Poser wrote:I would like to propose a personal lifetime budget/allowance for healthcare for conditions that are self imposed: ie smoking related, drugs related, skin cancer from sunbathing (as opposed to working outdoors), obesity, suicide attempts, etc.
Once you reach your limit, you either pay for more yourself, or you go without. Where children under 16 are required to have treatment, it comes out the parents' budget.
People with legit illnesses continue to receive full NHS care.
Oh wow, get a load of this strawberry floating braindead waste of skin.
"Well, as this is the fourth time you've attempted to kill yourself, rather than provide you with the mental health care you clearly need, we're actually going to refuse you treatment entirely. Good luck pumping those painkillers out of your stomach all by yourself. Oh, and I think there's some old thread and needles in the bin outside if you want to fix up your arms, too. You can settle up your fee for use of the ambulance to get here with the receptionist, then I suggest you tip the cleaners generously after the mess you've made all over our floor."The NHS is there as a safety net for everyone in society, regardless of what's caused their conditions. Costs of smoking and alcohol related illness are already contributed towards at point of purchase in additional duty, so you're now proposing charging people twice for these treatments. Getting sufferers of addiction or suicidal tendencies to seek treatment can be difficult enough as it is, without them having to worry about using up some arbitrary healthcare allowance. Treatment of these conditions earlier rather than later benefits society as a whole, sufferers, their families, friends and colleagues all benefit, and can save future treatment costs, so seeking treatment should be encouraged, not penalised by fining the patient. You honestly think that the threat of forfeiting healthcare is really going to be anything close the first thing going through the mind of someone who's found their life in such a state that they're developing a drug habit or attempting to kill themselves? All you're doing is heaping more problems on to people who are in desperate need of help, and driving them away from the services that are not only best suited to help them, but which were also set up just for people like that. That's the idea behind universal healthcare, a
National Health Service. That's there to help the nation, and it's people. Someone doesn't become any less a part of society simply because you don't approve of what they do to their body.
Furthermore, where do you draw the line at what is or isn't a self imposed healthcare condition? Why aren't people who work outdoors being made to pay for their skin cancer treatments, they chose to work outdoors. What about people who move voluntarily to areas of high pollution? Should they also pay for their respiratory diseases? How about people who willingly take on dangerous jobs, people who put themselves in to high stress conditions, or people who maybe partake in extreme sports for fun? Society as a whole benefits from people doing all sorts of dangerous or mildly harmful things at times. Smoking and drinking allow people to relax, and some people simply enjoy those activities. Dangerous jobs need doing, as do particularly stressful activities, even though stress can be of major detriment to health. People enjoy partaking in extreme sports, and often do so perfectly safely. Should all these people forego activities they otherwise enjoy for fear of using up their health allowance? Do we begin charging the homosexual community for treatment of HIV and AIDS because they are higher risk?
I hate fatties as much as any right thinking person, but I'd never dream of denying them the right to do what they want with their own body, or denying them the same access to help that everyone else is able to receive.
tl;dr: