone with a illness is refused treatment they have little option left but to lose it,people would get angry that we have because a racist society and governments would be handing out millions in compensation to families of people who have died because the nhs turned them away.
And because we are now turning people away who do not fit in are we also including disabled people who were born that way?
what about babies born with defects? do we say sod it the money is better spent elsewhere than repairing the hole in the heart?
some people are overweight not just by eating and some are under weight,and what do we do with people who are taller than average or shorter? do we just shoot them in the head because they now are not the correct type of people under the policy?
everybody is entitled to help and treatment.
Everyone who pays national insurance is entitled to treatment regardless of the complaint.
Do we start saying to fat people unless you stop eating your not getting help?
then do we say to the alcoholic dont come here sleep it off in the gutter when they are in need of help.
Do we say to gambling addicts your therapy sessions and counciling are stopping because its your problem and not ours?
every addiction or illness regardless of the person needs help and thats what the nhs was set up for, not to turn people away because they do not fit in with one persons policy.
Because if we are going to do this then these people who were getting help and now are not will turn their anger on others and you will see doctors and nurses getting brutally attacked and not just at the hospital.
Once someone with a illness is refused treatment they have little option left but to lose it,people would get angry that we have because a racist society and governments would be handing out millions in compensation to families of people who have died because the nhs turned them away.
And because we are now turning people away who do not fit in are we also including disabled people who were born that way?
what about babies born with defects? do we say sod it the money is better spent elsewhere than repairing the hole in the heart?
some people are overweight not just by eating and some are under weight,and what do we do with people who are taller than average or shorter? do we just shoot them in the head because they now are not the correct type of people under the policy?
everybody is entitled to help and treatment.
Not all overweight people are that way because they eat too much, it can be a medical condition so why should they be charged for treatment, it might be the treatment that has made them that way in the first place.
I`m not a smoker and I don`t particularly like being around them but some smokers live for many years and never have smoke related illness but if they suffer from something else is it fair to tax them?
People become ill for all sorts of reasons and you have to look at the whole picture.
I`m not a smoker and I don`t particularly like being around them but some smokers live for many years and never have smoke related illness but if they suffer from something else is it fair to tax them?
People become ill for all sorts of reasons and you have to look at the whole picture.
I smoke and ride a bike, but what a bike has to do with anything, I do not know?
I pay into the NHS every month and also pay out over 100 quid a month on private health care.
My NHS contributions should pay for ANY problem I may have with my health, be it smoking or riding my bike.
It is bollox to suggest as I have heard many times, to refuse treatment to people who smoke or who are overweight.
Remember the NHS motto was " free healthcare for ALL ", and long may that remain the case.
It is not free but ya get my drift.
I pay into the NHS every month and also pay out over 100 quid a month on private health care.
My NHS contributions should pay for ANY problem I may have with my health, be it smoking or riding my bike.
It is bollox to suggest as I have heard many times, to refuse treatment to people who smoke or who are overweight.
Remember the NHS motto was " free healthcare for ALL ", and long may that remain the case.
It is not free but ya get my drift.
Sex God
so if you give up smoking and put on weight then your buggered 
Smokers already pay more than half the annual NHS bill with the vast amount of tax put on tobacco, maybe exagarating slightly, but if this was to happen would 20 cigarettes drop to a pack, highly doubtful i'd imagine.
On a serous note though, my neighbour who's also a good friend neither smokes nor is overweight and has been in and out of hospital regularly with various problems, would imagine the bill would be huge if private, so why should she get all this free treatment when a smoker/overweight person might visit the hospital just once in 20 years and have to pay.
On a serous note though, my neighbour who's also a good friend neither smokes nor is overweight and has been in and out of hospital regularly with various problems, would imagine the bill would be huge if private, so why should she get all this free treatment when a smoker/overweight person might visit the hospital just once in 20 years and have to pay.
Good thread this. The biggest problem with this type of restriction is where to draw the line?
In theory, I am in favour of introducing some sort of contribution to NHS services in all but accident emergency cases similar to dental charges for NHS dentists. There are a number of considerations though, one being if there was a passport for those on benefits similar to the dental charges and an exemption for those unfortunate enough to have a permanent ongoing complaint that is not lifestyle related and there are moral issues with pregnancy as there is the unborn child to be considered - again the problem of where to draw the line is ever present!
Plim
In theory, I am in favour of introducing some sort of contribution to NHS services in all but accident emergency cases similar to dental charges for NHS dentists. There are a number of considerations though, one being if there was a passport for those on benefits similar to the dental charges and an exemption for those unfortunate enough to have a permanent ongoing complaint that is not lifestyle related and there are moral issues with pregnancy as there is the unborn child to be considered - again the problem of where to draw the line is ever present!
