Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Smokers and obese people DON'T cost the health system more

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    you must have missed the word most :rolleyes: obviously there are naturally occuring diseases etc that we have no real control over until they happen. but if everything stays the same accept everyone on the planet stays fit and treats their body right then it would be far cheaper for the health service obviously

    take away obesity and smoking cigarettes and there would be trillions saved world wide imo
    That's not a good thing though, human population growth is the biggest threat facing planet earth. It will mean less treatment to go around and more chances of rapidly spreading diseases as people become more cramped. There is no benefit in saving people by making them live an unfulfilled life so they can live in an overcrowded world.


  • Options
    #33
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    ScumLord wrote: »
    That's not a good thing though, human population growth is the biggest threat facing planet earth. It will mean less treatment to go around and more chances of rapidly spreading diseases as people become more cramped. There is no benefit in saving people by making them live an unfulfilled life so they can live in an overcrowded world.

    ye i kinda agree, i dont actually care how other people live their lives as long as i dont have to pay for their voluntary life style choice

    i dont think the population is near critical point yet though or anything


  • Options
    #34
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Kimia wrote: »
    Do you believe it now?

    no but at least its referenced ;)


  • Options
    #35
    Kimia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,897 ✭✭✭Kimia


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    no but at least its referenced ;)

    How can you not believe it? It's scientific analysis from the results a study that was carried out - it's not wishy washy made up nonsense, pretty black and white actually..


  • Options
    #36
    blackbird98
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭blackbird98


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    .... most of them would die fit and healthy.....

    if most are going to die "fit and healthy", then why even try? Eat, drink, smoke, and be merry!!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Kimia wrote: »
    How can you not believe it? It's scientific analysis from the results a study that was carried out - it's not wishy washy made up nonsense, pretty black and white actually..

    well i read research papers every day(just because reserach and how to perform research is part of my studies) i understand these sorts of things fairly well. im sure their numbers show the conclusions they claim they do that dosnt mean its the last word on the subject

    scientific research/analysis/papers/journal articles etc are proved wrong by other ones every day of the week, some because of the methods of the original others cause of bias from the researcher others because we just learn more about things as time goes on.

    you just have to read the comments left on that paper to get a feel for the type of things that can be critiqued in any given paper

    they might be right but its going to take a lot more then one journal article to convince me personally


  • Options
    #38
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    ye i kinda agree, i dont actually care how other people live their lives as long as i dont have to pay for their voluntary life style choice
    Why should they pay for your medical expenses or anyone else's? We all contribute to the health service smokers more so, it's just wrong for a small minority to turn around and start saying some people deserve to die because others don't particularly like their life style. Everybody dies and everybody has the right to live their life's. The health service is for everyone.


  • Options
    #39
    upandcumming
    Registered Users Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭upandcumming


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    living longer does not cost more


    No. Ever hear of the pension?


  • Options
    #40
    desaparecidos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭desaparecidos


    I don't smoke which means I am better than the weak minded smoker.

    I am not fat which means I am better than the weak minded fatty.

    Stop smoking you filthy fat cnuts.


  • Options
    #41
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Kimia wrote: »
    * I do however detest when people smoke in bus shelters or by entrances of pubs etc, meaning everyone has to walk through a fug of smoke. Nasty and selfish.
    At the entrance of pubs? You mean the place where all the ashtrays are? Yeah, how dare those backstards smoke in the area where amenities are provided. Don't they know that littering is much less annoying than you having to hold your breath or suffer a bad smell for 2 seconds. What agonies you must go through if you're sitting next to a smelly person on the bus.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    upandcumming wrote: »
    No. Ever hear of the pension?

    we are talking about costs to the health service not the state in general
    Why should they pay for your medical expenses or anyone else's? We all contribute to the health service smokers more so, it's just wrong for a small minority to turn around and start saying some people deserve to die because others don't particularly like their life style. Everybody dies and everybody has the right to live their life's. The health service is for everyone.

    i dont particularly think they should have to pay mine personally, i think the only people the goverment should pay for are the people who cant afford it themselves, everyone else should have private health insurance.


