Obese could lose benefits if they refuse treatment - UK PM

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31464897

People who cannot work because they are obese or have alcohol or drug problems could have their sickness benefits cut if they refuse treatment, the PM says.

David Cameron has launched a review of the current system, which he says fails to encourage people with long-term, treatable issues to get medical help.

Some 100,000 people with such conditions claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the government says.

Labour said the policy would do nothing to help people off benefits.

Campaigners said it was "naive" to think overweight people did not want to change their lives.

There is currently no requirement for people with such health problems to undertake treatment.

'A life of work'
Mr Cameron has asked Prof Dame Carol Black, an adviser to the Department of Health, to look at whether it would be appropriate to withhold benefits from those who are unwilling to accept help.

Announcing the proposal, he said: "Some [people] have drug or alcohol problems, but refuse treatment.

"In other cases people have problems with their weight that could be addressed - but instead a life on benefits rather than work becomes the choice.

"It is not fair to ask hardworking taxpayers to fund the benefits of people who refuse to accept the support and treatment that could help them get back to a life of work."

Minister for Disabled People Mark Harper said the government wanted to get people to "engage" with available treatments, adding that the right interventions could be "very successful".

Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Disabilities Minister Mark Harper said people who were overweight or had alcohol or drug problems needed treatment to get back to work
Dame Carol said she was keen to "overcome the challenges" posed by the current system.

"These people, in addition to their long-term conditions and lifestyle issues, suffer the great disadvantage of not being engaged in the world of work, such an important feature of society."

But Susannah Gilbert, co-founder of online obesity support group Big Matters, said the policy "wouldn't be feasible".

She said: "I think it's naive to think that people don't want to change their life. Many of them have tried every diet under the sun and they still have a weight problem, so to think they don't want to have help isn't true."

Not helping
Kate Green MP, Labour's shadow minister for disabled people, said the number of people claiming sickness benefits had risen under the coalition.

"David Cameron's government has stripped back funding for drug support programmes and their Work Programme has helped just 7% of people back to work, so it is clear the Tory plan isn't working," she said.

"Today's announcement does nothing to help people off benefits and into work while the government continues to fail to clamp down on tax avoiders and offshore tax havens."

ESA was introduced in 2008 to replace incapacity benefit and income support, paid because of an illness or disability.

It requires claimants to undertake a work capability assessment to see how much their illness or disability affects their ability to work.

Some 60% of the 2.5 million people claiming ESA have been doing so for more than five years.

**Sigvatr**

100% support and wholeheartedly agree. Being obese is, in the vast majority of all cases, a choice and is guaranteed to cause severe health problems in the long term.

**Dreadclaw69**

I have to say that, by and large (no pun intended), I am also in favour of this measure so long as other incentives are in place such as added assistance for buying healthy food items, and possibly free consultations/exercise classes/information

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I have to say that, by and large (no pun intended), I am also in favour of this measure so long as other incentives are in place such as added assistance for buying healthy food items, and possibly free consultations/exercise classes/information

As a fattie, that is able to work and used to hang as a firefighter for five years I might add

, I agree as well. I think that benefits should always be tied to some attempt to get off benefits. I'm fine with benefits for not working as long as you are actively looking for work, stop trying and the benefit is gone. Benefits while you are going to school to get a better job instead of your minimum wage gig with education paid if fine with me (and I think the state makes that investment back with higher taxes from a higher income), but drop out and your benefits are gome. Treatment for obesity can be expensive and may involve a very multi-faceted approach (diet, medical, excercise) that could add costs. But a few years at a much higher cost to the state would be better than a lifetime of lower cost.

It's also an interesting combination of issues, obesity and substance abuse, with obesity quite often (with some exceptions) being a result of substance abuse as well. I think most people "choose" to be fat the same way they "choose" to have cirrhosis or "choose" to have no teeth. Food can be an addiction, and with obese people it frequently is. I'm not saying that to make excuses for myself and my fat bretheren, just pointing out that it often can be a complex combination of physical problems as well as a mental health component. But just like other addictions the person has to want to quit, although with food you can't ever really quit since you do kinda need it to stay alive. It's like telling a meth-addict that they just have to take a tiny bit of meth for the rest of their lives, but they are not allowed to quit or take too much.

I think what I am trying to say in my long rambling that I think it's a good idea, that some people need that kick in the rear, but that proponents need to realise that with substance abuse (especially food addiction) the treatment may continue long after the person is no longer fat and that I think for optimum benefit the state should make continued assistance available to keep them from falling back into benefit-land.

**LordofHats**

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.

