Obese people banned from routine surgery

When the other folders just won't do!

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

pratty
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by pratty » Wed Sep 07, 2016 6:13 pm

Sephiroth81 wrote: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.
People taking steps to improve their health helps reduce the need for further treatment. Not all people will do it but those that do will create a much needed saving.
Sephiroth81 wrote:Just invest more into the NHS
From where/who? I would say there is a lot of government waste spending that would be better off in the NHS but it's easier said than done. There probably isn't a government head of depeartment anywhere that would say they would welcome a budget decrease. And of course it would be terribly racist and everything else 'ist and 'phobic to even suggest that we could spend less on international welfare to better take care of Britons through the likes of the NHS.

I don't think convenient and unconditional access to genuinely free healthcare for non-contributors is a sound long term strategy either, as it continously shields the patient from the full consequences of their poor decisions, and so there is less incentive to change. For many people the "safety net" becomes a crutch.
Sephiroth81 wrote: and start educating its citizens a bit better.
It would be great if people made better health decisions, but I'm not sure what more the government can do with education, you can only lead a horse to water so much.

When I went to school, the teacher said smoking will make you unfit and give you cancer, and cancer is bad because it kills you, ok you convinced me. It didn't take a multi-million pound media campaign for me to make the determination that smoking was a bad move. Everybody hears this message loud and clear, it's even on the cigarettes themselves now! It wasn't because of a privileged upbringing, I didn't win the IQ lottery, my not smoking was due to the simple informed decision that everyone has, whether to risk cancer or not.
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 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:14 am

pratty wrote: People taking steps to improve their health helps reduce the need for further treatment. Not all people will do it but those that do will create a much needed saving.
Potentially offset by people who aren't helped who's health deteriorates, increasing costs in the long run.
pratty wrote:
From where/who? I would say there is a lot of government waste spending that would be better off in the NHS but it's easier said than done. There probably isn't a government head of depeartment anywhere that would say they would welcome a budget decrease. And of course it would be terribly racist and everything else 'ist and 'phobic to even suggest that we could spend less on international welfare to better take care of Britons through the likes of the NHS.

I don't think convenient and unconditional access to genuinely free healthcare for non-contributors is a sound long term strategy either, as it continously shields the patient from the full consequences of their poor decisions, and so there is less incentive to change. For many people the "safety net" becomes a crutch.

It would be great if people made better health decisions, but I'm not sure what more the government can do with education, you can only lead a horse to water so much.

When I went to school, the teacher said smoking will make you unfit and give you cancer, and cancer is bad because it kills you, ok you convinced me. It didn't take a multi-million pound media campaign for me to make the determination that smoking was a bad move. Everybody hears this message loud and clear, it's even on the cigarettes themselves now! It wasn't because of a privileged upbringing, I didn't win the IQ lottery, my not smoking was due to the simple informed decision that everyone has, whether to risk cancer or not.
As i said before, our overall spending on the NHS in terms of of a percentage of GDP is lower than in many western countries. We can raise taxation in various ways to raise funding for the NHS which can also directly help influence people making better lifestyle choices as well, we already do it for tobacco, so why not do it for fast food, processed food as already suggested. If it doesn't raise a penny, then it will be because people are eating less junk food which in the long run will free up NHS resources.

Tobacco has had the benefit of the governments attention in recent decades who made certain decisions which meant that the prevalence of smoking has gone down, which in turn has helped the NHS and peoples health/lives. Despite less people buying fags, the raise in duties has seen the government receive more or less an increase year on year from it to go towards the NHS. This is combined with tobacco advertising bans and a ban in many public places, and yes - the warnings of smoking are on the cigarette packets themselves, thanks to government intervention. Given that tobacco is one of the most addictive substances (only heroin and crack cocaine are more addictive, with alcohol not that far behind) and the government has helped manage to halve the UK populations use of this drug, there is plenty of optimism that the same could be done with alcohol and junk food. Is super cheap supermarket booze really that beneficial to the UK? Is cheap junk food thats low in nutrition, high in salt and fat, really not worthy of some sort of small tax to try and raise a bit of cash, and perhaps persuade people to eat healthier instead?

Your attitude seems to be "well if i'm alright and not overweight/smoking etc, then everyone else should be" and using your own experiences as if this could ultimately reflect 65m other individuals. I don't smoke, never have done, either, but I am aware that not everyone makes the best choices in life and sometimes they need help and assistance through education (not just a pep talk at school, but throughout life).

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 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:56 am

Sephiroth81 wrote: Your attitude seems to be "well if i'm alright and not overweight/smoking etc, then everyone else should be" and using your own experiences as if this could ultimately reflect 65m other individuals. I don't smoke, never have done, either, but I am aware that not everyone makes the best choices in life and sometimes they need help and assistance through education (not just a pep talk at school, but throughout life).
Your attitude is just "Throw more money at it by increasing the burden on taxpayers", hardly the stuff of genius.
No mention of the impact on lifestyle and home budget in among your healthy living fantasy, I notice. Preparing and cooking food from scratch requires time and incurs higher energy costs, things that many working families struggle with already. It's ok for the full-on benefits crew I guess, they've got all the time in the world and no doubt anything they need will be provided.
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 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:23 am

The Beans wrote: Your attitude is just "Throw more money at it by increasing the burden on taxpayers", hardly the stuff of genius.
No mention of the impact on lifestyle and home budget in among your healthy living fantasy, I notice. Preparing and cooking food from scratch requires time and incurs higher energy costs, things that many working families struggle with already. It's ok for the full-on benefits crew I guess, they've got all the time in the world and no doubt anything they need will be provided.
Nice to have the attention again of the forums resident Mr Misanthrope (or one of them at least). :P Well it wouldn't necessarily increase the burden on all taxpayers if tax was levied on unhealthy products, and used to eliminate on healthy ones (or subsidised). Then it potentially would reward healthy eaters as they would ultimately pay less. (as well as reducing the burden on the NHS). Its longer term thinking that can potentially reduce health spend, not short term fixes to save a few quid now which ultimately could end up costing the NHS more down the line.

I take your point that preparing food from scratch takes time, could increase energy bills etc, but in the long run healthy eating needn't be expensive or even time consuming a la Masterchef. Plus also any initiative like this may force companies selling junk products/treats may improve their products and make them healthier for their customers. Any potential calorie/salt/fat reduction is a positive starting point. Also banning the advertisement of unhealthy foods which may be exploitative : McDonalds ads during a commercial break for Peppa Pig for example, or Coca Cola billboards next to schools etc, just things that we take for granted now with the promotion (or lack of) with tobacco and to a lesser extent, alcohol.

shinymcshine
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:13 am

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by shinymcshine » Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:16 am

Off on a tangent, but I wonder if the amount of money saved by the NHS, through people living active healthy lifestyles, is actually a positive balance, when offset against treatments for sports related injuries, and extended life expectancy (and later life care)?

Should UK Sport rebate the NHS each time someone turns up in A&E or requires treatment for a chronic condition stemming from sport?

User avatar
DPrinny
Posts: 24442
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: Super Mancyland

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by DPrinny » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:27 am

On a side note

Since changing my diet to healthy stuff, I have been less physically ill and have saved a fair bit money wise, I also feel healthy

User avatar
Megamixer
Posts: 14896
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:18 am
Location: Staffs, UK

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Megamixer » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:11 pm

If you want an example of NHS wasting time/resources then I cancelled an appointment a few months ago over the phone and had said cancellation confirmed. Since then, I've had 4 identical letters telling me to re-book it, two turning up on the same day with identical dates :roll: . I'm aware that somebody probably isn't physically there printing these letters (I'd assume they are automated) but time/resources must be being wasted somewhere with stuff like this.
Retro is a state of mind, and cares not for your puny concepts like dates and calendars.

pratty
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by pratty » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:22 pm

Sephiroth81 wrote:As i said before, our overall spending on the NHS in terms of of a percentage of GDP is lower than in many western countries. We can raise taxation in various ways to raise funding for the NHS which can also directly help influence people making better lifestyle choices as well, we already do it for tobacco, so why not do it for fast food, processed food as already suggested. If it doesn't raise a penny, then it will be because people are eating less junk food which in the long run will free up NHS resources.
The solution to everything can't just be increase taxation. You're talking about other people's money, what they sweat and bleed for, you can't take it granted and treat it like a bottomless well to dip into. Taxation must be justified, increasing it should be a last resort once it has been concluded that all existing financial resources have been appropriated used and cost saving measures have been explored.

If we do tax more to grow the NHS, then I hope once demand falls people don't complain about the subsequent cuts, service reductions and job losses. Of course they will though, people will insist on keeping the NHS just as large and expensive out of convenience instead of necessity, just as it is the nature of government adminstrators to champion the merits and maintain the budgets of their respective departments.
Sephiroth81 wrote:Is cheap junk food thats low in nutrition, high in salt and fat, really not worthy of some sort of small tax to try and raise a bit of cash, and perhaps persuade people to eat healthier instead?
Smoking and junk food are different. Firstly the ideal end goal with smoking is to eradicate it, because it is so deadly, addictive and ultimately pointless.

Secondly high calorie foods are only half of the obesity equation. You can over-eat healthy foods and still get fat. The other half is activity.

I walk an hour each way to and from work, and don't my co-workers fuss and make a big deal over it. "It's so far" they say, "you must be crazy" they say. I do this and work, on my feet literally the whole time, lifting and carrying, up to ten hours with maybe only a 5 minute break (by choice, sometimes I choose not to take a break at all) and maybe a packet of crisps to eat. And then I also lift weights at home 2-3 times a week. But the comments I get when I eat a few sausages rolls and a doughnut on the way home, or even just mention I drink whole milk instead of semi-skimmed, apparently that's unhealthy. Funny though how I have a flat stomach and they don't. If anything for someone who lifts to get stronger I'm probably still under-eating.

People can consume more calories, and arguably need to if they earn them through activity. If people would just move more then we might not have to increase the price of my fish and chips.
Sephiroth81 wrote:Your attitude seems to be "well if i'm alright and not overweight/smoking etc, then everyone else should be" and using your own experiences as if this could ultimately reflect 65m other individuals. I don't smoke, never have done, either, but I am aware that not everyone makes the best choices in life and sometimes they need help and assistance through education (not just a pep talk at school, but throughout life).
No it isn't. Everyone my age made an informed decision whether to smoke or not. There is no sob story people can attach to smoking, about smokers being born on the wrong side of the tracks, they are only the victim of themselves. My attitude is despite this I am prepared to contribute to the healthcare of non-contributing smokers, providing they are willing to reduce their burden on the NHS by at least attempting to quit, doing so is a sign of respect to those that keep the NHS going, that's all I ask.
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 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:36 pm

pratty wrote:
No it isn't. Everyone my age made an informed decision whether to smoke or not. There is no sob story people can attach to smoking, about smokers being born on the wrong side of the tracks, they are only the victim of themselves. My attitude is despite this I am prepared to contribute to the healthcare of non-contributing smokers, providing they are willing to reduce their burden on the NHS by at least attempting to quit, doing so is a sign of respect to those that keep the NHS going, that's all I ask.
OK Mr Empathy. Although bearing in mind that smokers tend to all be quite significant contributors to the NHS, whether they're on the rock n roll or they are employed. Its also arguable that smokers reduced life expectancy is also helping reduce costs - I thought you might appreciate that, the burden no longer being the burden.
pratty wrote: Smoking and junk food are different. Firstly the ideal end goal with smoking is to eradicate it, because it is so deadly, addictive and ultimately pointless.

Secondly high calorie foods are only half of the obesity equation. You can over-eat healthy foods and still get fat. The other half is activity.

