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.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
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!

And as Gogsnik points out; this is exactly the sentiment the government are hoping to evoke in people. Obese people claiming benefits are not a problem, they're a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total social security budget, even if you just kicked them all off benefits it would save the government bugger all money. But by making "lazy fatties" the face of their latest round of cuts, helped along by despicable hit-pieces on individuals carried out by the right-wing press(sadly pretty much our entire print-media is right-wing, and even the centrist/nominally-left minority aspects of it are pro-establishment, sensationalist, and tend to only challenge the current economic orthodoxy in a handful of opinion pieces), they make it easier for the public to "other" people on benefits; fat, lazy, scroungers, frauds, it's all designed to prevent people empathising with the vast, vast, VAST majority(literally 99%+) of people who receive some form of social security who're simply in pain, ill, disabled, or having a run of bad luck and need our collective help to prevent them from becoming utterly destitute.

I generally agree that it's just a distraction story to get people to waste their time discussing a relative non-issue while there are bigger things going on.

Tax evasion for example. There's been a lot of tough talk over the years, but talk is cheap and there doesn't seem to be anything being done about it.

 Yodhrin wrote:
it's all designed to prevent people empathising with the vast, vast, VAST majority(literally 99%+) of people who receive some form of social security who're simply in pain, ill, disabled, or having a run of bad luck and need our collective help to prevent them from becoming utterly destitute.

I think it's more about cheap political point-scoring in the run-up to an election to be honest. They're all at it at the moment, from the SNP down to the Lib Dems.

Unfortunately, the nature of the democratic five year term political system promotes and rewards short-termism and blatant lies.

 Medium of Death wrote:


Tax evasion for example. There's been a lot of tough talk over the years, but talk is cheap and there doesn't seem to be anything being done about it.

Meh, generic strawman is generic.

The problem with striking against tax evasion is that you bite the hand that feeds you. And that the other side is better-informed and has the more effective means to counter-work any changes.

 Ketara wrote:
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.

It's not conceived to be fair. It's conceived as a way of blaming the poor for the state we're in. That's why Osborne sends out figures trying to make it look like we spend tens of billions on benefits, when reality the bulk of the figure was made up of pensions. From memory, incapacity benefit is £4 or £5billion a year - when we dropped £40 biillion in one year on Bank of Scotland alone!

Judge a society by how they treat the unfortunate. Blame the fatty, and you end up with Lord of the Flies.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


Tax evasion for example. There's been a lot of tough talk over the years, but talk is cheap and there doesn't seem to be anything being done about it.

Meh, generic strawman is generic.

The problem with striking against tax evasion is that you bite the hand that feeds you. And that the other side is better-informed and has the more effective means to counter-work any changes.

It's not a straw man.

It could be addressed by lowering their taxes so that they at least pay something rather than avoid it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

No-one familiar with the lamentable history of massive failure of UK government IT programmes would suggest a technology solution.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


Tax evasion for example. There's been a lot of tough talk over the years, but talk is cheap and there doesn't seem to be anything being done about it.

Meh, generic strawman is generic.

The problem with striking against tax evasion is that you bite the hand that feeds you. And that the other side is better-informed and has the more effective means to counter-work any changes.

It's not a straw man.

It could be addressed by lowering their taxes so that they at least pay something rather than avoid it.

It's used to derail the discussion away from the topic / problem at hand as in trying to make the point that the OT isn't a problem because taxes are a bigger problem.

The problem with taxes, often, isn't the height. It's about how it's used. We pay a lot of taxes. A LOT. And without...financial advice, we'd be paying more, significantally more. We aren't opposed to paying taxes as they can fulfill a great service - supporting schools, kitchens for the poor etc. are worthwhile things to have and support. The problem is that we get robbed of our money and it then...disappears. Sucked into a black hole. Make taxes transparent. Let us directly support issues with our money.

Meh, different topic.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


Tax evasion for example. There's been a lot of tough talk over the years, but talk is cheap and there doesn't seem to be anything being done about it.

Meh, generic strawman is generic.

The problem with striking against tax evasion is that you bite the hand that feeds you. And that the other side is better-informed and has the more effective means to counter-work any changes.

It's not a straw man.

It could be addressed by lowering their taxes so that they at least pay something rather than avoid it.

It's used to derail the discussion away from the topic / problem at hand as in trying to make the point that the OT isn't a problem because taxes are a bigger problem.

