Obese people banned from routine surgery

When the other folders just won't do!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed, lcarlson

Post Reply
User avatar
The Beans
Posts: 3635
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:18 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by The Beans » Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:32 pm

Sephiroth81 wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote:
This isn't about denial of service, it's about fixing the bigger problem first.
It kind of also is about denial of service and saving money.

I am in full agreement that prevention is a terrific form of medicine (hence why I was bleeting on about investing in educating people on healthy eating and subsidising healthy food), but this isn't prevention, its just denying treatment to people in need and its cruel (and not even to be kind).

The national rate of smoking wouldn't fall through the roof if the NHS announced that anyone with a smoking related illness won't be given treatment. It would fall if we educate people on the massive health impact of smoking, raising the tax/cost of tobacco and banning advertising and smoking in public places - and they did, and as a result, smoking rates have fallen (to about 20%). We should take similar steps about obesity/unhealthy eating and drinking alcohol. This would surely be better as it would be genuine prevention.
We're partially in agreement. Prevention is what's required. Which is why strict laws on childbirth would be a great idea. Can't afford a kid? Then you can't have one. You can't have any at all. The amount we'd save in benefits and NHS treatment would be colossal. More spaces for those hard working immigrants you love so much too. It's a double win.
If it's slower than me, dumber than me and it tastes good ... tough titty.

User avatar
Sephiroth81
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:35 am

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Sephiroth81 » Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:44 pm

The Beans wrote: We're partially in agreement. Prevention is what's required. Which is why strict laws on childbirth would be a great idea. Can't afford a kid? Then you can't have one. You can't have any at all. The amount we'd save in benefits and NHS treatment would be colossal. More spaces for those hard working immigrants you love so much too. It's a double win.
I only love one immigrant specifically! The rest I just see as normal human beings like the rest of us (well most of us).

Cutting birth rates "the beans way" seems a touch extreme, but I'm all ears for reducing birth rates!
paranoid marvin wrote: What we perhaps need is a government-subsidised middle-tier health service, somewhere between private healthcare and the NHS. So those who are prepared to contribute more of their income can receive a better service than those who have contributed less - or nothing. So not getting private rooms or a Herley Street surgeon, just a doctor they can see within a couple of days and the prospect of not having to wait months for surgery. Something that's more affordable than private health care, and which people feel at least they're getting something for rather than just subsiding others.

Because unless something changes significantly, the NHS will be dead within 20 years.
I agree with the rest of your post that i've not quoted here. The idea of a two-tier health system which basically penalises the poorer citizens sounds like a recipe for disaster though!

User avatar
The Beans
Posts: 3635
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:18 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by The Beans » Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:52 pm

Sephiroth81 wrote:"the beans way" ... a touch extreme
I'm definitely using that when I make my bid for leader of this broken land. It's a great slogan that shows real change is on the way. Nice one.
If it's slower than me, dumber than me and it tastes good ... tough titty.

pratty
Posts: 5402
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by pratty » Tue Sep 06, 2016 4:24 pm

Sephiroth81 wrote:By not treating ALL patients at the point of need, its going against the fundamental principles of the NHS and one of the very few things that other countries envy about the UK.
But when is the point of actual need? If you genuinely need immediate treatment, ie urgently, then of course the NHS is going treat you, they're not going send you away to lose weight if you need a life saving op right now because your life is in immediate danger.
Sephiroth81 wrote:If its obese people today that are singled out, its drinkers tomorrow, smokers the next day, and gymnasts and cyclists after that and the list of soft targets is potentially endless of how they can wriggle out of paying for treatment and care.
I understand the problem of where do you draw the line over lifestyles, which is why I suggested making whether you contribute or not where the line is drawn.

I'm not bothered if others get more out of the NHS than I do either, obviously I don't want to need treatment. But if you're an athlete or an addict, and you show up to A&E every week because of your lifestyle, and you don't contribute to the NHS and you're not prepared to at least make some effort to not to keep ending up there, don't you think that's taking the censored a bit?

