Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Or George this is your second liver transplant, you must stop drinking.
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.
I'm not saying "Oh they are fat and they have been in a car crash so we are going to leave them by the road to die". I mean consistent piss takers who are at the doctors week in, week out when it could quite easily be prevented or helped massively with some basics of "Stop smoking", "stop eating shit and sitting on your arse" etc etc.
are you sure he's got 'thrust' ?
My grandmother went to the doctors around 12 months back and was told he needed paracetamol. She said she could get that from anywhere for a few pence so not to worry, but the doctors wouldn't take no for an answer and gave her 1000 tablets. She had a huge carrier bag full of the stuff.
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.
Did we really burn off 'hormones' playing outside all the time ?? C'mon we didn't have 'Pornhub' though did we ?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.
No we had fingering and lynx Africa. Topless darts on live tv was as much filth as you were getting.Did we really burn off 'hormones' playing outside all the time ?? C'mon we didn't have 'Pornhub' though did we ?
I've still got the second one .No we had fingering and lynx Africa. Topless darts on live tv was as much filth as you were getting.
We have a reciprocal arrangement with other public health services to fund EU citizens' healthcare. Though I genuinely don't think we actual bother trying to reclaim any cash.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'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
We have a reciprocal arrangement with other public health services to fund EU citizens' healthcare. Though I genuinely don't think we actual bother trying to reclaim any cash.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
We have a reciprocal arrangement with other public health services to fund EU citizens' healthcare. Though I genuinely don't think we actual bother trying to reclaim any cash.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
What about this as an idea.
Reduce the amount of child benefit given for each child by an amount, use the money to feed all children in both primary and secondary school (breakfast/snack/lunch). Provide healthy, freshly prepared food that kids get into the habit of eating regularly.
I appreciate that would be a huge culture shift and a lot of investment and logistics to set up - but surely a more cost effective way to address the problem overall than spending it at the other end once the damage is done.
What about this as an idea.
Reduce the amount of child benefit given for each child by an amount, use the money to feed all children in both primary and secondary school (breakfast/snack/lunch). Provide healthy, freshly prepared food that kids get into the habit of eating regularly.
I appreciate that would be a huge culture shift and a lot of investment and logistics to set up - but surely a more cost effective way to address the problem overall than spending it at the other end once the damage is done.
We have a takeaway about 3 times a year!My missus is watching something on TV at the moment and the report said that Brits eat a takeaway meal on average, three times a week! And you can bet it will be pizzas, burgers and other crap!
Good idea in principle to be fair, but as I say my mum is a head teacher and the chocolate ban went down badly I do wonder how well telling parents that the school will feed their child goes down.
She has said to me that she has had parents moaning and having a go, because she is telling the parents what the kids can have in their lunch box.
The stats are that, only 1 in 40 packed lunches meet a healthy balanced diet requirement.
That's parents being massive, lazy bellends. It isn't hard, chuck them an apple or a fruit bar in instead. If their kid refuses to eat healthy things, they need to have a word with themselves.
I think that one problem is that young girls/women don't know how to cook. Cookery lessons should be mandatory at schools.
Cookery is on the curriculum, but it it's anything like my school, the focus is on baking cakes rather than thinking about genuine home economics (as in constructing meals and buying food). It needs a complete rethink. Christ knows why ready meals are so popular, they're mostly rank and dreadful value for money (even the posh M&S ones are poor value for money).
Yeah when I was at school it was all baking a cake, pastry etc etc. Never how to cook a healthy meal.
It's not really an excuse for a parent not to be able to cook a decent meal for their kid though. You boil some veg, cook some meat in the oven or boil some pasta etc. It doesn't have to be a Michelin star type meal.
YepYou say that, but this is a multi generational thing now Nick, generations who were fed crap passing it on again and again
What about boys and men ? Most women now work full time, this is different to when I was growing up, most women stayed at home and cooked the evening meal for the family. Times have changed.I think that one problem is that young girls/women don't know how to cook. Cookery lessons should be mandatory at schools.
What about this as an idea.
Reduce the amount of child benefit given for each child by an amount, use the money to feed all children in both primary and secondary school (breakfast/snack/lunch). Provide healthy, freshly prepared food that kids get into the habit of eating regularly.
I appreciate that would be a huge culture shift and a lot of investment and logistics to set up - but surely a more cost effective way to address the problem overall than spending it at the other end once the damage is done.
I just had one! I probably average one a month.We have a takeaway about 3 times a year!
Not all children will eat school meals.
That’s why he said to reduce child benefit tbf? So parents get less money to buy food for them and instead they have to eat what the school provide.
However you are right, think only 12 people across whole of mums primary school eat school meals, rest bring their own.
I think that one problem is that young girls/women don't know how to cook. Cookery lessons should be mandatory at schools.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?