Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why should it be acceptable for women to look like this? watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Yeah, but then they live longer and end up costing considerably more. If you want to save the NHS money, just make it punishable by death to be over 70 years old.
    The point is not the cost. The point is the cost actually being encouraged by the fat police. We tax smokers. They do damage to the NHS due to livestyle choices, and we tax them for it. Why is this any different?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    The point is not the cost. The point is the cost actually being encouraged by the fat police. We tax smokers. They do damage to the NHS due to livestyle choices, and we tax them for it. Why is this any different?
    Again smokers save the NHS money by dying earlier. You are very confused.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Again smokers save the NHS money by dying earlier. You are very confused.
    Not everybody who lives long is entirely dependant on the NHS. Some of us are actually healthy. And as I said it's not just about the money. And no, not everybody who has illnesses that cost money die young.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Not everybody who lives long is entirely dependant on the NHS. Some of us are actually healthy. And as I said it's not just about the money. And no, not everybody who has illnesses that cost money die young.
    The healthy people cost the most once you get past a certain age:

    "At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers."

    http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicin...l.pmed.0050029
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    The healthy people cost the most once you get past a certain age:

    "At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers."

    http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicin...l.pmed.0050029
    And the short terms costs of obesity detract from funds used to cure those diseases. If we lived in some kind of Malthusian dystopia, you might have a point.

    Regardless, the point, which you seem to have missed, is not total expenditure on healthcare. It is expenditure on healthcare used to increase the quality of life. Spending more to keep people healthy and alive isn't a problem. Spending less money by letting people die early in debilitating conditions (or the 'positives' of obesity you seem to be defending) is not the purpose of the NSH. Guess what; we'd save even more money by not researching cancer etc. That's clearly not the point.

    Reducing obesity will lead to more money being spent on entirely necessary areas while more people have a better quality of life. That is the point.

    The comments on that article mentions problems with the assumptions used in the model, etc. I won't comment further though because there's no need.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    And the short terms costs of obesity detract from funds used to cure those diseases. If we lived in some kind of Malthusian dystopia, you might have a point.

    Regardless, the point, which you seem to have missed, is not total expenditure on healthcare. It is expenditure on healthcare used to increase the quality of life. Spending more to keep people healthy and alive isn't a problem. Spending less money by letting people die early in debilitating conditions (or the 'positives' of obesity you seem to be defending) is not the purpose of the NSH. Guess what; we'd save even more money by not researching cancer etc. That's clearly not the point.

    Reducing obesity will lead to more money being spent on entirely necessary areas while more people have a better quality of life. That is the point.

    The comments on that article mentions problems with the assumptions used in the model, etc. I won't comment further though because there's no need.
    So your solution to improving people's "quality of life" (as if there is any such objective measure) is to have the government take more money from them?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    So your solution to improving people's "quality of life" (as if there is any such objective measure) is to have the government take more money from them?
    As a measure to stop people dying, yes. That's the whole point of the NHS.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    As a measure to stop people dying, yes. That's the whole point of the NHS.
    So "quality of life" isn't actually quality of life but simply longevity?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    So "quality of life" isn't actually quality of life but simply longevity?
    And being treated for illnesses. Maybe we shouldn't have healthcare and then we'd all pay fewer taxes. But nobody wants that because it's retarded.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    And being treated for illnesses. Maybe we shouldn't have healthcare and then we'd all pay fewer taxes. But nobody wants that because it's retarded.
    You are arguing against a strawman here. At no point have I said that people shouldn't be treated for illnesses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    You are arguing against a strawman here. At no point have I said that people shouldn't be treated for illnesses.
    You either agree with people paying for healthcare in some way or you disagree with healthcare, because healthcare has a cost. That's just a dichotomy, so choose a side.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    You either agree with people paying for healthcare in some way or you disagree with healthcare, because healthcare has a cost. That's just a dichotomy, so choose a side.
    Yes, there is a dichotomy there but it has very little to do with the issue at hand. Disagreeing with more public health lobby approved taxation is not the same as saying healthcare shouldn't be paid for.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Yes, there is a dichotomy there but it has very little to do with the issue at hand. Disagreeing with more public health lobby approved taxation is not the same as saying healthcare shouldn't be paid for.
    Okay. So you think that an inadequate health service is worth not paying as much money. I disagree. Here the debate stops because these positions are pretty much irreconcilable and basic beliefs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Okay. So you think that an inadequate health service is worth not paying as much money. I disagree. Here the debate stops because these positions are pretty much irreconcilable and basic beliefs.
    ? That doesn't follow at all. What I'm disagreeing with is paternalistic and authoritarian public health tax policy, not that if you have socialised medicine that it should be neglected.

