So I was talking with a friend tonight and started to brainstorm about how I would deal with the issues of smoking, drinking and over-eating and the burden the pose to the NHS. It's not old news that some are attempting to weasel out of treating the sick and so I wondered in this climate how you could perhaps work a fair system.

The only thing I could come up with is firstly that taxation is essential on harmful goods, cigarettes and alcohol but also potentially on specifically earmarked unhealthy foods. Each degree of taxation has to be different, obviously smoking one cigarette is potentially much more harmful than drinking a half pint of cider, which is also more dangerous than every now and again eating some pork scratchings. The importance here is to be proportional to a base level of funding tor everyday and mundane illness that arises from unhealthy behaviour around these three issues.

Second is that those with serious problems should not be automatically treated free of charge. People that get cirrhosis are irresponsible drinkers and eaters, those that get lung cancer can be quickly linked to how much they smoke and one has to wonder why the taxpayer has to shoulder the burden of these people. Of course then ethical issues come in such as the person playing Rugby who breaks his collar bone. I would say however that acts like "playing Rugby" are not in themselves likely to bring about costly injuries for the majority of people playing and infact is a healthy pass time. I'm sure a better example could be found to debunk what I'm saying but until someone comes up with it I'll stick with my train of thought.

However my friend mused, what about those that are addicted are those to be penalised as well. This was of course an interesting question, and also made me think about just how those with severe illness as a direct cause of their irresponsibility may pay for what they've inflicted on themselves.

And so thirdly it came to me that those deemed to have done damage to their selves should pay for their treatment, either in a direct payment to the hospital, through a system of regular smaller payments, or perhaps more ideally if unable to pay the lump sum an additional taxation on their income. However the option should always be there for individuals that have these problems to declare themselves addicted. Cigarettes obviously are addictive, but those with severe problems as result of food or drink should also look to themselves and wonder if they too are not in a spiral of addiction.

If they declare themselves as such then the NHS should pay the fee's, and instead the people should after treatment br submitted to compulsory rehabilitation with adequate support. With a "parole" period the person would be regularly checked up and if failing in their rehabilitation be liable for the costs of the treatment and rehabilitation to date, again through lump sums or other forms of regular payment.

Of course all of this could be the musings and ramblings of a slightly drunken guy, but then isn't there just a little shred of potential in what I am saying?