Should the NHS pay for treatment for Lung Cancer

[nichomach]

Someone else who's quite sure of something that they have no figures to support. In fact, the 1.7bn figure is the estimated total annual cost to the NHS, and that figure is quoted as "up to", i.e. the maximum in Smoking Kills, the last government white paper on the subject.

And as far as the ageing of the population, infertility is the least of our worries. People are starting families later, and having fewer children than they used to. Pointing the finger at smokers for that is about as sensible as blaming the little pixies...

[Flibb]

If you start singling out one group of people, why not others. If you want to single out a bunch of people costing the NHS money its those bloody drinkers.

Britain's binge drinking culture is costing the country £20 billion a year, according to a government report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3121440.stm

So no heart opps for you if youve had the odd shandy then.

[Iain]

nichomach, if you've got a point to make kindly do it a manner which doesn't insult the person making the post. You're incredibly condescending in your responses and there's no need for it.

[Silence]

I work for the NHS, and i have no problem whatsoever with smokers receiving treatment for lung cancer.

My only 'grief' with how the NHS is treated is with respect to aggressive/violent patients and relatives. I have to deal with incident report forms every day, and you won't believe the amount of times I come across reports saying how a nurse got punched in the face by an angry patient, or worse, relative. The trust i work for has a Zero Tolerance policy, and will refuse treatment to anyone who acts violently (with the exception of neuro cases, who often don't know where the hell they are).

It sickens me when all you read about in the news is how the NHS is incompetent, waiting times are up etc, but you never hear of nurses being off work for days, or even themselves hospitalised due to aggressive patients.

[Tumble]

ok.. so... smokers pay extra 8bn a year... they cost 1.7bn a year... if they didn't smoke, they wouldn't need to have 1.7bn spent on them? the tax on petrol would cover the people getting ill from cars (which are being subject to ever more stringent emmission regs).

I saw an intersting statistic the other day tho, about the ban in Liverpool.. more than half the people admitted for serious lung problems/cancer etc last year worked behind bars in pubs....

[daniel_owen_uk]

Az I can see why nicho is loosing his temper, he proved that the smokers in this country provide £8bn a year in taxes, then he proved the the total amount the NHS account to treating those smokers is £1.7bn that leaves £6.3bn to spend on other things aside from treating the smoke related illnesses.

If you stop everyone in the country smoking you remove £6.3bn from the governments budget. Could you explain how that is good for the NHS?

I am (hopefully) and ex smoker, I have quit for 11 weeks now after smoking for 8 years, should I not receive treatment, what about people that smoke for longer, where would you make the distinction between someone that has made a mistake and rectified it and someone that has done too much damage to their own lungs to deserve treatment that they have more than paid for?

BTW sorry to "aim" that at you Az I was trying to argue the pro smoker side not the anti Az side

[nichomach]

nichomach, if you've got a point to make kindly do it a manner which doesn't insult the person making the post. You're incredibly condescending in your responses and there's no need for it.

As opposed to the insulting and condescending tone that you adopt to smokers?

I didn't condescend to or insult you; I just called you on your assertion of things as fact which were manifestly untrue. Daniel's right; I am annoyed by this. It seems as though it doesn't matter what the facts actually are, since apparently the facts as people would like them to be are required to be treated with equal weight and consideration.

BTW, daniel, I'm trying to quit also, and damned hard it is, so best wishes. I'd wonder at what point I'm no longer a smoker and am allowed back in to the exclusive little club of nice people that are allowed to use the services we pay for?

[Zak33]

/gets wooden spoon.....

[Kumagoro]

Nicho vat is only one level, there would be corperation tax, income tax etc the money doesnt just disappear unless it is taken out of the country.

the quote from your link

Smoking causes 120,000 deaths in the UK each year and treating smoking related diseases costs the NHS about £1.7 billion a year.

has no direct link to say where it came from who made it etc. It might be true but also it might not be. the study may be a good one but unless we can see the model for calculating the cost its hard to make a judgement. Is it the direct cost to the nhs... what about the indirect cost... i.e working people dieing early, taking days off that kind of thing.

I dont get why people smoke cigs anyway they are crap, if youre going to spend that amount of money then you might as well smoke draw.

ALSO what about the cost of smuggled cigs money going straight out the country no tax and a deficit nice.

[daniel_owen_uk]

Isn't "draw" a word from the chav dictionary and if it isn't it should be, sorry kumagoro, if you are gonna smoke weed then smoke weed, no tobacco simple as that.

As for not quoting his sources

In fact, the 1.7bn figure is the estimated total annual cost to the NHS, and that figure is quoted as "up to", i.e. the maximum in Smoking Kills, the last government white paper on the subject.

So the calculation model is a government white paper.

And thats TOTAL, let me reiterate TOTAL, you can't talk about indirect costs, the government has estimated the TOTAL cost.

And nicho isn't just talking about VAT he is talking about both the VAT and the Duty that is imposed on cigarettes.

Nicho pop along to the quit smoking support thread if you are quitting

[nichomach]

Nicho vat is only one level, there would be corperation tax, income tax etc the money doesnt just disappear unless it is taken out of the country.

And I refer you to my previous answer; unless the smokers spend their money on something else which attracts over 40% duty in addition to VAT, then over £7bn of tax revenue in the form of tobacco duty, payable on tobacco, but not on any other products, WILL just disappear.

has no direct link to say where it came from who made it etc...

I refer you to the link provided above to "Smoking Kills", the last government white paper on smoking, which is where the figure is stated as the total maximum amount that smoking costs the NHS.

ALSO what about the cost of smuggled cigs money going straight out the country no tax and a deficit nice.

So? What's that got to do with anything? FWIW, I've never bought smuggled cigarettes or tobacco and frankly I wouldn't. It still doesn't change the fact that between duty payable only on tobacco products only (over £7bn) and VAT, taxation on tobacco products nets the government over £8bn per annum.

edit: Thanks, BTW, daniel - I shall pop in .

[Kumagoro]

So this money just disappears? are you sure? are you really sure!

unless that money goes straight out of the country or you keep it in your pocket the
government wont make any money. In the bank then? well its taxed a bit and the bank can use that money to invest and make money which brings money into the country more tax, jobs etc. The richer the country the better things are for everyone generally.

The link is to a white paper which you have to pay £11 for it makes no mention of the costs on that page. Just because there is something to do with the government doesnt make it true? remember the iraq fiasco with whats his name and the copying an out of date phd thesis?

whats smuggling got to do with it? I cant help but laugh.

OK money goes out of the country which creates a trade deficit... this is a bad thing.
So a lot of money is lost... less money not good! ok.
Maybe you dont buy illegal cigs but many people do, around 25% i possibly remember hearing.

---


Draw was the most common name when i was a youngster... I was no doubt the chav equiv back then.

[Zak33]

I believe 25% is about the right ratio.

And if thats the case, 25% of smokers aint paying for their right to even take a pee in a Hospital.

[Zak33]

/ducks

[daniel_owen_uk]

Ok so 25% smuggle and don't pay tax or duty, so? £7bn+ duty is paid and only £1.7bn is spent on treating the smoke related illnesses. However much is smuggled makes no difference to those figures.

You can question the figures all you want, but please go and find some more accurate ones before you do.

And who said anything about the money dissapearing? The money would disapear if the duty wasn't paid on cigarettes ie. there were no smokers in the country.

[Kumagoro]

NO because the money is spent else where.......... its just take a longer route in getting back to the government.... even if its not exactly the same amount you cant say that £6 billion just goes up in smoke.