Plim
Sex God
Quote by brucie
ok, im back on the nhs for all side. thansk for setting dtraight and guiding me away from the daily mail.
but whats all this about not all fat people over eat? how else do you get fat apart from eating more calories than you burn?
underactive thyroid
Quote by Plimboy
Good thread this. The biggest problem with this type of restriction is where to draw the line?
In theory, I am in favour of introducing some sort of contribution to NHS services in all but accident emergency cases similar to dental charges for NHS dentists. There are a number of considerations though, one being if there was a passport for those on benefits similar to the dental charges and an exemption for those unfortunate enough to have a permanent ongoing complaint that is not lifestyle related and there are moral issues with pregnancy as there is the unborn child to be considered - again the problem of where to draw the line is ever present!
Plim
This already exists - it's called "National Insurance" and is paid by people who work for a living. I would be in favour of an "alcohol insurance" system, whereby all those pissheads that cost the NHS a bloody fortune are made to cough up for treatment for injuries sustained when they're drunk.
Bruce...you've stated you fuck anything with a pulse...you've stated you've paid for sex with prostitutes...shouldn't you also put yourself in the same catergory as fat people, smokers etc...in a way are your neglecting/risking your health...why should the NHS pay to have your sexually transmitted disease treated if and when you get it.
Quote by brucie
Bruce...you've stated you fuck anything with a pulse...you've stated you've paid for sex with prostitutes...shouldn't you also put yourself in the same catergory as fat people, smokers etc...in a way are your neglecting/risking your health...why should the NHS pay to have your sexually transmitted disease treated if and when you get it.
isnt it against teh rules to make personal attacks on SH?
also when did say i would fuck anything with a pulse? i thought i made it clear that i was a very fussy bugger.
and when diod i say i fucked prossies?
Here
Quote by brucie
whats the consensus on here about blokes going to see working girls.
i went through a period about 8-10 years ago when i was working around soho that i did the walk up thing for a while. it was fun having quick mechanical sex with some very young and pretty girls and it was cheap too (no, i never got the feeling that they were two young or trafficked girls. i would be sensitive to that and go as far as reporting any suspicions).
about 2 years ago i was getting massaged a lot and more often than not gettinga happy ending. these were legit places and the main peurpose was massage but teh happy ending was a bonus and sometimes rewarded witha small tip (not always).
both those periods wereperiods when i was having more rather than less free sex and playing around, so it wasnt a desperation thing.
i have found that swingers can be surprisingly conservative about things and particularly infidelity and prostitution.
so i thought id start a debate.
Oh please...how often have you posted attention threads stated who your going to be shagging, today, tomorrow,tonight,this morning,blah blah blah!
so you tell me wher i've broken the AUP?
Sex God
start doing that n what else will they come up with???
lets start by stoping those from abroad getting free treatment come here for a op then go back home.....
lets start by stoping those from abroad getting free treatment come here for a op then go back home.....
It started out as a good discussion but now Brucie again has turned it into a fat people witch-hunt.
There are numerous conditions that can cause you to put on weight even if its through water retention, under active thyroid, even people on steroids put on weight.
It seams that in Brucie`s world if you aren`t young and beautiful and "fit" for some reason you are second class and should be ignored and denied any sort of life, enjoyment or medical facility.
I think we have seen this sort of attitude before, in the 1930`s it was, some bloke with a funny little moustache and a foreign accent.
There are numerous conditions that can cause you to put on weight even if its through water retention, under active thyroid, even people on steroids put on weight.
It seams that in Brucie`s world if you aren`t young and beautiful and "fit" for some reason you are second class and should be ignored and denied any sort of life, enjoyment or medical facility.
I think we have seen this sort of attitude before, in the 1930`s it was, some bloke with a funny little moustache and a foreign accent.
Sex God
I think all swingers should be denied medical care
Quote by mrs-bmw
It started out as a good discussion but now Brucie again has turned it into a fat people witch-hunt.
There are numerous conditions that can cause you to put on weight even if its through water retention, under active thyroid, even people on steroids put on weight.
It seams that in Brucie`s world if you aren`t young and beautiful and "fit" for some reason you are second class and should be ignored and denied any sort of life, enjoyment or medical facility.
I think we have seen this sort of attitude before, in the 1930`s it was, some bloke with a funny little moustache and a foreign accent.
seen all this new really.
i knew from the opening post this was really a witch hunt
Sex God
Quote by mrs-bmw
It started out as a good discussion but now Brucie again has turned it into a fat people witch-hunt.
There are numerous conditions that can cause you to put on weight even if its through water retention, under active thyroid, even people on steroids put on weight.
It seams that in Brucie`s world if you aren`t young and beautiful and "fit" for some reason you are second class and should be ignored and denied any sort of life, enjoyment or medical facility.
I think we have seen this sort of attitude before, in the 1930`s it was, some bloke with a funny little moustache and a foreign accent.
