UK Moves to Deny Surgery to Smokers

[red states rule]

Another reason why government run health care will not work



Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused
By DAN NEWLING - More by this author »

Last updated at 16:02pm on 4th June 2007


Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand.

Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking.


The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

It is thought that 500,000 smokers a year will be affected.

However patients' groups argue that the move is about the NHS saving money rather than improving patient care.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770

 

[T-Bor]

I guess we should all give up eating fried chicken sandwiches also. I mean seriously, if ate 20 Fried chicken sandiwches a day I would be dead from that before the smokes...Govts are so screwed up.

 

[Annie]

I guess we should all give up eating fried chicken sandwiches also. I mean seriously, if ate 20 Fried chicken sandiwches a day I would be dead from that before the smokes...Govts are so screwed up.

Only in the 'developed' nations would this be a point of contention. Seriously, it seems the governments of first world nations are hell bent on controlling our every movement.

 

[TheStripey1]

Another reason why government run health care will not work



Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused
By DAN NEWLING - More by this author »

Last updated at 16:02pm on 4th June 2007


Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand.

Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking.


The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

It is thought that 500,000 smokers a year will be affected.

However patients' groups argue that the move is about the NHS saving money rather than improving patient care.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770

The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

Then it's for their own benefit...

do you think that addicts should be given special treatment? Why should they take up space in the hospital when they refuse to take responsibility for their own health concerns?

They should be given the option... you can have the surgery or your addiction... your choice...

 

[Annie]

The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

Then it's for their own benefit...

do you think that addicts should be given special treatment? Why should they take up space in the hospital when they refuse to take responsibility for their own health concerns?

They should be given the option... you can have the surgery or your addiction... your choice...

Cool. Let all the alcoholics, heroine addicts, and crack heads die too.

 

[TheStripey1]

Cool. Let all the alcoholics, heroine addicts, and crack heads die too.

If that's their choice, fine... who am I to say that they shouldn't do as they want? If they want to feed their habit instead of heal their body, then let them.

Are you saying that you care about addicts? Or are you just being contrary?

and obtw, that's heroin addicts...

heroines are female heroes... and them I am in favor of saving...

 

[Shogun]

the anti smoking agenda really chaffes my sense of "live and let live"



fat people have medical complications too.. do we make a stroke victim lose weight before treatment? I have to call shennanigans on the pink lunger bullshit.

 

[TheStripey1]

the anti smoking agenda really chaffes my sense of "live and let live"



fat people have medical complications too.. do we make a stroke victim lose weight before treatment? I have to call shennanigans on the pink lunger bullshit.

If you want to smoke yourself into oblivion in the privacy of your own home or car, it is not my place to try and stop you from doing so. But if you want to smoke around me, we are going to have a problem.

If you want to utilize public medical services and refuse to curtail your habit, then you will get no sympathy from me when you are refused. It's all about responsibility. The smokers' responsibility.

Do you think addicts should be given different or preferential treatment because they don't have the will power to just say no?

 

[Annie]

the anti smoking agenda really chaffes my sense of "live and let live"



fat people have medical complications too.. do we make a stroke victim lose weight before treatment? I have to call shennanigans on the pink lunger bullshit.

Kill them all. Hey don't stop there, anyone over 60, Soylent Green rules! Why stop at addicts, get rid of all the flotsam.

 

[mattskramer]

So. Private insurance companies make decisions about what conditions they will treat and what conditions they will not treat. They will set higher premiums for people under certain conditions. They will include disclaimer in fine print. They will delay payment on claims as much as they can within reason. Government is not that much different than is the private sector in this regard. Follow the money: Rake in as much money as you can and provide as little service as you are obligated to

 

[Shogun]

If you want to smoke yourself into oblivion in the privacy of your own home or car, it is not my place to try and stop you from doing so. But if you want to smoke around me, we are going to have a problem.

If you want to utilize public medical services and refuse to curtail your habit, then you will get no sympathy from me when you are refused. It's all about responsibility. The smokers' responsibility.

Do you think addicts should be given different or preferential treatment because they don't have the will power to just say no?

if you want to come into a bar that I own with that kind of attitude you might find your visit cut very short. Last I recall the PUBLIC is not only made up of non-smokers... nor is it made up of people who live like a fitness video. I hate to remind you but non-smokers also have health problems. When you get ready to regulate my behaviour then get ready for me to fine tooth comb your life too.

