Discussion in 'Off Topic Chat' started by skybluegod, Oct 10, 2017.
Lol ok NW off my soap box now
Yes there are a small amount of people that fall into a different catergory, but a large amount I would say 85/90% are obese because of their own lifestyle and not health or genetics.
Of course as a society we don’t help, but we also don’t help, in the sense that we mollycoddle people when something goes wrong, nothing wrong with being there for people of course, but people also need to learn to solve stuff on their own. Not expect help at the first sign of trouble.
Yes there are a lot of selfish people, and In and ideal world everyone would help everyone, but most people can’t evem say please or thank you so I have no hope of that ever happening.
Agree completely on last point
Skybluegod, out of curiosity, are you ok with the foreigners and freeloaders using the NHS that some of us fatties contribute to?
Well they don't even know for sure that the cause is diet or lack of exercise so why would they do that?
That may be a factor, but not the entire story. What is needed is more research on the cause or causes.
Personally, I think it is most likely something either in the food, water or air that is disrupting the body's natural processes.
Something disrupting the metabolism or hormones, something introduced in the last 50-75 years.
Nothing wrong with foreigners using it, if they have a right too. Freeloaders I’m not okay with.
But I don’t have a problem with fatties using the NHS as such, I just think that something needs to be done, about growing obesity.!
Or over £100 million on breast enlargements, nose jobs etc.
'The foreigners' also contribute to the NHS, so are every bit as entitled to use it as you are.
I think it is down to a lack of exercise, over eating and over drinking rather than some kind of conspiracy.
He's referring to health tourism
"Foreigners and free loaders"- there is no mention of health tourism. I'd rather he clarified for himself.
Just on radio that child obesity is on this up
Free prescription cost must be horrific
nope, that's my level I'm afraid
The easy get out to avoid the wrath of the “outraged of Coventry” would be to say that I did only mean health tourism … but that was only part of the reason. Also a little disappointing haul, I was trying to trip him up a bit and expected the stock response surrounding the NHS relying on overseas workers within the NHS, I purposely threw in the freeloaders comments as that also often provokes a reaction. I would add that many of those workers come from outside the EU, but not trying to turn this thread into another Brexit debate.
Anyway … the points with foreign cost to the NHS are (imo) varied. Health tourism is one, but also the additional and unsustainable costs of sending NHS funding abroad. My understanding is that if an EU member who is a UK citizen is treated abroad (even back in their original country) then they are entitled to claim from the NHS for the cost of that treatment, how can that be right? I also read that we pay 70 times the cost to the rest of the EU for healthcare of UK/EU citizens outside the UK (costing the NHS close to £1bn per year), that also shouldn’t be happening – we pay Poland 4 times the value that we receive back and yet 500,000+ poles reside in the UK and only a fraction of UK citizens moving in the opposite direction. Finally, yes we do rely on overseas help within the NHS and a valid reason for keeping immigration, particularly those with skills that we are lacking in the UK, but also if immigration wasn’t so high, then we wouldn’t need such a resource to look after them too.
In short my original point is that if in the future in part due to excess weight I had something like a heart attack, then having contributed all my working life, I would expect to be treated without any complaint. For some reason it seems that weight is something that is acceptable to discriminate against.
It isn't just weight. I don't think anybody is saying anybody slightly overweight must suddenly become a bodybuilder. It is more the clinically obese people who are more than happy to literally sit and eat and constantly be ill from it.
I'd say the same against people who smoke etc. I can understand it is an addiction but if they have no interest in quitting while they have related illnesses because of it. If people are trying their hardest to quit then it's a different story.
Wow something we agree on ey SB
Yep...Its quite straightforward for about 99% of the population.......we are but simple machines......if you put more energy in, than you expend......you expand!
I would however say there has been a conspiracy by the multinational food giants with regards to how bad refined & processed sugars are......and how much of this type of shit they pump into the cheap food stuff they then aggressively market...often to the poorest sections of society or poorest nations......
As for the NHS, it has the same inherent problems as final salary pensions... simply unsustainable in its current form.
It was a grand & noble project built for a far smaller more active population that basically worked till it dropped at 67 or 68 years old.....
Nowadays, due largely in part to the NHS' own success, we all live too long!
Yes I generally agree with this post. Society is having to foot the bill for Billions of Pounds to treat 'Preventable' diseases................those people are the ones that folk bring on themselves with smoking, drinking and overindulgence. I do hope my livers holding up, it has had a fair old job to do over the last 30 years or so, in all seriousness though it is a valid point !
Can you make that nigh on a million Poles now !
It's a dangerous way to go though is t it;
Do you treat drivers in road traffic accidents who've been speeding, using mobiles, not wearing seat belts
Do you treat any addicts of any description at all
Do you ask bowel cancer patients what they've ate and when you find bacon sandwiches every day tell them to go home
If a drive isn't wearing a seat belt for example, I'd have no issue with there being an excess on their treatment.
I am not saying refuse to treat them and let them die, but again if they are an addict not interested at all in any help then again no issue with it being self inflicted. However, if they are battling it / actively trying to overcome it then it's a different situation.
Nothing worse than going to a hospital or doctors and seeing a big crowd outside smoking, when they are obviously there because something is wrong with them.
Take a guess at how much free prescription paracetamol costs the NHS a year
I have no issue cutting that either for something you can get for pennies from any shop.
Our doctor advises when a cheaper option to a prescription drug is available over the counter.
I think some people get a "free prescription" for Paracetamol that's free to the person but for some reason costs the NHS over £3 for something you can get for pennies from any shop.
You clearly dont understand addiction.
Good God, you have a heart!
I'm talking about those on benefits.
Now we're getting somewhere......
The NHS is already "privatised" in many respects.......I'm not sure of figures, but I know that massive facility management & procurement corporations already provide in-house services for all the NHS trusts......Serco, G4S, Capita etc. etc. all make tasty profits from the public purse by simply adding delay & massive cost (they call it adding "value") to simple tasks like supplying IT equipment, latex gloves, lightbulbs etc. etc.
Tricky issue to deal with as the NHS organisation is basically too big to manage efficiently.....but as a huge customer, its clear to me that the NHS should be paying considerably less for its consumables etc. and really should squeeze the fuck out of its supply chain....
If Tesco can sell Paracetamol for 30p and make a profit on them why is it costing the NHS over £3. They should be saying "No thanks, we want them for 15p or less"
The NHS spent over £70m giving paracetamol to patients last year
It's the same with all public things, when I worked at a council they had no qualms in paying stupid money for things because it was from one of their existing providers.
Dont be daft, we are in the midst of an always on, always contactable technology, this is having an effect on more and more people, not just youngsters, but people with smart phones answering work emails etc. They are not weaker, they are just stimulated in a different fashion to when I was a kid. EG, I used to ride my BMX on the track by the Morris Common, I soon realised that if I fell off it hurt, but also got a thrill if I achieved a jump etc, but the crucial bit is I learned of risk / reward while also burning off calories / excess hormones.
Today's kid, they fail in an electronic world (IE playing a computer game) it doesn't hurt, they complete a game etc they still have the thrill and exhilaration but are not burning off calories or excess hormones. Just because its different to how previous generations grew up, doesn't make them weaker.
Our senses now are constantly battered, we can watch what we want, when we want, how we want. Kids growing up are usually the early adopters of new technology and are probably more plugged in to the way of todays world therefore fel the effects of this more than an adult, who can obtain a release in a different way, they dont have the emotional intelligence to deal with the world, are full of hormones therefore more susceptible to stimuli, hence the ever increasing metal health issues we are seeing, also with a growing acceptance of this illness people are now more likely to talk, and to recognise it. Another thing to consider is the role of previous generations in shaping the current youth.
It's not realistic is it and impossible to draw the line. There are plenty of savings to be made but the system is there to save lives - it can educate sure but has to be responsible to treat everyone.
Most addicts anyway most have some form of addiction trigger in their brain chemistry so let's not bother helping anorexic sufferers either.
Agree about stimulated in a different way.
Said about it earlier on in the thread about when I was younger the park / football pitch would be used from morning until night. You usually had to play somebody for the pitch or join in with them or play somewhere else. We have been there a few times this week to play and it's dead.
I'm lucky in a way that while my daughter will quite happily sit on technology she is equally as happy to read a book or go to the park, there are some though who won't walk 5 minutes to the shop.
Another thing is education and educating kids about certain things. I know some schools now struggle to let the kids do PE once a week
It's not saying outright refuse them and let them die. I'd say more like a "penalty" system like an excess.
"Look Dave / Keith / Ian, this is your 20th appointment so far in 2 months. You really need to start trying to help yourself a bit here" type thing.
You can advise but when you start having guidelines to refuse to treat then it becomes a very dangerous world.
Separate names with a comma.