Unbelievable.......words fail me
Laura Ripley who has never worked was given a £8,000 op on the NHS to help her slim down from 38 to 22 stone.
But the 25-year-old, who receives £600 a month in benefits is unhappy because as a result of losing weight she can no longer claim disability allowance amounting to an extra £340 a month. This, she says, means she cannot afford to eat healthily - causing her to pile the weight back on.
'I can't afford to buy WeightWatchers crisps and cereal bars any more so I eat Tesco's chocolate bars and packets of Space Invaders crisps, sometimes four of each a day', says unemployed Laura, who spends seven hours a day watching TV.
'People ask why I don't snack on an apple - they're cheap, but emotionally I don't always feel like an apple.'
The disability allowance money she used to receive was spent on gym workouts, healthy food and having her hair highlighted.
She adds: 'Without my disability allowance I'm left with just £210 incapacity benefit which I get because of my depression, and £100 income support I receive every two weeks and out of that I have to give them back £70 towards the cost of the £500-a-month flat I'm living in.'
Since the extra allowance stopped Laura has put on a stone in just three weeks and claims she is being treated unfairly.
'It's heartbreaking that after all my hard work losing this weight someone's come along and ruined it.'
Laura has been offered another operation on the NHS, which would normally cost £12,000, to remove the saggy skin left behind after the dramatic weight loss, but only if she sheds a further five stone, until then she has no plans to find a job.
'I'm not even applying for work at the moment because I'm only going to have to have lots of time off when I have more surgery.'
Speaking from the two-bedroom flat she shares with unemployed boyfriend Simon Hawkins, Laura describes how she was shocked into embarking on the weight loss plan after her mother Doreen died of obesity-related complications on Christmas Eve 2005. 'A doctor told me that unless I lost 20 stone I wouldn't live to see my 25th birthday. He recommended I have a gastric sleeve op.'
Prior to the surgery Laura lost eight and a half stone by cutting out junk food and drinking diet shakes and has since lost a further seven stone after her stomach was shrunk by 75 per cent.
However, without the extra benefits Laura is worried she'll put the weight back on and says she can feel her stomach stretching after binging on the unhealthy snacks.
'I sometimes feel guilty about all the taxpayers' money that's been spent on me but I only want an extra £100 a month, that's all', says Laura.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Words Fail Me!
last reply
55 replies
2.8k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
Awww it must be awful - just AWFUL - to be so poor you have to eat Tescos chocolate bars. And not having them is simply out of the question - poor dear.
Seriously, depression is a real condition, but for crying out loud. There is an alternative to Weightwatchers snacks that doesn't involve extra expense - she could always cut the flaming things out.
Tell you what - why don't we club together and send her on holiday. Somalia might give her a boost - it should certainly put her demands for confectionary in perspective.
Seriously, depression is a real condition, but for crying out loud. There is an alternative to Weightwatchers snacks that doesn't involve extra expense - she could always cut the flaming things out.
Tell you what - why don't we club together and send her on holiday. Somalia might give her a boost - it should certainly put her demands for confectionary in perspective.
Quote by GnV
Unbelievable.......words fail me
Laura Ripley who has never worked was given a £8,000 op on the NHS to help her slim down from 38 to 22 stone.
But the 25-year-old, who receives £600 a month in benefits is unhappy because as a result of losing weight she can no longer claim disability allowance amounting to an extra £340 a month. This, she says, means she cannot afford to eat healthily - causing her to pile the weight back on.
So basically she gets £155 a week all to herself and her unemployed other half must get money as well. So why the bloody hell is she getting nearly as much money as me and I have 2 kids to look after? I get about a week which is the basic for a single parent with 2 children plus I am able to claim the disability living allowance because my son is disabled not some fat lazy bit** who has basically decided to eat herself fat. How can the government justify that a single parent gets just to feed and buy clothes for 2 child?
And the disability living allowance is giving to someone because they are unable to do things such as wash, cook or clean for themselves or have difficultly doing this and need the help. If she can go to the gym she can bloody well wash, cook and clean for hearself.