  • Options
    #43
    upandcumming
    Registered Users Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭upandcumming


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    we are talking about costs to the health service not the state in general

    All the one.


  • Options
    #44
    terenc
    Registered Users Posts: 384 ✭✭terenc


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Why should they pay for your medical expenses or anyone else's? We all contribute to the health service smokers more so, it's just wrong for a small minority to turn around and start saying some people deserve to die because others don't particularly like their life style. Everybody dies and everybody has the right to live their life's. The health service is for everyone.
    What country are you living in pass me a cream bun and a cig:p


  • Options
    #45
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    upandcumming wrote: »
    All the one.

    people dont get to choose how much they get back from the state pension they are told and act accordinhly

    they shouldnt be able to choose a lifestyle that costs the state more in health costs or rather if they do they should pay more for the privilidge of public health care


  • Options
    #46
    stateofflux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭stateofflux


    the last comment by the OP seems a bit hypocritical to me.....


  • Options
    #47
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    we are talking about costs to the health service not the state in general

    i dont particularly think they should have to pay mine personally, i think the only people the goverment should pay for are the people who cant afford it themselves, everyone else should have private health insurance.
    PeakOutput wrote: »
    people dont get to choose how much they get back from the state pension they are told and act accordinhly

    they shouldnt be able to choose a lifestyle that costs the state more in health costs or rather if they do they should pay more for the privilidge of public health care

    If you choose to be a lazy dole scrounging cnut then what should happen,it is your lifestyle choice and you cant afford health insurance.Why should my taxes pay for you?

    If you decide to go to college for 4 years instead of working why should my taxes pay for you?

    It is not a great system but it is the only one we have.


  • Options
    #48
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    If you choose to be a lazy dole scrounging cnut then what should happen,it is your lifestyle choice and you cant afford health insurance.Why should my taxes pay for you?

    they shouldnt, if you make a choice, if your there through no fault of your own i have no problem with social welfare
    If you decide to go to college for 4 years instead of working why should my taxes pay for you?

    everyone should have access to education, people who cant afford to go to college should be given enough support from the state to go, anyone who can afford to pay for themselves should pay for themselves
    It is not a great system but it is the only one we have.

    so we might as well just end the conversation so and not strive to improve


  • Options
    #49
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    .........................................................................so we might as well just end the conversation so and not strive to improve

    I am pointing out that it is not quite as simple as you seem to think.


  • Options
    #50
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    I am pointing out that it is not quite as simple as you seem to think.

    i dont think its simple, nothing about what drives people to allow themselves to smoke or get fat or why i drink or do other risky things is simple.

    the principle that people who choose to take the risk should have to suffer the consequences and/or pay for those consequences themselves is a simple one though


  • Options
    #51
    Kimia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,897 ✭✭✭Kimia


    stateofflux wrote: »
    the last comment by the OP seems a bit hypocritical to me.....

    What do you mean?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Cianos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Cianos


    What about the argument that those who lead healthy lives and live longer are more likely to contribute more in taxes with a longer career and contribute more overall to the economy?


  • Options
    #53
    Kimia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,897 ✭✭✭Kimia


    kylith wrote: »
    At the entrance of pubs? You mean the place where all the ashtrays are? Yeah, how dare those backstards smoke in the area where amenities are provided. Don't they know that littering is much less annoying than you having to hold your breath or suffer a bad smell for 2 seconds. What agonies you must go through if you're sitting next to a smelly person on the bus.

    I find it strange that your post implies you would have no problem sitting next to a smelly person on the bus. Personally I would prefer not to.

    As for entrances of pubs, I mean just at the door. Maybe there's no smoking area or whatever, and I don't recall seeing any ashtrays around. So the person smoking is standing literally in the entrance of the pub door and you can't do anything but inhale a big cloud of smoke as you walk inside. I didn't do this when I was a smoker - I think it's rude. I mean what's the point in going outside if you're just going to stand at the door blocking the entrance for everyone and blowing smoke in everyone's face.


