Doctors To Breathalyse Smokers Before Allowing Them NHS Surgery (bbc.com)
Smokers in Hertfordshire, a county in southern England, are to be breathalysed to ensure they have kicked the habit before they are referred for non-urgent surgery. From a report, shared by several readers: Smokers will be breath-tested before they are considered for non-urgent surgery, two clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have decided. Patients in Hertfordshire must stop smoking at least eight weeks before surgery or it may be delayed. Obese patients have also been told they must lose weight in order to have non-urgent surgery. The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) said the plan seemed to be "against the principles of the NHS (the publicly funded national healthcare system for England)." A joint committee of the Hertfordshire Valleys and the East and North Hertfordshire CCGs, which made the decisions, said they had to "make best use of the money and resources available." Patients with a body mass index (BMI) of over 40 must lose 15% of their weight and those with a BMI of over 30 must lose 10%, or reduce it to under a 40 BMI or a 30 BMI - whichever is the greater amount. The lifestyle changes to reduce weight must take place over nine months.
but this is a big step towards them.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Now the big question is will this result in the patients improving their health before surgery or will surgery just get deferred until it's urgent?
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Which wouldn't bother me if we had private-funded healthcare as a viable option. But since we don't, I guess it's up to Big Brother, since the moment a third party pays, it's no longer just about me and my doctor, right?
It's not society's job to do it for you
Unless you have socialized medicine, then it is. At the same time, if "society" is footing the bill for your medical care, you shouldn't be surprised when "society" puts constraints on your behaviors.
Makes sense to me. Now tell us how you feel about drug tests for recipients of public assistance.
Which wouldn't bother me if we had private-funded healthcare as a viable option. But since we don't, I guess it's up to Big Brother, since the moment a third party pays, it's no longer just about me and my doctor, right?
That third-party being either the Government or private insurance - so how are they different? I private insurer can deny you coverage or payment for treatment and can have their own rules for access to care/procedures.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
>"In the UK? Yes, we have private-funded healthcare as an option - go take out any one of the dozens of private healthcare plans "
And you can get back the money you "contributed" to the NHS?
No - you are voluntarily choosing not to use the NHS, thats your choice. The NHS will always be there to scrape you off the road after a car accident, to treat your cardiac arrest when you fall over in a shopping mall, to reset your broken leg when you fall down stairs after a boozy night out.
It will always give you treatment - just not on *your* terms alone. And thats perfectly fine.
Bullcrap. It's just like public schools in the USA. In the name of equality, we replaced local control of school standards and funding with one size fits all -- And, for the last 100 years of this experiement in public education, average education performance has declined. Any parent who cares about his/her kids has to pay to private or homeschool. All the funds for public school are wasted and there are no refunds. The only thing you can be sure about with public educated kids is that they've been programmed to be obediant to authority, know enough math/science to be useful enough to get low wage jobs from major employers, and know absolutely nothing about history, economics, civics or anything practical...other than the fact that they have 'rights' and the government should provide a minimal living for all (self reliance not required).
Absolutely not surprised to hear about whats going on with the NHS....the public will be programmed to accept healthcare that is only minimally useful to those that meet the governments definition of a good citizen, anyone else can die off. I love the distinction made between urgent and non-urgent...and who determines what is urgent...the bureaucrats.
Socialized medicine inverts the usual relationship and gives an effective monopoly to the consumer who can then dictate the terms, not least because they collectively (and with the help of surgeons, statisticians etc) know how much knee operations do and should cost.
Of course there are other reasons why the US spends twice as much as everyone else on healthcare, for instance the amounts each physician, insurance company, health scheme, hospital and drug company takes out in profit and spends on advertising, billing, lawyers and other extra administration.
The consumer of course pays the costs of this immense added complexity and if they're insured have the extra benefit of spending hours working out what's covered and worrying about how much they'll still have to pay (and then the insurers say no that's not covered).
There's also the human cost to those who can't afford the right healthcare or even the copay and have to wait till they're sick enough to qualify as an emergency.
This isn't the first time you've got something this wrong, not just ordinary wrong but completely backwards wrong.