Health bosses climb down over plan to ban fat patients and smokers from nearly ALL operations in 'the m

Obese people and smokers are set to be refused NHS operations, health chiefs have warned - with one trust already barring them from most forms of surgery.
The decision by North Yorkshire hospital bosses to halt operations on people with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above has been described as the 'most severe the modern NHS has ever seen' by the Royal College of Surgeons.
The restrictions introduced by the the Vale of York Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) mean obese people and smokers will not be eligible for routine hip and knee operations for up to a year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3771997/Obese-patients-smokers-barred-nearly-operations-severe-policy-modern-NHS-seen.html


Health bosses climb down over plan to ban fat patients and smokers from nearly ALL operations in 'the most severe policy the modern NHS has seen'

Torn between agreeing (why should genuinely ill people be denied treatment because so much is spent on fat smokers who have caused their own health problems)
And disagreeing......the NHS vowed to look after people from cradle to grave....and picking and choosing who is worthy is the start of the end of the NHS.

Ooooh very divided opinions on this topic usually.

I got really pissed off when George Best took his free organ - provided for him by one dead person via the NHS - only to then, drink until he pickled it.


Football legend George Best is drinking again, just 16 months after his controversial liver transplant. The 57-year-old former Manchester United player, who pledged he had abandoned drink forever after receiving a precious donated liver, went on yet another well-publicised drinking spree last week.
~ 2 Dec 2003 Evening Standard.

But that's a bit different. I guess.

My take, all things considered is that these people are still humans, someone out there loves them, so we should try to save them.

George Best was a hopeless addict....nothing anyone could do would save him, and I suspect he didn't have his organ transplant on the NHS.
Iif people are prepared to pay they will get treated, it's the NHS that's struggling.
Whether private patients should have readier access to available organs is another problem...I don't know if they do, I suspect money talks though.

According to Wiki he did:

Best was diagnosed with severe liver damage in March 2000.[10] In 2001, he was admitted to hospital with pneumonia.[97] In August 2002, he had a successful liver transplant at King's College Hospital in London.[10] The transplant was performed at public expense on the NHS, a decision which was controversial due to Best's alcoholism.[98] The controversy was reignited in 2003 when he was spotted openly drinking white wine spritzers.[94] On 2 February 2004, Best was convicted of another drink-driving offence and banned from driving for 20 months.[99]


I bet the decision-makers regretted it.

Ahhh....maybe he was broke by then.
I just read that a big % of people stopped allowing their loved ones organs to be donated after that.
He abused the help he had been given, which was inevitable really...a new liver cant cure the disease of alcoholism.

I think he was broke. There was something I read once where he actually admitted he'd stolen money from a woman's purse who was sat beside him at a bar.

Fatties are responsible for 10% of costs to NHS through diabetes treatment... amounting to about £10 billion a year... when 90% of those cases are completely curable by change of diet and exercise...

Not everyone has the willpower to stop eating and some overweight people cannot exercise due to illness.

These people who may be banned could well have paid into the NHS for donkiz yearz yet forunuz will probably get treatment with the money saved.

Not everyone has the willpower to stop eating and some overweight people cannot exercise due to illness.

Major wrote:These people who may be banned could well have paid into the NHS for donkiz yearz yet forunuz will probably get treatment with the money saved.

Yes very true major... (good to see you back here!).


Which brings me to my next point... EU rules clearly say that eu nationals here are required to have their own separate health care insurance to pay for any costs when using our NHS... but this never happens... plus other foreigners fly in specially to use our NHS although they are not entitled to do so, and then leave without ever paying back the money owed, costing somewhere between £1-2 billion a year...


These things need tightening up first.


And eddie... it's not about will power... it is about greed and gluttony...

Trust Tommy and Major to have zero sympathy for people with problems that they themselves don't have.

That said, it seems like the NHS could save money in the long-term by investing more in prevention now.

I'd also like to see any country, etc introduce zoning laws restricting the number of fast food restaurants per square mile.

You know in all seriousness that 'zoning law' is actually a really good idea. Sometimes there are far too many fast food places along the same stretch of road or high street.
Is that an idea that the US has been tossing around?

I agree about limiting fast food outlets, also food manufacturers should be FORCED to cut sugar added to foods...especially ones that are advertised as healthy, cereals and drinks attractive to kids being a case in point....they are packed with sugar.

Having spent a couple of months visiting daily (five years ago so no doubt it's worse now) in Manchesters main hospital  the MRI, the ratio of foreign patients to Brit patients was overwhelming, I have no idea whether they are just unhealthier or they use the hospital for cases we would deal with ourselves, but for every white patient there were at least 10 black/Asian patients, either waiting or in wards....this was my personal experience.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Major wrote:These people who may be banned could well have paid into the NHS for donkiz yearz yet forunuz will probably get treatment with the money saved.

