A “>report has been published in the British Journal of Cancer. It concerns the possible causes of various, predictably enough, cancers. Fair enough and all well and good so far.
It is based on medical researchers doing correlations and statistical analysis rather than any clinical tests, that is always prone to possible mis-interpretation, but it is not unreasonable to take the findings at face value.
It finds that lifestyle choices influence your likelihood of getting certain forms of cancer. That smoking is the main cause of lung cancer and second but far behind is a lack of fruit and vegetables in the diet possibly responsible for oesophageal or gullet cancer, half of the risk comes from eating too little fruit and veg. too much salt in the diet a possible cause of Stomach cancer. Way down there under 5% is drinking too much alcohol and being overweight.
Useful information if taken sensibly, along with other studies that show moderate levels of alcohol seem to be actually beneficial.
So what is apparently the knee jerk reaction of the Royal College of Physicians? True to form a demand for authoritarian legislation. Their president, Sir Richard Thompson, claimed the findings were a “wake-up call to the government” to take stronger action on public health.
He stated that rising incidence of preventable cancers showed that the 'carrot' approach of voluntary agreements with industry is not enough to prompt healthy behaviours, and needs to be replaced by the 'stick' approach of legislative solutions,"
Maybe Sir Richard Thompson’s intentions are good, but his instincts seem to be to order, to force and that is not.
Diane Abbott, Longstanding New Labour luminary and current Shadow Public Health Minister, said: "The government is failing on all the main public health issues.”
So let’s leave aside ideas of punitive taxation of burgers and sweets, making it illegal to smoke anywhere else or legislating illegal anti competitive minimum prices for alcohol for a moment. Lets rewind.
That reflexive authoritarian statist demand that the government get involved, do more.
Exactly what business of the state is it if I want a glass of wine after dinner in the fist place?
OK so I am not as fit or as skinny as I used to be but I can see how it is my business, maybe my “significant other”, my tailor even, but the Government?
The only justification I can see is how much I might cost the state. Possibly in increased pension payments from a scheme that I am basically forced by law to pay into by the Government if, I live significantly longer due to good lifestyle choices. Or increased medical costs from a scheme that I am basically forced by law to pay into, use it or not, by the Government.
So the only real justification for the State to be involved, apart possibly from the odd public health warning, is how much I cost systems that they force me to participate in and thus cost er - well me.
Catch 22.
Showing posts with label Welfare State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Welfare State. Show all posts
Sunday, 11 December 2011
Thursday, 19 June 2008
UK State clampdown on employing illegals
Well New-Labour’s kakistocracy is clamping down on firms that employ those (sub text - nasty foreign spongers) illegal immigrants. They made it illegal to employ illegal immigrants, they prosecuted companies that did and now they are going to pillory the employers by ‘naming and shaming’.
The lie they tell to justify this?
Apparently it’s all to help crush major organised criminal enterprises that use international people trafficing networks to smuggle people into the UK, as a supply of illegal labour. Any way the employers deserve it. They are unscrupulously undercutting the labour market by avoiding paying taxes on wages, that are below the minimum wage anyway. Why, surely virtually stealing jobs from the honest hardworking indigenous population...
...who find they make as money on benefit doing nothing than they could from such jobs as the immegrants are doing.
That’ll help drive up the cost of food and services. Is anyone out there using more than just a single brain cell to parse these excuses?
So we take one step back from the spin and lies.
The real problem is that New-Labour have effectively lost control of the UK’s borders. For years if illegal immigrants decamped from trucks and were caught they would be given instructions to make their way to reception centres and directions, the vast majority of whom promptly vanished. Those that were not caught vanished also.
Rather than have an effective system (this is New Labour here) they persecute hapless lorry drivers and employers, trying to force them to make up for government incompetence and despite a massively ramping tax burden state under funding.
OK. Now lets take another step back. Is there one? Yes.
