Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-benefits-cuts

    I think this is a fantastic idea, but I am disappointed that ministers want to take a "carrot and stick" approach. In my opinion, there should be no financial carrot, the carrot is their health and livelihood. Instead it should be all stick, and not just sticks, but brutally beaten with batons.

    If you cut payments to the obese, of course they will try and protect the amount of food they buy, so you need to cut so much that they cannot afford to buy as much food. If they were less obese, maybe they'd commit a crime, but alas, they are physically incapable of going out robbing.

    Afterall, they let themselves go and should take personal responsibility.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisistheend)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-benefits-cuts

    I think this is a fantastic idea, but I am disappointed that ministers want to take a "carrot and stick" approach. In my opinion, there should be no financial carrot, the carrot is their health and livelihood. Instead it should be all stick, and not just sticks, but brutally beaten with batons.

    If you cut payments to the obese, of course they will try and protect the amount of food they buy, so you need to cut so much that they cannot afford to buy as much food. If they were less obese, maybe they'd commit a crime, but alas, they are physically incapable of going out robbing.

    Afterall, they let themselves go and should take personal responsibility.
    Oh good a fat tax. What next? Incidentally how about MP's who don't exercise get less money to spend on their expenses? After all the fitter they are the less they will need to spend on biscuits.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Fat people don't bother me or my environment, but smokers do.
    They should leave the fatties alone and go for the smokers.
    Smoking costs the NHS more than poor diet so why don't they go for them?
    Oh wait... cant make a massive tax revenue stream from the fatties.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Fat people don't bother me or my environment, but smokers do.
    They should leave the fatties alone and go for the smokers.
    Smoking costs the NHS more than poor diet so why don't they go for them?
    Oh wait... cant make a massive tax revenue stream from the fatties.
    Well it's not just that. If you're real obese, you can't work. If you're a heavy smoker, you can still work. The difference is that the fat person takes longer to die and it takes more money to save them for eg a gastric band because they lack willpower. A heavy smoker who works harder all their lives not only pays a high amount of tax and contributes to the economy but when they retire they are more likely to die and quicker, thus saving medical and pension costs.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think a universal scheme shouldn't be implemented. However what would be of use would tracking along these lines for those that claim incapacity benefits where improvements could be made to their health by lifestyle changes. Those that need help would still get it but those that are trying to cheat the system would have fewer checks to go through.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Fat people don't bother me or my environment, but smokers do.
    They should leave the fatties alone and go for the smokers.
    Smoking costs the NHS more than poor diet so why don't they go for them?
    Oh wait... cant make a massive tax revenue stream from the fatties.
    I agree with the sentiment regarding smokers but the reality is that smokers generate more money in tax revenue with their habits than they cost in healthcare over their lives. But there is far more at stake than money here. Frankly, smoking should be illegal. It'd be far harder to do it if shops weren't legally allowed to sell the stuff and importing it was very difficult. How on earth we can sit idly by and watch people consume toxic chemicals on a regular basis, killing themselves in the process, is beyond me. Imagine what the food standards agency would say if a food existed which was as poisonous and addictive as smoking? Somehow I think it'd not be for sale for very much longer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Well it was always going to0 be either the benefits or the fat
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm leaning towards the idea of giving people tokens instead of benefits. Such tokens could be budgetted for people, and food tokens could be designed in such a way where they were not able to be spent on things like alcohol, cigarettes, or unhealthy foods. It reminds me of the rationing days of WWII, where people actually had healthy diets. I'm all for helping people who are socially deprived (even if such is by their own doing), but we need to be sensible about how we help them. Simply throwing money at situations has failed. People without the skills to budget, eat healthily, or look after their children properly are not going to do so whether they have money or not. It annoys me that my taxes fund people on benefits to smoke, eat like garbage (thus furthering their plight), all whilst bringing their children up to do/be the same and continuing the cycle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tycho)
    I agree with the sentiment regarding smokers but the reality is that smokers generate more money in tax revenue with their habits than they cost in healthcare over their lives. But there is far more at stake than money here. Frankly, smoking should be illegal. It'd be far harder to do it if shops weren't legally allowed to sell the stuff and importing it was very difficult. How on earth we can sit idly by and watch people consume toxic chemicals on a regular basis, killing themselves in the process, is beyond me. Imagine what the food standards agency would say if a food existed which was as poisonous and addictive as smoking? Somehow I think it'd not be for sale for very much longer.
    What right do you have to tell people what they should or should not do with their own body?

    We should be legalising drugs not banning them.

