f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Obese 'may' have benefits cut

What does the NSR massive think of this?

Of course it's prefixed with the magic 'may' in quotes meaning it will probably never happen, but it's worth a discussion

I can see the argument, but until they stop people smoking and drinking I find it hard to condemn the obese alone!

Maz

iTrader: (34)

It's a diet and lifestyle change that it required not a token injection of reluctant physical activity. A load of hot air as per usual from the powers that be.

Graz

As mentioned really, bit unfair to single out fatties when it's okay to spend benefits on booze and ****. As has been discussed before if you really want to make it tough then only pay benefits as vouchers to be used for specific things, you could then restrict purchasing to basic foods, little or no booze or ****. Cream cakes, burgers, chips, sweets, etc. would then have to be worked for

boxst

You cannot target those on benefits for this kind of initiative.

I am first to agree that benefits are too high for some and that the system is broken, but you can't say I wont give you benefits if you are fat....

Some form of limited healthcare for all if you are obese may be workable ...

Tidgy

fat is not disabled, so why should they get payouts?

also agree with graz, benefits in token form to get essentials, not luxarys like booze and ****.

specialx

Aldi or a lidl pre paid photo card not allowing **** or booze should do the trick.

GlesgaKiss

British Medical Association GP committee chairman Dr Buckman, a GP in north London, called the proposals "some of the silliest things I've heard in a long time".

"When I was first told about this I thought it was a joke," he said

He added: "The best way [councils] can intervene is to stop restaurants and fast food chains providing the kind of food that make people put on weight, and interfere with the way foods are sold in shops."

This is one of those problems that has no palatable solution. The same people who think it's stupid and unfair, think it's better to tell people what food they can and can't buy! The food police. F*ck off!

TelBoy

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.

Orangio

I dont see why someone over weight and cant work because of it should get benefits.

Another case of the government giving hand outs to lazy folk.

Lose some weight and get a job. Simple

I agree though, benefits should come in the form of vouchers to use on 'essentials' and not booze and ****.. This would also help save money on the NHS from alcohol and cigarette related health issues

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

The article isn't saying that. It is talking about anyone deemed to be overweight whether they can work or not!

Orangio

tubbytommy

iTrader: (20)

You lot are just fattists.

Anyway where did i put that cream cake????

paulr

Lets ban re-runs of " The Vicar of Dibly". Dawn French is setting a terrible example to people, indirectly costing the NHS $$$billions........................ooops, sorry, she's not on benefits. Thats all right then.

TelBoy

Tommy, assuming you are properly obese, do you think it's fair that you can eat and eat and eat and still expect free treatment for any health issues you might encounter as a result of your gluttony? And let's face it, you're very very likely to have issues, starting with diabetes if you're not already diagnosed. How do you view your potential burden on the health services?

tubbytommy

iTrader: (20)

It beats working, if i dont get it the poles will.

TelBoy

Sorry, don't understand at all what you're saying? That you might as well keep on eating so that you can get free healthcare, because Polish people will use it anyway? Is that the jist?

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

Fat people take millions off us each year.

Tax the fat is what I say

paulr

What is and isn't fair?

Should childless people pay a lower rate of income tax, bearing in mind an awful lots of public spending is child related.

Encourage people to lose weight, raise taxes on junk food (for sure) but i hate this "demonising" of certain groups. It says as much about the demoniser as the demonised.

David Lock

I've never been convinced as to definitions of obese.

Looking at the England Rugby scrums for example, especially the front rows, here are super fit men who must be clinically obese if that is just measured in height/weight terms? 5' 10" and 17 stones say.

And then there's Wayne Rooney

Darts, on the other hand......

dl

tubbytommy

iTrader: (20)

Yup. This country is a free loaders paradise, hence why its overun with scum from all corners of the world to add to our own.

TelBoy

And that to me is just the sort of cop-out which allows people to expect to have the pieces picked up for them because of their own self-abuse. We could go on ad-infinitum about which pocket groups should or shouldn't pay more or less, but for wanton self abuse i would stand up and say all day and all night long that it was entirely fair that they pay for any treatment directly attributable to their lifestyle choices.

TelBoy

Okaaaay, and that's a different argument. But Tommy, YOU are one of the freeloaders my friend. Not because you're Polish, but because you eat to the point of expecting treatment for any side effects that i and all the others on here have to pay for. Tell me why that means you're not in the same "scum" category you define?

Leslie

I find it difficult to justify the taxpayer having to support those guilty of self inflicted injury!

Les

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

How would that be decided?

People who are not overweight suffer from diabetes. People that have strokes aren't all fat or not everyone that ends up with lung cancer smokes.....

Certain lifestyle choices may increase risk, but how on earth would someone decide what FOR SURE was the cause of illnesses when they can occur in those who aren't obese/don't smoke etc?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

It's not being pedantic, you just about missed the whole point of the article

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

As mentioned above I'd rather have unhealthy food taxed and used to subsidise healthier food, that to me would show the government is serious about this.

But I'm sure they are in the pockets of the big multinationals whom it would damage.

Edit:
I wouldn't be surprised if this idea contravenes European Human Rights legislation, I suspect this will never come to fruition.

TelBoy

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.

David Lock

Using lifestyle choices as a means of determining who pays what is a non-starter.

So mum sends her kid out to play soccer to keep fit and kid breaks his leg. Lifestyle choice?

Chap walking up Snowdon and slips and breaks his back? Lifestyle?

Guy cycles to work in busy city. His choice but he is mown down - should he pay for his stupidity? Who decides?

The list is endless.

dl

TelBoy

Who is saying that accidents should not be covered? Sorry i missed that post?

Matteeboy

Tax on body fat percentage, starting at 20% then higher rate at 30.

From a real life fattist ;-)