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.

**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

**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

**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

**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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Da Boss wrote:
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.

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.

So innocent victims of crime are now made victims again by the NHS. So what do you propose the legal limit be for your scheme?

**Dreadclaw69**

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

So who exactly are the victims of drinking to excess?

**Dreadclaw69**

Da Boss wrote:
In the case of the UK, the rest of the tax payers who pay for their medical bills through the NHS, who put up with their antisocial behaviour on the streets and the crime committed by them. And to an extent the drinker themselves is a victim of their own irresponsibility.

In other countries with private healthcare, it is less of an issue because drink to excess and you've got to cover yourself anyway.

That presupposes that everyone who binge drinks commits crime, or is antisocial. What about those who commit no crime or antisocial behaviour, but are assaulted?
So do occasional binge drinkers cost the NHS more than they contribute?

**Dreadclaw69**

Da Boss wrote:
Absolutely no idea. I think you misunderstand the intent I have here. I'm not interested in what's fair or just particularly.

That much of your plan is more than abundantly clear.

**Dreadclaw69**

Da Boss wrote:
You are so enjoyable to communicate with Dreadclaw. The way you engage only selectively with points and use rhetorical questions as a weapon.

I would appreciate if you would stick with the discussion, not the person with whom you are having the discussion.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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?