It's not just a case of of bitterness, though i do think it's a bit insulting to expect everyone else to keep patching you up on their dime, it's mainly a case of resources, the NHS is simply struggling to cope with the demand.
Sephiroth81 wrote:Cutting birth rates "the beans way" seems a touch extreme, but I'm all ears for reducing birth rates!
Don't we need more people to pay for the NHS and other public welfare (and basically all government spending) in future?

Even if we could do with a few less people I don't agree with the government controlling who can and can't have children, I think people have the right to have kids. However it needn't be a right to have other people pay for them, so one way to discourage child birth is to render it economically inconvenient to those that can least afford it by reducing the benefits that allow parents to have kids they couldn't otherwise afford to have. Of course people will always have kids anyway regardelss of whether they can afford them, and then we'll feel obliged to look after their kids through welfare, so that and reducing birth rates in general is probably a non-starter.
Last edited by pratty on Tue Sep 06, 2016 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pratty's trade list, updated (May 2019)!
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=54823

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14266
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by paranoid marvin » Tue Sep 06, 2016 4:42 pm

Sephiroth81 wrote:
The Beans wrote: We're partially in agreement. Prevention is what's required. Which is why strict laws on childbirth would be a great idea. Can't afford a kid? Then you can't have one. You can't have any at all. The amount we'd save in benefits and NHS treatment would be colossal. More spaces for those hard working immigrants you love so much too. It's a double win.
I only love one immigrant specifically! The rest I just see as normal human beings like the rest of us (well most of us).

Cutting birth rates "the beans way" seems a touch extreme, but I'm all ears for reducing birth rates!
paranoid marvin wrote: What we perhaps need is a government-subsidised middle-tier health service, somewhere between private healthcare and the NHS. So those who are prepared to contribute more of their income can receive a better service than those who have contributed less - or nothing. So not getting private rooms or a Herley Street surgeon, just a doctor they can see within a couple of days and the prospect of not having to wait months for surgery. Something that's more affordable than private health care, and which people feel at least they're getting something for rather than just subsiding others.

Because unless something changes significantly, the NHS will be dead within 20 years.
I agree with the rest of your post that i've not quoted here. The idea of a two-tier health system which basically penalises the poorer citizens sounds like a recipe for disaster though!

You could say that a private health service penalises those less well off. I know what you mean though , but the NHS needs major funding, and if people had the chance to pay a fiver a week extra out of their wages to get to see a doctor/specialist within a week then it might help.
It certainly doesn't help anyone if the NHS collapses due to chronic underfunding.

Maybe not government-run then, but perhaps (like with work-place pensions) you're employer has to contribute to a private health cover as long as the employee chips in.
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
Sephiroth81
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:35 am

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Sephiroth81 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:10 am

pratty wrote:
I'm not bothered if others get more out of the NHS than I do either, obviously I don't want to need treatment. But if you're an athlete or an addict, and you show up to A&E every week because of your lifestyle, and you don't contribute to the NHS and you're not prepared to at least make some effort to not to keep ending up there, don't you think that's taking the censored a bit?

It's not just a case of of bitterness, though i do think it's a bit insulting to expect everyone else to keep patching you up on their dime, it's mainly a case of resources, the NHS is simply struggling to cope with the demand.
Clearly it does bother you as you're coming up with hypothetical people (who I'm sure do exist, although surely also don't want to be ending up in A&E regularly) claiming its insulting to taxpayers. Some people need more help than others with less means to contribute, therefore will be more of a financial burden to taxpayers. This is life. You either kick them to the curb, or feel some empathy towards them and not deny treatment and be at least grateful that its not you on this occasion. Invest in people, help with addiction, help people make better healthier lifestyle choices, and the demand for NHS resources will naturally fall anyway.