    It's an issue of liberty and the principle is that the government does not have the right to tell us what to consume.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    ? That doesn't follow at all. What I'm disagreeing with is paternalistic and authoritarian public health tax policy, not that if you have socialised medicine that it should be neglected.

    It's an issue of liberty and the principle is that the government does not have the right to tell us what to consume.
    The government has a right to inform, and a right to create tax incentives. If you're one of those small state fetishists, then we can't argue, because our differences in thinking are irreducibly ideological.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    The government has a right to inform, and a right to create tax incentives. If you're one of those small state fetishists, then we can't argue, because our differences in thinking are irreducibly ideological.
    I'd rather have a fetish for letting people choose how they want to live their life rather than a fetish for controlling and manipulating them into doing what I think is good for them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    The point is not the cost. The point is the cost actually being encouraged by the fat police. We tax smokers. They do damage to the NHS due to livestyle choices, and we tax them for it. Why is this any different?
    we tax food already. Those who eat large quantities of food must therefore purchase more food, and pay more tax anyway.They go to stores, restaurants, even takeaways and contribute to the economy, which all pay tax.

    Further taxes on foods, would be counter productive.


    (Original post by KingStannis)
    But is this really true though? If you take the piss out of a fat girl, every girl she knows will jump at you hissing. You take the piss out of a fat boy, everybody jumps in laughing.
    I still say so.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammy4041)
    we tax food already. Those who eat large quantities of food must therefore purchase more food, and pay more tax anyway.They go to stores, restaurants, even takeaways and contribute to the economy, which all pay tax.

    Further taxes on foods, would be counter productive.




    I still say so.
    Yeah i wouldn't really hold to the argument tax is the answer to be honest.

    I see no argument you can make that fat girls have it worse.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)



    Who gave unhealthy obese women the right to justify their own failures in maintaining a decent lifestyle.
    I'm sorry that's disgusting
    I'm supposed to be underweight considering my height I'm 17 years old and 7 stones I really want to gain weight and can't stand being skinny but I'd rather be the way I am than like that
    Feel so sorry for the woman !
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Yeah i wouldn't really hold to the argument tax is the answer to be honest.

    I see no argument you can make that fat girls have it worse.
    The reason why obese women have it worse, is because there's so much pressure on women to look thin. When Kate Upton is described as a plus size model (!!!), there's a problem. -- Google "Kate Upton plus sized" and you will get almost a million results, with some posts really, really sticking the knife into her...for being confident in her body.

    Heck, this woman, Robyn Lawley, is described as 'plus sized'.



    It's a real problem that this (beautiful) woman is described as plus size, because is suggests that all women who are some how bigger than her, would be automatically plus size...or, to put it bluntly, fat.

    That's the wrong message, because it means smaller is more desirable. Yes, men are affected by anorexia, but. not to the same extent as girls, because the pressure isn't the same. A man can put on a few pounds, and no one will question it. But if a woman was to do it, every would be saying "when's it due"...

    Heck...I know this girl, who today started nit-picking her body because, at 5ft2 125lbs, she thought she was fat. She's even on a net calorie intake (after excercise and stuff) of like less than 800 calories.(iirc...maybe it was 1000 before exercise...or something like that) I was like...'What the heck!??'

    Maybe it's culture...but that sure isn't healthy.
    Attached Images
     
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.