UK Moves to Deny Surgery to Smokers

[Annie]

no I'm not... it's a play on his pink lunger BS... like I said, you're usually sharper than this... that IS a compliment by the way...

$6.25 for a glass of merlot? yikes... there's another good reason for drinking at home... better booze for less and since you're there, you don't have to worry about driving home drunk...

Drinking and smoking. Granted, we are about 1:6 on smoking, but the 6 don't mind. If they did, well they would skip our meetings.

With that said, none of us smoke during eathing, candles are lit. There are alternative areas to go to if someone has a 'real problem' with smoke.

 

[Gem]

It seems to me that this is an interesting aspect of socialized medicine that we might not have thought of prior to this discussion.

My assumption was that one of the benefits of socialized medicine was that all people got covered, regardless of their backgrounds, socio-economic status, etc. Now it seems like once that system is put into place, governments are deciding to place stipulations on who gets treatment and who doesn't.

I agree with those here who are saying that they do not feel it is fair to give an expensive, risky procedure to those who can not exhibit the willpower needed to make the lifestyle change needed to make the operation a success. I would see the logic, for example, in giving a lung transplant to a person who gave up smoking 15 years ago and hasn't had a cigarette since than giving that lung to someone who just put out his last butt on the hospital curb before entering the building. It seems logical to me to give the treatments to those who it is actually going to help...

But then again...I'm not sure if I am comfortable with healthcare becoming even more of a logic/triage game than it already is...doctors are supposed to help ALL people...not just those who have the best chance of survival.

As always, the libertarian in me is screeching about what this tiny step of government intrusion would mean in the long run. It is so easy to vilify smokers. Smoking is gross, it smells, its a personal choice, most people don't do it...its easy to point at smokers and say, "Well they are CHOOSING to do this...so we won't treat them until they stop making the bad choice because it makes the procedure less likely to be a success."

The problem I see with that is that the bottom line is, we are making that choice regarding smokers because due to the choices of the patient, the procedure is less likely to be a sucess. So how long do we wait before someone starts applying that to any behavior - drinking, eating, high-risk activities, lifestyle choice - homosexuality, multiple sex partners, living in a smoggy city...and eventually...how long before it is applied to any and every condition...diabetes that is severe enough that treatment might not be successful...cancer that is too severe to give chemo only the slimmest chance of success...etc.

I am concerned any time we start putting stipulations on who gets treated. And no, I'm not saying we have a perfect system here, god knows, we don't. But I thought one of the "plusses" of the universal healthcare system was that it was universal...not "universal...as long as you were pretty damn healthy before you went in."

 

[Annie]

It seems to me that this is an interesting aspect of socialized medicine that we might not have thought of prior to this discussion.

My assumption was that one of the benefits of socialized medicine was that all people got covered, regardless of their backgrounds, socio-economic status, etc. Now it seems like once that system is put into place, governments are deciding to place stipulations on who gets treatment and who doesn't.

I agree with those here who are saying that they do not feel it is fair to give an expensive, risky procedure to those who can not exhibit the willpower needed to make the lifestyle change needed to make the operation a success. I would see the logic, for example, in giving a lung transplant to a person who gave up smoking 15 years ago and hasn't had a cigarette since than giving that lung to someone who just put out his last butt on the hospital curb before entering the building. It seems logical to me to give the treatments to those who it is actually going to help...

But then again...I'm not sure if I am comfortable with healthcare becoming even more of a logic/triage game than it already is...doctors are supposed to help ALL people...not just those who have the best chance of survival.

As always, the libertarian in me is screeching about what this tiny step of government intrusion would mean in the long run. It is so easy to vilify smokers. Smoking is gross, it smells, its a personal choice, most people don't do it...its easy to point at smokers and say, "Well they are CHOOSING to do this...so we won't treat them until they stop making the bad choice because it makes the procedure less likely to be a success."

