View Full Version : Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused
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.
The ruling applies to routine operations such as hip replacements and heart surgery for conditions that are not immediately life-threatening.
If smokers refuse to give up, they are still likely to be treated but may have to wait longer.
more...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770
_______________________________________________
Wow, sucks to be a smoker in the UK right now eh?
Kranar
06-04-2007, 01:05 PM
Wow, sucks to be a smoker in the UK right now eh?
It sucks to be a smoker period.
It also sucks to be around smokers when they are smoking. :(
However, this limiting the availability of healthcare is somewhat concerning.
Why not quit beating around the bush and just ban smoking?
CrystalTears
06-04-2007, 01:25 PM
Why not quit beating around the bush and just ban smoking?
Because it would take away a choice people have, good or bad. So people can choose to smoke and never get better, or live healthy... their choice.
Skirmisher
06-04-2007, 01:51 PM
1- Of course its about saving money for the health care system.
2- To me any society with laws inherently takes away choices to better the quality of life.
Sure there are some liberties that are potentially harmful that also have positive effects. Mountain climbing for example. Although i personally find it stupid to want to go climb some mountain that thousands have already climbed and risk life and limb in the process but there are positives that can come from accomplishing such a feat.
Smoking has no such positives. The best you can possibly hope for is to be among those who do not get cancer. There is no glory, its expensive, stinks, causes complications in surgeries as pointed out above and causes thousands of fires every year.
I really have no problem with making it illegal to produce or sell cigarettes
Celephais
06-04-2007, 01:52 PM
Because it would take away a choice people have, good or bad. So people can choose to smoke and never get better, or live healthy... their choice.
Fuck em.
Warriorbird
06-04-2007, 02:00 PM
Hilarious.
Tea & Strumpets
06-04-2007, 02:08 PM
I really have no problem with making it illegal to produce or sell cigarettes
I don't like it simply because it seems like "baby steps". You could rationalize prohibiting a thousand different activities because it would save medical costs. That doesn't mean that it's right.
I guess cigarettes are the "safe" vice to go after right now. I'm not surprised that they didn't have the balls to mention booze.
At least I know that if I sprain my ankle 4 times in 3 years, my doctor won't prohibit me from playing basketball so that my HMO can be more cost effective.
Sean of the Thread
06-04-2007, 02:11 PM
I think the phrase you were looking for is Slippery Slope.
Tolwynn
06-04-2007, 02:14 PM
The cardiovascular benefits from playing basketball or any similar exercise should be fairly obvious to anyone. There's pretty much no possible way for smoking in any amount to be considered a positive health factor, though.
CrystalTears
06-04-2007, 02:19 PM
The cardiovascular benefits from playing basketball or any similar exercise should be fairly obvious to anyone. There's pretty much no possible way for smoking in any amount to be considered a positive health factor, though.
Neither is alcohol.
Tolwynn
06-04-2007, 02:23 PM
Actually... some might disagree on that.
http://www.ynhh.org/online/nutrition/advisor/red_wine.html
One of many, many possible sources, google more as needed.
Blazing247
06-04-2007, 02:28 PM
It's hard to look at the NHS and criticize it through the eyes of people who pay a high premium for their health insurance (us Americans). If we don't pay, we (generally) don't get- if we smoke, we pay more. If we have pre-existing conditions, it can generally be prohibitively expensive to get insurance here. The NHS does not have these stipulations. It's free, just by being someone who lives there, whether you've paid into or not (read: homeless).
They need to control costs somewhere, and I don't think it's fair to tax the entire country to make up for the extra costs created by those who choose to smoke. They can't raise a single person's premium like insurance provideres here in the States can. I don't think it's a bad idea, at all. Just like the seatbelt law we have, which isn't just for YOUR protection, but to lower insurance costs across the board from people who choose not to wear one, get in an accident, and cost insurance companies 100's of thousands.
Divinity
06-04-2007, 02:28 PM
This almost makes me giggle. Everyone is working to be enviromentally and physically healthy. Fine, go after people that smoke. I understand the affects smoking may/will have while recovering from surgery.
Pretty soon they'll be testing for your fat content to insure that you're skin is thin enough to slice through. You wouldn't want to upset the surgeons forearm. *stares*
Celephais
06-04-2007, 02:32 PM
They can't raise a single person's premium like insurance provideres here in the States can.
They could heavily increase the tax on cigs.
Blazing247
06-04-2007, 02:37 PM
Because that's worked out so lovely here? There are a few ways around cigarette tax increases that any avid smoker can find. How many packs of cigarette's with tax would it take to pay the bill for a smoker who had to have, say, a lung removed and be put on an oxygen tank for the rest of his miserable life? I don't think it would hurt, but it wouldn't solve the problem.
Divinity
06-04-2007, 02:41 PM
Raising the tax has not done anything besides make people complain more while smoking their ciggarettes on breaks.
There is not much to say about this topic.. in my opinion.
You smoke = You wait and it's your damn fault.
You don't smoke = You get help faster and you're healthier for it. (You also don't smell like you were drowned in a vat of a piss and slathered with two day old wood chips.)
Celephais
06-04-2007, 02:46 PM
You tax the manufacturers on packs produced, not at the counter, this way they can't skirt it with "free" packs. You essentially shift the entire financial burden caused by cigarettes to the tobacco industry (they inturn increase price to cover the burden, and the individual buyers pay the cost).
How many packs do you think it takes to need a lung removed and put on oxygen?
It would work fine if they wanted to go that route (personally I like the "screw them" route of "if they don't want to quit, they get nothing, although this does mean someone can smoke for 30 years, quit, and then get free medical to repair them... I would prefer a "screw them" route of if they have health issues due to cigs, they pay the whole thing themselves).
I have no idea what you mean by "it worked out so lovely here". We don't nearly offset the cost of medical with cigarette taxes, there are stupid "free pack" loopholes and it's not set up like it should be, "if you sell 10% of tabacco sold in US, you pay 10% of the medical fees assosiated with it".
In the US it's terribly stupid... SC taxes 7 cents per pack... MA taxes $2.575 per pack. I highly doubt that goes directly into health care. I'm not saying tax them to get people to quit, I'm saying tax them to get them to pay for their own damn health issues. They get their choice (pay an assload to kill themselves) and the people who don't smoke don't shoulder their burden.
Just another devils advocate note as a non smoker.. I'm sure some people have seen social benefits to their smoking, some people have decreased appetites, etc. to say there is 0 positive gain from the activity of smoking is probably at the core, incorrect.
Celephais
06-04-2007, 02:53 PM
Just another devils advocate note as a non smoker.. I'm sure some people have seen social benefits to their smoking, some people have decreased appetites, etc. to say there is 0 positive gain from the activity of smoking is probably at the core, incorrect.
Agree about that completely, I'm sure there are some benefits to smoking... in moderation. That drinking article (I didn't read it) I'm sure said in moderation, if they were really keeping booze legal because of the few health benefits, they would make it illegal to get drunk (and I don't think they'd let you purchase multiple kegs).
Tolwynn
06-04-2007, 02:57 PM
It is in moderation, to the order of one glass a day. Seriously, though, if there were even one tangible health benefit from smoking, don't you think the beleaguered tobacco companies would latch onto it as some tiny shred of defense?
Celephais
06-04-2007, 02:59 PM
I hardly doubt "one drag a day" would really help their case... I don't see any miller high life commercials saying "just drink a single beer and then stop, hot girls will love it". They also don't want people saying "you said this was going to make me healthy!" (Notice you don't see the "Guinness is good for you!" commercials anymore)
Don't cigarettes increase blood flow temporarly or something?
Tea & Strumpets
06-04-2007, 03:11 PM
Ok, since it's seems most folks think that it's fine as long as it's smokers affected... Let's widen the umbrella a bit and push off surgeries for folks that don't fall within the recommended height/weight guidelines for their age and gender. I'm sure that has more of an impact than smoking on the example given to justify their cost-cutting--> hip surgeries.
I'm just surprised at some of your reactions. Some of them read to me like "I don't smoke, and I think it's a filthy disgusting habit, so fuck 'em." which seems extremely shortsighted to me.
CrystalTears
06-04-2007, 03:18 PM
I'm not in favor of a complete ban. That just seems a bit farfetched to me. Good or bad, it's a choice to indulge in. I mostly worry about this kind of decision filtering down into other "bad" choices. I agree that it could spill over to people who are overweight, alcoholics, risk takers and such.