Which isn't a strawman, it's deflecting the issue.

If this issue is being used as a way to save money I think all talk about other measures the Government could pursue is relevant to the discussion.

 Medium of Death wrote:
If this issue is being used as a way to save money I think all talk about other measures the Government could pursue is relevant to the discussion.

It's not. The issue at hand is about obese people being forced to choose between either doing something against their obesity or rejecting welfare (or parts of it). That's the OT. Saving money definitely is a part of it, but this would also mean that we should start to talk about using a different kind of pavement to save money, or hiring cheaper workers from abroad etc....and all of those points miss the OT. Saying "But B means saving more money than A!" in order to prove that A therefore shouldn't be discussed is foolish.

We are discussing it. I agreed on the first page that I think it's time. I'm agreeing with others that it is a bit of a convenient time to be bringing it up.

Then have a topic on it. If you're not going to debate the thread's topic, then you might be better off discussing the topic you want to discuss in a thread dedicated to it.

The suggested implementation of such a law certainly is planned to satisfy voters as it's an easily understandable cause that affects a lot of people. And whether the reasons for bringing it up now are morally alright or not is up to debate; the actual issue, however, is a good one and while the idea certainly needs a few tweaks, it would be a worthwhile consideration.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
If this issue is being used as a way to save money I think all talk about other measures the Government could pursue is relevant to the discussion.

It's not. The issue at hand is about obese people being forced to choose between either doing something against their obesity or rejecting welfare (or parts of it). That's the OT. Saving money definitely is a part of it, but this would also mean that we should start to talk about using a different kind of pavement to save money, or hiring cheaper workers from abroad etc....and all of those points miss the OT. Saying "But B means saving more money than A!" in order to prove that A therefore shouldn't be discussed is foolish.

Total rubbish. We're discussing a political initiative, it's entirely appropriate to consider the motivations behind it, the relative value of it compared to other possible policies, and whether it's even necessary at all given the realities of the UK's present social security system.

I don't believe for a moment that the point of this initiative is actually to save money, but that is the purpose which is being claimed by its instigators, so it's entirely reasonable to point out that even if we accept benefit fraud/overpayment is a problem in general(it's not) and that obese people claiming benefits is a problem specifically(it's not), using government time and resources(which themselves cost money) to address the latter (not actually a)problem when it would account for a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total budget(a handful of million at the absolute most) is grotesque when tax evasion/avoidance costs the Treasury 32 billion pounds a year and the government devotes 30 times as many resources to pursuing benefit fraud as it does tax evaders.

 Sigvatr wrote:
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.

Welcome to the US Republican Party and presidential candidate Scott Walker's position. Does it burn?

 Frazzled wrote:


Welcome to the US Republican Party and presidential candidate Scott Walker's position. Does it burn?

Being a conservative, I'm as Republican as possible

 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.

Exercising is free, you don't need to go to a gym to stay fit. Walking, jogging, running, skipping etc is free, second hand bicycle not a lot, getting a friend or family member to babysit while you exercise if you're a single parent doesn't take a lot of organising.
All I'm seeing is excuses here for not exercising. The problem is really that many on the dole or similar have no mental discipline. Instead of drinking and smoking all day they could exercise. There was even some guy who claimed that he was too fit to go and work, he spends all his time on the dole working out so having to go to work means his exercise regime would be affected.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2928097/Kamran-Kam-claims-benefits-9-5-jobs-interfere-fitness-regime.html

getting a friend or family member to babysit while you exercise if you're a single parent doesn't take a lot of organising.

Depending on individual circumstances, things like that can and do take a significant amount of organising for a lot of people. You'd be surprised at how often single parents get little or no support in raising their children from both friends and family, and any ex-partners involved tend to shy away from any sort of responsibility whatsoever. The only reliable way for some people to get their child/children looked after for an amount of time is to hire a babysitter, or drop them off at a child-minder, both of which can bring unwelcome and ultimately avoidable costs.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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?

Sometimes we just need to acknowledge that ideas, unlike questions, are sometimes in fact incredibly stupid. This is one of those times.

As for the OP, it's interesting that people view this proposition so favorably considering the way that similar propositions in US healthcare are often viewed.

Computron wrote:

 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.

