Surcharge for unvaccinated people needing hospital treatment for covid

[Bwix]

I’m just reading in the Times this morning how much cancer care, treatment of kidney and heart disease and organ transplants are being delayed and disrupted due to the strain on the NHS by unvaccinated patients. Of people needing the most intervention, 90% are unvaccinated.

Not all of these will be unvaccinated for medical reasons. We have had vaccines available for all adults for months now. I think it is reasonable for people to decide not to have a vaccine (just as they might want to drive fast without a seatbelt or climb a mountain face without a harness). But there should be a consequence that they face as individuals, as a result of that decision: that if they need care as a consequence of something they could have prevented, that they pick up the bill.

I’m really upset to know that friends and relatives with cancer may die as a result of their treatment being delayed, and it’s due to strains on the system that could be avoided.

Most cancers are caused by lifestyle factors, or the effectiveness of treatment offered. Likewise lots of other conditions. So why punish one set of people and not others?
The taxation issue has been mentioned. So that makes this a financial decision. Firstly we have to remember that the reason why things are so bad is a lack of investment for the past eleven years. Then we should weigh up everyone who we spend money on. Many would call for the death sentence before refusing to fund treatment. There definitely should be 'whataboutory' applied here.

Would the surcharge be means tested? It could be argued that a high earner paying a lot of tax has already paid for their care (and many others) over the years they have paid tax, so only the non-taxpayers should pay, but they have no money so no means to pay...what then? The NHS is for all including people who need treatment due to their lifestyle choices

@Lion1618 - I think the biggest difference there is the people you have mentioned who are making risky life choices generally don’t effect the health of other people, only themselves. The unvaccinated however are spreading covid to vulnerable people and others and encouraging mutations by keeping it in high circulation and affecting lots of people.

Surcharge no but ban them from pubs, shops and restaurants unless they can't have the vaccine. See how many change their tune

[quote Fl0w3ry]@Lion1618 - I think the biggest difference there is the people you have mentioned who are making risky life choices generally don’t effect the health of other people, only themselves. The unvaccinated however are spreading covid to vulnerable people and others and encouraging mutations by keeping it in high circulation and affecting lots of people.[/quote]
But if the vulnerable people mentioned, who've made themselves vulnerable through their behaviours, hadn't done that in the first place, they wouldn't be impacted by the unvaccinated.

It's chicken and egg.

So by your same reckoning, overweight people, smokers, people who drink alcohol, those who eat rubbish food which causes them atherosclerosis in turn leading to heart disease and those who attend a&e because they can’t get in to see their Gp for a minor issue should also foot the bill!
The government have been killing the NHS for years and whether you are unvaccinated or not, you may still get Covid 19 and may end up needing a hospital admission.
Don’t believe everything you read in the paper. Look at statistics yourself.

Do you know that if you're injured by the vaccine you have to be 60 percent disabled from it to get the paltry payment? That's if you can prove it was the vaccine.
Do you know that there have been no payouts yet and even the husband and six year old son of a young mother who died from it early this year have just been brushed off?

What if something like this happens here?
e.vnexpress.net/news/news/120-children-hospitalized-province-suspends-pfizer-vaccine-batch-4397748.html

I think this is already happening in Singapore?

@TractorAndHeadphones, I'm unvaccinated, I won't be changing my tune now or in the future. Your attitude stinks. After his 2nd vaccine my Dp is now left with heart problems. He is a non smoking non drinking normal weight bloke who had no issues prior. He is now a high risk for a heart attack and cannot work. Cardiology confirmed. You can shove your vaccine where the sun doesn't shine.

It is not the fault of unvaccinated people that other people’s cancer or other treatment is being delayed.

It was being delayed before we even had vaccines, and the fact that so much treatment was postponed last year is a huge contributor to the waiting lists being mammoth now.

The problems are because of bad hospital management and because the plans the government should have had in place to deal with a pandemic we’re almost non existent. It is not fair to blame individuals for this mess when the situation could have been prevented or at least reduced if the people with the power had done better planning.

A big part of the problem is that social care is underfunded and they struggle to employ carers. That means patients can be waiting weeks in hospital for support at home. If they are deemed to now need to move into a care home they can be in the hospital for months! These beds then can't be used for patients needing elective treatments. It is incredibly frustrating for all involved.

This has been an issue for a long time but it seems to have increased a lot since Brexit and Covid. A lot of the carers were not from the UK and some have decided to go back home.

@girlmom21 I agree with both your posts. The mismanagement has caused many of the problems.

@LittleWhiteCat

We have an ageing population who use a large proportion of the nhs resources.

It’s like suggesting people receive free treatment up to the age of (say) 85 then they get hit with a surcharge. Slightly dystopian isn’t it.

There is already a ‘surcharge’ for obesity in that some treatments will be delayed until weight loss. Mostly as it isn’t safe to put the heart under more pressure.

We can vote for a government that pays for a better nhs or we can discuss who pays for certain treatments. Our choice.

No surcharge because that just doesn't free up the beds. The rich can just pay. However rationing care yep absolutely. We need to do something because the NHS is overwhelmed and we already ration care pre covid so there is nothing new there.

The slippery slope arguments don't really stand up. None of smoking, eating junk or sky-diving have a significant probability of death in an ICU about four weeks of first indulging. Any change in the level of deaths can be planned for by adaptations made on a timescale of decades. The number of deaths from any of these causes is unlikely to double every three days.

@girlmom21 - a lot of illnesses people have that aren’t getting treatment have not been caused through lifestyle choices. Genetics, uncontrollable environmental factors and age cause a lot of chronic illnesses that make people vulnerable.
I’m not pro people making bad lifestyle choices, and I agree some people wouldn’t be vulnerable if they hadn’t made bad lifestyle choices. I was just addressing the pps comment of ‘where do we draw the line with surcharges’.
I still think there is a big difference between someone making a ‘bad’ lifestyle choice that effects just them, compared to someone who makes a choice that effects lots of people (and I am saying that as someone who does none of the things the pp was drawing a comparison to).

@WhenTheDragonsCame

A big part of the problem is that social care is underfunded and they struggle to employ carers. That means patients can be waiting weeks in hospital for support at home. If they are deemed to now need to move into a care home they can be in the hospital for months! These beds then can't be used for patients needing elective treatments. It is incredibly frustrating for all involved.

This has been an issue for a long time but it seems to have increased a lot since Brexit and Covid. A lot of the carers were not from the UK and some have decided to go back home.

Unvaccinated carers were sacked as well, that would have only made the situation worse.

@Greenhand

No. Singapore do not have free medical treatment. When covid hit, the government over there decided to pay for covid treatment because it was an unprecedented situation. Now that there are vaccines, they have decided to only continue paying for treatment for the vaccinated. If you choose not to get the vaccine then it goes back to how it is for all medical treatment out there; you pay for it yourself.

@Fl0w3ry oh I completely agree, I was just focusing specifically on the people who are vulnerable because of their bad choices

@RandomLondoner

The slippery slope arguments don't really stand up. None of smoking, eating junk or sky-diving have a significant probability of death in an ICU about four weeks of first indulging. Any change in the level of deaths can be planned for by adaptations made on a timescale of decades. The number of deaths from any of these causes is unlikely to double every three days.

That’s right. And none of them can be successfully guarded against by a vaccine which will give significant protection within 2 weeks of it being administered. That’s the primary difference. Lifestyle changes take months or years to effectively reduce risks. Vaccines take just days.

[quote Itsalmostanaccessory]@Greenhand

No. Singapore do not have free medical treatment. When covid hit, the government over there decided to pay for covid treatment because it was an unprecedented situation. Now that there are vaccines, they have decided to only continue paying for treatment for the vaccinated. If you choose not to get the vaccine then it goes back to how it is for all medical treatment out there; you pay for it yourself.[/quote]
Thank you for explaining this. So basically to qualify for free Covid treatment you have to be vaccinated?
I still think it’s a interesting example as you have vaccination as the deciding factor. But it’s not the same.
Does Singapore have a health insurance system - if so I wonder whether there are exclusions for unvaccinated people amd Covid treatment. I’m not saying it’s right

The smoking one has been done to death. Smoking related illnesses cost the nhs approx 2.5bn a year. The government tax revenue from smoking is approx 9.9bn a year. So smokers currently are paying for there use of the nhs. It is also not as clear cut as the cost the nhs more. A smoker dies of lung cancer at the age of 50 and has cost the nhs £30,000 in that time. A non smoker lives to the age of 80 and in that time has had a hip replacement, a heart valve replacement and various other illnesses. It has actually cost the nhs a lot more to treat that older patient over there lifetime.

People always go to smokers, drinkers and obesity etc....... a sugar tax and a larger alcohol tax should be implemented in my opinion so they can be tax positive with nhs costs like smoking is.

People who do risky pursuits should have insurance. Why should the nhs pay for skiing, mountain climbing, skydiving etc.......?

As for covid, it's a tricky one, but I do feel for people who's life saving operations are being cancelled due to selfish people refusing to get vaccines.

The nhs needs rebuilding completely, it's funding needs looking at and it needs a complete overhaul but no government have the stomach to do it.

[quote Fl0w3ry]@Lion1618 - I think the biggest difference there is the people you have mentioned who are making risky life choices generally don’t effect the health of other people, only themselves. The unvaccinated however are spreading covid to vulnerable people and others and encouraging mutations by keeping it in high circulation and affecting lots of people.[/quote]
Yep. Smoking, heavy drinking and unhealthy food only harm the individual.

Refusing a vaccine harms everyone you come into contact with basically. Unless you have a genuine medical reason not to (which they all claim to have), its unutterably selfish.

I don’t think a surcharge is workable really though. Heavy handed, hard to enforce and plays right into the government control narrative which they like. I think limiting their ability to access pubs, gigs, sports activities and leisure is probably the most effective way.