Why is this a problem? Why are illegal immigrants a problem? Why are they illegal in the first place for that matter?
They claim benefits from a system they never contributed perhaps? Drain the good old NHS of resources when they never paid anything into it? Jump the social housing queue? Etc. etc. etc.
The underlying reason is that in sufficient numbers immigrants are a problem for a ‘cradle to grave’ welfare state, with universal entitlement like the UK’s, designed to run in isolation. Such a system also undeniably makes the UK much more attractive to economic migrants exacerbating the ‘problem’.
Without a welfare state that is constructed in the way the UK’s is immigration would become much less popular. Immigrants would not be a drain on the public purse either. They would either contribute to the economy and stay or not. If not they would not be able to survive here and would leave. If they committed crime then, tried, imprisoned then deported.
All that would be left would be boarder security issues and any social problems left.
Maybe that’s why New-Labour are so keen on the ID card and illegal immigrants (Oh - and of course the ‘War on Terror) will be their excuse to justify it…
The lie they tell to justify this?
Apparently it’s all to help crush major organised criminal enterprises that use international people trafficing networks to smuggle people into the UK, as a supply of illegal labour. Any way the employers deserve it. They are unscrupulously undercutting the labour market by avoiding paying taxes on wages, that are below the minimum wage anyway. Why, surely virtually stealing jobs from the honest hardworking indigenous population...
...who find they make as money on benefit doing nothing than they could from such jobs as the immegrants are doing.
That’ll help drive up the cost of food and services. Is anyone out there using more than just a single brain cell to parse these excuses?
So we take one step back from the spin and lies.
The real problem is that New-Labour have effectively lost control of the UK’s borders. For years if illegal immigrants decamped from trucks and were caught they would be given instructions to make their way to reception centres and directions, the vast majority of whom promptly vanished. Those that were not caught vanished also.
Rather than have an effective system (this is New Labour here) they persecute hapless lorry drivers and employers, trying to force them to make up for government incompetence and despite a massively ramping tax burden state under funding.
OK. Now lets take another step back. Is there one? Yes.
Why is this a problem? Why are illegal immigrants a problem? Why are they illegal in the first place for that matter?
They claim benefits from a system they never contributed perhaps? Drain the good old NHS of resources when they never paid anything into it? Jump the social housing queue? Etc. etc. etc.
The underlying reason is that in sufficient numbers immigrants are a problem for a ‘cradle to grave’ welfare state, with universal entitlement like the UK’s, designed to run in isolation. Such a system also undeniably makes the UK much more attractive to economic migrants exacerbating the ‘problem’.
Without a welfare state that is constructed in the way the UK’s is immigration would become much less popular. Immigrants would not be a drain on the public purse either. They would either contribute to the economy and stay or not. If not they would not be able to survive here and would leave. If they committed crime then, tried, imprisoned then deported.
All that would be left would be boarder security issues and any social problems left.
Maybe that’s why New-Labour are so keen on the ID card and illegal immigrants (Oh - and of course the ‘War on Terror) will be their excuse to justify it…
Monday, 21 April 2008
Study claims millions of the UK’s working class ‘wrongly’ think they are middle class
There is some absolute drivel written about ‘class’ in the UK. Today the Telegraph adds some more horse manure to the compost.
They are reporting moneysupermarket.com claim that around 15 million people - a quarter of the population - are in denial of their true working class status. They apparently base this on income alone.
They probably didn’t notice that virtually everyone works these days (except for the State’s Welfare clients). So by certain definitions that would make virtually all of us ‘working class’.
If you are talking in terms of aspirations and outlook then things probably tend to flip the other way, though many who like to think of themselves as ‘working class’ would hotly deny it. One suspects that by this measure then much of the population is firmly middle class.
In any event, historically speaking, when the classes really still existed, Britain had always been relatively open to mobility between the classes.