And if she moved to a 1 bedroom flat she would save herself £35 a week, then being able to buy the health snacks.
Quote by browning
Is anyone really suprised?
Nope not me.
It is NOT i repeat NOT expensive to eat healthily.
Think this has been done before but I have always said, it is what you eat that determines your weight issues.
IF she was to stop scoffing her face with bollox food, maybe she would be a sensible weight.
I say do not give her the op until she has proved she can stop eating all the pies.
No suprise her and her boyfriend are out of work, and then expect us to pick up the tab for this lazy ungrateful woman.
Grrrrrrrrrrr.
Master of Sex
Quote by GnV
Unbelievable.......words fail me
Laura Ripley who has never worked was given a £8,000 op on the NHS to help her slim down from 38 to 22 stone.
But the 25-year-old, who receives £600 a month in benefits is unhappy because as a result of losing weight she can no longer claim disability allowance amounting to an extra £340 a month. This, she says, means she cannot afford to eat healthily - causing her to pile the weight back on.
'I can't afford to buy WeightWatchers crisps and cereal bars any more so I eat Tesco's chocolate bars and packets of Space Invaders crisps, sometimes four of each a day', says unemployed Laura, who spends seven hours a day watching TV.
'People ask why I don't snack on an apple - they're cheap, but emotionally I don't always feel like an apple.'
The disability allowance money she used to receive was spent on gym workouts, healthy food and having her hair highlighted.
She adds: 'Without my disability allowance I'm left with just £210 incapacity benefit which I get because of my depression, and £100 income support I receive every two weeks and out of that I have to give them back £70 towards the cost of the £500-a-month flat I'm living in.'
Since the extra allowance stopped Laura has put on a stone in just three weeks and claims she is being treated unfairly.
'It's heartbreaking that after all my hard work losing this weight someone's come along and ruined it.'
Laura has been offered another operation on the NHS, which would normally cost £12,000, to remove the saggy skin left behind after the dramatic weight loss, but only if she sheds a further five stone, until then she has no plans to find a job.
'I'm not even applying for work at the moment because I'm only going to have to have lots of time off when I have more surgery.'
Speaking from the two-bedroom flat she shares with unemployed boyfriend Simon Hawkins, Laura describes how she was shocked into embarking on the weight loss plan after her mother Doreen died of obesity-related complications on Christmas Eve 2005. 'A doctor told me that unless I lost 20 stone I wouldn't live to see my 25th birthday. He recommended I have a gastric sleeve op.'
Prior to the surgery Laura lost eight and a half stone by cutting out junk food and drinking diet shakes and has since lost a further seven stone after her stomach was shrunk by 75 per cent.
However, without the extra benefits Laura is worried she'll put the weight back on and says she can feel her stomach stretching after binging on the unhealthy snacks.
'I sometimes feel guilty about all the taxpayers' money that's been spent on me but I only want an extra £100 a month, that's all', says Laura.
Considering "words fail" you, that's one long-ass post.
Quote by benrums0n
In other news it has been estimated that 70% of people who need disability benefits to live a reasonable life are denied them.
What does one deem to be a " reasonable life "?
I think the law say's what a person needs to live on, I do not know what that is.
So can you explain what that would include Benny?
Sex God
Quote by benrums0n
No Kent not in the necessary words of one syllable.
:sad: Thats just being plain insulting. I think you should wind your neck in with facile comments that dont add any value.
I personally think that the dss should have a good long look at this woman before giving her any more cash
Sex God
How about they cut all her benefits and then she'll starve thus loosing the weight and allowing her to get the operation sooner, therefore a job sooner too?
No?
Ok. The system is set up to help those who are truely in need. There will always be the free loaders and scroungers who do take the piss, making a mockery of the system. But these people are NOT the majority as the red top press would have us think. They are a minority put into the press because they provoke reaction and debate, maybe even sell a few papers if you are looking at it from a sceptical point of view.