If you jack the price up further on cheap booze, cheap fast food and junk food (through taxation going direct to NHS) then even if it doesn't reduce people abusing alcohol or food (although I suspect it would, as it looks to have helped with tobacco use), it will give the NHS more cash and therefore resources to cover treatments which you deem to be unfairly dished out to undeserving types.
pratty wrote:
Don't we need more people to pay for the NHS and other public welfare (and basically all government spending) in future?

Even if we could do with a few less people I don't agree with the government controlling who can and can't have children, I think people have the right to have kids.
I was being facetious. Of course I don't think government should control something as natural as birth! I was horsing around with the new future fuhrer Beans.

User avatar
Helensification
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:14 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Helensification » Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:29 am

One thing I always wanted to suggest to my hospital was a gym specifically for obese people with a Physio or equivalent on hand.

The equipment would be strong enough for the weights involved which is not the case in a lot of gyms (and yes I have looked and experienced).

The trained professional would help people with serious ailments to use the gym safely and special classes could be introduced targeting specific problem areas, e.g. cardiovascular, protecting backs, building muscles around affected joints, etc.

If only Obese people were present this would reduce the stigma associated with gyms that all the 'thin healthy' people will look down on you (and yes some do) and make Obese people feel more comfortable about exercise.

Once in place, then regular attendance for a set number of weeks prior to an operation to improve lung capacity, muscular strength, general fitness levels. all of which could help and speed recovery, would seem reasonable.

This is more achievable than crash dieting which often occurs if a surgeon says lose 3 stone before we consider you for an operation.

The gym would need to be open in the evening of course so workers could attend as well.

It could also be available to other obese people who just want to get fit (rather than needing it for an operation) for a fee like a regular gym which would help to fund its existence.
Image

User avatar
The Beans
Posts: 3635
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:18 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by The Beans » Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:14 am

Sephiroth81 wrote:
pratty wrote:
Don't we need more people to pay for the NHS and other public welfare (and basically all government spending) in future?

Even if we could do with a few less people I don't agree with the government controlling who can and can't have children, I think people have the right to have kids.
I was being facetious. Of course I don't think government should control something as natural as birth! I was horsing around with the new future fuhrer Beans.
I don't think people have the right to have kids if those kids (and their kids) are going to be nothing but a financial burden on everybody else. A society only works if everybody contributes in some way. Unfortunately, thanks to softarses like Seph, we currently have a society that indulges freeloaders to a ridiculous degree. For many, there's no incentive to work and therefore no need to contribute. They're given everything they need as a freebie and lot of things they don't need on top of that. These people, that attitude of entitlement, it's all increasing.

It's all moot. Simple maths will kill the NHS eventually. The "progressive" nanny state liberals are doing the job of ending the NHS better than anybody. As ever, they want the omellete but aren't willing to break any eggs.
If it's slower than me, dumber than me and it tastes good ... tough titty.

User avatar
Matt_B
Posts: 5254
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:30 am
Location: 5 minutes from the beach, 30 seconds from the pub

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Matt_B » Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:15 am

paranoid marvin wrote:You could say that a private health service penalises those less well off. I know what you mean though , but the NHS needs major funding, and if people had the chance to pay a fiver a week extra out of their wages to get to see a doctor/specialist within a week then it might help.
It certainly doesn't help anyone if the NHS collapses due to chronic underfunding.
We've had a similar debate in Australia. The public system, Medicare, is chronically underfunded and the previous Prime Minister had a plan to introduce a co-payment that you'd have to pay for every GP visit - never mind that for people who aren't on low incomes or retired you have to pay up front and you'd rarely get the full cost of treatment refunded - and the big objection to it was that you really don't want to be discouraging people who are ill from seeking treatment on financial grounds. Most serious diseases are much cheaper to treat if caught early, and the treatments are more effective too. If the downside of that is that a GP has to deal with an extra three or four appointments a day prescribing cheap medicines for hypochondriacs, it's probably still a price worth paying. Suffice it to say that he's now the ex-Prime Minister and the initiative bit the dust without him.