The problem I see with that is that the bottom line is, we are making that choice regarding smokers because due to the choices of the patient, the procedure is less likely to be a sucess. So how long do we wait before someone starts applying that to any behavior - drinking, eating, high-risk activities, lifestyle choice - homosexuality, multiple sex partners, living in a smoggy city...and eventually...how long before it is applied to any and every condition...diabetes that is severe enough that treatment might not be successful...cancer that is too severe to give chemo only the slimmest chance of success...etc.

I am concerned any time we start putting stipulations on who gets treated. And no, I'm not saying we have a perfect system here, god knows, we don't. But I thought one of the "plusses" of the universal healthcare system was that it was universal...not "universal...as long as you were pretty damn healthy before you went in."

uh yeah, what we were saying...

 

[TheStripey1]

Drinking and smoking. Granted, we are about 1:6 on smoking, but the 6 don't mind. If they did, well they would skip our meetings.

With that said, none of us smoke during eathing, candles are lit. There are alternative areas to go to if someone has a 'real problem' with smoke.

is that the smokers who go to the alternate areas or the non smokers?

 

[TheStripey1]

It seems to me that this is an interesting aspect of socialized medicine that we might not have thought of prior to this discussion.

My assumption was that one of the benefits of socialized medicine was that all people got covered, regardless of their backgrounds, socio-economic status, etc. Now it seems like once that system is put into place, governments are deciding to place stipulations on who gets treatment and who doesn't.

I agree with those here who are saying that they do not feel it is fair to give an expensive, risky procedure to those who can not exhibit the willpower needed to make the lifestyle change needed to make the operation a success. I would see the logic, for example, in giving a lung transplant to a person who gave up smoking 15 years ago and hasn't had a cigarette since than giving that lung to someone who just put out his last butt on the hospital curb before entering the building. It seems logical to me to give the treatments to those who it is actually going to help...

But then again...I'm not sure if I am comfortable with healthcare becoming even more of a logic/triage game than it already is...doctors are supposed to help ALL people...not just those who have the best chance of survival.

As always, the libertarian in me is screeching about what this tiny step of government intrusion would mean in the long run. It is so easy to vilify smokers. Smoking is gross, it smells, its a personal choice, most people don't do it...its easy to point at smokers and say, "Well they are CHOOSING to do this...so we won't treat them until they stop making the bad choice because it makes the procedure less likely to be a success."

The problem I see with that is that the bottom line is, we are making that choice regarding smokers because due to the choices of the patient, the procedure is less likely to be a sucess. So how long do we wait before someone starts applying that to any behavior - drinking, eating, high-risk activities, lifestyle choice - homosexuality, multiple sex partners, living in a smoggy city...and eventually...how long before it is applied to any and every condition...diabetes that is severe enough that treatment might not be successful...cancer that is too severe to give chemo only the slimmest chance of success...etc.

I am concerned any time we start putting stipulations on who gets treated. And no, I'm not saying we have a perfect system here, god knows, we don't. But I thought one of the "plusses" of the universal healthcare system was that it was universal...not "universal...as long as you were pretty damn healthy before you went in."

The English want you to stop smoking for thirty days before they perform any operation on you. They aren't saying you have to quit altogether. If that is as big of a problem to you as it apparently is to shogun, by all means, don't move to England.

And they aren't saying you have to be healthy to be operated on... just that you quit for thirty days prior to the operation. Their experience has shown that those that do stop heal faster. Those that don't, don't.

The smokers don't like it because they obviously think it impinges upon their right to kill themselves in whatever manner they see fit. And as I have said on this thread over and over and over again... if anyone wants to kill themselves through smoking, by all means... go for it... I frankly, don't give a damn...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

uhhh... are those typoes or are you seriously impaired when it comes to spelling... maybe it has to do with your black lung lifestyle...

no one is saying you can't kill yourself smoking... the english are saying that if you want to get an operation there, you will stop for 30 days or you won't be getting one there... which would you choose? quit smoking for 30 days and live or not and die?

what does the gay lifestyle have to do with the topic? nothing.

would YOU like a straw man photo to go with your arguement too? I have a nifty one somewhere...

Are you willfully being stupid? If your serious and you can not see the coralation, I suggest you are unable to have a meaningful conversation on a host of topics.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no..I endorse the concept of risk management in healthcare. I do not think that heroic measures ought to be taken or costly procedures undertaken on otherwise terminally ill patients, for example.

Your playing word games again. There is NO discussion here of TERMINALLY ill. The discussion is about the slippery slope of telling people that are doing perfectly legal things that if they do not stop the Government, that is forcing them to pay for health care, will not provide said health care.

The reason we are discussing it and are NOT in Britian is because there are a lot of Liberals that insist WE should have a similar system.

 

[maineman]

You are speaking my language. My dad has a living will regarding such. So do I. While my dad says 'no extraordinary means', mine says, 'none that will not give a reasonable chance of normal existence, without extraordinary care.' In both cases, we are looking out for the coming generations. My dad has some issues, but none that are extraordinary. I hope I don't in the future, but if I did, I've made it clear that whenever something will end my life, naturally, I'll take that.

very wise (but you seem to come by that naturally)....

my point goes even further. I think we ALL inherently agree to some level of cost/benefit analysis in healtcare...especially when we all indirectly have to cover the costs thereof. For example: wouldn't you see the wisdom in denying a double lung transplant to a 70 year old lifelong smoker who not only had lung disease, but also congestive heart failure? I think not. And if so, YOU agree with some level of risk management in healthcare.... my example, I would imagine, is perfectly acceptable. Denying surgery to someone because they are fat or ugly - or black - would be unacceptable to both of us. There is a continuum that stretches between those two extremes. It is very difficult to objectively and definitively state where, on that continuum, we have started to trample on someone's rights".

 

[Gem]

Stripey One Wrote:

The English want you to stop smoking for thirty days before they perform any operation on you. They aren't saying you have to quit altogether. If that is as big of a problem to you as it apparently is to shogun, by all means, don't move to England.

I guess this is a point where you and I differ. I find what goes on in other countries to be relevant and worthwhile to discuss even if I'm not planning on moving there because I feel as we move towards increased globalization what happens in the rest of the world IS relevant to us, not just as it would apply to me if I moved to that particular country. For the record, I don't smoke...I just see the concerns this policy might bring up if people use it to build additional policy on.

And they aren't saying you have to be healthy to be operated on... just that you quit for thirty days prior to the operation. Their experience has shown that those that do stop heal faster. Those that don't, don't.

Please don't misunderstand, I agree wholeheartedly that this policy has merit. One should do everything possible to increase the chance they have to recover and experience a successful procedure. I apologize if that did not come across in my intial post. Where my concern lies is in the arena of precedent. When we begin to DENY treatment to someone because they are not perfect specimens....are we playing a dangerous game?

The smokers don't like it because they obviously think it impinges upon their right to kill themselves in whatever manner they see fit. And as I have said on this thread over and over and over again... if anyone wants to kill themselves through smoking, by all means... go for it... I frankly, don't give a damn...

Again, I couldn't agree with you more on this. I feel that people should have the right to do with their bodies as they see fit. My objection does not lie here. In fact, I'm not sure I have an objection so much as a question...where do decisions like this lead? It could be that the line is clear and defined...if so, great. I am not sure, however, if I see this line as defined, but rather see it as something that could be seized upon and "mutated" into something really ugly.

I'm not here to argue a point so much as to mull over the issue...

 

[red states rule]

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...

So when the liberal do gooders come into your house and inspect your refrigerator to make sure your eating only healthly food - remember it is for your own good

 

[red states rule]

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

Please read the article. The UK has GOVERNMENT run healthcare. They are running out of money so they have to find ways to cut costs

Hillarycare is failing in the UK

 

[red states rule]

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.

Strpiey - we are not talking about insurance companies - we are talking about government run healthcare

The same type Hillary and Obama wants to provide all of us

 

[red states rule]

You are free to kill yourself smoking should that be what you wish to do. Have at it. No one is trying to stop you. Be my guest.

But if you are living IN ENGLAND and need an operation, you will have to stop smoking to get it. IF you were dying and it was your only chance for survival, would you quit for that month and then get the operation or say screw it full speed ahead smoking all the way until your last dying day?

Perhaps that is why so many people come to the US for their medical care. Government run healthcare is a total failure

 

[red states rule]

Bar owners here have NOT gone out of business because their tobacco addicts were forced to smoke elsewhere. Their business for the most part has INCREASED because there are more NONsmokers than smokers... think about it... it might do your bottom line some good... or you can continue to smoke... I don't care... as I won't be going to your bar anyway.

It's the medical community in ENGLAND that is setting the standards we are discussing. If that's what they want, then that's their choice. Should you be a brit and want care in their facilities, you will do as they ask or you can find another establishment that will cater to you. It's YOUR choice. Either quit smoking for a month and get treated or find another medical facility. Simple.

No, the GOVERNMENT is England is setting the "standards" because they are running out of money

 

[maineman]

Your playing word games again. There is NO discussion here of TERMINALLY ill. The discussion is about the slippery slope of telling people that are doing perfectly legal things that if they do not stop the Government, that is forcing them to pay for health care, will not provide said health care.

The reason we are discussing it and are NOT in Britian is because there are a lot of Liberals that insist WE should have a similar system.

no. I am NOT playing word games. I point out that risk management, cost/benefit analysis has ALWAYS been a component of health care decisions since the dawn of insurance. No private insurance company, for example, is going to approve a double lung transplant on an elderly man with congestive heart failure. There is a continuum.... where on that continuum the decision is made to deny coverage is a political decision and a financial risk management decision. If you don't like being told to stop smoking or you can't get a operation that is subsidized by taxpayer or rate payer dollars, I suggest you don't move to Britain. Otherwise.... fight hard to keep the line on the continuum as far to whatever side you support.

But don't claim this is something NEW. It is not a policy decision that is a change in KIND, only DEGREE.

 

[red states rule]

no. I am NOT playing word games. I point out that risk management, cost/benefit analysis has ALWAYS been a component of health care decisions since the dawn of insurance. No private insurance company, for example, is going to approve a double lung transplant on an elderly man with congestive heart failure. There is a continuum.... where on that continuum the decision is made to deny coverage is a political decision and a financial risk management decision. If you don't like being told to stop smoking or you can't get a operation that is subsidized by taxpayer or rate payer dollars, I suggest you don't move to Britain. Otherwise.... fight hard to keep the line on the continuum as far to whatever side you support.

But don't claim this is something NEW. It is not a policy decision that is a change in KIND, only DEGREE.

We are not talking about insurance companies, we are talking about government run healthcare

What is next MM, government telling you what you can't eat if you are overweight and denying you treatment due to your weight?

The UK is now telling hospitals not to wash the bed sheets to save money

 

[maineman]

We are not talking about insurance companies, we are talking about government run healthcare

What is next MM, government telling you what you can't eat if you are overweight and denying you treatment due to your weight?

The UK is now telling hospitals not to wash the bed sheets to save money

how do you think that government run healthcare is financed? by tax dollars. How is private health insurance financed? by rate payer dollars. The principles of risk management and cost/benefit are the same in both systems.

 

[red states rule]

how do you think that government run healthcare is financed? by tax dollars. How is private health insurance financed? by rate payer dollars. The principles of risk management and cost/benefit are the same in both systems.

When has government run anything efficiently?

You want government telling you if you can smoke? What is next - what you can eat or drink?

 

[maineman]

When has government run anything efficiently?

You want government telling you if you can smoke? What is next - what you can eat or drink?

please go back through this thread and find anywhere where I endorsed this program in England or specifically endorsed any line on the continuum of illness.... beyond my rhetorical example of an elderly man with congestive heart failure being refused a double lung transplant.

I'll wait.

 

[red states rule]

please go back through this thread and find anywhere where I endorsed this program in England or specifically endorsed any line on the continuum of illness.... beyond my rhetorical example of an elderly man with congestive heart failure being refused a double lung transplant.

I'll wait.

Back to ducking the issue.

Dems have wanted the government to take over the US healthcare industry - are you saying you do not support one of the biggest wants and desires of your party?

Where will it stop if the government can tell you to stop smoking in exchange of medical treatment?