Obese 'may' have benefits cut
03 January 2013, 01:39 PM
#31
This is always the question that's asked, how would it be decided. If it were up to me then i would define those operations which are statistically overwhelmingly attributable to self abuse as being available only privately. Then everyone knows the rules. But while it's not up to me, there will be enough people calling foul to ensure that nothing actually gets done; the eaters, drinkers and smokers will still fill up the hospitals at my expense. Entitlement UK.
03 January 2013, 01:42 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 January 2013, 02:04 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
03 January 2013, 02:09 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
03 January 2013, 02:33 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
03 January 2013, 02:36 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
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
Last edited by f1_fan; 03 January 2013 at 02:37 PM.
03 January 2013, 02:53 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Orangio; 03 January 2013 at 02:55 PM.
03 January 2013, 03:02 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
03 January 2013, 03:03 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
03 January 2013, 03:33 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 January 2013, 03:59 PM
#45
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.
03 January 2013, 04:16 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: SCOTLAND - 2014
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
03 January 2013, 04:19 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
03 January 2013, 04:20 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
03 January 2013, 05:05 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dl
03 January 2013, 11:08 PM
#53
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 January 2013, 12:15 AM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Markus; 04 January 2013 at 01:48 PM.
04 January 2013, 12:46 AM
#55
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
04 January 2013, 01:12 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
04 January 2013, 02:14 AM
#57
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??
04 January 2013, 09:20 AM
#58
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't make people do anything even if they're within the walls of a gym.
But i'd absolutely support the idea of charging for operations directly linked to obesity, smoking or alcohol abuse. The sooner the better. Tomorrow if not this afternoon. Why procrastinate? Another example of politicians not doing the right thing for fear of losing power.
But i'd absolutely support the idea of charging for operations directly linked to obesity, smoking or alcohol abuse. The sooner the better. Tomorrow if not this afternoon. Why procrastinate? Another example of politicians not doing the right thing for fear of losing power.
Geezer
04 January 2013, 09:31 AM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kings Norton, birmingham
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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