My 'tache is not funny and I don't have a foreign accent .....fgs if you're going to make personal comments at least get your facts straight .....*storms off in a huff*..or is it hough
Sex God
how about charge anyone called brucie
:giggle: :giggle:
:giggle: :giggle:
Quote by brucie
2 wrongs dont make a right. a couple of people have urged me to report you as seeing you banned would give them pleasure. luckily for you i dont care enough...
Shame on those people Brucie. IF they have a problem with another member, then let them report them.
For me though it is getting to the stage where anything that is even slightly argumentative now, a ban is called for.
This is a forum section for contentious issues yes? Then by that it will mean that people will not agree and people will bicker.
For me though Powers has not broken any of the many AUP's agendas.
Quote by brucie
i would add that i find it slightly weird and stalkery that powers can quote me from months or years ago...
Never put anything in writing Brucie....as it can come back and haunt ya.
As for "slipping Powers a length" as you so aptly put it.....not at all just how I see things.
Sexpert
ok - to get back to the original question
1) Smokers already contribute about 5 times more through tobacco duty, than they cost the NHS through smoking related treatments - and as a group, they don't live as long, so their whole of life costs are also lower (can't be arsed to google the figures and post a link - seen various figures including BBC published ones)
So, my view is, smokers should get priority treatment, private wards, nice day rooms with good air extraction where they can smoke, as they are net contributors.
2) I don't have a problem if people choose to be fat. There were no fat inmates in Auschwitz, that's not meant as a joke, just a blunt observation. So it's a simple equation, calories ingested, versus calories burned. Being ignorant about the food you eat, is also a choice.
I'm not fat myself, I don't find fat physically attractive, though I have many fat friends. I have a tendency to put on weight easily, so I watch what I eat and I exercise regularly.
Fat related treatments cost the NHS loads - I don't know the figures, but being fat is a significant factor in most of the leading high cost and high morbidity conditions.
I don't like the idea of charging them extra to use the NHS, most of them pay NI, and think it's the thin end of the wedge.
However, I do think that air travellers should have an "All up weight" allowance, the auw of an aircraft is in direct proportion to the fuel it uses. It's not the same for road rail and sea travel, though in each of those weight is a factor. So I object to subsidising fat people on aircraft - we should get on the scales with our luggage and be charged proportionately.
3) etc - at the fatter end of the wedge there are totally self inflicted situations like the PFO's (pissed and fell over - they really do use it in notes in A&E), people having to be rescued through foolhardiness etc. which use resources that could be better employed. The whole health tourism situation needs a close look in my view. I'm not sure what the answers are, as other posters have stated, it depends where you draw the line.
Personally, I'd send all the health tourists back if they were fit enough to travel, or attempt to have them stabilised until fit enough to travel and then send them back.
I'd make the PFO's pay or be fined to the value of their treatment, and have separate lower priority facilities for them.
I'd give top priority to NHS clinicians - we need them well as soon as possible, so they can treat patients.
I'd give next priority to people in work, they pay the NI and income tax that funds it.
Obviously if a little old lady gets knocked down by a car and is bleeding to death, she should have priority over a neurosurgeon with a cut finger, that's what triage is about.
Somewhere in the middle it all gets a bit grey - motorcyclists take more risks than car drivers, regardless of how safely they drive. So do people who ride horses, people who play any sports, contact sports particularly, people who go hill walking or rock climbing, hang gliding, water skiing, scuba diving - the list is endless and I leave it to better people than me to debate where the line should be drawn.
Just my take on things
I'm a smoker, biker, contact sports player - in the past I've flown aerobatic aircraft, rock and ice climbing, scuba diving, pot holing, sailing, power boating, gymnastics/high board diving, horse riding, surfing, water skiing and used firearms and shotguns (legally) and a whole host of other high risk activities. I would stress that all of these were done after appropriate training and in as safe a manner as is possible. Thankfully, the most treatment I've ever needed as a result was a couple of Xrays and some diclophenac.
Ironically, I've had more treatment for RSI caused by extended keyboard use and guitar playing (or maybe it's too much wanking
)
1) Smokers already contribute about 5 times more through tobacco duty, than they cost the NHS through smoking related treatments - and as a group, they don't live as long, so their whole of life costs are also lower (can't be arsed to google the figures and post a link - seen various figures including BBC published ones)
So, my view is, smokers should get priority treatment, private wards, nice day rooms with good air extraction where they can smoke, as they are net contributors.
2) I don't have a problem if people choose to be fat. There were no fat inmates in Auschwitz, that's not meant as a joke, just a blunt observation. So it's a simple equation, calories ingested, versus calories burned. Being ignorant about the food you eat, is also a choice.
I'm not fat myself, I don't find fat physically attractive, though I have many fat friends. I have a tendency to put on weight easily, so I watch what I eat and I exercise regularly.
Fat related treatments cost the NHS loads - I don't know the figures, but being fat is a significant factor in most of the leading high cost and high morbidity conditions.
I don't like the idea of charging them extra to use the NHS, most of them pay NI, and think it's the thin end of the wedge.
However, I do think that air travellers should have an "All up weight" allowance, the auw of an aircraft is in direct proportion to the fuel it uses. It's not the same for road rail and sea travel, though in each of those weight is a factor. So I object to subsidising fat people on aircraft - we should get on the scales with our luggage and be charged proportionately.
3) etc - at the fatter end of the wedge there are totally self inflicted situations like the PFO's (pissed and fell over - they really do use it in notes in A&E), people having to be rescued through foolhardiness etc. which use resources that could be better employed. The whole health tourism situation needs a close look in my view. I'm not sure what the answers are, as other posters have stated, it depends where you draw the line.
Personally, I'd send all the health tourists back if they were fit enough to travel, or attempt to have them stabilised until fit enough to travel and then send them back.
I'd make the PFO's pay or be fined to the value of their treatment, and have separate lower priority facilities for them.
I'd give top priority to NHS clinicians - we need them well as soon as possible, so they can treat patients.
I'd give next priority to people in work, they pay the NI and income tax that funds it.
Obviously if a little old lady gets knocked down by a car and is bleeding to death, she should have priority over a neurosurgeon with a cut finger, that's what triage is about.
Somewhere in the middle it all gets a bit grey - motorcyclists take more risks than car drivers, regardless of how safely they drive. So do people who ride horses, people who play any sports, contact sports particularly, people who go hill walking or rock climbing, hang gliding, water skiing, scuba diving - the list is endless and I leave it to better people than me to debate where the line should be drawn.
Just my take on things
I'm a smoker, biker, contact sports player - in the past I've flown aerobatic aircraft, rock and ice climbing, scuba diving, pot holing, sailing, power boating, gymnastics/high board diving, horse riding, surfing, water skiing and used firearms and shotguns (legally) and a whole host of other high risk activities. I would stress that all of these were done after appropriate training and in as safe a manner as is possible. Thankfully, the most treatment I've ever needed as a result was a couple of Xrays and some diclophenac.
Ironically, I've had more treatment for RSI caused by extended keyboard use and guitar playing (or maybe it's too much wanking
) ok - to get back to the original question
1) Smokers already contribute about 5 times more through tobacco duty, than they cost the NHS through smoking related treatments - and as a group, they don't live as long, so their whole of life costs are also lower (can't be arsed to google the figures and post a link - seen various figures including BBC published ones)
So, my view is, smokers should get priority treatment, private wards, nice day rooms with good air extraction where they can smoke, as they are net contributors.
Are you saying then its ok to smoke even if its the cause of your illness and ok to get preferential treatment for it? Surely if its making you so ill you need hospital treatment then you should stop doing it
So what about people who have never smoked but suffer from passive smoking related illnesses, what do you propose for them?
1) Smokers already contribute about 5 times more through tobacco duty, than they cost the NHS through smoking related treatments - and as a group, they don't live as long, so their whole of life costs are also lower (can't be arsed to google the figures and post a link - seen various figures including BBC published ones)
So, my view is, smokers should get priority treatment, private wards, nice day rooms with good air extraction where they can smoke, as they are net contributors.
Are you saying then its ok to smoke even if its the cause of your illness and ok to get preferential treatment for it? Surely if its making you so ill you need hospital treatment then you should stop doing it
So what about people who have never smoked but suffer from passive smoking related illnesses, what do you propose for them?
There are numerous conditions that can cause you to put on weight even if its through water retention, under active thyroid, even people on steroids put on weight.
witch hunt? i think if you look for a witch hunt you will always find a witch hunt.
i invited people to show me that (except for the, im sure, minority who have underactive thyroids, water retention or are on steroids (which cause puffiness and water retention more than fat) (unless like pregnancy are used as an excuse to overeat) or any other medical condition its not as simple as eat less = lose weight.
I was trying to show that the people you saw in hospital might not be large because they eat too much but because it might be caused by another condition :doh:
I said cause you to put on weight not fat.
witch hunt? i think if you look for a witch hunt you will always find a witch hunt.
i invited people to show me that (except for the, im sure, minority who have underactive thyroids, water retention or are on steroids (which cause puffiness and water retention more than fat) (unless like pregnancy are used as an excuse to overeat) or any other medical condition its not as simple as eat less = lose weight.
I was trying to show that the people you saw in hospital might not be large because they eat too much but because it might be caused by another condition :doh:
I said cause you to put on weight not fat.
Quote by brucie
I was trying to show that the people you saw in hospital might not be large because they eat too much but because it might be caused by another condition :doh:
I said cause you to put on weight not fat.
doesnt seem likely to me.
Ok then, you`re obviously right
Stepping away from the thread
