should people that don't smoke get preferential medical treatment?

Question

I dont smoke but i think everybody should get the same level of treatment.what about fat people like me i pay plenty of bloody tax on food and people like me get told go away and loose some weight

Answer 1

no, is it fair that a smoker paying tax on their habit be stop from treatment when a person doing a dangerous sport (not paying tax for the pleasure) can and will get treatment if injured?

Answer 2

No, their is a stronger case for them to get preferential treatment because they probably pay more tax. But no, nobody should get preferential treatment. And anyway, we all have to die of something, which may incur costs, but as smokers, we will save pension providers a fortune as we are deemed to die earlier, allegedly.

We don't elect doctors and we shouldn't allow them to play social engineering games by rationing medical treatment. Who the hell do they think they are, calling for this and calling for that. Obviously the Government have put them up to it. That is why they have so many quangos to do their dirty work. These are deliberate tactics to set one part of society against another. They have broken society down into warring sub-groups for control purposes, and a there is no shortage of dumb people willing to help them with this.

Answer 3

What is it with smoking that elicits the most unpleasant and violent reactions. Smokers should have the same rights to treatment as anyone else. They pay for it twice over, after all. Anyway, who is to say that a particular malady has definitely been caused by smoking?

Answer 4

Of course not, that's inhuman. Everybody should be entitled to the very best medical care, regardless of how they get sick. It's not the doctor's job to pass moral judgements on his patients. Triage is supposed to be based on a sick or injured person's needs, and no other issue should ever enter the equation. However, I'm all for having smokers, obese people, and other people who engage in high-risk activities pay higher health insurance rates than people who take good care of themselves. After all, it's the same with every other form of insurance such as car insurance - if you're a risky careless driver, you will naturally end up paying more. If you're a smoker, you're more likely to burn down your house so you should pay more in fire insurance, etc. You want people to stop doing stupid things that create extra expenses for everybody else, then just hit them in the wallet. There's no need for doctors to deny or reduce fundamental services like medical care just because somebody is a smoker, any more than firemen should take longer to put out a housefire just because it was started by a smoker's cigarette.

Answer 5

Should people who become obese through wilfully consuming fatty foods also be pushed to the back of the queue? Over-eating and bad diet tend to be voluntary actions.

Should people who think it is fun to jump off cliffs with just a piece of silk or a stretchy rope between themselves and certain death be denied access to A&E when it all goes pear-shaped? Base jumping is a voluntarily taken risk.

Should skiers be denied access to A&E?

Drivers? Every time you get into a car you take a calculated risk.

Armed Forces? People join up knowing they may be called upon to participate in a war or peacekeeping op of some kind. Much military hospitalisation is now accommodated by the NHS.

Where do you want to draw the line as to who should and should not be treated?

Answer 6

No I think smokers and non smokers should get equal treatment.
I was a smoker and gave up 10 years ago, so I can see both sides, but still I dont think non smokers should get preferential treatment

Answer 7

nicely, first of all, enable me clarify that it does not fairly paintings that way. the priority with "Preexisting well-being situations" comes from various issues, and particular, those with preexisting situations do certainly pay extra beneficial than people who proceed to be healthful as a results of fact, logically they must circulate to get carry of therapy extra commonly. enable me provide you an occasion of a "preexisting scientific difficulty" and clarify why that's such a warm subject count. enable us to assert which you have a newborn. enable us to assert that newborn has a continual scientific difficulty. something incredibly undesirable yet no longer promptly deadly. enable us to assert they have a difficulty which demands them to have annual dialysis cures. as long as they get carry of those cures the guy's high quality of existence interior of reason primary. Now, that's significant, that's YOUR newborn we are speaking approximately. that's additionally a difficulty that there is not any treatment for. This has no longer been a concern because you in general had respectable scientific coverage. often the individuals asking those questions have by no capacity dealt with a difficulty the place they have been with out scientific coverage and have no theory what this is like so which you will anticipate which you have scientific coverage. in spite of the fact that, your newborn has now reached the age of 21 and your scientific coverage coverage now no longer facilitates them to be on your scientific coverage as they are actually no longer in the grace era. Your newborn is going and gets a solid interest which grants scientific coverage yet... ask your self... The coverage coverage of that interest won't conceal their dialysis cures as a results of fact the difficulty requiring them is preexisting. Now... i will anticipate which you have no longer examine the Obamacare checklist. that is long and maximum Republicans isn't stricken to envision it, as a exchange they are going to pay attention to what "Fox and acquaintances" has to assert on the subject count. Ahem: Obamacare isn't making your coverage organization improve their rates. Obamacare does not make your coverage organization improve the deductible or boost the fee of the co-pay. this is your coverage organization's decision. they are possibly doing this to stop from dropping revenue while Obamacare definitely kicks in. Your coverage organization, no longer Obamacare, is thoroughly a hundred% in charge. in case you pick in charge something for why your rates went up or why you need to pay extra... Blame greed. Blame capitalism. this is the place the priority lies here.

Answer 8

Actually, people that smoke die earlier and are less of an overall drain on social security and medicare. It's a statistical fact that women outlive men as well...should women get preferential treatment too?

Answer 9

Only if they don't drink, take omega oil, never touch cake, exercise for at least 20 minutes a time 3 times a week, eat nuts and seeds at least twice a week, don't eat animal fat, don't drive a car, eat fish on fridays, drink 5 litres of water a day, have their 5 fruit and veg daily without fail, don't scuba dive, don't skateboard, cross the road only at pedestrian crossings when the green man is showing......need I go on?

Answer 10

absolutely not. the "deal" struck with the cigarette manufacturers and the increased taxes cover the smokers. it was not intended to offset "social" burdens. the grounds were for the lawsuits were based on back paying the state health care systems.