Bank Holiday Weekend Nearly Here....

[Chippy_Tea]

I’m exactly the same on that. Been saying for years that a pass on a basic medical mot every two years should be required. If the person is clearly abusing their body, their National insurance should be weighted accordingly

So taking that view should everyone who plays a contact sport be excluded from the NHS as it's their choice to play a sport where there is a very good chance you will get injured and need to go to hospital?

We all pay into the NHS all out working lives we do not get a choice so why shouldn't I get help from the NHS if later in life I become ill due to and addiction.

If I were to be excluded due to the addiction could I claim the money I have put in for the last 42 years back as I haven't been in hospital in all that time?

 

[Leon103]

Don't you hate it when a topic goes off topic....

 

[dad_of_jon]

S.A.D doesn't stop people going out in the rain.

Yesterday we had a family day out- dinosaur park tenby. Unexpectedly it was raining when we got there and we were in shorts. We had a cracking day out whilst everyone else hid in the indoor play area. Skins waterproof

I'm chuffed you enjoyed your day out in the rain, that is an advantage living in wales plenty of it. I've worked with people who suffered with S.A.D and a great help for them when available is sunlight. S.A.D has stopped some sufferers going out at all due to depression. Given I have daylight bulbs in the house I find a day stuck in the house because of bad weather less of a downer. You may have read that footfall to stores was down in May which happened to be the wettest on record in Wales. I'm glad you're not effected by rubbish weather but many people are and that's why I understand peoples need to travel to get some sunshine.

I've not been to the dinosaur park for years, given my kids have grown up, any new ones there?

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Yes and the above posts are now no longer doing that.

 

[Graz]

Yes and the above posts are now no longer doing that.

When I opened this thread I thought to myself that I'm sure I started one like this a week or so back with the same title and then even some of the posts looked familar.

I see what you've done now

 

[Obadiah Boondoggle]

I’m exactly the same on that. Been saying for years that a pass on a basic medical mot every two years should be required. If the person is clearly abusing their body, their National insurance should be weighted accordingly.

Anybody can fall ill or contract something at any point, and it’s right that we have a system that cares for everyone, but smoking and obesity are a lifestyle choice and people should be prepared to pay extra for them.

People who are born with Down's Syndrome are prone to be more obese - are you suggesting that they should pay more?

Children who are abused or suffer trauma in their early years are more likely, because of their early experiences, to resort to substance/alcohol abuse as an adult - it is clearly their choice that they were abused - so they should pay more as well?

Until you have walked in their shoes it is perhaps best not to judge

 

[Polcho]

1. I’m not judging anybody.

2. I made no reference to exclusion as such.

3. With regard to charging drivers and such like more for crashing, I assume it’s still the norm for those people to pay more insurance?

4. In terms of people hurting themselves in sport or just in general, that bears no relation to a person systematically abusing his or her body for the fun of it and expecting the state to fund the outcome. That money is taken from people that have naturally occurring conditions and they often find funding is unavailable to them. We still have people rattling tins to raise money for cancer treatment, prostrate and a range of other conditions that we don’t have money for. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a bit extra from people that can clearly afford it.

I’ve obviously hit a nerve, so I’ll be saying no more on the subject.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

4. In terms of people hurting themselves in sport or just in general, that bears no relation to a person systematically abusing his or her body for the fun of it and expecting the state to fund the outcome.

So you consider a boxer choosing to get hit in the head hundreds of times in a fight (and sparring) over many years is more deserving of NHS treatment than someone who enjoys 3 pints of beer every night just because the boxer looks after his body and our government tell us drinking more than X amount of units is bad for us.

Are you basing this on the number of units the government tell us is or is not good for us, you assume that the government have got it spot on if this is the case why do so many countries have different unit allowances, at what point do you decide someone who enjoys a drink has moved from doing that to alcohol abuse and actual harm.

 

[chopps]

The idea of penalising sections of society that might put a bigger burden on the system (for any reason) is the opposite of the NHS key principles.
In fact, the NHS has a social duty to focus more where health and life expectancy levels are lower.

Having said that, they also have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers money is used fairly and sustainably.

Investment in prevention and education is surely preferable to casting out sick smokers and boozers.