Poor, stupid smokers?

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
You seem to be suggesting its much cheaper to treat non-smokers for cancer, alzheimers, heart disease, kidney failure, aids, ... etc?
Accidents aside, everyone dies of some ailment or other and it all costs, whether its smoking related or not - it just happens sooner for smokers.

Smoking is a choice so you could say that the health problems that will occur through smoking are self-inflicted; No one chooses to get Alzheimers or any other form of dementia, the unfortunate people affected by this disease have not put themselves at risk, have they?

Treating people who've got cancer, suffered strokes etc because of smoking costs a hell of a lot to the NHS because so many people's health is affected by smoking; those costs could be avoided.

Originally posted by FrenchQueen
Smoking is a choice so you could say that the health problems that will occur through smoking are self-inflicted; No one chooses to get Alzheimers or any other form of dementia, the unfortunate people affected by this disease have not put themselves at risk, have they?

Treating people who've got cancer, suffered strokes etc because of smoking c ...[text shortened]... the NHS because so many people's health is affected by smoking; those costs could be avoided.

You are possibly missing my point. Of course treating smokers for cancer and strokes etc costs a lot. But if these people didn't smoke it would not render them immortal! They would still die of something or other - perhaps still of cancer, strokes etc or perhaps of some other disease. It would still cost a lot. You cannot avoid the costs - simply postpone them.

Originally posted by kmax87
I was referring to your forum setting self proclaimed title.🙄

edit: your title refers to some fascistic suction

then you observe that:- Lock up all violent criminals for life or place them on a remote Island and let them govern themselves. Drop pedophiles/child murderers from 10,000 ft. w/o a parachute, chop off all rapist's hands and penises, petty t ...[text shortened]... to which I replied:-
And the difference between these policies and the people who suck are???

Ok, 🙄 the difference is that Islamofascists, and their apologists, suck! My policies to which you referred do not suck....they are good common sense; is that more clear? 😲

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
You seem to be missing my point. Of course treating smokers for cancer and strokes etc costs a lot. But if these people didn't smoke it would not render them immortal! They would still die of something or other - perhaps still of cancer, strokes etc or perhaps of some other disease. It would still cost a lot. You cannot avoid the costs - simply postpone them.

I think you're missing my point, rather! 😞

Of course if smokers don't die of a smoking-related disease, they might die of some other disease that will cost the NHS to treat. They might just die of old age too... My point is that smokers are more likely to suffer from different diseases than non-smokers. They're more likely to require treatment, which is costly. Smokers cost the NHS more than non-smokers overall; I should say 'smokers and the people affected by their smoking', through passive smoking: smokers' children are more likely to suffer from asthma and respiratory conditions than children of non-smokers.

You write:
" They would still die of something or other - perhaps still of cancer, strokes etc or perhaps of some other disease. It would still cost a lot. You cannot avoid the costs - simply postpone them". but it's not necessarily the case since smokers are at an increased risk of disease. If these people did not smoke, of course they would not be immortal! but they would be a lot less likely to suffer from a disease, in their lifetime, that requires expensive NHS treatment.

Originally posted by FrenchQueen
I think you're missing my point, rather! 😞

Of course if smokers don't die of a smoking-related disease, they might die of some other disease that will cost the NHS to treat. They might just die of old age too... My point is that smokers are more likely to suffer from different diseases than non-smokers. They're more likely to require treatment, whic ...[text shortened]... /i] to suffer from a disease, in their lifetime, that requires expensive NHS treatment.

I don't accept your argument that smoking related diseases are more expensive to treat than other types. And what exactly does 'die of old age' mean?
Here's another angle on cost; If a person lives 10 longer as a non-smoker than a smoker, this will ususally be as a pensioner. They will require health care for minor ailments, accidents, hip replacements and the like - all costing tax payer's money. Meanwhile our imaginary smoker has been cheaply under the ground for the last 10 years costing the health service nothing at all.
Of course, I'm not advocating that people should smoke - it is undeniably bad for your health. But the cost argument is flawed. And don't forget the extra tax revenues generated by smokers.

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
I don't accept your argument that smoking related diseases are more expensive to treat than other types

Where did I say that? ? ? they are not more costly but they are more likely to happen.

Originally posted by FrenchQueen
Where did I say that? ? ? they are not more costly but they are more likely to happen.

An enduring memory from the beach at Sete: rows of skinny French women dragging recklessly on their cigarettes!

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
And what exactly does 'die of old age' mean?

If you look at the context in which I wrote this sentence, it should be evident: some smokers will never require any form of NHS treatment, admittedly not every smoker will get ill through smoking, some will die, as I said, of old age, with no illness, never having had to have NHS treatment for any disease . . . in other words, not every smoker will require some form of NHS treatment for a smoking-related disease but many will.

A smoker is more likely to require expensive NHS treatment, at some point in their lives, than a non-smoker, even if, as you said previously, if smokers did not smoke they may still get diseases (not smoking -related) that are costly to the tax-payer .

Phew! ! ! *catches her breath and wipes the sweat off her forehead*

Originally posted by FrenchQueen
If you look at the context in which I wrote this sentence, it should be evident: some smokers will never require any form of NHS treatment, admittedly not every smoker will get ill through smoking, some will die, as I said, of old age, with no illness, never having had to have NHS treatment for any disease . . . in other words, not every smoker will requ ...[text shortened]... ostly to the tax-payer .

Phew! ! ! *catches her breath and wipes the sweat off her forehead*

You are totally right in everything that you have said ,smokers are a burden on the health system ,if these people loooked up the facts they would see this but i think you are dealing with smokers and they cannot readily accept that they are choking up the health system with their smoking related diseases.

Originally posted by FrenchQueen
If you look at the context in which I wrote this sentence, it should be evident: some smokers will never require any form of NHS treatment, some will die, as I said, of old age, with no illness, never having had to have NHS treatment for any disease . . . in other words, not every smoker will require some form of NHS treatment for a smoking-related disea ...[text shortened]... ostly to the tax-payer .

Phew! ! ! *catches her breath and wipes the sweat off her forehead*

OK, let's imagine you are correct about the 'more likely' scenario. Would this cost not be more than offset by 'smokers living 10 years less' and the additional tax revenues?

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
OK, let's imagine you are correct about the 'more likely' scenario. Would this cost not be more than offset by 'smokers living 10 years less' and the additional tax revenues?

Do smokers cost the health service more than what they contribute? It's hard to quantify and I don't have figures but let's put it this way: there are millions worth of tobacco tax that are generated by smokers. However that tax smokers pay does not go back into the NHS only, does it? Like a lot of other taxes collected by the governement, it goes on war. One thing is sure, it should be going straight into some kind of health fund; that way, any medical care needed for people suffering from smoking-related diseases would be covered by the tobacco tax smokers have paid. Cigarettes should be taxed more too.

The affect of smoking is huge and so widespread: from asthma, heart disease etc, conditions that last a lifetime and require continuous treatment... it costs phenomenal amounts of money to keep smokers on oxygen, some may need this for many many years until they die. The government is spending huge amounts on healthcare for smokers and conditions caused by second-hand smoke, cessation programs etc ... whether anyone can really put a figure on these costs, I don't know.

Originally posted by FrenchQueen
Do smokers cost the health service more than what they contribute? It's hard to quantify and I don't have figures but let's put it this way: there are millions worth of tobacco tax that are generated by smokers. However that tax smokers pay does not go back into the NHS only, does it? Like a lot of other taxes collected by the governement, it goes on war ...[text shortened]... sation programs etc ... whether anyone can really put a figure on these costs, I don't know.

Several years ago UK Chancellor Gordon Brown stated that all revenues raised from cigarette taxes will henceforth go directly to the NHS. This is still the case. Happily, smokers may relax in the knowledge that they are not contributing directly to the treasury war chest just by smoking and are in fact directly paying towards their own treatment.

You admit to not knowing the figures for the cost of smoking related illness but simply use phrases like 'huge', 'phenomenal', etc. This demonstrates that you are simply arguing from an emotional standpoint about the perceived cost of smokers to yourself and other non-smokers without bothering to check facts.

And what about the case that a live non-smoking pensioner costs the health service far more than a dead smoker?

I remain unconvinced that smokers represent greater loss to the health sevice than non-smokers.

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
Several years ago UK Chancellor Gordon Brown stated that all revenues raised from cigarette taxes will henceforth go directly to the NHS. This is still the case. Happily, smokers may relax in the knowledge that they are not contributing directly to the treasury war chest just by smoking and are in fact directly paying towards their own treatment.

You ...[text shortened]... emain unconvinced that smokers represent greater loss to the health sevice than non-smokers.

These figures are not known, though, are they? I explained that in my previous post 😴
You can only speculate about those figures, there are so many things to take into account, disease like asthma in children that may be linked to their parents' smoking for instance but can you prove this is what caused the asthma? I do not have numbers for you but you can probably find some on the web... you've dismissed and completely overlooked some of the important points I've made in my post so I cannot be bothered to argue with you.

Originally posted by ShallowBlue

And what about the case that a live non-smoking pensioner costs the health service far more than a dead smoker?

lol

What about it??? 🙄

Originally posted by FrenchQueen
Exactly, they've got their priorities completely wrong.. Oh yes, I've noticed the satellite dishes too and the flashy mobile phones and bikes that a lot of the poor kids have; it's all about status, and come to think of it, the Poor are possibly the most materialistic group. Then when people get ill through smoking, we pick up the bill for all the expensive NHS treatments etc . . . 😞

Three cheers for socialism!!!