Smokers 'to sign pledge' with doctors

The Guardian ^ | Tuesday June 3, 2003 | Nicholas Watt, political correspondent

[friendly]

Smokers and overweight people will be asked to sign contracts with their doctors to agree a programme to quit smoking and lose weight under radical plans being drawn up by the government.

In an attempt to remind people of their own responsibilities the health secretary, Alan Millburn, is examining plans for patients and doctors to agree a formal programme of treatment.

Labour sources insisted last night that the plan, outlined in a Labour party policy document as part of preparations for the next general election manifesto, did not mean patients would be denied treatment if they refused to sign.

But the Labour document makes clear that patients, particularly overweight people and smokers, will be reminded that they must have a role in caring for themselves.

Under the new contracts, overweight people would be encouraged to exercise more and to eat a more balanced diet. The document says: "Agreements could be drawn up to help people to cut down or quit smoking, to lose weight, to take more exercise or to eat a more nutritious diet."

Under Clive Bates, formerly director of anti-smoking organisation Ash, Downing Street's strategy unit has been examining consumer responsibility across every aspect of public services.

The proposals are likely to be attacked by rebel Labour MPs who are already opposed to government plans to introduce elite foundation hospitals in the NHS.

But government sources made clear last night that it had no intention of forcing people to do anything and treatment would never be denied to people. A Department of Health source said: "This is about reminding people that resources are finite. If they misuse them they are being denied to someone else."

· The health secretary said that during a single week in March the target of treating patients within four hours of arrival in A&E was hit for 92.9% of patients. But a BMA survey found 55% of departments met the target in the week before the audit, 85% during that week and 63% a week later.

[kancel]

>>How much more invasive can the government be, than to tell people that they aren't allowed to smoke or be overweight? Then prescribe exactly how much and what they should eat, and how much exercise they MUST have. <<

But this is a natural and logical conclusion to the nanny state healthcare system. When government pays for your healthcare then government has a right, maybe even a responsibility to the other tax-slaves, that you are not draining the system because of your excess.

When one pays for their own healthcare then its nobody's business. The individual will pay by the office visit and procedure or at least in higher insurance premiums. Even today you see this among corporation that offer healthcare to gay partner- insurance companies knows this group is a health care risk and companies offering their employees this benefit pay for it. Now I am by no means a champion of either homosexuals or insurance companies- but this is as it should be. Even in this case those who drain are largely supported by those who may never get more than an occassional flu bug- but at least this has some degree of choice attached to it (whether to have insurance or not, which company to have it with etc.)

This is one reason why we must NOT let our government healthcare systems get larger. If they pay for it they get to set the rules. If we let it happen then these types of contracts and such will be the only "I told you so" we get.

This is just the beginning for those nations already rotting in the mess they have created. It won't be long (if it isn't already happening) before they wont bother to give you treatment if you are over a certain age or suffer from certain conditions. Their goal will be to keep you alive as long as you provide the slave capital that keeps their power structure running, and dispose of you when you no longer do.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[MrLeRoy]

I pay for a lot of government intrusion into your life. And perhaps I'd like to dictate how you live those aspects of your life.

Specifically which intrusions, and what dictates would said payment justify?

[Protagoras]

I pay for a lot of government intrusion into your life. And perhaps I'd like to dictate how you live those aspects of your life.

The context of the comment has much to say about the meaning.

[MrLeRoy]

I'm genuinely in the dark as to what eno_ is suggesting.

[Protagoras]

I'm genuinely in the dark as to what eno_ is suggesting.

He can speak for himself, but I detected sarcasm. It lies in the post he was responding to, IMO.

[finnman69]

They should make this part of medicare. Unhealthy activity eliminates you from receiving health benefits to someone who is not killing themself.

[Protagoras]

They should make this part of medicare.

Conservatives advocating medicare instead of opposing it and advocating it's repeal. This is what FR "conservatives" have come to be.

[eno_]

Anything I please. It's my money that goes into your roads and Soc. Sec. Drive a Prius, I don't care if you fit. And wear a pink coveral that says "Soc Soc 0wn3z my ass" stenciled on the back.

Take the government sheckel. Take the tyranny of the majority.

[MrLeRoy]

Drive a Prius, I don't care if you fit. And wear a pink coveral that says "Soc Soc 0wn3z my ass" stenciled on the back.

LOL! I see your point. But one might argue that the rule "government pays, so may make any rules reasonably related to the purpose of the payment" rules out your proposals but allows barring unhealthy livers from Medicaid.

[FairOpinion]

In the UK they have socialized medicine. They take YOUR money in taxes, then they run a government healthcare program, and then tell you what you should or should not do, to be eligible to get part of your own money back.

[NeoCaveman]

Smokers and Fatties of the world unite to stop the Labour Party!

[finnman69]

try re-reading what I wrote. What I mean is you should not be receiving benefits at all if you are already making yourself sick. If anything I am advocating not goving Medicare to all but in fact limiting it.

[=Intervention=]

Where did you get this idea about Christian fundamentalists (ok, let's just be real and call them "Christians" shall we? What good is a Christian that doesn't hold doctrines sacred anyhow?) dictating the destruction of tobacco companies? How many Christians were pushing the bogus second-hand-smoke argument? How many Christians actively call for more government to take away what freedoms we have? The whole kill-the-tobacco companies thing has been orchestrated entirely by the trial lawyers, the big-govt advocates, socialized medicine folks. The right-wing evil scary Christians are nowhere to be found in this, because while smoking is a sign of self-destruction and chemical reliance, those are sins achievable by any number of legal chemicals, and not exclusively by smoking. If you search for a "Thou shalt not smoke," you won't find it. And nowhere is there evidence for more scary Christians piling on the food regulatory bandwagon, because Christians aren't bound by any Jewish dietary laws...

[TRY ONE]

Hey, if it works for smokers...how about Gays!

To get insurance for AIDS sign a pledge..."no more sodomy"!!

[FairOpinion]

"If I'm paying the tab, I'm choosing the wine. "

---

Helloooo!
It's YOUR money the government takes, then gives you back part of it, IF you do as they say. Precisely it's YOUR money, and the government shouldn't be telling you that they will let you have 10% back, if you are a good little subject and live exactly the way they tell you to.

[RightOnline]

"There are folks on the right that have given the nod that the tobacco companies should be out of business because some Christian fundamentalist consider smoking a "sin" so it's okay."

Far be it from me to ever disagree with, by far, one of my favorite all-time FReepers....:)......but I respectfully disagree as a fundamentalist Christian who happens to be a long-time smoker.

It was the left who decided to put big tobacco in the cross hairs for one reason and one reason only: money. No more, no less. Cash. It worked. It was classic 'class warfare'.........the so-called 'common man' against Big Business. Big Tobacco just happened to be an unusually easy target ripened by decades of poor "research", misinformation, and out-and-out demonization.

By the way..........look at what has happened to all of those Tobacco Billions; lost in the goo of State budgetary shortfalls. That is an unfortunate fact.

[Protagoras]

I read it. You are negotiating the terms of an immoral program. Whether you know it or not. You have given in without realising it.

It would be like opposing a bank robbery but suggesting a better getaway route.

[MrLeRoy]

It's YOUR money the government takes, then gives you back part of it

Actually, as a means-tested program the more you pay into it the less likely you are to get any back.

[finnman69]

Oh please.