Blazing247
06-04-2007, 03:19 PM
The problem is, and the reason it doesn't make a good analogy with cigarette smoking, is that there are a number of medical reasons for a person being overweight that are not within their immediate control (thyroid and several other disorders). Nobody makes someone smoke, on the other hand.
I think eating yourself to 400 pounds is just as, if not more, ridiculous than smoking yourself to death, but your analogy is fucking stupid man.
CrystalTears
06-04-2007, 03:23 PM
It's not stupid, because if there is nothing medically wrong with you other than obesity, then it was something that happened to yourself and you allowed to get out of control. So would it be okay to tell that 400 pound person that they won't have any surgery done because of their weight?
Warning: The Health Secretary has determined that _____________ causes cancer and therefore will now be precluded from any medical treatment without evidence of a four month time period of refrainment from such activity.
Possible behaviors that can be filled in the blank.
1. Rugby, Football, Cricket, (any physically exerting or dangerous/contact sport)
2. Drinking beer/alcohol
3. Driving
4. Crossing streets at a busy intersection
5. Flying
6. Riding bicycles in the city
7. Having sex
8. Breathing
I see it opening up pandora's box.
Tea & Strumpets
06-04-2007, 04:02 PM
, but your analogy is fucking stupid man.
How is that a stupid analogy? There are plenty of people that knowingly and willingly eat in a manner that is "unhealthy" (ie. I know I shouldn't eat this cake and ice cream, but that looks delicious!). There are plenty of people that knowingly and willingly smoke while knowing it's unhealthy.
I'm still willing to let people with thyroid conditions have their surgeries on time, I'm just saying that if you are 30 lbs overweight out of personal choice, you can wait for your surgery with the smokers.
It's the exact same thought process as far as I can see, otherwise known as, perfect analogy.
Celephais
06-04-2007, 04:04 PM
I'm just surprised at some of your reactions. Some of them read to me like "I don't smoke, and I think it's a filthy disgusting habit, so fuck 'em." which seems extremely shortsighted to me.
Cause smokers have such wonderful foresight. I have no sympathy for smokers.
I see it opening up pandora's box.
I see this post as completely idiotic. People saying "slippery slope" okay, I understand, there are plenty of things that can be added to the list. No matter how slippery that slope is it's not going to be applied to the Rtard list you just gave (other than drinking).
If it does affect certain health adverse activities... GOOD! Hell if it affected all the dumb things you listed, guess what, no one would have free health care and they'd have exactly what they have in america, *GASP*. I see no problem with restricting free health care based on choices an individual makes regarding maintaining their health. Or they just have those choices include a premium to cover the increased overall cost of health care.
Why should someone who has made all the choices to keep themselves out of hospitals (not saying they're perfectly healthly, they just didn't do it to themselves) pay more for health care than someone taking risks... that's what insurance is, risk mitigation.
Tea & Strumpets
06-04-2007, 04:23 PM
Cause smokers have such wonderful foresight. I have no sympathy for smokers.
Yeah, I just think that's shortsighted on your part since the same logic could easily be applied to those things you do enjoy (ie. alcohol if that applies). Sex is a potentially dangerous activity, so I'm surprised you think it far-fetched that similar restrictions could be placed on it. Perhaps it's because you find sex so much more attractive than cigarettes?
I see no problem with restricting free health care
I'm sure their healthcare isn't free and is being paid for out of their taxes. Even in such a "free" healthcare system, if my taxes are going into the system I'd expect equal treatment to the jobless non-smoker.
*editd 4 tipos
Cause smokers have such wonderful foresight. I have no sympathy for smokers.
I dont either.
I see this post as completely idiotic. People saying "slippery slope" okay, I understand, there are plenty of things that can be added to the list. No matter how slippery that slope is it's not going to be applied to the Rtard list you just gave (other than drinking).
The list was sarcastic and illustrative. I'm glad you're able to discern the difference. ;)
If it does affect certain health adverse activities... GOOD! Hell if it affected all the dumb things you listed, guess what, no one would have free health care and they'd have exactly what they have in america, *GASP*.
