Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:


Sigvatr: Nah, but I'm claiming this policy would discourage excessive drinking.

You would have a hard time holding this up in a court of law. You'd have to prove that having been mugged was soley possible because you were drunk - and I have no idea how that's supposed to work.

Well, we're talking about changing the law so that the NHS has no liability to treat people who are over the limit in terms of alcohol.

People could always still get treated through privately paid medical insurance if they want to, but if you've not got that, don't drink to excess.

Well done. Anyone injured while drunk just waits a day to seek treatment.

Really? That seems harsh? What if they are a person who only drinks once in awhile and gets injure on a night out?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Really? That seems harsh? What if they are a person who only drinks once in awhile and gets injure on a night out?

Not to mention... it hasn't been said, but I know many of us are thinking it... what if someone is sexually assaulted? They're going to have to "wait" for treatment now? wtf??

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Soteks Prophet wrote:

diabetes T1

Sorry, but Type 1 Diabetes is NOT an obesity disease. My younger brother had Type One, and I can tell you point blank, he was the opposite of "fat" in every sense of the word.

Type 1 is purely genetic. It causes obesity in the same way that water causes hydration. Whether a person with Type 1 diabetes is obese or not, is entirely dependent on the person's lifestyle and choices.

Diabetes is all about insulin and blood sugar imbalances. It's fairly complicated, but simplified version is that insulin is what causes blood sugar to be stored as fat. When your insulin and blood sugar levels get jacked up, in some cases it can predispose you to obesity. Eating healthy goes a long way to help control diabetes, though, and there are treatments, so there's no reason you can't be otherwise healthy even with type 1. Conversely, poor nutrition and lots of high-glycemic index foods causes blood sugar spikes, which causes you to release more insulin, which causes you to become insulin resistant, which causes more blood sugar spikes, which causes more insulin release, which causes more insulin resistance, and so on in an ugly death spiral until your entire system for regulating insulin and blood sugar just breaks down and you get diabetes. But, again, eating healthy will regulate your blood sugar in a good way, so just as eating poorly can cause diabetes eating healthy can improve it.

Long story short, using diabetes as an excuse for being fat is just that, and excuse. You can control and treat it, even if it's difficult. Especially since the vast majority of diabetes cases are caused by unhealthy lifestyles rather than being born with it.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Soteks Prophet wrote:

diabetes T1

Sorry, but Type 1 Diabetes is NOT an obesity disease. My younger brother had Type One, and I can tell you point blank, he was the opposite of "fat" in every sense of the word.

Type 1 is purely genetic. It causes obesity in the same way that water causes hydration. Whether a person with Type 1 diabetes is obese or not, is entirely dependent on the person's lifestyle and choices.

Diabetes is all about insulin and blood sugar imbalances. It's fairly complicated, but simplified version is that insulin is what causes blood sugar to be stored as fat. When your insulin and blood sugar levels get jacked up, in some cases it can predispose you to obesity. Eating healthy goes a long way to help control diabetes, though, and there are treatments, so there's no reason you can't be otherwise healthy even with type 1. Conversely, poor nutrition and lots of high-glycemic index foods causes blood sugar spikes, which causes you to release more insulin, which causes you to become insulin resistant, which causes more blood sugar spikes, which causes more insulin release, which causes more insulin resistance, and so on in an ugly death spiral until your entire system for regulating insulin and blood sugar just breaks down and you get diabetes. But, again, eating healthy will regulate your blood sugar in a good way, so just as eating poorly can cause diabetes eating healthy can improve it.

Long story short, using diabetes as an excuse for being fat is just that, and excuse. You can control and treat it, even if it's difficult. Especially since the vast majority of diabetes cases are caused by unhealthy lifestyles rather than being born with it.

But again, Type 1 is an autoimmune disease that is not related to obesity and since there is no insulin resistance obesity is hardly ever a complication of Type 1. A Type 1 diabetic has ZERO intrinsic insulin in their body and as such will not really have a problem with insulin resistance and having increased insulin levels causing increased fat storage.