RESPONSIBILITY? gee, where does the hyocratic oath say anything about limiting health care to non smokers?

I think that sick people should be treated despite your opinion about their lifestyle. Youd bitch if christians refused to treat gays because they correlate aids with homosexuality.. same shit, different side of the political spectrum.

 

[Annie]

So. Private insurance companies make decisions about what conditions they will treat and what conditions they will not treat. They will set higher premiums for people under certain conditions. They will include disclaimer in fine print. They will delay payment on claims as much as they can within reason. Government is not that much different than is the private sector in this regard. Follow the money: Rake in as much money as you can and provide as little service as you are obligated to

Ah but it's not private, but government. Having given this a bit of thought, those with genetics that are wanting, should also be denied medical care, way too expensive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Cool. Let all the alcoholics, heroine addicts, and crack heads die too.

You forgot overweight, Diabetics that can not or will not control their blood sugar and a host of other "self" inflicted problems.

When the Government provides health care by FORCE of law then any attempt to limit said care to people for "life style" choices that are perfectly legal is wrong. It is but the beginning of the lose of a host of health care on "its best for you" grounds.

Hell unwed pregnancy , or unemployed people that get pregnant are bad, how long before England decides they should have a mandatory abortion and repeat offenders get "fixed"?

 

[TheStripey1]

Kill them all. Hey don't stop there, anyone over 60, Soylent Green rules! Why stop at addicts, get rid of all the flotsam.

Let's start with your parents.

Are you saying that you think that addicts, those who have no will power, should be given preferential treatment and those that have lived moral lives be put to death simply because they have reached the age of 60?

 

[Annie]

Let's start with your parents.

Are you saying that you think that addicts, those who have no will power, should be given preferential treatment and those that have lived moral lives be put to death simply because they have reached the age of 60?

Nope, kill them all or let them live to a certain age, then soylent green them. Should solve lots of problems.

 

[TheStripey1]

So. Private insurance companies make decisions about what conditions they will treat and what conditions they will not treat. They will set higher premiums for people under certain conditions. They will include disclaimer in fine print. They will delay payment on claims as much as they can within reason. Government is not that much different than is the private sector in this regard. Follow the money: Rake in as much money as you can and provide as little service as you are obligated to

If you are unhappy with your insurance carrier, no one is forcing you stay with them. However, do remember that if you try to switch carriers and have a pre-existing condition, you might be turned down by the one you are trying to switch to.

 

[Annie]

If you are unhappy with your insurance carrier, no one is forcing you stay with them. However, do remember that if you try to switch carriers and have a pre-existing condition, you might be turned down by the one you are trying to switch to.

Screw insurance, kill all those over say 50? Good for the kids, good for the economy. Why wait for nature? Why pay insurance increases?

 

[Shogun]

treating the illness of a smoker is preferential treatment?

 

[TheStripey1]

if you want to come into a bar that I own with that kind of attitude you might find your visit cut very short. Last I recall the PUBLIC is not only made up of non-smokers... nor is it made up of people who live like a fitness video. I hate to remind you but non-smokers also have health problems. When you get ready to regulate my behaviour then get ready for me to fine tooth comb your life too.

RESPONSIBILITY? gee, where does the hyocratic oath say anything about limiting health care to non smokers?

I think that sick people should be treated despite your opinion about their lifestyle. Youd bitch if christians refused to treat gays because they correlate aids with homosexuality.. same shit, different side of the political spectrum.

If you allow smoking in your bar, then I will NOT be a patron of it. If you want to smoke yourself to death, I frankly don't give a damn. It is YOUR choice. So how is that trying to regulate your behavior? Go for it. Smoke yourself into an early grave.

No fur off my muzzle.

IF the hospital wants to put restrictions on who they choose to operate on, it is their choice. If you don't like it, feel free to find another hospital.

 

[TheStripey1]

Ah but it's not private, but government. Having given this a bit of thought, those with genetics that are wanting, should also be denied medical care, way too expensive.

Are you a brit, kathianne?