    (Original post by Tycho)
    I'm leaning towards the idea of giving people tokens instead of benefits. Such tokens could be budgetted for people, and food tokens could be designed in such a way where they were not able to be spent on things like alcohol, cigarettes, or unhealthy foods. It reminds me of the rationing days of WWII, where people actually had healthy diets. I'm all for helping people who are socially deprived (even if such is by their own doing), but we need to be sensible about how we help them. Simply throwing money at situations has failed. People without the skills to budget, eat healthily, or look after their children properly are not going to do so whether they have money or not. It annoys me that my taxes fund people on benefits to smoke, eat like garbage (thus furthering their plight), all whilst bringing their children up to do/be the same and continuing the cycle.
    What a repulsive, authoritarian idea. Straight out of the puritan SNP policy handbook.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Menschlich)
    What right do you have to tell people what they should or should not do with their own body?
    The fact that tax payers money goes towards them when they messed up their life? Sure they can do what they like with their own body, but they should use their own money to do so, as well as use their own money to fix the consequences.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Fat people don't bother me or my environment, but smokers do.
    They should leave the fatties alone and go for the smokers.
    Smoking costs the NHS more than poor diet so why don't they go for them?
    Oh wait... cant make a massive tax revenue stream from the fatties.
    There are plenty of irritating human behaviours.. I'm sure I've read before that if one smokes 10 cigarettes a day for life he pays 2x the cost of care for someone who has contracted lung cancer or something. Can't we just tax all unhealthy activity?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenrirs_space)
    The fact that tax payers money goes towards them when they messed up their life? Sure they can do what they like with their own body, but they should use their own money to do so, as well as use their own money to fix the consequences.
    According to that logic everyone on benefits has 'messed up their life' as their relative poverty is the reason they get money from state, not their weight.

    Anyway, this smart card idea is completely unworkable, unforceable and illiberal. It is not the governments job to impose lifestyle choices on people. If they don't want to exercise, they shouldn't have to.

    (Original post by AbsurdBanana)
    There are plenty of irritating human behaviours.. I'm sure I've read before that if one smokes 10 cigarettes a day for life he pays 2x the cost of care for someone who has contracted lung cancer or something. Can't we just tax all unhealthy activity?
    We do. The vast majority of the price that people pay for cigarettes is tax.

    In any case, smokers cost the NHS less than non-smokers because they don't generally live as long.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm confused. This is just for people claiming benefits? So you're allowed to be fat/unhealthy if you have money but not if you don't? (May have misunderstood...)

    If people are happy being fat, leave them to it, it's not doing you any harm. We don't need a nanny state, if people value their health they'll do something about it themselves, if not it's there own choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Menschlich)
    According to that logic everyone on benefits has 'messed up their life' as their relative poverty is the reason they get money from state, not their weight.
    There are far more reasons why people may be on benefits other than them messing up their life due to a lack of self control...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenrirs_space)
    There are far more reasons why people may be on benefits other than them messing up their life due to a lack of self control...
    Yes, I know that. That also applies to obese people on benefits as well. They aren't on benefits because they are obese which is the assumption that you seemed to be making in your first post.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Dear me, are some people not aware that some people have lower metabolisms than others? I can eat anything and never put weight on but others put on so much weight by eating the same things.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Menschlich)
    What right do you have to tell people what they should or should not do with their own body?

    We should be legalising drugs not banning them.


    What a repulsive, authoritarian idea. Straight out of the puritan SNP policy handbook.
    The right? Tax payers money go's to these people benefits, who use that money and then become obese (those who would be affected by this proposed idea) which is then paid for via that same tax money that is used to pay for them getting obese.

    If it's their money, fine, but it isn't.

    Either way it will do two things. If they don't wanner lose weight it's an incentive to find work and come of benefits, or it will reduce the amount the NHS spent on obese people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Menschlich)
    Yes, I know that. That also applies to obese people on benefits as well. They aren't on benefits because they are obese which is the assumption that you seemed to be making in your first post.
    True, and no that isn't the assumption I 'was' trying to make. However, no that you mention it (and I know this does not count for all cases), but there are people who are out of work due to being obese (or at least, morbidly obese).

    But there is something wrong when there are people who are continually on benefits, and yet still obese while on them. It kind of makes you wonder where all of their money is going :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Dear me, are some people not aware that some people have lower metabolisms than others? I can eat anything and never put weight on but others put on so much weight by eating the same things.
    Lower metabolism does play a part in the fact that, those with a lower metabolism burn calories slower and thus going more weight. However, it is not that large a factor as to make someone obese, without other factors such as excessive eating and a lack of exercise. And if people are on benefits, then they really shouldn't have the money to eat excessively, unless they are using their benefits to pay for it :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Algorithm69)
    Then the solution is to privatise the NHS and cut welfare dramatically if you're so concerned. Limiting a person's liberty is never the solution.
    But, it isn't limiting their liberty... They're well within their right to continue their life style. They just need to use their own money to do so...

    Benefits should be there for those truly in need. Those who have lost jobs. Those who have been involved in accidents and thus have an injury that means they can not work. Those born with a disability. Those born in to poverty.

    Not those who cause their own problems via their own personal life choices and life styles.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Menschlich)
    What right do you have to tell people what they should or should not do with their own body?
    Are we a society or are we not? If you think we are a society then we have a collective responsibility. If not then I won't argue with you, only disagree and move on to people who have a more realistic view of the world. I think life is better for more people in being a society than not. I don't profess to have a right to tell people what to do with their own bodies in general, but so long as they remain part of the society that I am also part of, I see the importance of their health to the society as a whole.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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