Type 2, pre-diabetis, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, etc are all a completely different story. But Type 1 is pretty much in the clear when it comes to stuff like this.

 DarkLink wrote:

Long story short, using diabetes as an excuse for being fat is just that, and excuse. You can control and treat it, even if it's difficult. Especially since the vast majority of diabetes cases are caused by unhealthy lifestyles rather than being born with it.

That is basically what I was saying.. Yes, my younger brother had to use injected insulin to control his blood sugars. However, and if any of you guys know about insulin shots, you know that diabetics are told to inject in a "fatty" spot on their body.... Well, my younger brother had issues with finding those "fat spots"... He played lead snare in the marching band, as well as being one of the top under-18 bowlers in the city, as well as being on the school Tennis team, as well as working at a gym, etc. etc. etc.

This past quarter at my school, one of the ladies that I sat with in math class was going through that initial stage of Type 1 with her daughter, who was a Cross Country runner (last I spoke to her, they were fighting the doctors over using the permanent pump system, which would effectively retire the poor girl from running).

In fact, even 18-19 years after my brother was first diagnosed, I can still remember exactly what the specialist doctor told us at that first appointment (it was the appointment where mom, dad, and myself had to learn to give insulin, etc. which is why the whole fam was there). He looked straight at my mom and dad and said, "There's nothing you could have done differently. If you had taken your son to the doctor earlier, he would be dead."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

But again, Type 1 is an autoimmune disease that is not related to obesity and since there is no insulin resistance obesity is hardly ever a complication of Type 1. A Type 1 diabetic has ZERO intrinsic insulin in their body and as such will not really have a problem with insulin resistance and having increased insulin levels causing increased fat storage.

Type 2, pre-diabetis, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, etc are all a completely different story. But Type 1 is pretty much in the clear when it comes to stuff like this.

Yes, I know this, however, in my original quote, the user I was quoting had lumped Type 1 in with all the other "fat diseases" (Im sure that's not the correct scientific name)

I think this issue will just lead to another bureaucratic system being implemented. If the current state of the country is anything to go by that's a bad thing.

Not treating people who are drunk just sounds like it will ultimately create too many problems. Imagine the legal battles that the NHS would be embroiled in? It's totally infeasible to implement at the moment.

It might be worth doing something along the lines of a blood alcohol test and implementing a fine of "X" when over a certain limit. However that starts to lead down to the legal territory again.

Surely a better idea would be to treat the symptom of binge drinking than to fine the problems it creates. Alcohol creates too much money to be tackled in any meaningful way.

The whole of the UK being as bureaucratic as it is depresses me greatly. I honestly think there needs to be an entire reformation of the way we do things.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not to mention... it hasn't been said, but I know many of us are thinking it... what if someone is sexually assaulted? They're going to have to "wait" for treatment now? wtf??

That question was asked;

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
AlmightyWalrus: Essentially, yes. Drinking to excess is extremely irresponsible. It's a good idea to discourage it.

So if a girl goes out and has one too many and is sexually assaulted requiring treatment do you have the same view? If not why not.

And this was the answer;

 Da Boss wrote:
Dreadclaw: If she's over the limit that has been set, then yeah, she gets treated the same as everyone else.

With the reason being;

 Da Boss wrote:
Dreadclaw: Drinking to excess is not an innocent act, it is socially irresponsible.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd almost suggest something like is is pretty much a necessity in a nationalized healthcare system

EDIT: I'd expand it to include substance abuse, and honestly I'd mandate basic vaccinations while I was at it. This nonsense with vaccines has already resulted in measles, a disease nearly eradicated by man 20 years ago, to spring back to life.

But nooooooooo, vaccines cause autism, a random guy on Omegle told me that so it's truuuu!

These kind of suggestions are always so flawed and full of holes that they either have made no effort to think it through or dont care who it hurts.

What is the treatment for Obseity? Diet and exercise right? So how do you make sure someones following the treatment? Watch them eat? Check their shopping bills? Having them followed to make sure they run three times a day? You cant just track their weight because they may follow the diet perfectly and still not lose weight.

Also what about the costs of eating healthier, joining a gym etc. Is the government going to help with that?

Also how much is the testing and supervision for this going to cost? Usually with these kind of suggestions such as Drug Test benefits claimaints or lets get rid of (the very tiny amount of) benfit fraud. It ends up costing considerably more to implement these things than was saved by putting them in place and in addition innocent people get caught in the middle and litterally end up starving.

Da Boss: I think your view that sexal assault victiums who were drunk at the time should have to pay for medical treatment instead of getting it on the NHS is morally reprehensible.

 carlos13th wrote:

Also what about the costs of eating healthier, joining a gym etc. Is the government going to help with that?

See, this is a terrible excuse. I really think it is. I got into it at school with another, rather large and rotund fellow in my class (it wasn't all that heated, but it was a debate/argument)

Here's basically what it boils down to, and why it's a crap excuse:


-How much money are people willing to spend on their car each month? (Perhaps a US thing, since theres a lot higher number of car owners here compared to public transport people)
-How much money are people willing to spend on XBox or Playstation games, each month?
-How often, and how much are people spending at the movie theater each month?

Then, I usually ask, how much money does a medical procedure cost as a result of NOT spending money on your health ahead of time?

Just a quick google search on health care costs lead me to this AFLAC site: [urlhttp://www.aflac.com/individuals/realcost/source/[/url]



Now, compare that with your "average" gym membership... Planet Fitness (which is, IMO a horrible, terrible place) can cost as little as 10 bucks a month.... so, for 120/year over 20 years that would be 2400 USD to prevent having to spend upwards of $100,000 to $1,000,000 dollars on medical issues that could be prevented. (yeah, we all know that there are folks who do stay healthy and still have issues, but if you're healthy the risk is much, much lower.)

We can take my gym, which is 28 bucks per month. So over 1 year, I will pay $336, and over a 20 year span, assuming I'm still living in this same area, etc. I will have spent $6720 to prevent that 100k medical bill. And the cost of my gym is still less than one new release video game. It's definitely a trade off that most people are willing to make, once they are educated on the real costs and real dangers of their poor lifestyle.

How much money are these people on benefits earning? How much more of their budget would they need to spend in order to eat healthier.

You pay 28 bucks for the gym which is what £20 some people only get £50 a week in benefits to feed and clothe themselves, pay the bills etc. So if you can find a for that price (which is rare) and it's close enough you don't have to pay to get their via public transport or driving that's 10% of your merge monthly budget gone. Also factor in that if the person is looking after children for example they may struggle to find the time especially if they are a single parent.

Try to see things from the point of view of people who have very very little money as it is. Every single further expense eats into what little money they get.

 carlos13th wrote:
How much money are these people on benefits earning? How much more of their budget would they need to spend in order to eat healthier.

You pay 28 bucks for the gym which is what £20 some people only get £50 a week in benefits to feed and clothe themselves, pay the bills etc. So if you can find a for that price (which is rare) and it's close enough you don't have to pay to get their via public transport or driving that's 10% of your merge monthly budget gone. Also factor in that if the person is looking after children for example they may struggle to find the time especially if they are a single parent.

Try to see things from the point of view of people who have very very little money as it is. Every single further expense eats into what little money they get.

I get that benefits are tight... and maybe this is where the US and UK differ... but here in the US, I can't recall how many people that are "obviously" on social programs are blowing that money on booze, video games, etc. rather than the things they should be spending them on.


I have seen some places in the US that do sort of limit what can be purchased on the state welfare programs money, but I do wonder if it'd be better overall to go more towards a WW2 style rationing. Basically, in WW2, families got a "stamp book" that took their family size, and allotted a certain amount of produce and foods to the family. In this way, they were getting their fresh veggies and fruit and were eating healthy, and you knew that there was little going to waste. Obviously, the stamps were a result of food rationing for the overall war effort, but if the State were to create a system that said "X number of stamps must be used for Y" it would be much easier to track and ensure people were eating healthier foods.

 carlos13th wrote:
These kind of suggestions are always so flawed and full of holes that they either have made no effort to think it through or dont care who it hurts.

What is the treatment for Obseity? Diet and exercise right? So how do you make sure someones following the treatment? Watch them eat? Check their shopping bills? Having them followed to make sure they run three times a day? You cant just track their weight because they may follow the diet perfectly and still not lose weight.

Also what about the costs of eating healthier, joining a gym etc. Is the government going to help with that?

Also how much is the testing and supervision for this going to cost? Usually with these kind of suggestions such as Drug Test benefits claimaints or lets get rid of (the very tiny amount of) benfit fraud. It ends up costing considerably more to implement these things than was saved by putting them in place and in addition innocent people get caught in the middle and litterally end up starving.

Da Boss: I think your view that sexal assault victiums who were drunk at the time should have to pay for medical treatment instead of getting it on the NHS is morally reprehensible.

*cough* why go to a gym *cough*

 carlos13th wrote:
Also what about the costs of eating healthier, joining a gym etc. Is the government going to help with that?

As suggested earlier one suggested method of payment may be to increase public assistance for healthy foods, or some credit system where those on public assistance may get certain deals. The idea of education, training, and support was also mentioned earlier too.

 carlos13th wrote:


Da Boss: I think your view that sexal assault victiums who were drunk at the time should have to pay for medical treatment instead of getting it on the NHS is morally reprehensible.

That's okay, it is probably the worst edge case scenario for what I am proposing.

That said "drunk" is not what I am proposing should bar you from free treatment on the NHS, "dangerously intoxicated" is. But you're free to find it disgusting, of course.

Sigvatr: The point is to put a social control on binge drinking without criminalizing it. Make it cost to drink to excess.

Speak to any doctor working the emergency room and they will talk about the stress that drunks put on public hospitals every single weekend in the UK.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Also what about the costs of eating healthier, joining a gym etc. Is the government going to help with that?

As suggested earlier one suggested method of payment may be to increase public assistance for healthy foods, or some credit system where those on public assistance may get certain deals. The idea of education, training, and support was also mentioned earlier too.

Many American Insurance companies are including free gym memberships and a number of nutritionist visits as a part of health insurance now. With ours, we get memberships to two gyms (per person) and a free dietitian/nutritionist visit a quarter.

Still can't make people use it.

 Da Boss wrote:
That said "drunk" is not what I am proposing should bar you from free treatment on the NHS, "dangerously intoxicated" is. But you're free to find it disgusting, of course.

You clearly and unequivocally stated " If she[the victim of sexual assault]'s over the limit that has been set, then yeah, she gets treated the same as everyone else" You want to refuse medical treatment to a rape victim because she is intoxicated and someone took the worst possible advantage of her. But then punishing people for drinking is your goal, you have already acknowledged that you are "not interested in what's fair or just particularly"

That's interesting, because this is the first time the phrase "dangerously intoxicated" has appeared in this thread;
You started off railing against binge drinking, for which there is little consensus on a definition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binge_drinking#Definition
"There is currently no world wide consensus on how many drinks constitute a "binge", but in the United States, the term is often taken to mean consuming five or more standard drinks (male), or four or more drinks (female), over a 2-hour period.[10][11] One definition states that 5 drinks for men and 4 drinks for women must be consumed on one occasion at least once in a two-week period for it to be classed as binge drinking.[12] This is colloquially known as the "5/4 definition", and depending on the source, the timeframe can vary. In the United Kingdom, binge drinking is defined as drinking more than twice the daily limit, that is, drinking eight units or more for men or six units or more for women (roughly equivalent to five or four American standard drinks, respectively).[13]

The above definition is not without controversy since it does not take into account the time period over which the drinking occurs or the size of the person drinking. A person could be defined as a binge drinker even if he or she never becomes intoxicated. The term, however, has succeeded in drawing public awareness to the problem of excess drinking."

Then you admitted that "The limit would be pretty high, not being a specialist on blood alcohol level I couldn't say how high, but much higher than those for drink driving, for example.", but you could not even quantify that level.

So what constitutes your new criteria of "dangerously intoxicated"? How many people do you believe that require hospital treatment have imbibed alcohol until they are "dangerously intoxicated"? How much of a burden do they place on the NHS?

 carlos13th wrote:

Also what about the costs of eating healthier, joining a gym etc. Is the government going to help with that?

The real difficulty with eating healthier isn't cost, its time spent in preparation. At least assuming by "healthier" you mean food that has been tagged as "healthy". Its actually quite possible to effectively subsist off of the McDonalds dollar menu for long periods of time*, so long as you're not going overboard on consumption, about all you would really need to add is an occasional salad and some fruit; both of which are quick and cheap.




*Not forever, of course, but that's true of all eating habits.

 dogma wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:

Also what about the costs of eating healthier, joining a gym etc. Is the government going to help with that?

The real difficulty with eating healthier isn't cost, its time spent in preparation. At least assuming by "healthier" you mean food that has been tagged as "healthy". Its actually quite possible to effectively subsist off of the McDonalds dollar menu for long periods of time*, so long as you're not going overboard on consumption, about all you would really need to add is an occasional salad and some fruit; both of which are quick and cheap.




*Not forever, of course, but that's true of all eating habits.

Also, who needs to go to a gym? If you're so obese that you need benefits because you can't work, then the most you're going to end up doing is walking, for quite a while. Last I checked, anyone could walk, anywhere, for free.

 djones520 wrote:

Also, who needs to go to a gym? If you're so obese that you need benefits because you can't work, then the most you're going to end up doing is walking, for quite a while. Last I checked, anyone could walk, anywhere, for free.

Actually, you would probably end up on a stationary bike or doing aquatics. Walking when you're that obese is a bad idea.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
families got a "stamp book" that took their family size

That already experimented with that many, many years ago and the result was that the local black marketeers would call round and exchange your book for cash, obviously at an amount less than what the book was worth but you then had the cash to spend on what you wanted/needed that the book stopped you buying. It's a stupid system, begging to be exploited by criminals (and has in the past) and like many of these 'reasonable' measures treats everyone like a life-long dole bludger, a Frank Gallagher or Rab C. Nesbitt type, the so called 'undeserving' poor and it has nothing to do with helping people, or justice, or fairness its a sop for Daily Mail types to feel smug at election time, as with Cameron's current nonsense about the obese.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Also, who needs to go to a gym? If you're so obese that you need benefits because you can't work, then the most you're going to end up doing is walking, for quite a while. Last I checked, anyone could walk, anywhere, for free.

Actually, you would probably end up on a stationary bike or doing aquatics. Walking when you're that obese is a bad idea.

Then I'd say have the government buy one for folks like that. A few hundred dollar investment would end up saving tens to hundreds of thousands down the road.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Obviously, the stamps were a result of food rationing for the overall war effort, but if the State were to create a system that said "X number of stamps must be used for Y" it would be much easier to track and ensure people were eating healthier foods.

Simply purchasing and consuming healthy food does not mean that a person is eating healthy.

 djones520 wrote:

Then I'd say have the government buy one for folks like that. A few hundred dollar investment would end up saving tens to hundreds of thousands down the road.

I agree completely. It wouldn't even be that hard to track attendance.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Also what about the costs of eating healthier, joining a gym etc. Is the government going to help with that?

As suggested earlier one suggested method of payment may be to increase public assistance for healthy foods, or some credit system where those on public assistance may get certain deals. The idea of education, training, and support was also mentioned earlier too.

Which would all be lovely, but once again; the point of this policy is not to help people. It is not even about saving money. It's a crude propaganda exercise designed to put a face on the concept of "benefit claimant" that the public find it easy to hate(like "teen mum that has loads of kids to get extra benefits", "man who claims jobseekers allowance while self-employed", "delinquent who claims disability then goes out partying" etc, in this case we add "fattie-fat-fat who won't get off his lazy arse and wants YOU, Mr Hardworking Taxpayer, to fund his maccy-D's habit", despite the fact that all of them are so rare they constitute less than a single percent of the total benefits budget, an amount of money over 200-times less than we lose each year to tax evasion) to slow the rate at which public opinion is turning against the present government's despicable socio-economic policies thanks to the stories of suicides and people starving to death that have resulted from them, and as a handy side-benefit will allow the government to continue their long-running trend of pouring public money into private corporate coffers by forcing drug and alcohol addicts en masse onto programmes run by the private healthcare companies run by party donors.

I have a really hard time with things like this because I have the mental fortitude to keep myself from getting morbidly obese. I understand that there are people that have mental, physical, or genetic problems that make their bodies react oddly and they gain weight. Some that is ... not all.

I am a really lazy person but I am horrified by the sheer amount of people that are chunk a munks that eat fast food all the time and then wonder why they are fat. It is almost as if they think that it is not their fault. Some people have problems, most are even lazier than I am. If people are not going to do anything to help themselves then why should it become a burden for the rest of the country?

I would really love it if my insurance would pay for a gym membership. Until they do I guess I will just have to control my hunger and lift heavy stuff while I am at work. Smoking doesn't hurt the weight thing too, but I would not recommend that to anyone!

There are roughly 40 million working age adults in the UK and apparently 61.9% are reckoned to be obese, so roughly 24 million fat people. Of that number 1830 claim a benefit due to obesity. So when you say 'some that is ...not all' you're right and the government's empty propaganda about clamping down on fat people is nonsense because hardly anyone is claiming a benefit due to obesity.

 Gogsnik wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
families got a "stamp book" that took their family size

That already experimented with that many, many years ago and the result was that the local black marketeers would call round and exchange your book for cash, obviously at an amount less than what the book was worth but you then had the cash to spend on what you wanted/needed that the book stopped you buying. It's a stupid system, begging to be exploited by criminals (and has in the past) and like many of these 'reasonable' measures treats everyone like a life-long dole bludger, a Frank Gallagher or Rab C. Nesbitt type, the so called 'undeserving' poor and it has nothing to do with helping people, or justice, or fairness its a sop for Daily Mail types to feel smug at election time, as with Cameron's current nonsense about the obese.

Yeah, I was using the "stamp book" as a quick idea/ example. With modern technology, everything could be tied to a swipe card and tracked much more efficiently, and with "less" risk of being used illegally.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Yeah, I was using the "stamp book" as a quick idea/ example. With modern technology, everything could be tied to a swipe card and tracked much more efficiently, and with "less" risk of being used illegally.

That's what the grey market is for.

 Sigvatr wrote:
...and add taxes for junk food and such. Sadly, the only way for a lot of people to learn to stay away from bad food is not buying it because it's too expensive.

No thanks. I like lollies and chocolate. I also exercise and am not fat. Why should I have to pay extra for something because other people eat the wrong food?

If you want to go all Obama food police then how about doing what is done with alcohol? In most places it's illegal to serve a drunk alcohol or sell alcohol to someone who is drunk. Why not make it illegal for a fat person to buy junk food? Actually I'm opposed to this, I believe people should accept personal responsibility.

It's more important to find out why people not working are so fat, it's probably depression related so making it harder to get a nice sugar fix is counter-intuitive, it'll likely make them more depressed. Better to set up a fat camp where fatties have to attend an exercise session every morning at say 7am in order to continue receiving their full benefit. Jobs would be even better - perhaps heavier penalties for companies that send jobs to other countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:


I am a really lazy person but I am horrified by the sheer amount of people that are chunk a munks that eat fast food all the time and then wonder why they are fat. It is almost as if they think that it is not their fault. Some people have problems, most are even lazier than I am. If people are not going to do anything to help themselves then why should it become a burden for the rest of the country?

Well, I was driving earlier and saw this really fat woman mowing her lawn. Middle of the day (it's summer here), little (bleach?) blonde ponytail, black singlet, shiny black skintight pants huge arms and shoulders the colour of sunubrn. At least she was exercising but I suspect most of the time is spent on the couch watching tv and stuffing maccas and kfc into her gob.