Minxy you are quite correct.
It is a fact that the amount of revenue smokers make into the " system " far outweighs what a smoker takes out of it.
I remember seeing some figures on this ages ago and will try and find them or something similar.
For every packet of fags I buy at 5 quid a pack, something like £ is tax.
As a smoker I more than help to contribute to the " system " as a whole.
With all the bad press and all that we know is bad about smoking, why do you think the Government do not ban the sale of them? The ammount of money it takes from smokers, pure and simple.
So before some start bleating on about smokers should not be treated, take a long hard look at how much money smokers pay in tax!
IF smoking causes everything from bad health to putting a huge strain on the NHS, to smokers being the root of all evil....then ban the bloody things. But they won't though will they?.....I wonder why that is?
Sorry minx and kent but the "I've paid my stamp (and the duty on my fags/booze) so I can continue to be high priority on the NHS for transplants and other such surgical procedures no matter what it costs" doesn't cut it with me I'm afraid.
As for the other treatments and care in the NHS to manage his condition, there is no doubt about his continuing eligibility in my mind.
You can throw as much money as you like at the NHS and it will be be swallowed up with incredible speed with disproportionate benefits. It has to be a balancing act. I'm not saying its perfect, but there has to be some profiling in order to make the thin resources stretch further.
In Edit:
Please don't conclude from my comments that I have no compassion for anyone who falls ill (in whatever circumstances). I am a passionate believer in the NHS and will defend its aims to the end. However, I worked in the NHS for a number of years managing scarce resources as well as seeing first hand the misery that ill-health brings to patients, carers and relatives alike. Its a poison chalice for whatever Government is in place.
At best, politicians - no matter what their affiliations - can do no more than be better at spewing out the rhetoric but the reality is that, even with double the resources available now there will be very little, if any, change to the basic concept of a need for profiling in order to extract the last ounce of care from limited - but perceived limitless - resources.
I understand what you are saying GNV.
The problems of the NHS are vast. From it's heady days from conception it WAS the envy of the world, but I feel it is not anymore.
There are many reasons for this, but the principles of the NHS are still there. You cannot possibly compare the NHS in the 50's to now ( not saying that you are btw ), where people are living far longer, illnesses that were not treatable 30 years ago are now.
The massive burden put on it from hundreds of thousands to possibly millions, who use the NHS who have never contributed a penny. In the 50's how many people were living in these green and pleasant lands? Now how many have we " let in " over the last 15 years? A million? Two million? Three million? The truth is nobody knows for sure. They only know the " official " figures.
That has put a huge strain on the NHS as well as every other public service that is now struggling for money to run itself properly.
The hard truths are people like this slob at the start of your thread should NOT be given this treatment....period.
Cosmetic surgery should NOT be done at the NHS's expense, unless it is a medical condition, and not because some 16 year old girl wants bigger tits, and by not having them is making her.....whatever she wants. If somebody needs it for burns or anything else like that then for sure they should get it, no questions asked but....why the heck should money and surgeons time be wasted on people that you mentioned at the start?
The old addage " bottomless pit " sums up the NHS to a tee. It would ( if we allowed )swallow up virtually all of our resources if we let it.
But I still think it is a wonderful institution, and will be around long after my death but....to survive it will have to change. But then is change not what we all crave for if it is for the better?
Interestingly, the French system is well regarded and may well have surpassed the NHS in its capabilities.
But like the NHS, the French system is under immense pressure too.
You have to pay to see a Doctor, Dentist or Optician here. There is a standard scale fee for each aspect of health care and every procedure.
If you are in the French tax system, you get back what you pay according to a scale with the balance being paid either by top-up insurance or by your employers social charges.
Its not quite that simple but to explain it more fully would be a lifetime's work - even the French don't always understand it!
But the basic principle is this, life threatening stuff gets deal with right away and at no cost other than "hotel" services. The rest is charged for according to a scale and you have to be in the tax system or have insurance to cover you for it.
For example, a non life threatening surgical procedure might cost 20,000€ On the scale of charges set by the Government, the patient may be reimbursed only 35% of it but according to their policy and how much they or their employer pays - may cover some or all of the remainder.
Employers and employees still pay health tax on top of that (in a complex variety of ways).
But the basic bottom line is (which kent will agree to I'm sure) if you don't pay tax or have other means to pay, French healthcare is not available to you.
It has been revealed today that 45000 yes that's 45000 NHS staff are off sick everyday of the week.
That is one and a half times the national average.
The NHS is a wonderful institution but.....with that ammount of staff off " sick " every day, no wonder you wait 3 months for an appointment.
That is a disgusting ammount of people on any one given day. Most firms would struggle to survive with that ammount of a percenatage off everyday but the NHS is funded by the taxpayer so they get away with it.
Put them on SSP and have to do the "3 waiting days" before any money gets paid and see how many days they have off then.
If your figures are correct Kenty, then that is an appalling amount of time being wasted.
I had to go into hospital Monday, time taken off work etc. so duly arrived at my alloted time, waited 90 minutes only to be told "your surgeon is not in this week and Admin have made a cock up...please fill in this form to complain and a new appointment will be made for you"
When i heard the health stat publicised I did wonder who had developed the statistic and for what purpose. I wondered who the "other" workers were. I also wondered if the NHS has any special rules bearing in mind you wouldnt want your health care and hospital staff giving illnesses to the vulnerable.
Save me the bother folks, enlighten me.
The plain fact is that the " sickies " are one and a half times the national average.
I can only guess as to the reasons, as am not an expert on it. Maybe I am lucky that I have had only one day off sick in thirteen years. Beleive me there were plenty of times I felt like not going in.
I know they do a difficult job, but then again I think I do too. All I was saying is that I find it strange how one section can have more sick days off than the national average.
There surely is a reason for it?
There is an argument that people who have certain illnesses - some of them fairly trivial - shouldn't go into work. I work in training for a large company. We are a direct line in to the rest of the company. If I am all coughing and dripping and spluttering I don't go in - nor if I have diarrhoea, even if I technically could.
Although in a healthy person they are generally trivial - they could wipe out a department at work for a week.
A front line health worker could kill someone with an otherwise mild illness.
BUT some people do skive. Hating your job isn't a justifcation for skiving and therefore dropping your mates in for more work. That is a reason to change your job.
Being abused, attacked etc is unacceptable and can lead to depression and any stafdf suffereing sucvh things should be helped.
If the staff take a disproportionate amount of time off it is a matter for the immediate and higher management. Good (by that I mean effective not 'kind') management will reduce the amount of sickness through stress or skiving while ensuring ill people don't drag themselves into work and infect everyone.
Kenty - I am impressed with your sickness record - as a business owner I imagine you have a stronger than 'average' drive to attend work.
I work for the money and have no desire to harm myself for the sake of the business that pays my wages. We have a deal - I come and work as per my contract and they pay me as per my contract, but if I'm too ill to work I stay home and get better so I CAN work. having said that the medical support at work - including our own occy health department is excellent.