**d-usa**

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

I was also talking generally about the basic concept in a variety of systems, some with a "feth you" approach to nationalized healthcare

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
I think what I am trying to say in my long rambling that I think it's a good idea, that some people need that kick in the rear, but that proponents need to realise that with substance abuse (especially food addiction) the treatment may continue long after the person is no longer fat and that I think for optimum benefit the state should make continued assistance available to keep them from falling back into benefit-land.

I agree that their needs to be long term investment in this. If you get someone to lose weight and then they revert back to being obese again then that helps no one, and may result in more push back from people as they suffer blows to self esteem. I think that one of the big problems that discourages people on public assistance from eating healthy are the prices.

Last time my wife and I sent grocery shopping there was a very clear disparity. For $10 we could get eleven TV dinners chock full of calories, salt, fat, and additives. That is much easier to feed a family on than healthier foods.

Another thing to consider is education. People on public assistance, typically, are less well educated and so may not be as well versed in reading the nutritional content on labels.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
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.

One of the requirements before I moved here. Vaccinations. Lots of vaccinations.
- Mumps
- Measles
- Rubella
- Polio
- Tetanus and diphtheria
- Pertussis
- Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib)
- Hepatitis A
- Hepatitis B
- Rotavirus
- Meningococcal disease
- Varicella
- Pneumococcal disease
- Seasonal influenza

**Ketara**

I am in favour of the general concept, but fear that many people will inevitably suffer unjustly due to it being conceived with fairness in mind, and physically written and implemented in such a way that hurts people. As with most Tory cuts to the welfare system, if the Atos debacle is anything to show.

**Medium of Death**

Atos aside I think it's fair.

Perhaps given long enough without benefits they'll experience extreme weight loss and then fly from their homes upon the excess skin.

Envisage the flying squirrel.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Need some votes? Why not demonise people on benefits some more? After decades of talking about how everyone on unemployment is a leech to the point that even becoming unemployed briefly leads to self esteem problems, nobody will doubt that this parasitic underclass is a serious issue.

It's certainly easier than tackling actual problems with the economy, like the incredible amount of corporate tax fraud, but since you're David Cameron you're probably not interested in that anyway.

**Da Boss**

Despite being a filthy lefty, I am generally in favour of this sort of thing if done carefully and in such a way as to encourage lifestyle change. Carrot and stick approaches work better than an endless supply of low quality carrots.

In fact, I'd push it even further. The UK has a massive problem with binge drinking and the violence and antisocial behaviour stemming from it. I would be delighted if the NHS would not pay for anyone brought in with injuries who had a blood alcohol level above a certain point (a high point), and forced them to face the bills themselves. In certain city centres you have state paid for emergency services on call to look after people who can't manage their drinking like adults at tremendous cost to the rest of the country. I'd be down with some sort of "drunk tank" where aggressive drunks can be thrown for 24-48 hours without having to go through the court processes and arrest malarky, too.

**Ketara**

Medium of Death wrote:
Atos aside I think it's fair.

Perhaps given long enough without benefits they'll experience extreme weight loss and then fly from their homes upon the excess skin.

Envisage the flying squirrel.

What worries is the idea of targets being set as a way of measuring.

'What's that? You ate a Snickers this week? Well, I'll just be docking your weeks rent and food money, since you clearly aren't trying...'

It is also the case that addicts and substance abusers are, well...addicts. Most if not all will relapse at some point, regardless of the consequences. Taking food and rent money away from an addict is a very quick way to make a lot of addicts homeless. Good for the exchequer, not so good for the fresh number of thieves and squatters it creates.

This is a reasonable idea, but I'm of the opinion that like the Atos scandal, there will be targets and pushes to make it so that anyone who fails to meet every expectation instantly (including unreasonable ones) will have their means of subsistence cut off.

**LordofHats**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

One of the requirements before I moved here. Vaccinations. Lots of vaccinations.
- Mumps
- Measles
- Rubella
- Polio
- Tetanus and diphtheria
- Pertussis
- Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib)
- Hepatitis A
- Hepatitis B
- Rotavirus
- Meningococcal disease
- Varicella
- Pneumococcal disease
- Seasonal influenza

Hey, we have to make sure anyone entering the country has all their shots!

We don't care if you're already here

Go spread virulent diseases

**Da Boss**

Well, yeah. The tendency to bureaucratize in British society will almost definitely result in some sort of glorified checklist being followed by jobsworth civil servants. And likely there'll be some sort of generous state contracts for private "consultants" (bs merchants).

But trying to do something to encourage good behaviour is better than just hoping it will go away. I wouldn't do it as a way to save money though- the best way they could show that they are trying to do this as a way to benefit citizens would be to keep welfare spending static after the initial cost of implementing this, and use the extra money for support programs for people. But this being a Tory government I doubt they'll implement this idea in a way I will agree with.

**Sigvatr**

Use the saved money to grant each normal-weighted person a monthly bonus. Negative punishment, positive reinforcement, best of both worlds.

**Orlanth**

A lot of alcoholoic jobless are on higher rate of benefits because of the problems overdrinking causes. Where do you thin k thet money goes?

When unemployed you get £75 a week, if on sickness benefit you can get £75, £85, £110 or £150. Many alcoholics are on £110, which when you consider free rent etc is a very good take home pay.

As for obesity and work, generally it only effects manual work, fatties can get desk jobs. The trouble here is that actually getting help from the NHS over obesity is now difficult. I am overweight and contacted my GP and wheras a few years ago you could get slimming pills, ow you only get advice. Slimming pills are not a complete answer but they are a stat, like patches are for giving up smoking. Its hard to give up comfort foods when you are in the gak, and unemployments counts as that.

On face value its a good bill, however on application I am not so sure. A lot of the disabled got hosed under this government. What I expect is a dogma of your are overweight and unemployed, therefore you are workshy.

**SagesStone**

I agree they should lose benefits if they refuse treatment, but if they do not have a valid reason to refuse it.

**Sigvatr**

...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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Da Boss wrote:

In fact, I'd push it even further. The UK has a massive problem with binge drinking and the violence and antisocial behaviour stemming from it. I would be delighted if the NHS would not pay for anyone brought in with injuries who had a blood alcohol level above a certain point (a high point), and forced them to face the bills themselves. In certain city centres you have state paid for emergency services on call to look after people who can't manage their drinking like adults at tremendous cost to the rest of the country. I'd be down with some sort of "drunk tank" where aggressive drunks can be thrown for 24-48 hours without having to go through the court processes and arrest malarky, too.

So if you're out drinking and someone jumps you with an iron pipe and beats you silly you'd be gak out of luck if you've got a too high blood alcohol level?

**Sigvatr**

What are those "tremendous costs" though? Drunks usually get a very basic support. In Germany, you most likely have to pay the entire thing on your own as well.

The cases that really bring the system close to breaking are long-term treatments. Cancer e.g. Those are the horrendously high expenses that weigh in on the system and constantly increase its cost. A few drunks don't matter at all.

**Da Boss**

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

Sigvatr: Having lived in both countries, I feel pretty confident in saying at least for the places I saw that the UK has a much bigger problem with binge drinking (outside of fests) than Germany.

**Sigvatr**

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

BINGO!

>> Blame the victim

If you get drunk and then mugged, how on earth is that to blame on the mugged dude? Are you claiming that if he wasn't drunk, he'd be able to kung fu his way out?

**Dreadclaw69**

Da Boss wrote:
In fact, I'd push it even further. The UK has a massive problem with binge drinking and the violence and antisocial behaviour stemming from it. I would be delighted if the NHS would not pay for anyone brought in with injuries who had a blood alcohol level above a certain point (a high point), and forced them to face the bills themselves. In certain city centres you have state paid for emergency services on call to look after people who can't manage their drinking like adults at tremendous cost to the rest of the country. I'd be down with some sort of "drunk tank" where aggressive drunks can be thrown for 24-48 hours without having to go through the court processes and arrest malarky, too.

So what if you are out for a few drinks with friends and are assaulted with no provocation?
What about people with violent tendencies? Should they be made to pay their own visits for injuries related to an assault?
What about people on public assistance? How will you punish those people?

LordofHats wrote:
Hey, we have to make sure anyone entering the country has all their shots!

Entering the country legally. This Administration doesn't tend to worry too much about illegals with infectious diseases staying on as a public health risk

**Sigvatr**

Da Boss wrote:

Sigvatr: Having lived in both countries, I feel pretty confident in saying at least for the places I saw that the UK has a much bigger problem with binge drinking (outside of fests) than Germany.

As I lack the time to look up statistics right now, I take your word for it

**agnosto**

Depends on how you define "obese"; if you're using the antiquated, fake BMI chart....yeah, I'm obese then and so is every body builder I know. I weigh 240 and can bench 320; according the BMI chart, my age/weight/height equals obese but my pants sure don't look it.

**Strombones**

Obviously the best way for British people to combat obesity is for Americans to sue them for IP infringement.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**Da Boss**

If you're out for a few drinks with friends, your blood alcohol level should not be high enough to disbar you from treatment. It's not a complicated idea that you want to separate those who drink responsibly from those who get legless, black out drunk.

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

Dreadclaw: If she's over the limit that has been set, then yeah, she gets treated the same as everyone else. The limit would be high though, as I've said in every one of my posts. Alcohol costs the NHS up to 6 billion pounds a year. That is not an insignificant cost that can just be ignored.

**agnosto**

Strombones wrote:
Obviously the best way for British people to combat obesity is for Americans to sue them for IP infringement.

lol.. QFT.

**Sigvatr**

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.