Posts by Tabasco

    Yep. I wanted to see if Baker repeated that, but he didn't.


    May was very clever even mentioning the fact that she doesn't have children and linking that to the issue of fake news. She is far more politically apt than Cameron ever was, but where as his "presentation" always looked relaxed, she does seem very anxious.


    I imagine May's people told the BBC he had to behave :D

    Blimey, that's interesting Tabasco. So the government have a real incentive to keep people unhealthy. Nice to know money rules over people's health.


    Yes, it's why they tinker round the edges, but would never dream of banning it. Stuff like plain packaging and hiding fags behind shutters in shops, that they know will have little/no effect. A smoker is the perfect citizen for the exchequer. They likely live long enough to pay income tax all their life, pay a load extra in tobacco duty, then draw ten years less pension on average. They are less likely to get dementia, because they often don't live long enough to develop it. So a much lower social care bill. Also a lower chance of stuff like their joints wearing out, so less of those expensive hip/knee replacements. From a purely financial point of view the government loves them.

    A basic scan to check for cancer is something like £500, and then more advanced scans would be required. The treatment for chemotherapy is huge, so I'm sure how reliable those figures are. Don't forget some illness' may not be logged as smoking related, so may not be included in those stats.


    It's the other way round. If you smoke and you get lung cancer, heart disease etc then it's classed as a smoking related illness, even though non-smokers get these things all the time. If anything the figures for cost to the NHS are inflated.


    I'm not sure how much chemo costs, but if a smoker needs it after say 30 years of smoking they've got £75,000 'in the bank' so to speak. Well more actually because duty rises every year by inflation + 2%. It's why politicians here and around the world are so worried about vaping. They're worried about a big chunk of their cash cow disappearing.


    Then smokers die 10 years earlier om average. So that's another £80,000 in the bank from pension savings as far as the government is concerned. It really is a massive money spinner when you think about it.

    Strange it was working earlier. There are loads more along the same lines if you Google.


    Smoking is definitely a big money maker. According the The NHS it costs them about £5bn/year. According to the treasury it makes them £12.3 billion a year. It's not surprising if you think about it. If you smoke 20 a day, you pay £6.98 to the government (tax on a packet of 20), so just over £2,500 a year. That would buy you some pretty decent health insurance in the private sector.


    Then as I say there are further savings. Less pension on average being a big one.

    But the costs of treating smoking/alcohol related disease far out weigh the revenue that they bring in.


    Not according to the articles I posted. The government make about twice as much as it costs the NHS. Then there are further savings with people dying earlier, not getting as much pension, not needing looking after in old age etc.


    Smoking cost of treatment between £3 billion and £6 billion. Tax take £12 billion.


    Alcohol cost to NHS, police, welfare etc £4 billion. Tax take £10 billion.

    At the moment I'd say probably not. I think Sturgeon would have preferred to wait say 5+ years, but has backed herself into a corner over Brexit. The problem she's got now is if there's another 'No' vote then it really is off the table for a long time.


    Smoking is quite a money maker, even when you take into account NHS costs. Not surprising when you consider how much of a packet of fags costs


    https://fullfact.org/economy/does-sm...akes-treasury/


    Seems booze is similar


    http://www.harpers.co.uk/news/alcoho...524090.article

    The solution is one the politicians won't touch until they really have no other choice, and in some regards, we're almost at that point now.


    Ie, do we keep treating alcoholics who keep drinking?


    We do not have the medical knowledge to treat their addiction currently and I believe it is an addiction, a disease. So, do we keep dealing with all the consequences that alcoholism brings to bear on the NHS, or say there's a cut off point? A vote loser for any politician...


    I suppose the difficulty with that is defining an alcoholic, or indeed someone who isn't, but has damaged themselves through drinking. Would it even save much anyway? Are there any figures for the costs of treating alcohol related illness? Then there's the argument that heavy drinkers are paying more in to the exchequer through duty. Same with smoking, which from memory makes well over double in duty/VAT than it costs the NHS to treat smoking related illness.


    I don't like the idea of withholding treatment from people, beyond say liver transplants. If someone won't give up drinking after knackering their own organs then they shouldn't be getting one to do the same thing to.


    Admittedly it's a difficult one when money is short though.

    But the thing is Tabasco, these agencies are making money out of forcing people to diet themselves into a grave. Alright, it might take a long time, but the damage done by these extreme diets has permanent effects on the models' health.


    I'm with the Frenchies on this and that's saying something!


    Well yes, it's certainly not a good thing and even if they aren't being forced directly (told they must lose weight), they can be forced indirectly when the work dries up. I just think the state getting involved is going a bit too far. I'm usually in favour of small government, so that's where I'm coming from really.


    What I've never understood is the reason really thin models are preferred. I don't think they look good. I've seen the argument that clothes look better on stick thin models, but I think the opposite. This is coming from a blokes viewpoint though, so maybe things look different to their customer base, but then your average customer for clothes won't be a size zero and half the clothes you see on the catwalk for example most people wouldn't be seen dead in.


    It's a bit of a weird industry to me, the catwalk side of it I mean. Just seems to be designers showing off clothes that nobody in the real world would actually wear.


    I always thought the anti-lads mags people were attacking the wrong people. They tended to show a much more realistic body image and it was the fashion mags that were pushing forward the unrealistic on to women and girls.

    Seems a bit draconian to me. While I agree that the fashion for very thin models isn't a good thing, I also think the state stepping in (via doctors) to say who can appear on the catwalk, in magazines etc is a bit much. I also question whether it will work anyway. No doubt the model agencies will have their 'pet doctors' who will sign off their models as healthy, in a similar way that celebs have doctors that will give them their prescription drugs of choice on demand.


    Agree with the labelling of airbrushed photos though.