Without the system that supports all those who say they are in need when some are not, we all end up in an unfair situation. I'd rather have a few bloaters on the tax books alongside those who really need the help where they all get something rather than nobody gets any help at all ever. One day I might need that system through no fault of my own and I certainly wouldn't be whinging then. Nor I imagine would any of you.
Of course, throwing money at a situation never really truely helps in all cases and wholistic approaches might be more beneficial all around in the long term solving of these issues.
LG. x
No?
Ok. The system is set up to help those who are truely in need. There will always be the free loaders and scroungers who do take the piss, making a mockery of the system. But these people are NOT the majority as the red top press would have us think. They are a minority put into the press because they provoke reaction and debate, maybe even sell a few papers if you are looking at it from a sceptical point of view.
Without the system that supports all those who say they are in need when some are not, we all end up in an unfair situation. I'd rather have a few bloaters on the tax books alongside those who really need the help where they all get something rather than nobody gets any help at all ever. One day I might need that system through no fault of my own and I certainly wouldn't be whinging then. Nor I imagine would any of you.
Of course, throwing money at a situation never really truely helps in all cases and wholistic approaches might be more beneficial all around in the long term solving of these issues.
LG. x
Sex God
Quote by little gem
How about they cut all her benefits and then she'll starve thus loosing the weight and allowing her to get the operation sooner, therefore a job sooner too?
No?
Ok. The system is set up to help those who are truely in need. There will always be the free loaders and scroungers who do take the piss, making a mockery of the system. But these people are NOT the majority as the red top press would have us think. They are a minority put into the press because they provoke reaction and debate, maybe even sell a few papers if you are looking at it from a sceptical point of view.
Without the system that supports all those who say they are in need when some are not, we all end up in an unfair situation. I'd rather have a few bloaters on the tax books alongside those who really need the help where they all get something rather than nobody gets any help at all ever. One day I might need that system through no fault of my own and I certainly wouldn't be whinging then. Nor I imagine would any of you.
Of course, throwing money at a situation never really truely helps in all cases and wholistic approaches might be more beneficial all around in the long term solving of these issues.
LG. x
Rocking gem :thumbup: seems to me they leave the tricks of the wealthy alone when it comes down to financial sharp practice. Oh i forget the bankers got caught didn't they. Oh but of course theyre important so we'll let them off and they'll do it again too
Quote by little gem
The system is set up to help those who are truely in need. There will always be the free loaders and scroungers who do take the piss, making a mockery of the system.
Like George Best with his liver transplant and others who won't give up smoking.
If that is their choice of lifestyle, they should suffer the consequences of it.
I don't see why the tax paying public should fund "lost causes" when there are so many deserving cases missing out.
Quote by Lost
No Kent not in the necessary words of one syllable.
:sad: Thats just being plain insulting. I think you should wind your neck in with facile comments that dont add any value.
I personally think that the dss should have a good long look at this woman before giving her any more cash
:laughabove: :laughabove: :thumbup:
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Like George Best with his liver transplant and others who won't give up smoking.
If that is their choice of lifestyle, they should suffer the consequences of it.
I don't see why the tax paying public should fund "lost causes" when there are so many deserving cases missing out.
Ok, so you're saying that if you had some disease come to you or your loved ones and they were refused treatment because of a lifestyle choice years ago that you wouldn't be in here making the biggest case for "I@ve paid my tax for x amount of years... blah, blah, blah ad nauseum We could quote you ad say... actually, live with it, it's you're own fault. Yeah right!
It's all well and good when the problem is far away but let it come to your doorstep and then tell me how it would be! :lol:
Again, if one believes everything that is printed in the red top news then the world is going to hell in a handbasket and we're all theiving tax cheating scum, amongst other things.
I stand by the system is there to help those who are in need and if that means that there are a few people in a minority supported too (btw smokers and George Best's are a minority NOT a majority in this country... I don't even think we paid for George cos he's Irish come to think of it
:lol: )In a humanistic way, if there is someone needing an opperation and it's possible, do it. I'm sure doctors get a little frustrated, who doesn't in their job, part of working and you just get on with it. But you know, I bet not one of them signed up to turn someone away because they couldn't afford the treatment.
Now if you're suggesting that we should go to a private health care system, again, I think you are wrong and I hope you and your closest don't ever need a treatment you can't afford or that is refussed on a previous bad choice you've ever made.
Simples.
Quote by GnV
The system is set up to help those who are truely in need. There will always be the free loaders and scroungers who do take the piss, making a mockery of the system.
Like George Best with his liver transplant and others who won't give up smoking.
If that is their choice of lifestyle, they should suffer the consequences of it.
I don't see why the tax paying public should fund "lost causes" when there are so many deserving cases missing out.
I am sorry but your comments here have offended me, my dad worked all the hours asked and paid his taxes, working at least 60-70hrs a week to provide for his family, he was a smoker and at 63 had to retire due to ill health, smoke related agreed, he is now 72 and may not have long left in this world.
For 47 years of hard work, because he smoked you would deny him his right to hospital treatment, which without he would not be here now, and would have suffered a great deal more.
He WILL be treated Minxy and bloody rightly so.
We get illegals come over here on a lorry and are entitled to FREE health care, even though they have contributed nothing!
Is it not those people who should not be treated??
Your Father like mine and myself have paid into the system for years, and treatment for any illness we get will be met by the NHS.
That is why it is the envy of the world, and one of the few things a Labour Government did, that was for the greater good of everyone....and long may that continue.
We get illegals come over here on a lorry and are entitled to FREE health care, even though they have contributed nothing!
Is it not those people who should not be treated??
Your Father like mine and myself have paid into the system for years, and treatment for any illness we get will be met by the NHS.
That is why it is the envy of the world, and one of the few things a Labour Government did, that was for the greater good of everyone....and long may that continue.
Quote by little gem
Like George Best with his liver transplant and others who won't give up smoking.
If that is their choice of lifestyle, they should suffer the consequences of it.
I don't see why the tax paying public should fund "lost causes" when there are so many deserving cases missing out.
Ok, so you're saying that if you had some disease come to you or your loved ones and they were refused treatment because of a lifestyle choice years ago that you wouldn't be in here making the biggest case for "I@ve paid my tax for x amount of years... blah, blah, blah ad nauseum We could quote you ad say... actually, live with it, it's you're own fault. Yeah right!
It's all well and good when the problem is far away but let it come to your doorstep and then tell me how it would be! :lol:
Again, if one believes everything that is printed in the red top news then the world is going to hell in a handbasket and we're all theiving tax cheating scum, amongst other things.
I stand by the system is there to help those who are in need and if that means that there are a few people in a minority supported too (btw smokers and George Best's are a minority NOT a majority in this country... I don't even think we paid for George cos he's Irish come to think of it
:lol: )In a humanistic way, if there is someone needing an opperation and it's possible, do it. I'm sure doctors get a little frustrated, who doesn't in their job, part of working and you just get on with it. But you know, I bet not one of them signed up to turn someone away because they couldn't afford the treatment.
Now if you're suggesting that we should go to a private health care system, again, I think you are wrong and I hope you and your closest don't ever need a treatment you can't afford or that is refussed on a previous bad choice you've ever made.
Simples.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying.. sorry if you have misunderstood.
The NHS is not the bottomless pit it is sometimes made out to be. There are treatments that should be made available but cannot because of limited resources. Where there are scarce resources, maybe people who are a drain on the system because of a continuing lifestyle choice should be considered less of a priority than those who are doing or have done everything they can to lead a more healthy lifestyle
An example. I gave up smoking 25 years ago. I don't think I have any lasting effects from when I did smoke but I am not suggesting that because I did once smoke, that I should now be denied treatment for a smoking related illness. However, if I continued to smoke, shouldn't I expect that I will be less of a priority for scarce funding.