(see above) You're really missing the shot I'm taking at socialized healthcare, but thats ok. :)
I see no problem with restricting free health care based on choices an individual makes regarding maintaining their health. Or they just have those choices include a premium to cover the increased overall cost of health care.
Its funny how you discuss free and restrictions in the same sentence and yet keep a straight face. So the cost of free healthcare is the liberty that society could have in pursuing the freedom to do whatever they wish with themselves, good or bad. Mother would be proud of you.
Why should someone who has made all the choices to keep themselves out of hospitals (not saying they're perfectly healthly, they just didn't do it to themselves) pay more for health care than someone taking risks... that's what insurance is, risk mitigation.
But you forget, they arent paying, its free, remember?
Celephais
06-04-2007, 04:28 PM
Yeah, I just think that's shortsighted on your part since the same logic could easily be applied to those things you do enjoy (ie. alcohol if that applies). Sex is a potentially dangerous activity, so I'm surprised you think it far-fetched that similar restrictions could be placed on it. Perhaps it's because you find sex so much more attractive than cigarettes?
And as it stands right now I'm prepared to deal with the repercussions of the damage I do to my body with those activites, I would also have no problem if they quadrupled the cost of booze and then all booze related aliments were covered by those funds.
(as for sex, I have the same stand of you took the risk, you deal with it, but it's not like you can really tax that, but I'm sure someone getting paid to figure this stuff out could figure out a way to make people responsible for their own risks)
I'm sure their healthcare isn't free and is being paid for out of their taxes. Even in such a "free" healthcare system, if my taxes are going into the system I'd expect equal treatment to the jobless non-smoker.
In an ideal world I would say you should be able to opt out of paying if you're not in the recieving community... but I would prefer the whole "make you pay out your ass for the vice, if you're going to be in the category with the rest of us"
Celephais
06-04-2007, 04:34 PM
I dont either.
The list was sarcastic and illustrative. I'm glad you're able to discern the difference. ;)
(see above) You're really missing the shot I'm taking at socialized healthcare, but thats ok. :)
I know you were joking (do you really think I took you saying "breathing" seriously?), but there are folks taking the slippery slope seriously, obviously breathing isn't on that slope, but booze is realistic. (re-looking at my post I can easily see how it could be taken that I did take you serious.. my bad)
Its funny how you discuss free and restrictions in the same sentence and yet keep a straight face.
Yeah... why not? Free if you fit the mould, not the first time that's been done. It just so happens that a few people aren't getting it free... people who happened to already fit the mould, guess what, bonus.
So the cost of free healthcare is the liberty that society could have in pursuing the freedom to do whatever they wish with themselves, good or bad. Mother would be proud of you.
But you forget, they arent paying, its free, remember?
I don't think you should be able to make risk based choices that you don't have to assume the risk of. It's like speeding, you don't get to go above the speed limit, because then you place a risk on other people and on the government's property. If you're in a socialist health care society, those lungs you're breathing air with don't belong to you anymore.
(I am on the whole "socialized health care is stupid" bandwagon... I just don't like capitalistic healthcare either).
Skirmisher
06-04-2007, 04:40 PM
Nothing is free, they pay for it with their taxes.
And for those equating the smoking cessation restriction with things like obesity please do note that it doesn't say that they have to stop forever, but just for four weeks before surgery. I'm sure the restriction would only be in place for non emergency ( read not immediately life threatening) and elective procedures.
It hardly seems like such an onerous restriction when viewed in that context.
Perhaps it's because you find sex so much more attractive than cigarettes?
Um, hello, hell YES. And if not, so sorry for you.
Tea & Strumpets
06-04-2007, 04:50 PM
Um, hello, hell YES. And if not, so sorry for you.
I'm not sure about sex yet. Right now I'm still focusing on my magic act and coin collection.
Right now I'm still focusing on my magic act and coin collection.I'm convinced!
So... if you live in the UK and pay taxes, then other people's body parts (by association) belong to you too. Depending on where you go with that, I kinda like it... (muahahahahahaha)
Harli
06-04-2007, 05:52 PM
A large part of this might also be because smokers tend to die more on the table because of the anestic (sp?). Decreased lung function and all the crap they put in them make it harder to regulate the medication. As a smoker trying to quit (20 days and counting) i think that if they are going to implement a rule like this they should offer help to quit smoking, maybe they could turn the 4 weeks into a lifetime.
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002485.html
Alfster
06-04-2007, 05:53 PM
Fatties die of heart attacks more, better ban being fat.
Harli
06-04-2007, 06:00 PM
Fatties die of heart attacks more, better ban being fat.
I belive that for the stomach reducing operation sometimes they do make them lose some weight so the chance of dying on the table is reduced. I dont think banning is in order but i can understand the need to lessen the risks not only to the patient but to the doctors also. Malpractice insurance is a bitch and some people might not be " oh he died because of smoking complications but the doctor did something wrong" even if the doctor could prove it wasnt his fault his insurance could still go up.
Skirmisher
06-04-2007, 06:14 PM
So... if you live in the UK and pay taxes, then other people's body parts (by association) belong to you too. Depending on where you go with that, I kinda like it... (muahahahahahaha)
Off the top of my head i know the Armed forces have restrictions on tattoos so i guess if someone lives in the US and pays taxes they also own other peoples body parts. :shrug:
Apathy
06-04-2007, 07:48 PM
Off the top of my head i know the Armed forces have restrictions on tattoos so i guess if someone lives in the US and pays taxes they also own other peoples body parts. :shrug:
Name them.
Anyways this is a good thing. If not for the government and big business to tell us how to live how would we ever progress as a society. I hope they deny people who only sleep 3 hours a night next since lack of sleep causes stress and we all know stress = heart attacks.
Sean of the Thread
06-04-2007, 08:47 PM
I've been refused for elective/non emergency surgery TWICE due to alcohol consumption. Told me to stop for two weeks prior.. seems very reasonable to me. I'm not sure what the big deal is to chill your smoking prior to be honest.
If they told me to stop masturbating for two - four weeks there may be a problem.. otherwise?
Such is life.
Ignot
06-04-2007, 09:00 PM
I don't think this is designed to stop people from smoking but instead to make surgeries more succesful, which I agree with. If people want to smoke they are gonna fuckin smoke, been that way for a long time. The fact that some of you say "if they smoke, fuckem, let them die!" shows that your not much of a bigger person then the smoker. They don't value human life but neither do you so why are you so high and mighty? Everyone has their weaknesses.
Celephais
06-04-2007, 09:08 PM
The fact that some of you say "if they smoke, fuckem, let them die!" shows that your not much of a bigger person then the smoker.
Being the bigger person is for chumps.
They don't value human life but neither do you so why are you so high and mighty? Everyone has their weaknesses.
Certain human life doesn't have value to me... I wouldn't call myself high and mighty, I just don't mind if certain individuals kill themselves off... :shrug: I'm just not going to help them prolong it.
...I just don't mind if certain individuals kill themselves off... :shrug: I'm just not going to help them prolong it.
Darwinism at its finest.
Nothing like purging the weak genes, or letting them purge themselves. ;)
Clove
06-05-2007, 10:54 PM
I have to say I disapprove. It's one thing to limit or ban something. It's another thing to deny healthcare as retribution for engaging in a legal, albeit risky, activity.
Of course there are costs to society for allowing the choice to participate in unhealthy activities- and this goes for countries that DON'T have socialized medicine too. However, if the costs become too high, you either tax it, or abolish it, but you don't deny people access to life-essential services as a penalty.
Next they'll be telling people, "You can get as fat as you like, but we won't allow clothing larger than size x. So if you want to be fat, you're gonna have to be naked...." Wouldn't THAT be amusing?
Celephais
06-06-2007, 12:25 AM
You can get as fat as you like, but as soon as you get to size x you've got to buy two tickets to get on an airplane...
As human beings we seemed to have developed this anti-darwinism mechinism, where as a race we can't grow because we're devoting our energy to lost causes. There are plenty of brilliant, wonderful human beings with disadvantages, and I have no problem as a society helping these people get on their feet, but there are also those who aren't willing to help themselves, and if they can't help themselves, we're wasting our time trying to help them. If we can't evolve, something else will.
If you let yourself get so fat you can't fit into clothes, you clearly don't have the initiative to be worth saving... hell look at the pic (i'm sure methais) posted in the picture posting game of that fat chick who's too fat to bother wearing clothes..
StrayRogue
06-06-2007, 09:48 AM
Sean has had a streak of reason here:
They don't have to stop smoking, they just can't smoke up to two weeks (or four) prior to surgery.
It's not to fuck people over, it's to make the doctor's lives easier, and to promote a quicker and safer recovery.
Anyway, roll on July 1st. Fuck all you stupid bastard smokers.
And yeah: lol @ Daily Mail.
Gammit
06-06-2007, 01:43 PM
anestic(sp?)
Anaesthetic. I should note that anyone posting online has almost no reason not to use www.dictionary.com, but I can understand that the habit isn't always there.
I don't mind the four-week ban at all, it's perfectly reasonable, it's like asking you not to eat 24 hours before they give you the knock-out drugs while getting oral surgery. Four weeks isn't a big deal, people can learn to deal with it.
As far as generally saying that smoking carries no benefit, you're talking from a completely reasonable perspective of fitness. You've got to understand that people don't smoke because they're trying to get healthier, no more than people binge drink to get healthier. The whole "one drink a day" bit, while certainly scientifically borne out in testing, just seems like something people latch onto to keep drinking from being a horrible thing, but it's a fact that people generally drink to get DRUNK, not to enjoy the health benefits. Similarly, people smoke to experience the chemical effects of the nicotene, not to make themselves healthier, and these things might have an overall benefit. To take the beer example: Those frat buddies you bonded with over keg stands may be excellent contacts for jobs and other money-making opportunities later in life. That lady friend you so intimately lit a cigarette for with your own may end up in your bed later. The calming effect may allow you to perform better socially (as long as the cigarette isn't still in your mouth, these days). To say any of these things have zero benefit is, as stated earlier, short-sighted, but that doesn't make it any less reasonable for a healthcare system to impose slight (and come on, what smoker hasn't quit for four weeks?) restrictions that could greatly reduce the costs of their operations.
As far as the obesity argument goes, if the success of fad diets can be any sort of example, there's no short-term change in habit that could produce any significant effect on surgery, so I don't see how it will apply.
Anaesthetic. I should note that anyone posting online has almost no reason not to use www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com), but I can understand that the habit isn't always there.
As long as the word is close enough to illustrate the point being given, who cares?
Its the words that are so mutilated that need at least an effort of proof reading, especially when posting a quick reply, to ensure the point is delivered.
Additionally, focusing on grammar or spelling errors while refuting or defending a point made by someone else on an internet bulliten board is simply a diversionary tactic that demonstrates the inability to provide a logical or reasonable argument on behalf of the person pointing out such mistakes.
Nieninque
06-06-2007, 02:39 PM
Hahaha...it was written in the Daily Mail, so dont put too much faith in it being gospel truth.
Furthermore, all it would need was for someone to take it to the Euro Court of Human Rights and they would be back-tracking left right and centre.
While I think there are some benefits to restricting surgery for people who are destroying their bodies through continual drinking or smoking or drug-taking, it is never as clear cut as the Daily Mail would like it to be.
Also, as we have a publicly funded Health System, if people are unable to get treatment on the NHS (which has been known to happen from time to time) they generally save up the money (perhaps by cutting down on fags?) to go private. Win/Win situation. Hoorah.
And yeah, roll on July 1st...fuck the dirty smokers.
Ignot
06-06-2007, 09:11 PM
You can get as fat as you like, but as soon as you get to size x you've got to buy two tickets to get on an airplane...
As human beings we seemed to have developed this anti-darwinism mechinism, where as a race we can't grow because we're devoting our energy to lost causes. There are plenty of brilliant, wonderful human beings with disadvantages, and I have no problem as a society helping these people get on their feet, but there are also those who aren't willing to help themselves, and if they can't help themselves, we're wasting our time trying to help them. If we can't evolve, something else will.
If you let yourself get so fat you can't fit into clothes, you clearly don't have the initiative to be worth saving... hell look at the pic (i'm sure methais) posted in the picture posting game of that fat chick who's too fat to bother wearing clothes..
So if a person has a Thyroid problem and gets so fat they can't get clothes we should just say "fuckem?" Lets just irradicate anybody that doesnt fall under a certain classification. Wait...has someone tried that before?
I appreciate evolution too but we aren't monkeys anymore. I think it's okay to make decisions to better our society and I don't feel letting people die because they do what they want to do with their bodies is the best thing.
And the fat chick was also to lazy to move the wrappers from her fat leg. that pic was awesome.
Celephais
06-06-2007, 10:49 PM
So if a person has a Thyroid problem and gets so fat they can't get clothes we should just say "fuckem?" Lets just irradicate anybody that doesnt fall under a certain classification. Wait...has someone tried that before?
I appreciate evolution too but we aren't monkeys anymore. I think it's okay to make decisions to better our society and I don't feel letting people die because they do what they want to do with their bodies is the best thing.
And the fat chick was also to lazy to move the wrappers from her fat leg. that pic was awesome.
I thought I was pretty clear with the whole mention of iniative and how there are certainly people with disadvantages worth saving... If you've got an uncontrolable issue then yeah, I have no problem helping those people, but they better be willing to make it worth societies while...
My first comment was more to the fact that we already discriminate against fat people, they gotta buy two tickets to get on some planes... I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it's a commercial market making it difficult for people with physical differences, no reason the clothes industry shouldn't be allowed to charge double for fattie clothes (and I think in some cases they do).
Harli
06-07-2007, 03:15 AM
Anaesthetic. I should note that anyone posting online has almost no reason not to use www.dictionary.com, but I can understand that the habit isn't always there.
[QUOTE=Ganalon;592342]As long as the word is close enough to illustrate the point being given, who cares?
Its the words that are so mutilated that need at least an effort of proof reading, especially when posting a quick reply, to ensure the point is delivered.
Additionally, focusing on grammar or spelling errors while refuting or defending a point made by someone else on an internet bulliten board is simply a diversionary tactic that demonstrates the inability to provide a logical or reasonable argument on behalf of the person pointing out such mistakes.
Thank you Ganalon. I have been reading these boards for alot longer than i have been posting since it seems to be a pretty tight knit community and sometimes its hard to make that first leap and all in all i have to say that i enjoy having a place where i can voice my views ( two year olds can be hard to talk to about things like this :yes: )
Keller
06-07-2007, 04:41 AM
Don't cigarettes increase blood flow temporarly or something?
I think it also helps your memory somehow. My college roommate is focusing on Preventative Care at Michigan med school and he smokes one hand rolled cigarette twice a week. He also told me that cumin reduces the incidence of alzheimers (sp?). Go figure.
Keller
06-07-2007, 05:12 AM
(I am on the whole "socialized health care is stupid" bandwagon... I just don't like capitalistic healthcare either).
If only we could magically combine the risk allocation associated with HMOs (ie: increasing premiums for fatties) and the universal coverage found in socialized health care.
Have you learned that magic trick yet, T&S?
Jazuela
06-07-2007, 08:53 AM
A thyroid problem isn't uncontrollable; it isn't an excuse for being morbidly obese. I only have one thyroid gland (the other was surgically removed after a tumor was discovered) and it's controlled just fine with Synthroid. There's no excuse for an UNdiagnosed thyroid problem either; if you suddenly start gaining weight, you go to a doctor, he arranges a blood test, you get the diagnosis, and get the meds. They're not even very expensive; a 1-month supply is only around 25 bucks for the generic.
The reason morbidly obese people have to buy a second ticket, is because they are occupying more than one seat on the plane. If you aren't morbidly obese, and bring your guitar on the plane, and it doesn't fit in the overhead or under your seat, you are required to buy another ticket for the guitar, or stow it in baggage and risk damage. If you bring a child on board, and that child won't fit in on your lap with the seatbelt securing the both of you, then you must buy another ticket to accommodate the child. It isn't discrimination, it's just business. Use more than one seat, then buy another ticket or seek transportation services elsewhere.
As for the smoking issue, I'm a long-time smoker and agree with the idea of this article. Smoking delays healing time, and it can -also- have a severe impact on the quality of healing for plastic surgery. If a smoker gets a tummy tuck with fat removal, there is a -huge- risk of failed healing that a non-smoker doesn't have to deal with. Why should a surgeon work his ass off to help someone who has taken upon himself such an enormous risk of failure? There are plenty other patients who don't have that risk, who are patiently waiting for their own surgeries.
Four weeks is enough time to clear the body of toxins caused by smoking, AND get past that phase where the new ex-smoker has coughing fits while their body is detoxifying. Any sooner than that, and there's that added risk of choking while under anasthaesia as a result of uncontrollable coughing fits.
If I had to pick between heart surgery to save my life, but ONLY if I quit smoking for at least 4 weeks, and continuing to smoke and not getting the surgery, I'd put myself into a coma if I had to during those 4 weeks just to ensure I didn't light up. I'd do whatever it took, whether health care was covering the cost or not. It's a no-brainer.
If someone else chooses to continue smoking, I don't think any health insurance should have to foot the bill for required medical attention, other than doing everything they can to help the smoker quit. But, I think it should be an option, rather than a law. Let the insurance company (or universal health care organization) decide how they want to handle it. And if a smoker ends up excluded from coverage, he still has the option of paying for the service, whatever it is.
Just throwing this idea around...
What if health insurance premiums were applied and regulated much the way auto insurance is?
As with auto insurance, the worse you drive (live) the higher your rates will be as a result of more claims (medical procedures) etc.
Those who live healthy and rarely visit the doctor will see the benefit of lower premiums and overall healthcare costs. Those who do not live healthy and that do see the doctor/have procedures directly resultant from said hazardous (unhealthy) living offset that type of lifestyle through higher premiums, copays, etc.
The difficult part that jumps out at me with this method would be those people who try to live healthy lives but are naturally genetically unhealthy thus requiring lots of medical attention for reasons beyond their direct control.
I'm still considering the economic impacts of such regulation and how that will impact R&D as well as attracting future quality physicians into the field.
:thinking:
CrystalTears
06-07-2007, 11:55 AM
That would totally ruin me. :(
Yea, the toughest part is mitigating the risk of something you dont have 100% control over, in this case, someone's genetics as they influence overall health.
I suppose you start off in levels. Each level beyond basic incurs an additional cost to the receipient beyond what is payed through taxes.
Basic level: Emergent Care - everyone has access to medical care in a life threatening situation for stabilization and treatment of grievous wounds or conditions.
1st Tier: Non-Emergent Care - premium coverage based on preventative care anticipated or required by person.
2nd Tier: Elective Care - expanded premium coverage or pay as you go elective coverage as anticipated, required, or desired by person.
Examples:
Basic - car wreck - need emergent care - go to nearest ER/hospital.
Tier 1 - cold/flu and minor ailments that make quality of life undesireable but not life threatening.
Tier 2 - any elective procedure that is not considered a minor ailment, does not disrupt an average persons quality of life, or is not life threatening.
ElanthianSiren
06-08-2007, 12:35 PM
Don't cigarettes increase blood flow temporarly or something?
Cigarettes don't but nicotine will temporarily raise your blood pressure and constrict your blood vessels. That's why people with any risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, athsma, erectile dysfunction and so on absolutely shouldn't smoke.
The health benefits from drinking wine can be attained just as easily through other activities. I'd rather they ban drinking than smoking to be honest, but that's just on basis of who pisses me off more; finally, I don't know anyone that drinks in what those articles call "moderation". Even my mother has 2-3 drinks, (3's her limit), when she drinks socially. That's hell and gone from a glass of red wine.
Sean of the Thread
06-08-2007, 12:43 PM
Rofl @ 3 drinks being excessive.
ElanthianSiren
06-08-2007, 12:46 PM
It's not excessive for her. The article reccomends 1 glass of red wine for health. I was pointing out that attempting to use that justification is flawed in this debate; sure there might be a few people that drink that way, but I have doubts on the large percentage was my only point.
Alfster
06-08-2007, 06:09 PM
Rofl @ 3 drinks being excessive.
No shit dude.
Gammit
06-08-2007, 08:45 PM
Additionally, focusing on grammar or spelling errors while refuting or defending a point made by someone else on an internet bulliten board is simply a diversionary tactic that demonstrates the inability to provide a logical or reasonable argument on behalf of the person pointing out such mistakes.
The "(sp?)" after her spelling implied that she wished to be corrected if she happened to be wrong. I indulged her. Further, I was neither specifically refuting nor defending any point she made, so while your argument certainly has merit, it does not apply in this case, and I resent your immediate assumption of an antagonistic position based on the one portion of a sentence in my post that you evidently bothered to read.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.