Yes very true major... (good to see you back here!).


Which brings me to my next point... EU rules clearly say that eu nationals here are required to have their own separate health care insurance to pay for any costs when using our NHS... but this never happens... plus other foreigners fly in specially to use our NHS although they are not entitled to do so, and then leave without ever paying back the money owed, costing somewhere between £1-2 billion a year...


These things need tightening up first.


And eddie... it's not about will power... it is about greed and gluttony...

Thankz Tommy.

2 to 3 more days of workman in the house then someone to do the garden re hash which we have designed ourselves, LOW maintenance.

Then back here until I tell the truth and upset someone.

If fatiz wish to eat themselves FAT zoning eateriz will not stop them getting it elsewhere.
We are giving too much aid to foreign countriz, STOP IT and give us who have or are paying for NHS a better service, sod off forunuz.

Ben Reilly wrote:Trust Tommy and Major to have zero sympathy for people with problems that they themselves don't have.

That said, it seems like the NHS could save money in the long-term by investing more in prevention now.

I'd also like to see any country, etc introduce zoning laws restricting the number of fast food restaurants per square mile.

Not at all... I'm saying 10% of NHS money is spent treating people for something where 90% of cases are completely avoidable and curable just by eating less sugar and sugary food, eating more healthily and doing a bit of exercise...!


And our NHS loses another 2 billion a year treating foreigners who never pay their treatment bills...



These are 2 areas where obvious savings can be made.

eddie wrote:You know in all seriousness that 'zoning law' is actually a really good idea. Sometimes there are far too many fast food places along the same stretch of road or high street.
Is that an idea that the US has been tossing around?

Some communities have, yes. It's a lot easier to eat junk when it surrounds you

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Trust Tommy and Major to have zero sympathy for people with problems that they themselves don't have.

That said, it seems like the NHS could save money in the long-term by investing more in prevention now.

I'd also like to see any country, etc introduce zoning laws restricting the number of fast food restaurants per square mile.

Not at all... I'm saying 10% of NHS money is spent treating people for something where 90% of cases are completely avoidable and curable just by eating less sugar and sugary food, eating more healthily and doing a bit of exercise...!


And our NHS loses another 2 billion a year treating foreigners who never pay their treatment bills...



These are 2 areas where obvious savings can be made.

There's no way the NHS is spending that much on treating foreigners.

Oh yes if is!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Not at all... I'm saying 10% of NHS money is spent treating people for something where 90% of cases are completely avoidable and curable just by eating less sugar and sugary food, eating more healthily and doing a bit of exercise...!


And our NHS loses another 2 billion a year treating foreigners who never pay their treatment bills...



These are 2 areas where obvious savings can be made.

There's no way the NHS is spending that much on treating foreigners.

Oh yes it is!!!



"...Reports commissioned by Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, said that the total cost of treating both foreign residents and short-term visitors to the UK is between £1.9 billion and £2 billion..."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/10395138/Foreign-patients-cost-NHS-2bn-a-year.html

Nothing to say about this now Ben...!?


"...There's no way the NHS is paying that much on treating foreigners..."

You are so dumb, Tommy.

So-called 'Health tourists’, foreigners who come to the UK with the intention of using the NHS, are costing the taxpayer between £70m and £300 million a year, the study said.

Around £388 million a year is spent on foreigners who should pay for care under current rules – European citizens whose home governments should pay their costs – but only around £73 million is recovered, according to research from Creative Research, a consultancy.

Ministers said the study showed that there is a “serious problem” with foreigners using the NHS and justified Coalition plans for tougher rules, including charging some fees to some foreigners to use the health service.

But doctors and the Labour Party questioned the figures, which the report’s authors admitted were subject to considerable uncertainty.

So a little quick math and that's £300 million a year (maximum) from health tourists, plus £388 million a year from foreigners who should pay their own way -- equaling £688 million per year, maximum.

And then the report says £73 million a year is recovered, so that drops the figure to £615 million a year, which you'd have to more than triple to reach the claim of £2 billion per year.

This is why I question every single claim you make here -- because nearly every single one has proven utter bullshit. If you told me the sky was blue, I'd look up and check.

I would check every fact printed in a newspaper.

If your going to check every fact there 'aint enough hours in the day!

Ben Reilly wrote:You are so dumb, Tommy.

So-called 'Health tourists’, foreigners who come to the UK with the intention of using the NHS, are costing the taxpayer between £70m and £300 million a year, the study said.

Around £388 million a year is spent on foreigners who should pay for care under current rules – European citizens whose home governments should pay their costs – but only around £73 million is recovered, according to research from Creative Research, a consultancy.

Ministers said the study showed that there is a “serious problem” with foreigners using the NHS and justified Coalition plans for tougher rules, including charging some fees to some foreigners to use the health service.

But doctors and the Labour Party questioned the figures, which the report’s authors admitted were subject to considerable uncertainty.

So a little quick math and that's £300 million a year (maximum) from health tourists, plus £388 million a year from foreigners who should pay their own way -- equaling £688 million per year, maximum.

And then the report says £73 million a year is recovered, so that drops the figure to £615 million a year, which you'd have to more than triple to reach the claim of £2 billion per year.

This is why I question every single claim you make here -- because nearly every single one has proven utter bullshit. If you told me the sky was blue, I'd look up and check.

The answer as to why that doesn't add up to £2 billion is because the article has only mentioned 2 of the groups...


"...The report, released on October 3, 2013, was commissioned by the U.K. Department of Health. Authors of the study divided their research into three different groups: regular visitors and migrants, making use of British health care services as necessary and expected; so-called irregular migrants, meaning illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers and those who have overstayed a visa; and health tourists who have come to England with the express purpose of seeking medical care or prescription drugs..."

One that sticks in my mind was the Wife of an African Diplomat who's Wife came into Heathrow Airport almost ready to give birth. She was rushed to Hospital were she gave birth to Twins, due to complications she ran up a bill of over £150.000. When allowed to travel she and her Twins flew back home. The hospital is yet to receive a penny!!

Delete "who's Wife"

nicko wrote:One that sticks in my mind was the Wife of an African Diplomat who's Wife came into Heathrow Airport almost ready to give birth.   She was rushed to Hospital were she gave birth to Twins,   due to complications she ran up a bill of over £150.000.   When allowed to travel she and her Twins flew back home.    The hospital is yet to receive a penny!!

People who don't live in the UK seem to forget that it's not actually free.

This sort of endemic leftie cronyism inside the NHS doesn't help with proper management of funds...



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-trust-admits-creating-240k-8783102

HoratioTarr wrote:

nicko wrote:One that sticks in my mind was the Wife of an African Diplomat who's Wife came into Heathrow Airport almost ready to give birth.   She was rushed to Hospital were she gave birth to Twins,   due to complications she ran up a bill of over £150.000.   When allowed to travel she and her Twins flew back home.    The hospital is yet to receive a penny!!

People who don't live in the UK seem to forget that it's not actually free.

It's true....many people have paid in for 50 years, course others have not bothered but they still get the same service.

HoratioTarr wrote:

nicko wrote:One that sticks in my mind was the Wife of an African Diplomat who's Wife came into Heathrow Airport almost ready to give birth.   She was rushed to Hospital were she gave birth to Twins,   due to complications she ran up a bill of over £150.000.   When allowed to travel she and her Twins flew back home.    The hospital is yet to receive a penny!!

People who don't live in the UK seem to forget that it's not actually free.

What was the hospital supposed to do though? Let the babies and/or the mother die?

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

People who don't live in the UK seem to forget that it's not actually free.

What was the hospital supposed to do though? Let the babies and/or the mother die?

What would happen in the USA? Or anywhere else in the world? Perhaps at that late stage of pregnancy she should not have been allowed to fly.

She shouldn't have been allowed to travel so heavily pregnant in the first place...


Secondly she should have ensured she was covered by travel health insurance or paid the money owed...

Her Husand had a bloody sight more money than most, THE nhs TRIED TO GET THE MONEY BACK FROM HIS EMBASSY, THEY IGNORD US.
She should not have been allowed to fly. Her HUSBAND WAS SOME BIG NOB DIPLOMAT, HE USED HIS "AUTHORITY" TO DEMAND SHE WAS LET ON THE PLANE.
scrounging BASTARDS.

Tommy, I read the entire article, and it only makes passing reference to a £2 billion estimate in one study that wasn't explored in detail. Out of a £110 billion budget, you're complaining about peanuts, and only doing so because "foreigners" are benefiting from it.

The finding was a govt report... the article just didn't list all the groups and figures that made up the total...


I have listed the other group above... so you have all 3 groups now and the figures for 2 of them and a total... and as we have seen how keen you are to display your powers of calculation... I'm sure you can do the maths...!





But the point of me raising this issue is the relevance to the op and one of the areas I've identified where huge savings can be made.

Tommy Monk wrote:The finding was a govt report... the article just didn't list all the groups and figures that made up the total...


I have listed the other group above... so you have all 3 groups now and the figures for 2 of them and a total... and as we have seen how keen you are to display your powers of calculation... I'm sure you can do the maths...!





But the point of me raising this issue is the relevance to the op and one of the areas I've identified where huge savings can be made.

Did you list the other group after you replied to my comment? Because I don't see it, unless you mean the link about NHS waste. (By the way, nothing as big as the NHS can use every pound efficiently.)

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:You are so dumb, Tommy.



So a little quick math and that's £300 million a year (maximum) from health tourists, plus £388 million a year from foreigners who should pay their own way -- equaling £688 million per year, maximum.

And then the report says £73 million a year is recovered, so that drops the figure to £615 million a year, which you'd have to more than triple to reach the claim of £2 billion per year.

This is why I question every single claim you make here -- because nearly every single one has proven utter bullshit. If you told me the sky was blue, I'd look up and check.

The answer as to why that doesn't add up to £2 billion is because the article has only mentioned 2 of the groups...


"...The report, released on October 3, 2013, was commissioned by the U.K. Department of Health. Authors of the study divided their research into three different groups: regular visitors and migrants, making use of British health care services as necessary and expected; so-called irregular migrants, meaning illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers and those who have overstayed a visa; and health tourists who have come to England with the express purpose of seeking medical care or prescription drugs..."

The 3 groups are listed here... the article only details 2..

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:You are so dumb, Tommy.



So a little quick math and that's £300 million a year (maximum) from health tourists, plus £388 million a year from foreigners who should pay their own way -- equaling £688 million per year, maximum.

And then the report says £73 million a year is recovered, so that drops the figure to £615 million a year, which you'd have to more than triple to reach the claim of £2 billion per year.

This is why I question every single claim you make here -- because nearly every single one has proven utter bullshit. If you told me the sky was blue, I'd look up and check.

The answer as to why that doesn't add up to £2 billion is because the article has only mentioned 2 of the groups...


"...The report, released on October 3, 2013, was commissioned by the U.K. Department of Health. Authors of the study divided their research into three different groups: regular visitors and migrants, making use of British health care services as necessary and expected; so-called irregular migrants, meaning illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers and those who have overstayed a visa; and health tourists who have come to England with the express purpose of seeking medical care or prescription drugs..."

The 3 groups are listed here... the article only details 2..

So the third group is "regular visitors and migrants, making use of British health care services as necessary and expected"? Um ... don't they make use of the NHS as necessary and expected? ...

And I guess in your glee to goad me about doing math, you forgot that this so-called "third group" doesn't have a reported amount of money I'm supposed to add to the total.

Once again, you find yourself drowning in the deep end of the pool!

No... this is the 3rd group...


"...so-called irregular migrants, meaning illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers and those who have overstayed a visa..."


And as I said... you have totals for the other 2 groups and the overall total... the total for this 3rd group will be the difference...


(ANSWER - Take the overall total then subtract the 2 known group totals and you will be left with the total for 3rd group)

Tommy Monk wrote:No... this is the 3rd group...


"...so-called irregular migrants, meaning illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers and those who have overstayed a visa..."


And as I said... you have totals for the other 2 groups and the overall total... the total for this 3rd group will be the difference...


(ANSWER - Take the overall total then subtract the 2 known group totals and you will be left with the total for 3rd group)

Only if you accept that the final figure is 2 billion! I want to see the actual reported figure for each of the three groups.

You're too trusting of reports that agree with your world view.

I think we can all be like that if we're honest.

The report total is known.. the sub totals for 2 of the 3 groups are known... do the maths or download a copy of the report and see for yourself.

Tommy Monk wrote:The report total is known.. the sub totals for 2 of the 3 groups are known... do the maths or download a copy of the report and see for yourself.

AGAIN, I'm not going to simply accept that 2 billion is the real amount. I want to see the reported amounts from all three groups.

I think that those who paid into the system should be able to have treatment, whether smoker, fat, drinker or druggie. They are entitled to it. Didn't pay in should get nothing or minimal help.

Then download the govt report and disprove what is claimed in the news articles.



The media didn't make a big deal about the 3rd group because it was illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers and visa overstayers... and the biggest cost!!!


But they have clearly outlined the total and the amounts for 2 of the groups... I have given you the third group... just do the maths...

magica wrote:I think that those who paid into the system should be able to have treatment, whether smoker, fat, drinker or druggie. They are entitled to it. Didn't pay in should get nothing or minimal help.

I agree to an extent. I think there should be money set aside for extenuating circumstances - like life or death emergencies.