Labour's desire to force people to be healthy Watch

Falcatas
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...FORCE-fit.html

Labour obviously thinks we can't be trusted to look after ourselves so we need their helping hand to "empower" us.

Why can't the government just leave us alone to make our decisions?
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by Falcatas)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...FORCE-fit.html

Labour obviously thinks we can't be trusted to look after ourselves so we need their helping hand to "empower" us.

Why can't the government just leave us alone to make our decisions?
'We' can't be trusted frankly. Britain's waistline is spiraling out of control.
It's the taxpayer that will be picking up the bill for treating people affected by obesity and the effects of excessive drinking and smoking, so I don't buy the argument that it's none of the government's business. (Just to clarify, I don't agree with all of proposal's mentioned, only some of them, like using lottery funding to build sports facilities for children)
2
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
Well perhaps that is a good argument why the NHS justifies the government meddling in our lives.

The idea behind the NHS, to provide all with a good standard of healthcare was good but now it just lets the state nudge us into how they want us to be.
0
reply
No Man
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Sounds like typical labour to me.
It makes you understand the logic of America's healthcare system though (i.e if you're dumb enough to become morbidly obese, you should pay for it/suffer the consequences). The US system is flawed in that sense though, since it's normally poor people that become morbidly obese, because unhealthy food is cheaper.
0
reply
Mockery
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
A quarter(?) of the population are obese. We clearly can't be trusted..
3
reply
Maid Marian
Badges: 20
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
There's a difference between being an occasional drinker/smoker and a hardcore one, and likewise between being a little fat and being obese. I don't like these policies one bit.
reply
The_Dragonborn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
'We' can't be trusted frankly. Britain's waistline is spiraling out of control.
It's the taxpayer that will be picking up the bill for treating people affected by obesity and the effects of excessive drinking and smoking, so I don't buy the argument that it's none of the government's business. (Just to clarify, I don't agree with all of proposal's mentioned, only some of them, like using lottery funding to build sports facilities for children)
Low username to post content ratio
0
reply
MidnightDream
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Lol sure we can be trusted the number of obese people is rising, so clearly we can't be trusted. You want the government to leave you alone do you? Pay for your own healthcare then
2
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
I think it's the right idea but the wrong method.

Instead of punishing healthy people who enjoy the odd indulgence, we should make obese people pay for their own health bills. Simple.
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
'We' can't be trusted frankly. Britain's waistline is spiraling out of control.
It's the taxpayer that will be picking up the bill for treating people affected by obesity and the effects of excessive drinking and smoking, so I don't buy the argument that it's none of the government's business. (Just to clarify, I don't agree with all of proposal's mentioned, only some of them, like using lottery funding to build sports facilities for children)

People living for longer is more of a burden for the NHS than people smoking, drinking and becoming obese.
More people dying younger saves the taxpayer money on pensions, healthcare and nursing care home provision.

Of course this is not a reason why we should allow people to smoke or drink themselves to death. Freedom to choose one's own individual health choices is why.
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
'We' can't be trusted frankly. Britain's waistline is spiraling out of control.
It's the taxpayer that will be picking up the bill for treating people affected by obesity and the effects of excessive drinking and smoking, so I don't buy the argument that it's none of the government's business. (Just to clarify, I don't agree with all of proposal's mentioned, only some of them, like using lottery funding to build sports facilities for children)
Actually, people with all these terrible habits die earlier so cost the taxpayer less in the long run. But the idea that tax contributions to the health system somehow gives politicians licence to dictate people's live would be idiotic even if the reasoning were not flawed.

It's not for you to decide whether someone's (or indeed everyone's) waistline is a problem or not. If they're content indulging themselves, knowing that it will have negative implications for their health, that is their choice and theirs alone.
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Rinsed)
Actually, people with all these terrible habits die earlier so cost the taxpayer less in the long run. But the idea that tax contributions to the health system somehow gives politicians licence to dictate people's live would be idiotic even if the reasoning were not flawed.

It's not for you to decide whether someone's (or indeed everyone's) waistline is a problem or not. If they're content indulging themselves, knowing that it will have negative implications for their health, that is their choice and theirs alone.
Not necessarily. For example I have been to a GP/A+E a grand total of 4 times in the last 12 years, I did have treatment for an overbite.

Someone who is the same in everyway to me, apart from being morbidly obese is likely to have more health problems, like diabetes, etc, so despite living for 3 ir 4 years less will use NHS resources far more and hence coat the government more money.

I agree with your second paragraph though but the NHS does this already. Drug addicts, smokers and alcoholics are all likely to be refused treatment if they don't address their actions, that shouldn't be any different for people who over eat.

Its pretty obvious when you think about it that controling a populaces nutrition is in the governments interest. Healthy people work harder, make more money and need less medical care... It wins in pretty much every area.
0
reply
MASTER265
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
What right do those left sons of beatches have in saying what we can do and what we can't
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by mojojojo101)
Not necessarily. For example I have been to a GP/A+E a grand total of 4 times in the last 12 years, I did have treatment for an overbite.

Someone who is the same in everyway to me, apart from being morbidly obese is likely to have more health problems, like diabetes, etc, so despite living for 3 ir 4 years less will use NHS resources far more and hence coat the government more money.
I mean, is this last supposition pulled out of thin air or based on statistics? That they are more expensive during their (earlier) life is compensated in that they live quite a few years less on average. However conscientious about your health you are, at some point you will get old and probably require lots of expensive medical to keep you alive a few more years. That's before we consider state pensions and other benefits, et cetera.There is plenty of writing about this on the web. Old people really are dear.

I agree with your second paragraph though but the NHS does this already. Drug addicts, smokers and alcoholics are all likely to be refused treatment if they don't address their actions, that shouldn't be any different for people who over eat.

Its pretty obvious when you think about it that controling a populaces nutrition is in the governments interest. Healthy people work harder, make more money and need less medical care... It wins in pretty much every area.
If you think of the population as sheep, rather than independent men and women.

It's fair that the NHS shouldn't be providing liver transplants to unreformed alcoholics. They have a budget and a duty to use it as effectively as possible. When we start talking about other government measures however, such as price controls, we are talking about something very different. We have long done this to an extent anyway, it is true, but that doesn't make it right.
reply
mud man 666
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
oh no, not healthy eating, the fascist *******s trying to give us a higher quality of life and reduce the strain on the NHS who do they think they are taking away my incredibly poor decisions that cost tax payers millions?
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Rinsed)


If you think of the population as sheep, rather than independent men and women.

It's fair that the NHS shouldn't be providing liver transplants to unreformed alcoholics. They have a budget and a duty to use it as effectively as possible. When we start talking about other government measures however, such as price controls, we are talking about something very different. We have long done this to an extent anyway, it is true, but that doesn't make it right.
There are loads of measures that government carries out that are done in the name of public health. Things like seatbelts prevent injury and reduce healthcare costs as do the VAST array of regulations that already control what can and cannot be put in food (note these regulations prevent situations.like what exist in the US where significant amounts of olive oil doesn't actually olive oil in it). Government regulation also protects you from dodgy industrial practices and dangerous medicines. Would you also like to get rid of these regulations? If no, what makes these government interventions okay, but not the ones proposed by Miliband.

Also, you could argue the government already has control over food prices. For instance the only reason milk is anywhere near as cheap as it is relies on very large government subsidies (at national and Euro level) for dairy farmers...
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by arson_fire)
Smokers cost the NHS around £6 billion every year. OTOH they pay £9.5 billion in tobacco duties and another £2.6 billion in VAT. So they actually pay for their own treatment, AND pay of loads of other peoples too! Remove them from the system and those healthy people will need to pay a lot more tax.
Thank you. I'm fed up of people on here seriously suggesting that people who suffer from smoking related illnesses don't deserve NHS treatment.
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
"How dare you try to extend my life span and make me healthier! Just provide me with free healthcare so I can hobble on forward leaching off of the taxpayer to support my self-destructive lifestyle."

The proposals are fine. The whole 'libertarian' high-horse is a dangerous way of thinking.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Falcatas)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...FORCE-fit.html

Labour obviously thinks we can't be trusted to look after ourselves so we need their helping hand to "empower" us.

Why can't the government just leave us alone to make our decisions?
Because then you generate less tax over your lifetime.
0
reply
Moosferatu
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Quady)
Because then you generate less tax over your lifetime.
If we're speaking purely in terms of money here, better to have a person pay high cigarette duties until they die off shortly before retirement. Kaching.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (2)
14.29%
Before I was 12 (8)
57.14%
13 (1)
7.14%
14 (2)
14.29%
15 (0)
0%
16 (1)
7.14%
17 (0)
0%
18 (0)
0%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (0)
0%
Over 25 (0)
0%

Watched Threads

View All