  • Options
    #54
    terenc
    Registered Users Posts: 384 ✭✭terenc


    Lets face it folks, smoking is bad for you, fecks up yourr lungs, plays havouc with your blood preeeure sorry about thr spelling must be thre voka love tis thread., ;)chippper her i come.


  • Options
    #55
    stateofflux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭stateofflux


    Kimia wrote: »
    What do you mean?

    i mean you were distancing yourself from being an anti-smoking fascist and then you say smoking in a legal place is "nasty & selfish"...where should people stand outside clubs or near bustops? 20ft away from door?...2 miles away from bus stop? i know this has been already argued countless times....i see you're point but its not practical in reality to even warrant mentioning....

    it came across to me as being slightly hypocrital , as the same arguement was being made by the "anti smoking brigade" you refer to on other threads thus sparking a lot of heated exchanges....


  • Options
    #56
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Smokers & obese people do cost the health system more.

    I proved that last week when I set fire to a fat bloke & they had call and ambulance and the fire brigade.

    All because he was fat & smoking.


  • Options
    #57
    FoxT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭FoxT


    desaparecidos wrote: »
    I don't smoke which means I am better than the weak minded smoker.

    I am not fat which means I am better than the weak minded fatty.

    Stop smoking you filthy fat cnuts.

    What is your definition of 'better' ?


  • Options
    #58
    desaparecidos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭desaparecidos


    FoxT wrote: »
    What is your definition of 'better' ?

    Superior, of a higher existence, x+1, God like.


  • Options
    #59
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Kimia wrote: »
    I find it strange that your post implies you would have no problem sitting next to a smelly person on the bus. Personally I would prefer not to.

    As for entrances of pubs, I mean just at the door. Maybe there's no smoking area or whatever, and I don't recall seeing any ashtrays around. So the person smoking is standing literally in the entrance of the pub door and you can't do anything but inhale a big cloud of smoke as you walk inside. I didn't do this when I was a smoker - I think it's rude. I mean what's the point in going outside if you're just going to stand at the door blocking the entrance for everyone and blowing smoke in everyone's face.
    I don't particularly like sitting next to a smelly person on the bus, but I put up with it for the brief time that I have to, just as I don't particularly like having smoke blown in my face, but I can put up with it for the couple of seconds it takes to walk past.

    Lots and lots of pubs, in Dublin anyway, have ashtrays on the wall right at the door. They're boxes about A4 size and often have ads on them. If a person is smoking right outside a pub then chances are that they've just come out of the pub and are smoking near the entrance because they want to be close to the ashtray, any heat source that the pub may have outside the door, and they are possibly keeping an eye on their belongings. If you didn't do this, fair enough, but most people wouldn't see the point of walking off down the street to stand there alone, smoking, for 3 minutes, and I think that's fair enough too.


  • Options
    #60
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,266 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/philip-morris-apologises-for-controversial-report-on-smoking

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14982702
    Critique of the Philip Morris study of the cost of smoking in the Czech Republic.

    Ross H.

    Health Research and Policy Centers, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA. hanaross@uic.edu
    Abstract

    This critique analyzes the methodology used in a study of the economic burden imposed on public finances in the Czech Republic by the consumption of cigarettes. The study was prepared by a consulting firm on behalf of the Phillip Morris Company. This critique, by using economic theory and a cost-benefit methodology, refutes the conclusion of the Phillip Morris study that smoking represents an economic benefit to Czech state finances. In fact, the correction of only one among numerous errors in assumptions and calculations in the Phillip Morris study leads to the opposite conclusion: Instead of savings of $150 million per year, smoking drains at least $373 million from the state budget annually, nearly.8% of the Czech gross domestic product. The net loss to the society is even greater if all pertinent costs and benefits are calculated properly. The critique demonstrates how to craft a rigorous economic response to common industry attempts to influence public opinion in which the industry employs specious or erroneous assumptions and data.

    www.tobaccoevidence.net/pdf/sea_activities/Critique_PM_Ross.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    bobblepuzzle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭bobblepuzzle


    You do relise its not cool anymore to say smoking kills... no the movement has moved on... "passive smoking kills"... for f*** sake like... its like the global warming movement, full of bull****


Advertisement