Exercising is free, you don't need to go to a gym to stay fit. Walking, jogging, running, skipping etc is free, second hand bicycle not a lot, getting a friend or family member to babysit while you exercise if you're a single parent doesn't take a lot of organising.
All I'm seeing is excuses here for not exercising. The problem is really that many on the dole or similar have no mental discipline. Instead of drinking and smoking all day they could exercise. There was even some guy who claimed that he was too fit to go and work, he spends all his time on the dole working out so having to go to work means his exercise regime would be affected.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2928097/Kamran-Kam-claims-benefits-9-5-jobs-interfere-fitness-regime.html

That's 10 points docked right away for linking the Daily Heil to support an argument. Another ten points for using a single incident(even if it is accurate and not sensationalised drivel like every other Daily Fail article relating to social security) as justification for a massive sweeping statement. A sweeping statement that's a load of old balls, to boot; half of non-pension benefits in the UK go to people who are in work, and more than 75% of Jobseekers Allowance claimants find a job within six months - the rate of JSA claimants who've been out of work for three years or more is less than 3%(and a large portion of that percentage will be disabled and sick people who have been inappropriately kicked off Employment and Support Allowance because of the present government's grotesque assessment and sanctions regime). The "feckless dole bum" is a myth.

We're not talking about folk who eat one two many pies and would rather take a bus/car than walk anywhere here, this policy is specifically aimed at people who are claiming disability because they are obese. Not tubby, not "plus-size", clinically obese. It doesn't matter if someone becomes that overweight because of any number of medical issues, or because they ate McDonalds every day for a decade, "walking, jogging, running, skipping etc" either isn't going to help or will make their situation worse - when someone is seriously overweight they need access to proper facilities to engage in appropriate types of intensive exercise, ideally with expert advice/supervision, or they're just going to end up in hospital needing expensive operations to fix their torn muscles and blown-out joints.

A Lot of unemployed in Britain are under weight, most suffer from depression related illness.
Some have turned to alcohol or drugs,
Suicides are up.
Suicide in men 'highest since 2001'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31533551

The proportion of men taking their own lives in the UK has reached its highest level for more than a decade, according to official figures.

The Office for National Statistics data shows 19 deaths by suicide for every 100,000 men in 2013.

Overall there were 6,233 suicides in men and women over the age of 15 in 2013 - 4% higher than the previous year.

The legacy of the recession is one explanation for the rise.

Overall suicide rates had been falling consistently from 15.6 deaths per 100,000 in 1981 to 10.6 per 100,000 in 2007.

"Since 2007, the female rate stayed relatively constant while the male rate increased significantly," the ONS report states.

In 2013, 78% of suicides were in men.

The most vulnerable age group were those aged between 45 and 59, however, the rates have been increasing in all age groups except in the under thirties.

The report added that research suggested that "the recent recession in the UK could be an influencing factor in the increase in suicides" and that "areas with greater rises in unemployment had also experienced higher rises in male suicides".

'Shocking'
Marjorie Wallace, the chief executive of the mental health charity SANE, commented: "It is really shocking that men who are or could be in their prime of life should feel driven to such a state of hopelessness and despair for the future that they are taking their own lives.

"SANE's own research shows that many suicides could be prevented, if people were able to talk more openly about their feelings and felt able to seek therapy or other help.

"Our concern is the number of suicides which are preventable and the fact that when people with mental illness hit crisis point, there are no available beds or units and they are sent home from A&E and left to suffer in silence."

Joe Ferns, from the Samaritans, said: "The news is sadly not surprising to us given the context of a challenging economic environment and the social impact that brings.

"We need to see a greater focus at local and regional levels on the co-ordination and prioritisation of suicide prevention activity especially in areas with high socio-economic deprivation.

So when papers say unemployed are fat lazy work shy ETC. they're pushing an agenda.

Loki.... I do have a question, and I hope that you can at least point me in the right direction:

Do you think that the rise in men committing suicide has some link to soldiers/servicemen in Her Majesty's Military Forces?

I know that, in the US, there is a MAJOR correlation between Vets, homelessness, unemployment and suicide, but I am just curious if it is similar over there in the UK.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Loki.... I do have a question, and I hope that you can at least point me in the right direction:

Do you think that the rise in men committing suicide has some link to soldiers/servicemen in Her Majesty's Military Forces?

I know that, in the US, there is a MAJOR correlation between Vets, homelessness, unemployment and suicide, but I am just curious if it is similar over there in the UK.

Possibly, but mostly thru depression related to loss of job/family/status in life/debt.
Some could be ex military, depressed because of cut backs or post operational issues. All the above in orange could easily apply to ex service men.