I walk an hour each way to and from work, and don't my co-workers fuss and make a big deal over it. "It's so far" they say, "you must be crazy" they say. I do this and work, on my feet literally the whole time, lifting and carrying, up to ten hours with maybe only a 5 minute break (by choice, sometimes I choose not to take a break at all) and maybe a packet of crisps to eat. And then I also lift weights at home 2-3 times a week. But the comments I get when I eat a few sausages rolls and a doughnut on the way home, or even just mention I drink whole milk instead of semi-skimmed, apparently that's unhealthy. Funny though how I have a flat stomach and they don't. If anything for someone who lifts to get stronger I'm probably still under-eating.

People can consume more calories, and arguably need to if they earn them through activity. If people would just move more then we might not have to increase the price of my fish and chips.
There is no doubt that activity helps with obesity, but that doesn't always mean that eating unhealthy foods is still recommended. Being superficially healthy on the outside due to exercise is merely part of the story, and bad food can still initiate and promote cancers irrespective of activity levels and even weight, and still clog arteries, raise blood pressure, weakens bones, increase diabetes prevalence and overall immunity. Therefore if we can reduce peoples consumption of this crap....fat or thin, then it will ultimately reduce the rates of cancer in this country, and therefore the cost to the NHS. There are plenty of healthy ways to obtain high energy/calories, without resorting to junk food or thinking its perfectly safe to do so as its entirely being burnt off through activity.
pratty wrote: The solution to everything can't just be increase taxation. You're talking about other people's money, what they sweat and bleed for, you can't take it granted and treat it like a bottomless well to dip into. Taxation must be justified, increasing it should be a last resort once it has been concluded that all existing financial resources have been appropriated used and cost saving measures have been explored.
We're talking about a potential voluntary tax on unhealthy foods, with it offset back on to healthier foods. Its just a balance shifting towards helping people live healthier lives. This isn't the poll tax.

pratty
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by pratty » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:36 pm

Sephiroth81 wrote:OK Mr Empathy. Although bearing in mind that smokers tend to all be quite significant contributors to the NHS, whether they're on the rock n roll or they are employed. Its also arguable that smokers reduced life expectancy is also helping reduce costs - I thought you might appreciate that, the burden no longer being the burden.
No I don't.

The decision to start smoking is beyond my comprehension, I'd call it insane except for the fact that very sane and even highly intelligent people do it, I can only assume these people fully accept the potential consequences of doing so. Though as I say despite this I'm happy for smokers to receive NHS treatment, which would imply that i actually do not wish to see them die prematurely. I'm sorry to disappoint you but the premature death of smokers reducing the burden on the NHS hadn't crossed my mind. It's a shame you have to make such cynical assumptions about people to try to claim the moral high ground in the debate.

If you're on benefits then you are contributing the public's money you didn't work for. It's easier to contribute other people's money. Not to mention you are spending welfare on non essential luxuries, benefits were conceived to allow people to survive, to have shelter and food, not pointless dopamine hits.
Pratty's trade list, updated (May 2019)!
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=54823

User avatar
Sel Feena
Posts: 3506
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:38 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Sel Feena » Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:52 am

DPrinny wrote:On a side note

Since changing my diet to healthy stuff, I have been less physically ill and have saved a fair bit money wise, I also feel healthy
Yeah, it really isn't hard to eat healthy on the cheap. Get a slow cooker, make batches of stews etc. and it's dirt cheap. I do think personal accountability has to come into play when looking at health treatment, unless obviously there are factors beyond your control.

Absolutely don't buy the idea that big old nasty food companies are forcing junk down our throats either, you're a grown adult, take responsibility for what you put on your table.
Image

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

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Sephiroth81 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:23 am

pratty wrote: No I don't.

The decision to start smoking is beyond my comprehension, I'd call it insane except for the fact that very sane and even highly intelligent people do it, I can only assume these people fully accept the potential consequences of doing so. Though as I say despite this I'm happy for smokers to receive NHS treatment, which would imply that i actually do not wish to see them die prematurely. I'm sorry to disappoint you but the premature death of smokers reducing the burden on the NHS hadn't crossed my mind. It's a shame you have to make such cynical assumptions about people to try to claim the moral high ground in the debate.

If you're on benefits then you are contributing the public's money you didn't work for. It's easier to contribute other people's money. Not to mention you are spending welfare on non essential luxuries, benefits were conceived to allow people to survive, to have shelter and food, not pointless dopamine hits.
I am glad you don't feel that way, I was only being half-serious about you wishing the worst on smokers - and lets face it, there are plenty of people who have little sympathy for others struggling with addictions. Which is rather a sad reflection of some in society. Its possible there are a few people on this forum who share this kind of mindset. If you found this offensive, then I apologise.

I'm no fan of smoking, and its never been a substance I've had any interest in taking part in. It irks me that its legal while other far more benign and less addictive drugs are illegal and demonised, but I think, like you, its the choice of the individual to consume what they wish. I think the appropriate level of education is required though, and by and large, the UK's smoking prevalence (which is now relatively low) is a result of strong campaigning from the NHS and the governments strategy to ban it in public places and raise taxation on them. The introduction of vapourisers/vape pens is fantastic invention in my opinion, and while we await the long term health impacts, it seems to be far far less carcinogenic than combustible ciggies with advantages in so many other ways. Before the smoking ban, I was very anti-smoking (because passive smoking is deeply unfair and annoying), but now it doesn't really bother me that much if people choose to smoke (apart from when they litter!) as unlike alcohol, it doesn't lead to horrendous anti-social behaviour and accidents, although of course I hope for them they beat their addiction before it catches up with them.

As for spending welfare on non-essentials, perhaps there is a line that could be drawn (after a certain period) - maybe the introduction of something like "food stamps" as in the US could work to some extent in lieu of some welfare. Would need to see the research on that, as even that seems to massively irritate their right wingers (then again, what doesn't?), but perhaps "healthy food stamps" would be a way of getting people of poorer backgrounds who are unemployed to consume at least healthy food and not waste their money elsewhere leaving them and their children potentially hungry. The stigma that would potentially be attached to food stamps concern me though for those on them, but its just an idea to explore. Perhaps, unlike america, it may appease the right wing as some sort of compromise.

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

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Sephiroth81 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:28 am

Sel Feena wrote:
Absolutely don't buy the idea that big old nasty food companies are forcing junk down our throats either, you're a grown adult, take responsibility for what you put on your table.
Some of their marketing is a bit questionable though (timing, placement, who its aimed at), and we're not just talking about for adults here. Sugar is also addictive, and we seem to tax other addictive harmful things with a degree of success, so I don't think its that radical. Like I've said a bajillion times already, if the bad food could be more expensive, and the good foods be a bit cheaper - assisted by government intervention, is that such a horrendous outcome?

RetroAerosmith
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:19 am
Location: South Wales

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by RetroAerosmith » Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:06 am

Whenever there is a bank holiday there are always alcohol deals forced down our throats during ad breaks, the world cup we were bombarded with ads for new tvs while filling the fridge with pizza and booze inviting friends over. Im counting down the seconds before the Christmas booze and chocolates are on offer, i see people filling trolleys with thise tubs of heroes and celebrations for a fiver....and theyve normally ate them weeks before xmas too.

Smoking and alcoholism are understandibly more difficult to wean yourself off, food wise its easy not to pick rubbish off the shelf and empty your cupboards of it.

User avatar
Sel Feena
Posts: 3506
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:38 pm

Re: Obese people banned from routine surgery

Post by Sel Feena » Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:47 am

Sephiroth81 wrote:
Sel Feena wrote:
Absolutely don't buy the idea that big old nasty food companies are forcing junk down our throats either, you're a grown adult, take responsibility for what you put on your table.
Some of their marketing is a bit questionable though (timing, placement, who its aimed at), and we're not just talking about for adults here. Sugar is also addictive, and we seem to tax other addictive harmful things with a degree of success, so I don't think its that radical. Like I've said a bajillion times already, if the bad food could be more expensive, and the good foods be a bit cheaper - assisted by government intervention, is that such a horrendous outcome?
Agreed with advertising targeting kids, that stuff always feels slightly insidious. At least it's not on America's level, where schools are paid to have Coke vending machines in hallways etc.
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests