On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 15:49:05 +0000 (GMT)
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
> > perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no
> > drugs, and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there
> > not be a responsibility to everyone else not to do things that
> > burdens the NHS or affects others?
>
> Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
>

No living in homes: that's where most accidents occur, isn't it?

--
Joe

On 11/01/2023 15:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <tpk48u$jfg$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>> The cost of treating smoking-related diseases by the NHS was
>> always claimed to be covered by the duty on cigarettes, but that
>> was in the days when more than 50% of the population smoked.
>> Also, the NHS had none of the eye-wateringly expensive anti-cancer
>> drugs and other treatments that they now have access to.
>
> I'm told a packet of fags costs £15 now. So should more than cover the
> later medical costs.
>

I wonder if cigarette prices are still used by the ONS when
calculating inflation ?. Just wondering.

In article <20230111161257.2ed14590@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>,
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 15:49:05 +0000 (GMT)
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
> > > perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no
> > > drugs, and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there
> > > not be a responsibility to everyone else not to do things that
> > > burdens the NHS or affects others?
> >
> > Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
> >

> No living in homes: that's where most accidents occur, isn't it?

I'd guess so, judging by some on here.

--
*Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: They only made 21.4 million bugs.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <tpmn9t$1rb8$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
> On 11/01/2023 15:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <tpk48u$jfg$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> > Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
> >> The cost of treating smoking-related diseases by the NHS was
> >> always claimed to be covered by the duty on cigarettes, but that
> >> was in the days when more than 50% of the population smoked.
> >> Also, the NHS had none of the eye-wateringly expensive anti-cancer
> >> drugs and other treatments that they now have access to.
> >
> > I'm told a packet of fags costs £15 now. So should more than cover the
> > later medical costs.
> >

> I wonder if cigarette prices are still used by the ONS when
> calculating inflation ?. Just wondering.

I don't actually know anyone who still smokes cigarettes. Vape and funny
ones, yes.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11 Jan 2023 at 16:09:33 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com>
wrote:

> All forms of sports ought to have compulsory insurance
> cover just like car drivers must have 3rd party liability
> insurance.

That should include the lycra louts on the public highway, then.

--
Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and Hell where they already have it.

Ronald Reagan

In article <5a65269aaadave@davenoise.co.uk>,
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tpk48u$jfg$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
> > The cost of treating smoking-related diseases by the NHS was
> > always claimed to be covered by the duty on cigarettes, but that
> > was in the days when more than 50% of the population smoked.
> > Also, the NHS had none of the eye-wateringly expensive anti-cancer
> > drugs and other treatments that they now have access to.

> I'm told a packet of fags costs £15 now. So should more than cover the
> later medical costs.

In my University days a packet of 10 went up to 2/1d

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 21:52:32 +1100, Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well the problem with that of course is that like Alcohol it blunts the
> reaction time and decision making

In fact nicotine does the exact opposite.

> like certain other drugs do.

> What about vaping?

> I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is perhaps a bit utopian.

And clearly doesnt work as prohibition proves.

> We
> all should be able to survive with no drugs,

But life is about a hell of a lot more than just survival.

> and for the record I don't
> drink or smoke, but should there not be a responsibility to everyone else
> not to do things that burdens the NHS

Using that mindless line, everyone should stop walking the
dog because some manage to trip and injure themselves and
that is a burden on the NHS. Same with sport.

> or affects others?

Ditto.

> On the other side of the coin of course, animals have been drug users and
> abusers since as far back as we can measure, and it may be as natural as
> anything else in this world and we have to cope with that reality.

On 11/01/2023 15:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <tpmhm6$tv3l$1@dont-email.me>,
> Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure how legalising cannabis will make the situation worse.
>>> Crime is governed by profit. Remove the incentive for profit and the
>>> consequential crime will likely subside.
>
>> My conjecture is that the low level lookouts and bicycle couriers etc
>> won't (be able to) find employment elsewhere and will burgle your house
>> or mug you instead. The higher level people may control this, or may
>> turn to supplying worse drugs.
>
> As opposed to the druggies doing the crime to fund their habit?

No, in addition to, and in the case I cited, we're talking cannabis,
more students than druggies.

> Where do
> you think the money to pay for these couriers etc come from?

--
Cheers
Clive

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 23:44:14 +1100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 11/01/2023 12:22, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> On 10/01/2023 14:55, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> As they they also want to legalise cannabis
>>> https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/commissions/legalisation-of-marijuana
>>> the smokers can just smoke dope instead. Sorted.
>> The often overlooked problem with legalising cannabis is what the
>> current suppliers will turn to instead. My guess is they won't become
>> model citizens.

> I'm not sure how legalising cannabis will make the situation worse.

Once those who currently sell cannabis for a big profit lose that big
profit, presumably most of them will start selling other illegal drugs
for a big profit instead.

> Crime is governed by profit. Remove the incentive for profit and the
> consequential crime will likely subside.

Or those who had previously engaged in that illegal activity
will move on to selling some other illegal drugs instead.

> No one is a truly model citizen.

A few do make sure that they never do anything illegal.

> The smarter you are the more likely you are to make money through legal
> means.

That's very arguable. The big thing with selling illegal drugs
is that the income can be very high and the smart ones may
be able to come up with an arrangement that sees them never
get caught and the minions they employ get caught instead.

> It will also save the costs for the Judicial system in processing crimes
> and the costs of incarceration.

So would making all drugs legal but that approach would have other
downsides.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 00:32:48 +1100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 1/11/2023 7:44 AM, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 11/01/2023 12:22, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2023 14:55, Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As they they also want to legalise cannabis
>>>> https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/commissions/legalisation-of-marijuana
>>>> the smokers can just smoke dope instead. Sorted.
>>>
>>> The often overlooked problem with legalising cannabis is what the
>>> current suppliers will turn to instead. My guess is they won't become
>>> model citizens.
>> I'm not sure how legalising cannabis will make the situation worse.
>> Crime is governed by profit. Remove the incentive for profit and the
>> consequential crime will likely subside.
>> No one is a truly model citizen. The smarter you are the more likely
>> you are to make money through legal means.
>> It will also save the costs for the Judicial system in processing
>> crimes and the costs of incarceration.
>
> Cannabis was legalized here.
>
> The design was to make it similar to drink.
>
> There is a larger fine than for drink, for smoking
> dope in the car or driving while under the influence.
> It took the police about three days, to find a loser
> driving a car with a joint burning in the car, and that
> allowed a "news story" about a $600 fine to be written.
>
> You have the same kind of consumption rules (can't pop open
> a beer on the street,

Its legal to do that here.

We had a merger of some protestant churches back
in the 70s forming the Uniting Church. The Presbeterians
stayed out but most of the others except the Aglicans joined.

Mate of mine, a regular church goer, went to one of the new
churches social gathering where food and drink is served
and some of those who used to be from the more staight
laced minor sects who dont allow alcohol got a bit over
excited when he chose to bring some beer which was
commonly seen with the church he came from.

> same for dope).

> Jail time for giving your dope to underage individuals.
>
> Cannabis is sold by licensed outlets. There are licensed
> grow-operations providing the source material for the
> dope shops.
>
> So what happened ? Initial pricing made the legal kind,
> cheaper than the criminal-supplied material.
>
> However, the criminals dropped their prices, which kinda starves
> the legal operations of business.
>
> At a local shop I pass on the way to the grocery store, you
> do see an occasional single vehicle pull up and someone enter the
> premises. But it is not as busy as the drink shop several
> blocks down, where the parking spots are pretty full, and
> you don't dare get in the way of a punter on a mission to
> pick up his weeks booze. The drinks parking lot is dangerous there,
> the individuals are "focused" on only one thing.

We don't get that result here and have some drive thru
operations which are basically a big shed with massive
great doors at each end and multiple car lanes inside,
usually 3-4, where someone comes to the driver's side
window, asks you what you want and loads it into usually
the passenger's side door. Works fine.

> Whereas the individuals at the cannabis shop, are more
> "laid back".
>
> But cannabis is a rather expensive habit. The boutique
> cannabis shops, the presentation is like in a jewelry store.
> Display cabinets with materials in them, similar to how
> you might see some wedding rings displayed.
>
> And in some areas of the country, it's much more popular
> than in others. And it is not like the individuals there
> are rich either.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 03:09:33 +1100, Andrew
<Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

> On 11/01/2023 15:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
>>> perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no drugs,
>>> and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there not be a
>>> responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens the NHS
>>> or affects others?
>> Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
>>
>
> All forms of sports ought to have compulsory insurance
> cover

That's mad with kids kicking a ball around or playing
a primitive form of cricket. Makes a lot mores sense
to continue the current approach to the NHS.

> just like car drivers must have 3rd party liability
> insurance.

But that doesnt cover the car driver.

> There are people permanently incapacitated because of
> for example, collapsing rugby scrums back before rules
> and regs were tightened.

Still happens even when the rules have been tightened
and there are also the long term downsides health care
cost wise too, most obviously with knee and 'brain' injurys.

> They are a massive cost to the
> NHS and taxpayer for the rest of their lives.

Just as true of those who are radical enough to clean their roof gutteers
too.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 03:11:42 +1100, Andrew
<Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

> On 11/01/2023 15:24, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2023 at 14:39:00 GMT, "Clive Arthur" <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the case I outlined in Reading, there were very few prosecutions.
>>> That's the point - it seems they were 'allowed' to carry on cannabis
>>> supply (for 20 years!) as long as it didn't get out of hand and they
>>> otherwise behaved.
>> Were they paying taxes, though? Which is the other legalisaion
>> argument.
>>
>
> The national lottery was introduced to effectively tax some of that
> money circulating in the black economy.

Nope, to gouge the stupid.

Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/01/2023 14:55, Scott wrote:
>>
>> As they they also want to legalise cannabis
>> https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/commissions/legalisation-of-marijuana
>> the smokers can just smoke dope instead. Sorted.
>
> The often overlooked problem with legalising cannabis is what the
> current suppliers will turn to instead. My guess is they won't become
> model citizens.
>
> This is a true story. In Reading, cannabis was readily obtainable from
> a place called Mandela Court and its environs. This went on for about
> twenty years, obviously the police knew about it and busted the
> occasional customer.
>
> Genuinely, they didn't supply harder drugs, and the 'staff', including
> the 'lookouts' had payslips of a sort. Most locals thought it made the
> area safer, knowing that the suppliers didn't want to attract undue
> attention.
>

Sounds like the scene in “Hot Fuzz” where the police allowed underage
drinkers to go to the pub as it kept them out of trouble.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

In article <tpmr1g$v5vs$2@dont-email.me>,
Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/01/2023 15:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <tpmhm6$tv3l$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> I'm not sure how legalising cannabis will make the situation worse.
> >>> Crime is governed by profit. Remove the incentive for profit and the
> >>> consequential crime will likely subside.
> >
> >> My conjecture is that the low level lookouts and bicycle couriers etc
> >> won't (be able to) find employment elsewhere and will burgle your house
> >> or mug you instead. The higher level people may control this, or may
> >> turn to supplying worse drugs.
> >
> > As opposed to the druggies doing the crime to fund their habit?

> No, in addition to, and in the case I cited, we're talking cannabis,
> more students than druggies.

Think you need to get out more if you think only students smoke weed.

> > Where do
> > you think the money to pay for these couriers etc come from?

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11/01/2023 18:20, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 03:09:33 +1100, Andrew
> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 11/01/2023 15:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>     Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
>>>> perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no drugs,
>>>> and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there not be a
>>>> responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens the NHS
>>>> or affects others?
>>>  Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
>>>
>>
>> All forms of sports ought to have compulsory insurance
>> cover
>
> That's mad with kids kicking a ball around or playing
> a primitive form of cricket. Makes a lot mores sense
> to continue the current approach to the NHS.

....where people are allowed to do dangerous things like smoke or take
drugs; or just exist.

(FTAOD I say this in opposition to Brian Gaff's view that "should there
not be a responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens
the NHS or affects others.")

--
Max Demian

In message <tpoq17$18ipc$1@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>On 11/01/2023 18:20, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 03:09:33 +1100, Andrew
>><Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2023 15:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>     Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
>>>>> perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no drugs,
>>>>> and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there not be a
>>>>> responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens the NHS
>>>>> or affects others?
>>>>  Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
>>>>
>>>
>>> All forms of sports ought to have compulsory insurance
>>> cover
>> That's mad with kids kicking a ball around or playing
>> a primitive form of cricket. Makes a lot mores sense
>> to continue the current approach to the NHS.
>
>...where people are allowed to do dangerous things like smoke or take
>drugs; or just exist.
>
>(FTAOD I say this in opposition to Brian Gaff's view that "should there
>not be a responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens
>the NHS or affects others.")

How does this work in say, America, with their individual health
insurance cover? Do they get quizzed on life style, motorcycle ownership
etc?
>

--
Tim Lamb

On 12/01/2023 12:18, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <tpoq17$18ipc$1@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>> On 11/01/2023 18:20, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 03:09:33 +1100, Andrew
>>> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/01/2023 15:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>> In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>     Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
>>>>>> perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no
>>>>>> drugs,
>>>>>> and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there not be a
>>>>>> responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens the NHS
>>>>>> or affects others?
>>>>>  Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All forms of sports ought to have compulsory insurance
>>>> cover
>>>  That's mad with kids kicking a ball around or playing
>>> a primitive form of cricket. Makes a lot mores sense
>>> to continue the current approach to the NHS.
>>
>> ...where people are allowed to do dangerous things like smoke or take
>> drugs; or just exist.
>>
>> (FTAOD I say this in opposition to Brian Gaff's view that "should
>> there not be a responsibility to everyone else not to do things that
>> burdens the NHS or affects others.")
>
> How does this work in say, America, with their individual health
> insurance cover? Do they get quizzed on life style, motorcycle ownership
> etc?

I suspect they go bankrupt or die unless they are naturally healthy.
Perhaps, with time, Americans will become super healthy, whereas the
English race will degenerate.

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:18:05 +1100, Tim Lamb <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> In message <tpoq17$18ipc$1@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>> On 11/01/2023 18:20, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 03:09:33 +1100, Andrew
>>> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/01/2023 15:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>> In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
>>>>>> perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no
>>>>>> drugs,
>>>>>> and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there not be a
>>>>>> responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens the
>>>>>> NHS
>>>>>> or affects others?
>>>>> Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All forms of sports ought to have compulsory insurance
>>>> cover
>>> That's mad with kids kicking a ball around or playing
>>> a primitive form of cricket. Makes a lot mores sense
>>> to continue the current approach to the NHS.
>>
>> ...where people are allowed to do dangerous things like smoke or take
>> drugs; or just exist.
>>
>> (FTAOD I say this in opposition to Brian Gaff's view that "should there
>> not be a responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens
>> the NHS or affects others.")
>
> How does this work in say, America, with their individual health
> insurance cover? Do they get quizzed on life style, motorcycle ownership
> etc?

Generally not because most of their health insurance cover is provided by
their employer.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 04:44:37 +1100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

> On 12/01/2023 12:18, Tim Lamb wrote:
>> In message <tpoq17$18ipc$1@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
>> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>>> On 11/01/2023 18:20, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 03:09:33 +1100, Andrew
>>>> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/01/2023 15:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>>> In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
>>>>>>> perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no
>>>>>>> drugs,
>>>>>>> and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there not be
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens the
>>>>>>> NHS
>>>>>>> or affects others?
>>>>>> Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All forms of sports ought to have compulsory insurance
>>>>> cover
>>>> That's mad with kids kicking a ball around or playing
>>>> a primitive form of cricket. Makes a lot mores sense
>>>> to continue the current approach to the NHS.
>>>
>>> ...where people are allowed to do dangerous things like smoke or take
>>> drugs; or just exist.
>>>
>>> (FTAOD I say this in opposition to Brian Gaff's view that "should
>>> there not be a responsibility to everyone else not to do things that
>>> burdens the NHS or affects others.")
>> How does this work in say, America, with their individual health
>> insurance cover? Do they get quizzed on life style, motorcycle
>> ownership etc?
>
> I suspect they go bankrupt or die unless they are naturally healthy.

Fraid not, even with the dregs of society.

> Perhaps, with time, Americans will become super healthy, whereas the
> English race will degenerate.

No chance.

On 12 Jan 2023 at 12:18:05 GMT, "Tim Lamb" <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> In message <tpoq17$18ipc$1@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>> On 11/01/2023 18:20, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 03:09:33 +1100, Andrew
>>> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/01/2023 15:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>> In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
>>>>>> perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no drugs,
>>>>>> and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there not be a
>>>>>> responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens the NHS
>>>>>> or affects others?
>>>>> Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All forms of sports ought to have compulsory insurance
>>>> cover
>>> That's mad with kids kicking a ball around or playing
>>> a primitive form of cricket. Makes a lot mores sense
>>> to continue the current approach to the NHS.
>>
>> ...where people are allowed to do dangerous things like smoke or take
>> drugs; or just exist.
>>
>> (FTAOD I say this in opposition to Brian Gaff's view that "should there
>> not be a responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens
>> the NHS or affects others.")
>
> How does this work in say, America, with their individual health
> insurance cover? Do they get quizzed on life style, motorcycle ownership
> etc?

You have to declare pre-existing conditions, and may have to take a medical.

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since ... it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.”

Sir Roger Scruton

In article <k2b4phFagf3U1@mid.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > How does this work in say, America, with their individual health
> > insurance cover? Do they get quizzed on life style, motorcycle
> > ownership etc?

> You have to declare pre-existing conditions, and may have to take a
> medical.

Is it much different to dental insurance here? Your teeth need to be in
perfect condition before they'll issue a new policy?

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 13/01/2023 16:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <k2b4phFagf3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> How does this work in say, America, with their individual health
>>> insurance cover? Do they get quizzed on life style, motorcycle
>>> ownership etc?
>
>> You have to declare pre-existing conditions, and may have to take a
>> medical.
>
The Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) has made this less of a problem.

> Is it much different to dental insurance here? Your teeth need to be in
> perfect condition before they'll issue a new policy?
>

On 12/01/2023 06:27 pm, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:18:05 +1100, Tim Lamb
> <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <tpoq17$18ipc$1@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
>> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>>> On 11/01/2023 18:20, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 03:09:33 +1100, Andrew
>>>> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/01/2023 15:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>>> In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>     Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
>>>>>>> perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no
>>>>>>> drugs,
>>>>>>> and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there not be a
>>>>>>> responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens the
>>>>>>> NHS
>>>>>>> or affects others?
>>>>>>  Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All forms of sports ought to have compulsory insurance
>>>>> cover
>>>>  That's mad with kids kicking a ball around or playing
>>>> a primitive form of cricket. Makes a lot mores sense
>>>> to continue the current approach to the NHS.
>>>
>>> ...where people are allowed to do dangerous things like smoke or take
>>> drugs; or just exist.
>>>
>>> (FTAOD I say this in opposition to Brian Gaff's view that "should
>>> there not be a responsibility to everyone else not to do things that
>>> burdens the NHS or affects others.")
>>
>> How does this work in say, America, with their individual health
>> insurance cover? Do they get quizzed on life style, motorcycle
>> ownership etc?
>
> Generally not because most of their health insurance cover is provided
> by their employer.

The weird thing is that even many on the political left in the USA will
argue in favour of their current system.

I know Democrat voters who are dead against the setting up of an
American NHS. Their belief is that it will increase the premiums they
(and maybe their employers) already pay and that they will be
subsidising those with lower incomes. When it is explained that they
need not continue to pay "thousands" (often per month!) and that
everyone will contribute according to their taxable position... they
don't believe it. And this despite the nearby example of Canada.

On 13/01/2023 04:32 pm, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 13/01/2023 16:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <k2b4phFagf3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>     Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>>> How does this work in say, America, with their individual health
>>>> insurance cover? Do they get quizzed on life style, motorcycle
>>>> ownership etc?
>>
>>> You have to declare pre-existing conditions, and may have to take a
>>> medical.
>>
> The Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) has made this less of a problem.

It hasn't reduced the very high premiums paid by those on decent
incomes, which makes them and others totally wary of "even more of the
same".

>> Is it much different to dental insurance here? Your teeth need to be in
>> perfect condition before they'll issue a new policy?
>>
>

On 12 Jan 2023 at 18:27:14 GMT, "chop" <chop654@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:18:05 +1100, Tim Lamb <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <tpoq17$18ipc$1@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
>> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>>> On 11/01/2023 18:20, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 03:09:33 +1100, Andrew
>>>> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/01/2023 15:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>>> In article <tpm4dj$s9qi$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> What about vaping? I'm afraid putting the Genie into the bottle is
>>>>>>> perhaps a bit utopian. We all should be able to survive with no
>>>>>>> drugs,
>>>>>>> and for the record I don't drink or smoke, but should there not be a
>>>>>>> responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens the
>>>>>>> NHS
>>>>>>> or affects others?
>>>>>> Ah - right. So no recreation like sports etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All forms of sports ought to have compulsory insurance
>>>>> cover
>>>> That's mad with kids kicking a ball around or playing
>>>> a primitive form of cricket. Makes a lot mores sense
>>>> to continue the current approach to the NHS.
>>>
>>> ...where people are allowed to do dangerous things like smoke or take
>>> drugs; or just exist.
>>>
>>> (FTAOD I say this in opposition to Brian Gaff's view that "should there
>>> not be a responsibility to everyone else not to do things that burdens
>>> the NHS or affects others.")
>>
>> How does this work in say, America, with their individual health
>> insurance cover? Do they get quizzed on life style, motorcycle ownership
>> etc?
>
> Generally not because most of their health insurance cover is provided by
> their employer.

Their health insurer is still likely to ask the employee to fill in a form
listing pre-existing conditions, and possibly submit to a health check.

--
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

HL Mencken