Health Tax - a proposalFollow

Going off on a slight tangeant, I never really understood why our society punishes bad behaviour so vigorously, but rarely rewards good behaviour. I think if you spend 5 years without getting a crimnal record, you should get tax deductions. If you stayed employed for 10 years, tax deduction. If you don't smoke and drink once a week, tax deductions. It doesn't always have to involve tax deductions, it can be Marks and Spencers vouchers or whatever, but I do think that it might encourgae some people to do the right thing i they knew that they'd be rewarded for it. Whereas now, there's no reward for good behaviour, and only a possible, though unlikely, punishment for bad behaviour.

Why is that?

Possibly becuase good behaviour is expected, and bad behaviour is seen as aberrant?

I'd be against getting a tax deduction for staying employed for 10 years. Ever since the 80s there's been a big push by business to chop workers at the slightest excuse. Who cares about keeping our trained and knowlegable personal and expanding what we do for greater profits? Lets make the same stuff with far less people and get greater profits that way!

A deduction for 10 years and more would encourage workers to stay in bad employment situations because they would be trapped financially by loss of income from finding work at a better place elsewhere.

As Gwyn's happily drivelling about this from a position of ignorance, I'm happy to point out that many of our Primary Care organisations (similar to US HMOs) have tried offering incentives (cash, goods or services) for people who improve their lifestyles.

Alas, the same morons who scream "why should I pay for fat people's healthcare?" manage to lobby against incentives - "ZOMG why should I pay for people to quit smoking/drinking/eating lard?".

No different to offering them tax breaks, but gets good right-wing headlines in the Daily Mail.

The incentives are already there - if I quit smoking, I pay about £2 a pack less in tax.

This is a stupid non-debate that keeps red-top newspapers selling to morons.

Really? I would have agreed to that. And I did post at silly o'clock, I was tired, pissy and seeking a debate
Also a lot of what I posted was far from drivel and if you wish I will go tack the facts and cite them. What I did not know was the cost of keeping a healthy old person alive.

Also, how dare you accuse me of being a 20+ dress size



Good thing I do not read the papers then

Are you really saying that we should do nothing about rampant child obesity? It is not self policing.

I don't know how it works in the UK but in Canada the taxes made off of alcohol and tobacco sales far outweigh the costs associated to any health treatments of those individuals. In essence, your roads, police, military, etc are all paid for with the taxes of those that smoke and drink heavily. You actually owe those people money.

My local bar has this hanging.

Not exactly patriotic, but us drunks rally behind it!



Edited, Jan 30th 2009 11:41am by baelnic

I do have a problem as supplying the lifting equipment treats the symptom and is not a cure. The cure is to ensure the population remains relatively fit and healthy and never requires such equipment.



I should give up sports now?







Focus on the cure, yes. I am loathe to spend money on treating symptoms of the problem of Ill health caused by lifestyle. I'll informed? I do not think so. You prevent disease by proactive treatment and immunisation: aka, the cure. You do not stop disease effectively by waiting for its effects to be seen then treating those.

This is all about behaviour on a social scale but that all starts with personal responsibility. Free at the point of access is only true in Wales.

The government won't turn you down for a pre-existing condition, it'll just tax you more.

By the standard medical test most people use for weight the entire England Rugby team is clinicly obease.

Body mass index alone is about as much use as tits on a fish.

I swear I saw one of their "friendlies" a few years back where they made a tackle and I'd swear after they counter-rucked (is that how you phrase it?) there wasn't anything left but a pair of bloody spikes. I know most athletes have several thousand calorie diets but I had no idea that your union needed to graze during the match.

And then deny care for conditions that are deemed too expensive for joe random taxpayer...

Just like private insurance companies already do today!

"Nope sorry, can't do that liver transplant. That's too expensive. And you have no medical need. Cirrhosis doesn't count. But we'll cover your IVF or Viagra if you need those!"

*headdesk*

My family have suffered at the hard end of these policies and I openly resent them. I realise I may have offended many with my posts here but I will not normally bleat my families life stories on a message board to explain my point of view. Suffice to say that I come from an active and fit family which has on occasion suffered illnesses like cancer.
The NHS has let us (the family) down. Great personal expense was put into care from the family as it was not covered by the NHS or refused. Prescriptions when given had to be paid for and when they cost £6.50 that soon adds up over time.
It is very hard to remain unbiased when I see other people treated for Illnesses that result from their own actions. All that money that could and should be used to treat those for whom the illness is unavoidable.

Free at the point of entry is a point of view that I have found to be a flat lie. So with due respect Nobby, GFY.

You talk about tough decisions? I wonder which hair brained idiot decided to give an alchoholic George Best a new liver?
In this case who is the irresponsible? The consultants that thought a hard drinker like him would make the best use of his liver, or him for not stopping his habit? This is a clear case of why I say that your health is directly related to personal responsibility.
He could have stopped drinking. Had he not drunk like a skunk his entire life he may not have needed a transplant. Had the consultants chosen to give the liver to someone else, maybe someone with a responsible attitude to life and not an alchoholic, they might be alive today. Did someone die from not being given a liver so George Best could sate his drinking another 4 years?

So, in George Bests case it should have been a clear summation of "Has this person looked after their life and body?" No .. "will they likely stay off drink and do what is necessary to maintain a long and fruitful life?" No ... he should never have been given the liver as it was throwing good liver after bad alchoholic.

George Best is quite simply a great example of my point that health is directly related to personal responsibility (or in his case blatent irresponsibility). You can argue that it is the fault of the state or "someone else", but in reality it all starts with individuals who all pressurise and create change in unison. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals afterall. If the individuals have no sense of responsibility, neither will the society that results.