Also, I'd be very wary of relying entirely on private cover. I've had to take it out for the past couple of years, initially because the bureaucrats in Canberra haven't figured that health tourism is entirely in the opposite direction here, and after that because there's a punitive tax on high (really just above-average) income earners who don't take it out. While that ought to reduce the load on the public system in theory, in practice it doesn't. The regulation is so poor that many people just have junk policies that they never intend to use, and even the good policies tend to have major exemptions, large excesses, and more of the aforementioned co-payments, so you could still end up with a large bill if you used it.

That's not to say that entirely privatized health care can't do a good job on a national level. A lot of countries operate Bismarck systems. These use strict regulation and non-profit insurance funds to ensure that costs are kept to a reasonable level and everyone still gets access to the care they need. Unfortunately, whenever there's talk of NHS or Medicare privatization, it never seems to be this sort of system that's being moved towards.

User avatar
Sephiroth81
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:35 am

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Sephiroth81 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:03 am

The Beans wrote:
I don't think people have the right to have kids if those kids (and their kids) are going to be nothing but a financial burden on everybody else. A society only works if everybody contributes in some way. Unfortunately, thanks to softarses like Seph, we currently have a society that indulges freeloaders to a ridiculous degree. For many, there's no incentive to work and therefore no need to contribute. They're given everything they need as a freebie and lot of things they don't need on top of that. These people, that attitude of entitlement, it's all increasing.

It's all moot. Simple maths will kill the NHS eventually. The "progressive" nanny state liberals are doing the job of ending the NHS better than anybody. As ever, they want the omellete but aren't willing to break any eggs.
Beans, I don't dispute that "freeloaders" exist nor am I any kind of supporter of people who deliberately take advantage of any of our social programmes, but I do wonder what impact they are actually having overall on our public services I would be interested in seeing the evidence, rather than judge this by a couple of blokes I know who happen to know a few people who deliberately have kids to lead a "cushy" life, or use "Benefits Street/Britain" as a source. The welfare system and NHS are in place to help everyone when they need it as a safety net - now there will be some who take advantage of it, but by reforming it in a drastic way may punish the people who genuinely need it (its reasonable to suggest the opposite could be the case as well, but lets see the evidence). There may be a balance to be met, but finding it is not that simple as becoming a "hard-arse". Decisions like this could have more dire consequences that impact more people than you think, just to clamp down on a disgraceful few.

I think the introduction of "poverty porn" television has really not been useful at all for anyone and rather poisonous in our outlook, bar people maybe at extreme ends of either scale with an agenda. Sure, documentaries are interesting and sometimes useful, but these are rarely unbiased, and most of these shows trivialise and exploit peoples lives in the way they are edited and produced. If I watch any "documentary" that uses those god-awful twee "jingles" to create some sort of "cheeky" atmosphere, then a sombre piano piece during a potentially "sad" moment, then the alarm bells start ringing and I need to find the remote, forthwith.

User avatar
RodimusPrime
Posts: 4141
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 12:16 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by RodimusPrime » Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:28 am

The NHS for all its faults is a great thing.

It needs better funding and TBH I am happy to pay towards it, I may never need it but I have seen family members need it and have needed services and help that if it was private like the US they would never be able to afford it.

People always say " why should we pay for smokers and overweight people "

I look at it different, we are paying to guarantee that young kids, or pensioners without any money, or good people who need help. I like that for all the issues in the world, as a society we are working together to at least provide each other with healthcare.

Of course there is a limit to what we can pay and the NHS is underfunded, but that's on the government to make things work better.

User avatar
merman
Posts: 6349
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:14 pm
Location: Skegness, UK
Contact:

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by merman » Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:27 pm

Sephiroth81 wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote:
This isn't about denial of service, it's about fixing the bigger problem first.
It kind of also is about denial of service and saving money.

