It's almost reassuring to see the same old idiots plough on with the same old lies, despite these having been debunked countless times. I bet Alcohol Concern and "researchers from Sheffield University" must be feeling a bit left out, as they weren't invited to provide rent-a-quotes.
From The Daily Mail:
The cost of treating people with liver disease, usually caused by excessive drinking, is expected to soar by 50 per cent in four years. A leaked Government report says the bill will reach £2.1billion – 2 per cent of the entire NHS budget. (1) Yet the stunning figure is only the tip of the iceberg, as it does not include alcohol-related cancer, accidents and injuries from violence...
The final bit of the article is textbook fakecharity:
Alcohol consumption in this country has soared over the past 30 years, (2) and more than 10million people regularly drink beyond safe levels. Last night a Department of Health spokesman said: "We have been working with partners to develop a Liver Strategy which we aim to publish later this year. The Government is also taking action to encourage responsible drinking and responsible alcohol sales, and will publish a new alcohol strategy soon." (3)
1) As against alcohol duty revenues which are forecast to reach £11.7 bn by 2015-16, to which you can add about £6 bn VAT.
2) That's a complete and utter f-ing lie, of course.
3) Who are these 'partners'? Would that be the people whom the government paid to ask the government to do what it intended to do in the first place? Like I say, this is textbook stuff.
Male Talkers
5 hours ago
4 comments:
Liver disease is usually caused by a viral infection such as hepatitis virus B and C NOT by drinking. That is a myth and simply not true. I've done a lot of work in this area and claiming the majority of liver disease is caused by drinking alcohol is a total lie!
Ch, ta, I've learned something new today! So the projected increase in Something Bad is not going to be caused by the thing that they say is happening but which isn't happening anyway?
Stick to economics where you actually know what you're talking about. The thing about hepatitis viruses is true if you live in south east China, but in the western world alcohol is the commonest cause of liver disease. Yes, a virus may get involved, and may even be the trigger, but if you drink excessively, then you are killing your liver slowly and when the virus does manifest itself, you won't have any liver left to protect you.
If you have the odd drink every weekend, you most likely won't have any problems. If you don't drink but go for a holiday to tropical Asia and get infected, you can still end up with liver disease, but that doesn't mean that heavy drinkers aren't increasing their chances of killing their livers. Most moderate (and by that I don't mean the so-called limits the government suggests, but common sense such as not drinking every single day and not getting pissed) drinkers will never notice that anything is wrong.
Liver disease can be treated very cheaply. If you start developing breasts, stop drinking! If you don't notice anything wrong, then it's perfectly fine to die at 80 from something else, but also have a screwed up liver. It's the same with smoking. Some people can smoke all their lives and experience no ill effects. But if you want to walk a mile without stopping and you find that you are unable to do that, maybe it's time you stopped. Most of the "costs" involved are wasted money. But if you are going to have a state healthcare system, then the state can justifiably erode your liberties to reduce its costs.
Anon, the bulk of your comment appears to be addressed at Chalcedon and is beyond my ken.
As to the economics, the simple fact is that drinkers and smokers pay considerably more in extra tax (and less old age pensions taken, seeing as they die younger, allegedly) than they 'cost' the NHS or society generally. The tax alone is a significant 'erosion of liberty', if you so will.
Plus you have to factor in an unknown figure for the enjoyment that people get from drinking and smoking. And on a statistical level, the figures in the article were complete bullshit.
Post a Comment