I think you should take a deep breath Steve, and tone down the false propaganda and keep to the facts.

Of course what Steve does not mention is that the smoker in question is indeed recieving health care. The doctors have prescribed a treatment plan that starts with stopping smoking. Until the risk associated with smoking is eliminated any non emergency surgery should be postponed because it could lead to him actually losing his leg due to his circulatory problems caused by his smoking. He doesn't pay for his doctor visits or for the advice. It is covered by the National Health Plan.

Thank you, yes, I already covered that the government would control aspects of your life simply because of costs.

The man in question is in poor health. He cannot work due to unspecified "chest problems." Do you know what his "chest problem" is? Have you seen his chart? Don't you think there might actually be something to the hospitals statement that his smoking would substantially increase the risks of the surgery? If not what do you base your conclusion on?
People in the US regularly have to alter their behavior prior to surgery. He is required to cease smoking for four weeks in order to have the surgery. He will not quit for even four weeks to end what he calls agony. Remember your support for his choice next time you are berating someone for lack of personal responsibility.

Actually kb you need to read the entire article.

I did read the article. I also read (and provided a link to) the actual policy review document on which the article was reporting.

There is a significant difference between what is actually said in the policy document and what is claimed is said by your article.

I'm basing my views on the policy document , and you're basing yours on the article.

If the daily mail's analysis is accurate then it also seems strange that no other UK media source has interpreted the proposals in this way. Not even the traditionally anti-tory ones.

But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.

ken,

Of course what Steve does not mention is that the smoker in question is indeed recieving health care. The doctors have prescribed a treatment plan that starts with stopping smoking. Until the risk associated with smoking is eliminated any non emergency surgery should be postponed because it could lead to him actually losing his leg due to his circulatory problems caused by his smoking. He doesn't pay for his doctor visits or for the advice. It is covered by the National Health Plan.

Thank you, yes, I already covered that the government would control aspects of your life simply because of costs.

YAJ,

Just think about the number of people who do not conform to the classic food pyramid. If you exclude them, you probably can get the health care costs down to a manageable level.

Funny under a private system people who do many of those things can get health insurance they just might have to pay more. But in places like Canada or under Clinton Care that option would not exist.

And lets not forget people engaging in extreme sports, late in life pregnancies, and other high risk activities. How dare these people make decisions.

Illegal drugs (some worse than others)
sex with multiple partners (could be mitigated by protection, but not truly)
over eating
not getting enough sleep
not exercising enough
not eating the "right things"
excessive alcohol
overwork

Just think about the number of people who do not conform to the classic food pyramid. If you exclude them, you probably can get the health care costs down to a manageable level.

This is no different than postponing certain blood tests until the patient has voluntarily fasted for twelve hours. Certain medical procedures require patient cooperation otherwise it is just a waste of time and money.

I dont think their proposal can be used to criticze national health - it is, lets face it, a proposal coming from people who at some level dont really believe in national health care. It represents an attempt to infuse a little private-market logic into the system - lets "run government more like a business" by thinking the way a private insurer would think - do what we can to minimize outlays.

As for the BBC story about wait lists, I find it odd that nowhere is it mentioned the type of treatment, or the type of illness involved. Pending the reciept of contrary evidence, perhaps we can just assume that these are non-critical, elective treatments for relatively minor ailments?

I certainly agree with what I sense is your opposition to the idea of denying coverage to people percieved to be high-risk. But that is, of course, a core principle in private markets. That conservatives wish to bring this ethic to a public, universal system is not a rap on those systems, but rather on conservatives.

The Tories in England want to implement a plan that if you don’t lead a healthy life you will be denied health care.

If you actually read the tories proposals they are proposing nothing of the sort.

What they're suggesting is

We have considered ideas such as a ‘NHS Health Miles Card’ to promote the concept of wellbeing.Although much work would be required for development; we think that the creation of a small
individual benefit scheme would change the language of health from illness to wellbeing. We are attracted by the idea of promoting health awareness through marketing tools. Health miles could be given as ‘reward points’ for giving up smoking, losing weight, receiving immunisations or attending screening programmes. Such rewards could be redeemed against fresh vegetables, discounted gym membership, or priority within other public services.

http://www.careandhealth.com/resources/pdfs/psipg-report.pdf

So they're looking at ways to encourage healthier lifestyles(which is cheaper in the long run) without forcing anyone to do anything.

Still ,The Daily Mail which you link to has quite a track record of deliberately misleading its readers about this sort of thing.