Recommended Posts

I was shocked when I first read about this, two sets of taxpayers who pay into the NHS denied the use of it. What is next, people who do extreme sports are exempt from care because they choose to do something dangerous? Got in a car accident? Cars are well documented in being one of the most dangerous activities you can take part in, so should they be denied it also?

Luckily the idea in the article was thrown out a few days ago before it was implemented.

The government have now been discussing something more important; the renovation of the houses of parliament. Either move out for 4 years and it will cost £5 billion or stay there for 32 years during the work and it will cost£10 billion

No cost cutting for those making the cuts, building a nice nice house for themselves!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mattygukas said:

Wow. Funny thing is BMI is not always fat. Ask body builders who fail the test all the time!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Christ I'm nowhere near a bodybuilder but my bmi is about 29 or so (I just squeak under the 30 limit!) but my bodyfat is fine at under 20%, that's just with a moderate level of weight training over the years. 

 

But the thing about delaying surgery to lose fat or quit smoking has been around for a long time hasn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zigatoh said:

Christ I'm nowhere near a bodybuilder but my bmi is about 29 or so (I just squeak under the 30 limit!) but my bodyfat is fine at under 20%, that's just with a moderate level of weight training over the years. 

 

But the thing about delaying surgery to lose fat or quit smoking has been around for a long time hasn't it?

I do believe you are right, but I just recently heard about it and since it was smoking related thought I would post it up.

@CaptainQuintero Ten billion, don't want to hear about it... Wait till it gets to a trillion and then worry about it less, is our motto over here!!! -LOL

-Piggy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, golfgar said:

Thanks for the article!  US board members should take heed as NHS is where we are headed!

The NHS is genuinely amazing, the only fault is (surprise surprise) at governmental level which causes massive overspending, mismanagement and short-sighted planning. If the people who know how to run the system were left alone by the suits and given free reign in budgeting/planning then the problems would all go away.

The trouble is it has been politicised and whatever politicians touch suddenly become broken. It's funny that, it's almost as if people with zero real life/job experience, morals or spine are getting involved in things beyond their comprehension and are mucking it up. 

See education, defense, pensions etc etc etc

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sean3 said:

There will always be a funding crisis in taxpayer funded health care.  The only question is, who is next to be denied service, and how much more can the government raise taxes and get away with it?

Some of the big issues are staffing; the NHS is forced to hire agency staff at sometimes 5 or 10 times the wage of normal staff because successive governments have failed to recruit enough staff. It's taking up a huge amount of annual budgets hiring the agency staff to meet the shortfall.

The government's solution? They have cut the fund which is used to train new nurses. Not cut by a percentage, cut completely, it's gone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CaptainQuintero said:

Some of the big issues are staffing; the NHS is forced to hire agency staff at sometimes 5 or 10 times the wage of normal staff because successive governments have failed to recruit enough staff. It's taking up a huge amount of annual budgets hiring the agency staff to meet the shortfall.

The government's solution? They have cut the fund which is used to train new nurses. Not cut by a percentage, cut completely, it's gone. 

Gotta love those high IQ policy makers, stupidity and self service is the norm.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not stupidity, it's economics.

1. You have the government paying for healthcare.  Right or wrong, it's how things are in the UK, so we take that as a given.
2. Whomever pays for healthcare wants to limit the cost burden of doing so.
3. Legislation and public policy are instruments at the disposal of the government.
4. Legislation and public policy will therefore inevitably be deployed to reduce the cost of healthcare.

I'm sure policy makers think it's quite natural to proportionately attribute more healthcare costs to those whose lifestyle choices create more risk of relying on expensive healthcare procedures. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, planetary said:

This is not stupidity, it's economics.

1. You have the government paying for healthcare.  Right or wrong, it's how things are in the UK, so we take that as a given.
2. Whomever pays for healthcare wants to limit the cost burden of doing so.
3. Legislation and public policy are instruments at the disposal of the government.
4. Legislation and public policy will therefore inevitably be deployed to reduce the cost of healthcare.

I'm sure policy makers think it's quite natural to proportionately attribute more healthcare costs to those whose lifestyle choices create more risk of relying on expensive healthcare procedures. 

May I...?

The taxpayer pays for this healthcare. I assume that the tax base includes people who smoke and are fat. Perhaps some that are fat and smoke!

Economics maybe, discriminatory, certainly. Flaws with the economic model... just a question?

Ask yourself this. If a 'race' of people require more healthcare (statistically) is it still an economic decision, or a discriminatory decision to adjust policy based on that data? How about if a sexual preference requires more healthcare costs than another, would the decision still be 'economic?' I mean statistics are statistics are they not?

How about the healthcare of those addicted to drugs. Those that drive drunk...? It makes perfect economic sense to deny services to those that drive drunk, a voluntary risky life decision.

Inquiring minds want to know... -P

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Inquiring minds want to know... -P

Apologies for not being clear on the point: I'm not justifying the reasoning or even claiming that I agree; I'm just outlining what I think is happening here.

That said, I think it's really important for people to realize, in debates like this and many others, that reasonable people can disagree for good reasons.  In this case, I think a reasonable person can stake our a position in which elevated healthcare risks related to elective behavior and choices could be considered differently than risks which are not a function of that person's choices (e.g. genetics or babies born addicted to drugs due to the behavior of their mother).

To my mind, though, that's a very slippery slope.  If government must be involved in healthcare, I believe we should -- to use the parlance of the day -- build a wall between healthcare administration and legislation of lifestyle.  If the government finds that being deeply involved in healthcare too much of a drag, it should limit its involvement, or exit the arena altogether.  Personally, I think there is a role for healthcare of last resort in a modern human civilization, which anyone can use, up to a point (e.g. emergency rooms).  But I am deeply skeptical of full government ownership and administration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, planetary said:

This is not stupidity, it's economics.

1. You have the government paying for healthcare.  Right or wrong, it's how things are in the UK, so we take that as a given.
2. Whomever pays for healthcare wants to limit the cost burden of doing so.
3. Legislation and public policy are instruments at the disposal of the government.
4. Legislation and public policy will therefore inevitably be deployed to reduce the cost of healthcare.

I'm sure policy makers think it's quite natural to proportionately attribute more healthcare costs to those whose lifestyle choices create more risk of relying on expensive healthcare procedures. 

Politicians being politicians, nothing will ever be proportional.  Lifestyle choices are plausable reasons to implement coverage restrictions, but taxpayer provided healthcare is unfathomable in it's scope and cost.  There will never be enough cuts that can be made...ever.  It will forever be a battle to stay afloat, and will eventually lead to things like Eugenics.

21 minutes ago, PigFish said:

May I...?

The taxpayer pays for this healthcare. I assume that the tax base includes people who smoke and are fat. Perhaps some that are fat and smoke!

Economics maybe, discriminatory, certainly. Flaws with the economic model... just a question?

Ask yourself this. If a 'race' of people require more healthcare (statistically) is it still an economic decision, or a discriminatory decision to adjust policy based on that data? How about if a sexual preference requires more healthcare costs than another, would the decision still be 'economic?' I mean statistics are statistics are they not?

How about the healthcare of those addicted to drugs. Those that drive drunk...? It makes perfect economic sense to deny services to those that drive drunk, a voluntary risky life decision.

Inquiring minds want to know... -P

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, planetary said:

Apologies for not being clear on the point: I'm not justifying the reasoning or even claiming that I agree; I'm just outlining what I think is happening here.

That said, I think it's really important for people to realize, in debates like this and many others, that reasonable people can disagree for good reasons.  In this case, I think a reasonable person can stake our a position in which elevated healthcare risks related to elective behavior and choices could be considered differently than risks which are not a function of that person's choices (e.g. genetics or babies born addicted to drugs due to the behavior of their mother).

To my mind, though, that's a very slippery slope.  If government must be involved in healthcare, I believe we should -- to use the parlance of the day -- build a wall between healthcare administration and legislation of lifestyle.  If the government finds that being deeply involved in healthcare too much of a drag, it should limit its involvement, or exit the arena altogether.  Personally, I think there is a role for healthcare of last resort in a modern human civilization, which anyone can use, up to a point (e.g. emergency rooms).  But I am deeply skeptical of full government ownership and administration.

Thanks for the clarification, agree with some, disagree with some... None of which is worth arguing about! Cheers (fellow smoker!!) -P

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Thanks for the clarification, agree with some, disagree with some... None of which is worth arguing about! Cheers (fellow smoker!!) -P

This discussion is a slippery slope, and Mr. Piggy is correct...not worth arguing about.  I'm thinking a VR Unicos would be good about now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's just about a delay, it could make sense from a medical perspective. If it's plain denial it is discrimination. Where to start and where to end then?! And if it's just done to "plug a funding black hole" as stated in the article, it is ethically highly reprobate.

Well, as long as they are member of the EU, I bet they wouldn't stand the case legally. However, with Brexit they can virtually do what they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fugu said:

If it's just about a delay, it could make sense from a medical perspective. If it's plain denial it is discrimination. Where to start and where to end then?! And if it's just done to "plug a funding black hole" as stated in the article, it is ethically highly reprobate.

Well, as long as they are member of the EU, I bet they wouldn't stand the case legally. However, with Brexit they can virtually do what they want.

It really just an idea mooted around which only lasted a few days until lawyers waded in and stopped it. It was supposed to be a delay in non emergency procedures such as ingrown toe nail removal etc.

RE Brexit changes nothing, there is still all levels of courts, appeal courts and supreme court with judges that decide on legality based on English Law (Common Law) not on the government policy of the day. When Brexit happens the only thing that changes is the supreme court is the highest court of the land again, instead of the EU courts giving one last extra chance ontop of the multiple which would have happened already just to get to that point

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fugu said:

If it's just about a delay, it could make sense from a medical perspective. If it's plain denial it is discrimination. Where to start and where to end then?! And if it's just done to "plug a funding black hole" as stated in the article, it is ethically highly reprobate.

Well, as long as they are member of the EU, I bet they wouldn't stand the case legally. However, with Brexit they can virtually do what they want.

I have to disagree!

dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
 
  1. 1
    the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Segregating people by habit and by how their body is constructed and treating them differently as a matter of policy is a discriminatory practice! It cannot be whitewashed to be anything other than what it is... If treatments involve the resolution of pain, there is no looking past the deliberate attempt to punish (with pain) by those that have contrived the practice. How this gets even a glint of defense is beyond me. (Not aimed at you Goo)

-the Pig

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PigFish said:

I have to disagree!

There it was again...! Just happy we agree in a point in one moment, the next disagreement will have to follow promptly... haha :lol3: (glad it's not tobacco-related...)

Which statement are you actually referring to, Piggy?

If it is the last one ("they can do what they want"), true, perhaps I have been a bit too abridging. Also @CQ: Yes, you are certainly right. But I was aiming in particular at the currently existing EU anti-discrimination laws (like them or not, with all their flaws and shortcomings). According to that, the UK wouldn't be able to easily get away with such an undertaking. That's what I meant. With Brexit, however, UK is not obliged anymore to comply with that jurisdiction (I guess. But who knows which results the future negotiations will bring on). But, fair enough, there are still basic, general rights which still hold for the UK, I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fugu said:

There it was again...! Just happy we agree in a point in one moment, the next disagreement will have to follow promptly... haha :lol3: (glad it's not tobacco-related...)

Which statement are you actually referring to, Piggy?

If it is the last one ("they can do what they want"), true, perhaps I have been a bit too abridging. Also @CQ: Yes, you are certainly right. But I was aiming in particular at the currently existing EU anti-discrimination laws (like them or not, with all their flaws and shortcomings). According to that, the UK wouldn't be able to easily get away with such an undertaking. That's what I meant. With Brexit, however, UK is not obliged anymore to comply with that jurisdiction (I guess. But who knows which results the future negotiations will bring on). But, fair enough, there are still basic, general rights which still hold for the UK, I agree.

More nitpicking (by me not you)! Not now Goo, got work to-doo! -Piggy

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PigFish said:

I have to disagree!

dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
 
  1. 1
    the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Segregating people by habit and by how their body is constructed and treating them differently as a matter of policy is a discriminatory practice! It cannot be whitewashed to be anything other than what it is... If treatments involve the resolution of pain, there is no looking past the deliberate attempt to punish (with pain) by those that have contrived the practice. How this gets even a glint of defense is beyond me. (Not aimed at you Goo)

-the Pig

 

 

Just wondering if you were talking about the delay to procedures for obese or smoking patients,  in which case my understanding is its actually to reduce risk to the patient during the procedure. 

Turns out these risks are during and after surgery -

http://www.m.webmd.com/diet/news/20070314/surgery-risks-higher-for-obese

So wouldn't this count as 'the just treatment of different categories of people 'as opposed to unjust or discrimination? If the patient can be encouraged to, and given time to, lose weight it could well save their life during or after surgery. 

Turns out smoking has issues for surgery to -

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20101019/smoking-raises-surgery-risks

So again it's about managing risk to the patient. Seems like at least 8 weeks off smoking is recommended but the more the better, after too.

Again this doesn't allow for denial of treatment permanently. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am referencing the article:

Hospital leaders in North Yorkshire said that patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above – as well as smokers – will be barred from most surgery for up to a year amid increasingly desperate measures to plug a funding black hole. The restrictions will apply to standard hip and knee operations.

The decision, described by the Royal College of Surgeons as the “most severe the modern NHS has ever seen”, led to warnings that other trusts will soon be forced to follow suit and rationing will become the norm if the current funding crisis continues.

Filling the 'black hole' and rationing will become the norm has nothing at all to do with doctors making individual decisions regarding individual patient's health. The article has nothing to do with 'best practice' decisions and everything to do with penalties for being a member of a minority group... I am only talking about the article...

According to @CaptainQuintero the topic is moot as apparently a court has decided that this practice would be unlawful (based on how I read his response). This being the case, it tends to bolster the notion that the action was in fact discriminatory and therefore unlawful. Since the topic included smokers, I thought that material relevant to the forum...

Our days our numbered!

-Piggy

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.