We were talking about very expensive surgical procedures where there is not a cat in hell's chance that it will change the lifestyle of the recipient and thus be a futile drain on limited resources. I was not referring to the basic care and treatment which is at the very heart of the reason the NHS exists.
I hope that make sense.
As long as contributing to the NHS is compulsary through my wages, that alone gives me the RIGHT to free health care.
The health system is suffering hugely because of the ammount of people that do not contribute, be it illegals or people that have contributed nothing, or those out of work.
People are living longer than ever before which also puts a huge strain on things, as there are more pensioners than ever before.
IF I could opt out of the NHS I would yesterday, but I cannot. So on that basis my £350 a month compulsary contribution goes towards whatever illness I may suffer from.
It does not make one jot whether someone smokes or drinks as to what level of treatment they receive.
In my book if you contribute or have contributed over years of paying NHS contributions, that should make you qualify for free treatment no matter how you came by your illness, to suggest that people who smoke should go to the bottom of the list is quite frankly insulting.
I pay my money and that gives me a right to that health care. Oh and also people have known for over 30 years the damage smoking does so that arguement does not hold much substance at all.
That is like saying a scaffolder should not recieve any treatment if he falls of that scaffolding as he knows there is a danger. As it is I also have private health care as if I fall ill I do not want to wait 16 years to be treated for it. I would be seen within a week for a consultant, unlike months of waiting for an NHS one. So I pay twice which makes my NHS contributions even harder to swallow.
The health system is suffering hugely because of the ammount of people that do not contribute, be it illegals or people that have contributed nothing, or those out of work.
People are living longer than ever before which also puts a huge strain on things, as there are more pensioners than ever before.
IF I could opt out of the NHS I would yesterday, but I cannot. So on that basis my £350 a month compulsary contribution goes towards whatever illness I may suffer from.
It does not make one jot whether someone smokes or drinks as to what level of treatment they receive.
In my book if you contribute or have contributed over years of paying NHS contributions, that should make you qualify for free treatment no matter how you came by your illness, to suggest that people who smoke should go to the bottom of the list is quite frankly insulting.
I pay my money and that gives me a right to that health care. Oh and also people have known for over 30 years the damage smoking does so that arguement does not hold much substance at all.
That is like saying a scaffolder should not recieve any treatment if he falls of that scaffolding as he knows there is a danger. As it is I also have private health care as if I fall ill I do not want to wait 16 years to be treated for it. I would be seen within a week for a consultant, unlike months of waiting for an NHS one. So I pay twice which makes my NHS contributions even harder to swallow.
Quote by kentswingers777
As long as contributing to the NHS is compulsary through my wages, that alone gives me the RIGHT to free health care.
The health system is suffering hugely because of the ammount of people that do not contribute, be it illegals or people that have contributed nothing, or those out of work.
People are living longer than ever before which also puts a huge strain on things, as there are more pensioners than ever before.
IF I could opt out of the NHS I would yesterday, but I cannot. So on that basis my £350 a month compulsary contribution goes towards whatever illness I may suffer from.
It does not make one jot whether someone smokes or drinks as to what level of treatment they receive.
In my book if you contribute or have contributed over years of paying NHS contributions, that should make you qualify for free treatment no matter how you came by your illness, to suggest that people who smoke should go to the bottom of the list is quite frankly insulting.
I pay my money and that gives me a right to that health care. Oh and also people have known for over 30 years the damage smoking does so that arguement does not hold much substance at all.
That is like saying a scaffolder should not recieve any treatment if he falls of that scaffolding as he knows there is a danger. As it is I also have private health care as if I fall ill I do not want to wait 16 years to be treated for it. I would be seen within a week for a consultant, unlike months of waiting for an NHS one. So I pay twice which makes my NHS contributions even harder to swallow.
Hmmm
Not often we disgree kent but....
Paying NHI contributions is not what provides the entitlement to free health care in the UK - a matter to which you have already admitted agreement elsewhere in this and other threads.
Quote by flower411
bla bla bla...
Generally speaking, scaffolders are provided with safety equipment and take a certain amout of care to avoid accidents.
Smokers deliberately attempt to cause themselves harm.
If a scaffolder was stupid enough to keep jumping off the scaffolding and survived I`d put him to the bottom of the list too !!!
:laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove:
Sharp as a button today flower :thumbup:
Quote by GnV
bla bla bla...
Generally speaking, scaffolders are provided with safety equipment and take a certain amout of care to avoid accidents.
Smokers deliberately attempt to cause themselves harm.
If a scaffolder was stupid enough to keep jumping off the scaffolding and survived I`d put him to the bottom of the list too !!!
:laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove:
Sharp as a button today flower :thumbup:
Are buttons sharp? :huh:
Quote by flower411
As long as contributing to the NHS is compulsary through my wages, that alone gives me the RIGHT to free health care.
The health system is suffering hugely because of the ammount of people that do not contribute, be it illegals or people that have contributed nothing, or those out of work.
People are living longer than ever before which also puts a huge strain on things, as there are more pensioners than ever before.
IF I could opt out of the NHS I would yesterday, but I cannot. So on that basis my £350 a month compulsary contribution goes towards whatever illness I may suffer from.
It does not make one jot whether someone smokes or drinks as to what level of treatment they receive.
In my book if you contribute or have contributed over years of paying NHS contributions, that should make you qualify for free treatment no matter how you came by your illness, to suggest that people who smoke should go to the bottom of the list is quite frankly insulting.
I pay my money and that gives me a right to that health care. Oh and also people have known for over 30 years the damage smoking does so that arguement does not hold much substance at all.
That is like saying a scaffolder should not recieve any treatment if he falls of that scaffolding as he knows there is a danger. As it is I also have private health care as if I fall ill I do not want to wait 16 years to be treated for it. I would be seen within a week for a consultant, unlike months of waiting for an NHS one. So I pay twice which makes my NHS contributions even harder to swallow.
Generally speaking, scaffolders are provided with safety equipment and take a certain amout of care to avoid accidents.
Smokers deliberately attempt to cause themselves harm.
If a scaffolder was stupid enough to keep jumping off the scaffolding and survived I`d put him to the bottom of the list too !!!
Well let's take a possible situation here. YOU are out driving your car on a nice sunny day. You stop at a junction and do not see another car coming. You pull out and it hits your car and you are seriously injured because of YOUR inability to see another car.
The police even charge YOU with careless driving. Would it be ok for a hospital not to treat you as it was down to YOUR inability to see a car?
How far down the silly road do you want to go?
IF someone gets involved in a fight and it is his fault but someone stabs him and he needs urgent medical treatment, would you deny him that as it was his fault?
Of course not. The system is there to treat everyone regardless of whether they smoke or drink, or have had an accident through their own neglect.
To suggest otherwise will be a downward spiral for the NHS. As the motto always used to be " free healthcare for everyone ". Yes it is not free to the taxpayers but that was the drift.
Quote by kentswingers777
As long as contributing to the NHS is compulsary through my wages, that alone gives me the RIGHT to free health care.
The health system is suffering hugely because of the ammount of people that do not contribute, be it illegals or people that have contributed nothing, or those out of work.
People are living longer than ever before which also puts a huge strain on things, as there are more pensioners than ever before.
IF I could opt out of the NHS I would yesterday, but I cannot. So on that basis my £350 a month compulsary contribution goes towards whatever illness I may suffer from.
It does not make one jot whether someone smokes or drinks as to what level of treatment they receive.
In my book if you contribute or have contributed over years of paying NHS contributions, that should make you qualify for free treatment no matter how you came by your illness, to suggest that people who smoke should go to the bottom of the list is quite frankly insulting.
I pay my money and that gives me a right to that health care. Oh and also people have known for over 30 years the damage smoking does so that arguement does not hold much substance at all.
That is like saying a scaffolder should not recieve any treatment if he falls of that scaffolding as he knows there is a danger. As it is I also have private health care as if I fall ill I do not want to wait 16 years to be treated for it. I would be seen within a week for a consultant, unlike months of waiting for an NHS one. So I pay twice which makes my NHS contributions even harder to swallow.
Generally speaking, scaffolders are provided with safety equipment and take a certain amout of care to avoid accidents.
Smokers deliberately attempt to cause themselves harm.
If a scaffolder was stupid enough to keep jumping off the scaffolding and survived I`d put him to the bottom of the list too !!!
Well let's take a possible situation here. YOU are out driving your car on a nice sunny day. You stop at a junction and do not see another car coming. You pull out and it hits your car and you are seriously injured because of YOUR inability to see another car.
The police even charge YOU with careless driving. Would it be ok for a hospital not to treat you as it was down to YOUR inability to see a car?
How far down the silly road do you want to go?
IF someone gets involved in a fight and it is his fault but someone stabs him and he needs urgent medical treatment, would you deny him that as it was his fault?
Of course not. The system is there to treat everyone regardless of whether they smoke or drink, or have had an accident through their own neglect.
To suggest otherwise will be a downward spiral for the NHS. As the motto always used to be " free healthcare for everyone ". Yes it is not free to the taxpayers but that was the drift.
Actually if you have car insurance the hospital will claim back some of the cost of the treatment for anyone injured in the accident as recently happened to a friend who found the NHS had claimed £500 from their insurance company for the cost of an ambulance attending the accident they were in even through it wasnt their fault.
Quote by kentswingers777
Well let's take a possible situation here. YOU are out driving your car on a nice sunny day. You stop at a junction and do not see another car coming. You pull out and it hits your car and you are seriously injured because of YOUR inability to see another car.
The police even charge YOU with careless driving. Would it be ok for a hospital not to treat you as it was down to YOUR inability to see a car?
How far down the silly road do you want to go?
IF someone gets involved in a fight and it is his fault but someone stabs him and he needs urgent medical treatment, would you deny him that as it was his fault?
Of course not. The system is there to treat everyone regardless of whether they smoke or drink, or have had an accident through their own neglect.
To suggest otherwise will be a downward spiral for the NHS. As the motto always used to be " free healthcare for everyone ". Yes it is not free to the taxpayers but that was the drift.
Sorry kent, your analogies don't support this argument.
No-one has ever said in this thread that such incidents should be treated with less of a priority than what was outlined in the OP.
Quote by flower411
The system is set up to help those who are truely in need. There will always be the free loaders and scroungers who do take the piss, making a mockery of the system.
Like George Best with his liver transplant and others who won't give up smoking.
If that is their choice of lifestyle, they should suffer the consequences of it.
I don't see why the tax paying public should fund "lost causes" when there are so many deserving cases missing out.
I am sorry but your comments here have offended me, my dad worked all the hours asked and paid his taxes, working at least 60-70hrs a week to provide for his family, he was a smoker and at 63 had to retire due to ill health, smoke related agreed, he is now 72 and may not have long left in this world.
For 47 years of hard work, because he smoked you would deny him his right to hospital treatment, which without he would not be here now, and would have suffered a great deal more.
Minx .... A lot of the time that your Dad was smoking there was not the knowledge of the problems or later the support to help people stop this addiction.
However, nowadays people who smoke are fully aware of the dangers and there is plenty of help available to those that want to quit.
Anybody smoking today is making a very conscious decision to cause themselves health problems in the future and I certainly think that they should be at the bottom of the list when it comes to scarce health care.
I`m not saying that they should be denied care if it is available but if there is a waiting list, those that have made a conscious decision to cause themselves harm shouldn`t take priority.
So would drinkers come under the same terms?
Would they go at the bottom of the pile too?
Something to bear in mind my Dad might cost the NHS some money, but will save around £49,500 in the pensions department by cutting short his life expectance by around 10 years.
