www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:Deep, the only thing that you're at fault for is misunderstanding something and then digging in your heels and growling about how you're going to take the incorrect reading to heart. It's actually kind of cute, like a mentally-challenged puppy.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. If you can make yourself believe it, that makes one!

Deepcrush wrote:I can't speak for Seafort, but the policy in place would require the person to stop doing what is killing them while they are under treatment.

Exactly. Note that this would be the entire period - not necessarily just while they were in hospital. As I've said several times, this isn't simply a case of "it's your own fault, tough" it's a case of someone who is continuing to damage their body while expecting the doc to fix them. Why should the taxpayer try and help someone who won't help themselves?

Deepcrush wrote:I can't speak for Seafort, but the policy in place would require the person to stop doing what is killing them while they are under treatment.

Bolded the important part. I don't believe that's what Seafort is arguing.

If, after treatment has concluded, the person elects to resume smoking, what then?

Captain Seafort wrote:Why should the taxpayer try and help someone who won't help themselves?

FYI: this is the same argument people over here use against food stamps.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Bolded the important part. I don't believe that's what Seafort is arguing.

If, after treatment has concluded, the person elects to resume smoking, what then?

Then they need to remember a lighter would be my guess. The policy only applies to treatment and recovery.

Tsukiyumi wrote:FYI: this is the same argument people over here use against food stamps.

Food stamps is a tricky subject. Unlike being under a doctor's care, food stamps aren't locked into any specific need other then food. Some of the users can be lazy, but then many are also just unable to pay the rising costs of food. Shelters, foster families, church groups... etc. Its not just a case of temporary care and release.

I'm not big on debate but there's a point that may be worthy of note: quitting smoking is a lot easier said than done. Personally I've never smoked but I've watched my boss go through the process. He did successfully quit but it was not easy. There's a reason the nicotine in cigarettes is considered one of the most addictive substances known to man. I'd certainly support efforts to reduce smoking (prevention seems to be the easier method!) though I must say I don't see the logic in denying treatment outright to patients whose condition or injury has absolutely nothing to do with their smoking habit (the majority of all patients I'm sure).

What it comes down to really is "if you want to live and want us to pay for it, here's the rules"...

In turn they're hoping people will cut back on smoking out of the will to live. I used to smoke, I know its not easy to quit. But life isn't easy in general so if someone wants help they need to just suck up the trouble and deal with it. If they can't be bothered to take care of themselves or their families, we're better off without them.

Deepcrush wrote:What it comes down to really is "if you want to live and want us to pay for it, here's the rules"...

And my point is if those rules don't also include obese patients, alcoholics, and extreme sports, they're discriminatory.

Also, I already agreed on the "during treatment and recovery" part; Seafort seems to be arguing that these rules should apply before and after treatment as well. Unless I completely misunderstood his earlier posts.

Tsukiyumi wrote:And my point is if those rules don't also include obese patients, alcoholics, and extreme sports, they're discriminatory.

Good point, however as far as I know. Alcoholics in a recovery program already get booted if they start drinking during the program. Same applies to obese patients on doctor required diets. As to sports, there's nothing to say that they are unhealthy and in need of treatment so I don't think this would apply to them.

I said extreme sports. I certainly don't think it's fair for my tax dollars to pay for a bullfighter getting gored, if they won't pay to treat smoking-related illness (as Seafort appears to have suggested).

Unless you require the bullfighter (as an example) to quit bullfighting after treatment, you can't require the smoker to quit after treatment. It would be discriminatory.

Again, for the third time, I'm not arguing against quitting (insert risky behavior here) during treatment and recovery. The debate I'm having with Seafort seems to be about whether smokers should get NHS treatment at all for smoking related illness unless they quit for good.

Well if he's not bullfighting during his treatment or recovery it wouldn't be a problem. Anything else on top of that... I just don't know how you could make work.

Deepcrush wrote:Well if he's not bullfighting during his treatment or recovery it wouldn't be a problem.

Dude, that's the point - Seafort seems to be arguing that it's a waste of taxpayer money to help a smoker if they ever start up again. Or help them with smoking-related illness at all in the first place. If that isn't the argument, then I do apologize, but that appears to be what he's saying.

Fourth time now: during treatment and recovery, I agree with no smoking/drinking/crappy diet/bullfighting/etc. The subject of the discussion is "what about after that?" and "Why should taxpayers pay to treat smoking-related illness at all?"

Tsukiyumi wrote:The subject of the discussion is "what about after that?" and "Why should taxpayers pay to treat smoking-related illness at all?"

You do realise arguing with yourself is the first sign of madness? Because no one else has been arguing that. There's no point unless someone invents a crystal ball. You might be getting confused by the several light year wide gap between my actual argument and Mikey's repeated strawman of my argument.

I think this was the source of my confusion, then:

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Other than the health aspect while under treatment, this is really no one's fucking business at all.

When we're paying for the results of all that smoking through the NHS it's every taxpayer's business.

Sounds to me like you're suggesting that the NHS shouldn't treat smoking-related illness at all. Or that people should be forced to quit outright; I can't tell which.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:The subject of the discussion is "what about after that?" and "Why should taxpayers pay to treat smoking-related illness at all?"

You do realise arguing with yourself is the first sign of madness? Because no one else has been arguing that. There's no point unless someone invents a crystal ball. You might be getting confused by the several light year wide gap between my actual argument and Mikey's repeated strawman of my argument.

He did ramble it for several pages... long enough that even he forgot his own point. Not surprised others would get confused by it all.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Sounds to me like you're suggesting that the NHS shouldn't treat smoking-related illness at all. Or that people should be forced to quit outright; I can't tell which.

In that instance I was specifically refuting your assertion that smokers habits are no one else's business. In general cases I wouldn't refuse to treat people simply because they had smoked at some point, nor would I ban fags. I would however, support a gradual extension of current smoking laws in order to eradicate it through simply making it too difficult/expensive.