I am in full agreement that prevention is a terrific form of medicine (hence why I was bleeting on about investing in educating people on healthy eating and subsidising healthy food), but this isn't prevention, its just denying treatment to people in need and its cruel (and not even to be kind).

The national rate of smoking wouldn't fall through the roof if the NHS announced that anyone with a smoking related illness won't be given treatment. It would fall if we educate people on the massive health impact of smoking, raising the tax/cost of tobacco and banning advertising and smoking in public places - and they did, and as a result, smoking rates have fallen (to about 20%). We should take similar steps about obesity/unhealthy eating and drinking alcohol. This would surely be better as it would be genuine prevention.
And yet the current Government has cut millions from the health programs designed to provide information, prevent illness and reduce smoking.

It is saving small amounts now and costing itself more in the long run.
merman1974 on Steam, Xbox Live, Twitter and YouTube

pratty
Posts: 5402
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by pratty » Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:41 pm

Sephiroth81 wrote:
Some people need more help than others with less means to contribute, therefore will be more of a financial burden to taxpayers. This is life. You either kick them to the curb, or feel some empathy towards them and not deny treatment and be at least grateful that its not you on this occasion.
I've no problem with people relying on the NHS more than others, even those that don't contribute to the NHS. What I'm saying is those people ought to be taking reasonable health precautions to minimise the resources they take up. Delaying non-urgent operations until the non-contributing patient makes some effort themselves is not that unreasonable and hardly kicking them to the curb.
Sephiroth81 wrote:If you jack the price up further on cheap booze, cheap fast food and junk food (through taxation going direct to NHS) then even if it doesn't reduce people abusing alcohol or food (although I suspect it would, as it looks to have helped with tobacco use), it will give the NHS more cash and therefore resources to cover treatments which you deem to be unfairly dished out to undeserving types.
Prevention is better than cure. You can help prevent NHS treatment for obesity by losing weight. Jacking up the prices punishes those that consume in moderation, why should their Big Macs cost more? Alternatively asking non-contributing patients to invest in themselves and lose some weight before a non-urgent operation costs nothing.
Helensification wrote:One thing I always wanted to suggest to my hospital was a gym specifically for obese people with a Physio or equivalent on hand.... It could also be available to other obese people who just want to get fit (rather than needing it for an operation) for a fee like a regular gym which would help to fund its existence.
I agree up to a point. I think for patients to use it for free they would have be referred to it on the basis that their obesity prevented them from losing weight/execising without help. The physio could help people regain their mobility, then once they can walk and fuction then they no longer need the gym. A gym is not necessary to be healthy, you can lose weight by simply walking. Helping people regain necessary mobility is one thing, that's helping people help themselves, but providing a free gym to people is not what the NHS is for in my opinion. [/quote]
Pratty's trade list, updated (May 2019)!
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=54823

User avatar
Sephiroth81
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:35 am

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Sephiroth81 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:19 pm

pratty wrote:
Prevention is better than cure. You can help prevent NHS treatment for obesity by losing weight. Jacking up the prices punishes those that consume in moderation, why should their Big Macs cost more? Alternatively asking non-contributing patients to invest in themselves and lose some weight before a non-urgent operation costs nothing.
The cost/operation is merely either delayed, or the patient ignores the advice and their condition worsens requiring more time in treatment and potentially administered more drugs etc. Its merely putting off paying for a procedure now. At least a tax on sh*tty food would put money into the NHS through levied taxes, and hopefully have a desired effect of people adjusting their daily nutrition.

I think the idea of "cost savings" like these all are pretty short sighted, and only good for an incumbent governments balance sheet. Just invest more into the NHS and start educating its citizens a bit better. The NHS can no way be considered as "overfunded".

User avatar
aztecca
Posts: 5216
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:18 pm
Location: http://retrocanteen.boards.net/

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by aztecca » Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:36 pm

Image
SH1T HAPPENS :wink:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests