With the exception of those people who have never worked and therefore haven't contributed to the pot, how do you come to that conclusion? Just because somebody doesn't make good lifestyle choices doesn't mean you personally are paying for all of them.

 

I want my tax to be spent on better schools rather than a hip replacement for somebody who can't give up the doughnuts.

 

No I didnt, you were just being pedantic... as per usual

But it's ok, because you help pass the time

 

Orangio, his point wasn't pedantic, it was a fairly major part of this proposal!

 

Telling me that I didnt get the point of the article, when I quite clearly did isn't being pedantic?

And bearing in mind Mr Pedantic was picking on my comment where I was airing my general opinion, I didnt once say that the BBC article was that of a different matter. He interpreted my post as that's what I was saying due to his pedantic ways... but as I said previously it's all good as he helps pass the time

 

No you didn't. If the article had said that it was cutting the benefit of those unable to work due to their obesity then that is a completely different discussion to the fact they want to routinely cut benefit for anyone who is overweight regardless of whether they can work or not.

 

I was talking generally about obese people cliaming benefits.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mes-Japan.html

"Almost 1,000 people receive the hand-out for no other reason than they are grossly overweight – costing us £11,000 every single day. And two thirds of them have been languishing on the sick for more than five years."

But I guess because you are so pedantic you needed me to point out that I wasn't necessarily talking about the BBC link, I was talking about obese people claiming benefits in general which is a pretty similar topic as to which you were referring to.

I will bear in mind for future discussions with you that I have to explain everything fully, as you seem to be incapable of thinking outside of the box

 

The thread is about the link.

Start your own thread if you want to talk about something else.

It's how this forum has always worked, it's not hard to grasp! Everyone else manages it.

Oh and another demerit point for a Daily Mail link too btw

 

Mr Pedantic, I dont need to start a thread about this topic as you'll only be the first to reply telling me you've already covered this topic

 

So overweight people don't get NHS health care which is fair enough to a degree but then non smokers should get a lower level or service as well considering how much extra money smokers pay in tax, in fact we should just bin off the NHS and let the poor die and leave the rich to enjoy long healthy lives. every 999 call should some with a bill.

 

LOL

 

Are you just acting thick? Or do you have a VTA dump valve?

 

Why did you have to bring dump valves into the topic?

We're quite clearly talking about obese people

 

Stop being pedantic!

 

Nothing will come of this. Who is going to pay for the "prescribed" leisure activities? This will have to be means tested to assess who is and isn't obese, who will be doing that, local GP's or hospitals or staff working at the benefits office, who will train them? Who will pay for the need for increased staff and training at local leisure centres? How will the levels of benefits be administered.....this could go on. They say this will save £5bn for NHS but it will most likely cost more to implement this proposal.

 

Haha you got me there

 

if they are going to cut benefits of fat people they will need to cut benefits of smokers and people that drink too as those are choices that are unhealthy for your body as well.. where does it stop? its a completely stupid as hell idea lol

 

One of the BBC comments mentioned keeping people accountable for the way they spend their benefits. This has some appeal to me - if I was receiving benefits I would happily justify/account for what I was spending them on, just as those who work have to justify their expenditure to their employer and their details to HMRC.

If I could prescribe exercise I would, but some people wouldn't turn up because they aren't paying for it, unless their benefits were docked due to non-attendance. Then they would blame someone else or complain about human rights or ask me to write letters to collude with their non-attendance. Yet more wasted appointments.

It isn't easy, but I don't think people have human rights to be eating junk food on our ticket. We can't claim it is against our human rights to pay taxes that allow people to drink, smoke, eat junk and watch daytime TV, opting out of working because they are too tired because they weigh too much and don't do anything because we pay them not to.

The welfare state is clearly keeping some families in poverty whilst helping others.

 

It stops at the obese, smokers and alcoholics, and Class A drug addicts too. Time to unwrap all the bloody cotton wool and make people take some damn responsibility for their lives.

 

Well the Government won't stop people smoking or drinking since both vices generates around £14bn in tax revenue per year whilst cost to NHS is around £2.5bn.

 

So you want me to pay to repair a rock climber who breaks his neck because he has taken no notice about the dangers of a particular climb?

dl

 

thing is this argument could be taken to the Nth degree as we all take risks in all activities we do , whether its work or leisure .

 

Funny that you should say that - Tayside officer calls for 999 callers to be charged 50p

mb

 

We get charged for the result of ambulance 911 calls here! If it is deemed to be medically required ( the exact term is something like that) then it is $45, the Ontario health insurance plan covers the rest. If it isn't deemed to be required then it is $260

I don't think personal health insurance covers the $45 either

So when your 20 month old kid has a fever and goes into a seizure at 3am and you call 911, once you are discharged from hospital they will send you a bill for $45. Nice isn't it!

Edited to clarify that while we do not get charged for making the call, the end result, if it requires an ambulance trip, will probably cost you.

 

so take advice from this thread if you have shares in iceland or maccydees sell them now while you still can. it is wrong though, as a example i went to tesco yesterday and bought 2loaves wholemeal bread 8pints of milk 1kg of chicken portions 1 cucumber and 800grms of fresh mince and a packet of chicken sauce all for the same price as macdonalds for all 5 of us

 

put the taxes on sh*te quality, high fat/sugar/salt foods.

we certainly cant use the current bodymass index chart as a guide to judge peoples level of obesity, it may work for some but its fcking ludicrous for others - 3 days after a show i got my bodyfat level taken by a machine, sitting at roughly 7% b/f it told me i was 48% bf due to the water/glycogen my body was holding after a period of depletion.

find a good reliable method, then prove its linked to excess food intaketake rather than an intolerance to a foodgroup, then let the taxes unfold- but be prepaired to for what could easily follow, drinkers of any level, drivers for putting themselves at risk, infact an impact for all but live the squeakiest of squeaky clean lifetyles.

"not in bed for 8 hours sleep on tuesday the 19th mr smith - im afraid your neglecting to maintain your health - no hospital bed for you

 

This is exactly why the sort of attitude you quoted annoys me.

Whether we are talking about people over eating or taking on dangerous challenges in life, surely anyone putting themselves in added danger of injury/harm should have to pay if it all goes wrong??

 

How about charging for hospital treatment for sports injuries?

Geezer

 

as i said in my post lifes a risk. where does it stop? driving is a risky activity . most sport is. walking down the road is . if rules are made like this it should affect everyone not just a certain group in society

 

I do agree with this. It's no accident that so many Americans are obese when the meat industry is run in such a way that a processed burger full of fat, sugar etc. is cheaper to buy than fresh vegetables!!!