Moneysupermarket.com‘s study seems to be largely based on income alone and puts the average income of a ‘working-class’ household at £23,000 a year and a ‘middle-class’ household at £33,000 for middle-class homes. To be ‘upper middle class’ you need a household income averaging around £52,000 a year.
This is, to put it kindly, twaddle. There will be many who see themselves as working class who money-supermarket.com might regard as ‘upper middle class’ and many who see themselves as middle class the study would claim were working class.
Who appointed money-supermarket.com as the arbiters of the UK’s fading class system. Just a new version of U and non-U speech. Or maybe reading entrails…
They are reporting moneysupermarket.com claim that around 15 million people - a quarter of the population - are in denial of their true working class status. They apparently base this on income alone.
They probably didn’t notice that virtually everyone works these days (except for the State’s Welfare clients). So by certain definitions that would make virtually all of us ‘working class’.
If you are talking in terms of aspirations and outlook then things probably tend to flip the other way, though many who like to think of themselves as ‘working class’ would hotly deny it. One suspects that by this measure then much of the population is firmly middle class.
In any event, historically speaking, when the classes really still existed, Britain had always been relatively open to mobility between the classes.
Moneysupermarket.com‘s study seems to be largely based on income alone and puts the average income of a ‘working-class’ household at £23,000 a year and a ‘middle-class’ household at £33,000 for middle-class homes. To be ‘upper middle class’ you need a household income averaging around £52,000 a year.
This is, to put it kindly, twaddle. There will be many who see themselves as working class who money-supermarket.com might regard as ‘upper middle class’ and many who see themselves as middle class the study would claim were working class.
Who appointed money-supermarket.com as the arbiters of the UK’s fading class system. Just a new version of U and non-U speech. Or maybe reading entrails…
Saturday, 12 April 2008
Can a child really be detained for being overweight in London?
I heard something disquieting on the radio. It was Friday just before 2 pm, one of those radio phone ins on LBC.
The caller Identified himself as a Metropolitan Police Officer. The discussion was centred around how much police time is taken up with paperwork – A truly staggering amount these days by the sound of it.
What concerned me was when the officer mentioned some sort of initiative called something like ‘Every Child Counts’, you wonder who thinks these ghastly titles up.
He was holding it up as something that eats up police time unnecessarily, but as he explained it, it sounded more than a little sinister. It bothered me that he was apparently quite willing to implement it with little concern for civil liberties, but only objected to it as a poor use of police resources.
The idea is apparently some draconian Nanny State version of concern for child welfare.
The scenario offered on the radio was: An officer sees a ‘child’ (presumably anyone apparently under the age of 17) they judge to be overweight out in public on their own.
Said officer Stops the child (on what grounds was not made clear). The child would be required to provide full details of name age address, parent’s details, etc. – again why on what grounds?
The officer would then feed the details into the ‘system’ for onward transmission to social services and possibly interview the parents, presumably after having taken the child home.
There may be more criteria involved, time, location, age. But from what the officer said it could as easily happen to a 12 year old child minding their own business on the way to a football match, in the park, on a Sunday afternoon.
If this is actually the case then it is absolutely outrageous. Truly an example of the burgeoning New-Labour fascist state at work.
A young person, detained, though presumably not officially arrested unless the officer is doubtful of the details given to them, prevented from going about their lawful business – apparently for the crime of being a little overweight.
It would be interesting if anyone can verify this or deny it.
The caller Identified himself as a Metropolitan Police Officer. The discussion was centred around how much police time is taken up with paperwork – A truly staggering amount these days by the sound of it.
What concerned me was when the officer mentioned some sort of initiative called something like ‘Every Child Counts’, you wonder who thinks these ghastly titles up.
He was holding it up as something that eats up police time unnecessarily, but as he explained it, it sounded more than a little sinister. It bothered me that he was apparently quite willing to implement it with little concern for civil liberties, but only objected to it as a poor use of police resources.
The idea is apparently some draconian Nanny State version of concern for child welfare.
The scenario offered on the radio was: An officer sees a ‘child’ (presumably anyone apparently under the age of 17) they judge to be overweight out in public on their own.
Said officer Stops the child (on what grounds was not made clear). The child would be required to provide full details of name age address, parent’s details, etc. – again why on what grounds?
The officer would then feed the details into the ‘system’ for onward transmission to social services and possibly interview the parents, presumably after having taken the child home.
There may be more criteria involved, time, location, age. But from what the officer said it could as easily happen to a 12 year old child minding their own business on the way to a football match, in the park, on a Sunday afternoon.
If this is actually the case then it is absolutely outrageous. Truly an example of the burgeoning New-Labour fascist state at work.
A young person, detained, though presumably not officially arrested unless the officer is doubtful of the details given to them, prevented from going about their lawful business – apparently for the crime of being a little overweight.
It would be interesting if anyone can verify this or deny it.
Thursday, 27 March 2008
New Report critical of UK asylum system
The independent Asylum Commission haspublished a report critical of the way asylum seekers are treated in the UK.
The system does seem to be far from satisfactory. It takes far too long to make decisions and implement them, keeping people in limbo. It does not appear to consistently implement those decisions when they are made. The decisions do not always seem to make sense to a ‘layman’. It is actually illegal to employ ‘illegals’ and the punishments for doing so appear to be becoming increasingly draconian, so they cannon provide for themselves.
It must be said that many of the cases of asylum seekers that one hears about look far more like economic migration than actual genuine asylum seeking.
This impression is bolstered by the undeniable fact that the UK has many more‘asylum seekers’ than any other state in the EU. The natural question that arises is: If all these people are genuine asylum seekers, then given that many have to travel through large areas of Europe to get here, why do they not claim asylum at the first opportunity, as they are supposed to?
One can’t help but wonder if the welfare state is part of the attraction - and part of the problem. It is the nature of the system that actually makes it a problem. The chance of enjoying the ‘benefits’ of they system is an undeniable magnet. The drain on the system caused by large numbers of people who have never contributed to it is a problem, a serious one in certain areas.
If there were no welfare state, or broadly it could not apply to those who had not significantly contributed to it, this would remove the ‘drain’ and much of the problem. It might also make the UK less likely to be a preferred destination. In addition those who came in reality as economic migrants could be honest about it either working and contributing to society, or go elsewhere, possibly back home.
Surely those willing to work hard to honestly obtain a better life and who want to become British and adopt our values might be considered to be more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
It seems it is only under a social welfare system like ours, designed as if it operates in isolation, that this would be a problem at all, before the advent of the welfare state it would not have been. One wonders if this might be a main driver behind New Labour’s desperate desire for a compulsory national identity card system, that and their apparently compulsive desire to regulate the population, in as many aspects of their lives as possible.
Before the advent of the welfare state incomers who did not contribute to, or preyed on society, would have found it uncomfortable, even impossible to stay and left, or fallen foul of the law and been forced to leave. The Honest and hardworking would have settled and become British. In any even there would have been no ‘drain’.
The system does seem to be far from satisfactory. It takes far too long to make decisions and implement them, keeping people in limbo. It does not appear to consistently implement those decisions when they are made. The decisions do not always seem to make sense to a ‘layman’. It is actually illegal to employ ‘illegals’ and the punishments for doing so appear to be becoming increasingly draconian, so they cannon provide for themselves.
It must be said that many of the cases of asylum seekers that one hears about look far more like economic migration than actual genuine asylum seeking.
This impression is bolstered by the undeniable fact that the UK has many more‘asylum seekers’ than any other state in the EU. The natural question that arises is: If all these people are genuine asylum seekers, then given that many have to travel through large areas of Europe to get here, why do they not claim asylum at the first opportunity, as they are supposed to?
One can’t help but wonder if the welfare state is part of the attraction - and part of the problem. It is the nature of the system that actually makes it a problem. The chance of enjoying the ‘benefits’ of they system is an undeniable magnet. The drain on the system caused by large numbers of people who have never contributed to it is a problem, a serious one in certain areas.
If there were no welfare state, or broadly it could not apply to those who had not significantly contributed to it, this would remove the ‘drain’ and much of the problem. It might also make the UK less likely to be a preferred destination. In addition those who came in reality as economic migrants could be honest about it either working and contributing to society, or go elsewhere, possibly back home.
Surely those willing to work hard to honestly obtain a better life and who want to become British and adopt our values might be considered to be more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
It seems it is only under a social welfare system like ours, designed as if it operates in isolation, that this would be a problem at all, before the advent of the welfare state it would not have been. One wonders if this might be a main driver behind New Labour’s desperate desire for a compulsory national identity card system, that and their apparently compulsive desire to regulate the population, in as many aspects of their lives as possible.
Before the advent of the welfare state incomers who did not contribute to, or preyed on society, would have found it uncomfortable, even impossible to stay and left, or fallen foul of the law and been forced to leave. The Honest and hardworking would have settled and become British. In any even there would have been no ‘drain’.
Friday, 22 February 2008
New Labour Back bencher threat to agency staff
One wonders if the MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, New Labour's Andrew Miller, is actually intent on damaging the UK economy, or if it is only a side effect of his attempt to grab more influence for the unions.
Supported (of course) by the trade unions he has tabled a private members bill to force the same rights/benefits as full time employees receive on agency staff, such a sick pay.
The union said there should be a "level playing field" with permanently employed people.
I have often heard full time employees express slightly jealous amazement when they find out what agency staff are paid by comparison.
The fact is that agency staff usually get a higher pay scale than permanent staff. This generally makes up at least the financial difference for sick pay and annual leave, etc. that they don’t get.
They usually also get a premium to make up for the lack of job security, as they generally fill posts where full time employees are off long term sick, having children, or the post is unable to be filled. They are also used when capacity suddenly and temporarily needs to be expanded for a project.
These people tend to be independent and avoid union membership. They also tend to take far less sick leave; so can spend that portion of their wage as they choose.
If they had the same rights and conditions as full time employees they would no longer be competitive, or of any use to an employer, in the capacity they are generally used in. It would not be economical to pay them the same rates as they get now.
If these rights were introduced then this sector would become much less competitive and be markedly reduced. The knock on is that all the businesses that make use of them to fill in would be less efficient and less cost effective.
This would in turn force them to look for redundancies more often and make full time employees positions a little less secure. It would of course strengthen the union’s position.
Supported (of course) by the trade unions he has tabled a private members bill to force the same rights/benefits as full time employees receive on agency staff, such a sick pay.
The union said there should be a "level playing field" with permanently employed people.
I have often heard full time employees express slightly jealous amazement when they find out what agency staff are paid by comparison.
The fact is that agency staff usually get a higher pay scale than permanent staff. This generally makes up at least the financial difference for sick pay and annual leave, etc. that they don’t get.
They usually also get a premium to make up for the lack of job security, as they generally fill posts where full time employees are off long term sick, having children, or the post is unable to be filled. They are also used when capacity suddenly and temporarily needs to be expanded for a project.
These people tend to be independent and avoid union membership. They also tend to take far less sick leave; so can spend that portion of their wage as they choose.
If they had the same rights and conditions as full time employees they would no longer be competitive, or of any use to an employer, in the capacity they are generally used in. It would not be economical to pay them the same rates as they get now.
If these rights were introduced then this sector would become much less competitive and be markedly reduced. The knock on is that all the businesses that make use of them to fill in would be less efficient and less cost effective.
This would in turn force them to look for redundancies more often and make full time employees positions a little less secure. It would of course strengthen the union’s position.
Monday, 28 January 2008
Is the UK’s Welfare State actually still functional?
What is the point of the National Health Service (NHS) and social care under the ‘Welfare State’ if many of us will apparently be effectively barred from making use of it - whilst still being required to pay through the nose for it, under ever increasing levels of taxation?
If New Labour intend to exclude large numbers of the public from enjoying the dubious benefits of the ‘welfare’ state - and it seems it is in a ‘state’ ;-) for ideological, or moralistic, reasons. Then those affected should be allowed get their money back and opt out, to allow them to be able to make other arrangements.
It is expected that a report to be published tomorrow (Tuesday), will confirm that drastic tightening of rules over which elderly people qualify for state-funded care in their own homes is leaving hundreds of thousands bereft of help and in dire straits.
Lack of funding is being blamed for many councils only supporting the seriously ill or incapacitated. In some cases, pensioners are having to sell their homes to help pay for private care, or beg their families for money.
The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) thinks the problems are likely get worse.
The Audit Commission hasbeen instructed to produce produced a report ‘backed’ by New Labour Ministers. It demands councils should "make better use of charging" for services, including home care, rubbish collection and parking. This includes removing caps on charges for home helps and other services for the elderly who have managed to save for their old age.
The intention is to force people who have paid their share of local tax and National Insurance over the years, but can manage to find the money themselves somehow, to switch over to private care companies.
The Commission say: "In making council home care services less competitive by removing the weekly maximum charge, some councils have sought to encourage their most affluent service users to purchase services from other providers, freeing up council resources."
Strangely, this is the exact reverse of the argument deployed by New Labour against Grammar schools and Independent schools.
Now, according to a survey conducted by Doctor magazine, Doctors want to withhold NHS treatment from patients they judge are too old, or who lead unhealthy lives.
They want to bar; Smokers, drinkers, the obese, elderly and those seeking "social" abortions from receiving some treatments/operations.
They say the NHS can’t afford to provide free care to everyone. About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions more often found at hospitals unable to manage their debt.
Advocates of refusing treatment argue that £1.7 billion a year is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer and emphysema and this drains money away from treatment from the more deserving.
They conveniently fail to mention that non-smokers, who have never recklessly exposed themselves to so-called passive smoking, can also suffer from these illnesses.
There is something else they don’t mention when attempting to justify their views. It applies equally well to alcohol as tobacco.
In 2005-06 the excise duty raised on tobacco was £8 billion, The VAT charged on, the cost of Tobacco, plus the excise duty paid on it, was £1.9 billion. So that year the State milked the British Smoker to the tune of around £10 billion pound. Tax on tobacco products has risen since then.
This leaves aside their actual contribution to the NHS.
If New Labour are only spending £1.7 billion on smokers alone then that leaves them £8.1 billion in pocket – New Labour are making a tidy profit out of smokers.
There may be some extra temporary costs associated with sickness/disability payments but this is more than compensated for by smokers reduction in life span and the reduced pension payouts that follow. According to the Dr’s logic Smokers are paying the State for pensions they may never get to collect in full.
The Economic argument for with holding treatment does not hold water. Economically it would almost certainly actually pay the State to encourage smoking, so the underlying moralistic health fascism is exposed.
This is more evident still in the evident desire to punish women who fall pregnant by accident and produce another generation of state clients. Again the economics are clear. The cost of an early abortion is as nothing to that of child benefit and a single mother on benefits.
Finally where is the line in all this? What are the limits to what our self appointed masters and moral guardians will impose upon us? What other forms of behaviour they disapprove of? Who else will they refuse to treat? There is something deeply disturbing about this attitude.
It seems we are all in danger of having services we have paid for and rightly expected to benefit from randomly and arbitrarily withdrawn when we are most in need of them. Especially if we have committed the crime of being prudent, or enjoy a glass or two of wine – and whatever happened to the health benefits of wine we were told about?
If we can no longer expect to receive the services we are entitled to, because we have paid through the nose for them, then surely it is unreasonable for the State to expect us to continue to pay for them, effectively having to pay for them twice - and unwise of us to continue to do so?
If they can’t deliver they should get out of the business and leave it to those who will honour a contract and actually can deliver.
If New Labour intend to exclude large numbers of the public from enjoying the dubious benefits of the ‘welfare’ state - and it seems it is in a ‘state’ ;-) for ideological, or moralistic, reasons. Then those affected should be allowed get their money back and opt out, to allow them to be able to make other arrangements.
It is expected that a report to be published tomorrow (Tuesday), will confirm that drastic tightening of rules over which elderly people qualify for state-funded care in their own homes is leaving hundreds of thousands bereft of help and in dire straits.
Lack of funding is being blamed for many councils only supporting the seriously ill or incapacitated. In some cases, pensioners are having to sell their homes to help pay for private care, or beg their families for money.
The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) thinks the problems are likely get worse.
The Audit Commission has
The intention is to force people who have paid their share of local tax and National Insurance over the years, but can manage to find the money themselves somehow, to switch over to private care companies.
The Commission say: "In making council home care services less competitive by removing the weekly maximum charge, some councils have sought to encourage their most affluent service users to purchase services from other providers, freeing up council resources."
Strangely, this is the exact reverse of the argument deployed by New Labour against Grammar schools and Independent schools.
Now, according to a survey conducted by Doctor magazine, Doctors want to withhold NHS treatment from patients they judge are too old, or who lead unhealthy lives.
They want to bar; Smokers, drinkers, the obese, elderly and those seeking "social" abortions from receiving some treatments/operations.
They say the NHS can’t afford to provide free care to everyone. About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions more often found at hospitals unable to manage their debt.
Advocates of refusing treatment argue that £1.7 billion a year is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer and emphysema and this drains money away from treatment from the more deserving.
They conveniently fail to mention that non-smokers, who have never recklessly exposed themselves to so-called passive smoking, can also suffer from these illnesses.
There is something else they don’t mention when attempting to justify their views. It applies equally well to alcohol as tobacco.
In 2005-06 the excise duty raised on tobacco was £8 billion, The VAT charged on, the cost of Tobacco, plus the excise duty paid on it, was £1.9 billion. So that year the State milked the British Smoker to the tune of around £10 billion pound. Tax on tobacco products has risen since then.
This leaves aside their actual contribution to the NHS.
If New Labour are only spending £1.7 billion on smokers alone then that leaves them £8.1 billion in pocket – New Labour are making a tidy profit out of smokers.
There may be some extra temporary costs associated with sickness/disability payments but this is more than compensated for by smokers reduction in life span and the reduced pension payouts that follow. According to the Dr’s logic Smokers are paying the State for pensions they may never get to collect in full.
The Economic argument for with holding treatment does not hold water. Economically it would almost certainly actually pay the State to encourage smoking, so the underlying moralistic health fascism is exposed.
This is more evident still in the evident desire to punish women who fall pregnant by accident and produce another generation of state clients. Again the economics are clear. The cost of an early abortion is as nothing to that of child benefit and a single mother on benefits.
Finally where is the line in all this? What are the limits to what our self appointed masters and moral guardians will impose upon us? What other forms of behaviour they disapprove of? Who else will they refuse to treat? There is something deeply disturbing about this attitude.
It seems we are all in danger of having services we have paid for and rightly expected to benefit from randomly and arbitrarily withdrawn when we are most in need of them. Especially if we have committed the crime of being prudent, or enjoy a glass or two of wine – and whatever happened to the health benefits of wine we were told about?
If we can no longer expect to receive the services we are entitled to, because we have paid through the nose for them, then surely it is unreasonable for the State to expect us to continue to pay for them, effectively having to pay for them twice - and unwise of us to continue to do so?
If they can’t deliver they should get out of the business and leave it to those who will honour a contract and actually can deliver.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)