£500,000 scheme to help 600 tackle obesity (From thisisoxfordshire)

A complete and utter waste of money on something that is self inflicted, common sense, and personal choice. If you are fat and want to lose weight, then eat less and exercise more.
There are far more important things to be spending NHS money on.

Half a million quid to teach people not to eat? I'll have some of that please, what a waste of cash in these times of cutbacks, its easy really, close mouth at meal times, or if you have to eat then forget takeaway's, crisps, chocolate and try salad's, not big ones tho, half the plateful you would have had before.

Smokers and fatties, if you need NHS help because of your habits i would refuse it.

Send 'em to me...I'll wire their jaws shut for a fiver a head!!Yet another COMPLETE waste of money...I think I might just overeat to get my £820!

This is a good example of how investing money now can save much more in the long run. Obesity costs the NHS billions so better to try prevent it. Obesity is often a symptom of depression and is far more complicated than the implication of the same old tired stereotypes.
.
If we look to refuse treatment on the NHS what about other self inflicted ills. Would it be acceptable to refuse treatment for people who don't get 30 minutes exercise every day, people who eat lots of fast food, or simply people who have stressful jobs? These lifestyles are also associated with preventable illness and cost the NHS billions.

Ludicrous. They can find their way to McD, KFC, Chip Shop, Sweets4U. Discipline begins at home. Ever see a fat prisoner ? Lock 'em up may be the answer. And cheaper.

"Parents who tell their children to “finish everything on their plate” are doing more harm than good, according to NHS Oxfordshire."

If my memory serves me right we had a nationwide advertising campaign not so long ago telling us "love food hate waste" and to not waste millions of pounds of food.

I was brought up to “finish everything on (my) plate” and am a little overweight, but I'm not 30-odd stone.

I was also brought up to finish everything on my plate. The difference is that what is on my plate is home-cooked lean meat, potatoes and vegetables, not piles of fried, sugary, fatty junk food crap.

I have no sympathy with anyone who's grossly overweight for non-medical reasons. Eating less and moving more is really not a difficult concept and it's a disgrace that so much money is being spent on these people who have inflicted on themselves a lifestyle that leaves them unwell. You got into it yourself, you can get out of it yourself.

Fact is, it takes many thousand calories a day to maintain a weight like these. Perhaps a takeaway Asbo... or FATbo... would be in order where if they want a meal they have to get up and cook something rather than calling in Jamals Kebab Emporium!

Floflo, always a dodgey argument, the cost one. A fatty who dies at 50 probably costs less than a thin dementia patient who lasts till 95.Essentially it's about a "nanny knows best" attitude. I don't think there's a branch of the NHS which does cost accountancy, for if there were they might have to lobby for cheaper fags.

BigAlBiker wrote:
Half a million quid to teach people not to eat? I'll have some of that please, what a waste of cash in these times of cutbacks, its easy really, close mouth at meal times, or if you have to eat then forget takeaway's, crisps, chocolate and try salad's, not big ones tho, half the plateful you would have had before. Smokers and fatties, if you need NHS help because of your habits i would refuse it.

Flawed argument mate seeming that people who after eating stick their fingers down their throats and end up weighing 4 atone as a result no only get millions thrown at them, but general sympathy too. So people that eat themselves to death, tough. People that sick themselves to death, ah poor things we should help them.

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Floflo, always a dodgey argument, the cost one. A fatty who dies at 50 probably costs less than a thin dementia patient who lasts till 95.Essentially it's about a "nanny knows best" attitude. I don't think there's a branch of the NHS which does cost accountancy, for if there were they might have to lobby for cheaper fags.

It's not about nanny knows best, it's offering support to those who need it.

NICE make recommendations based on, amongst other things, cost effectiveness.

Floflo wrote:

Lord Palmerstone wrote: Floflo, always a dodgey argument, the cost one. A fatty who dies at 50 probably costs less than a thin dementia patient who lasts till 95.Essentially it's about a "nanny knows best" attitude. I don't think there's a branch of the NHS which does cost accountancy, for if there were they might have to lobby for cheaper fags.

It's not about nanny knows best, it's offering support to those who need it. NICE make recommendations based on, amongst other things, cost effectiveness.

Yes Floey Luv. NICE do make these decisions like refusing life prolonging treatment because a person is not worth £20,000 a month. NICE they certainly are NOT.

floflo the rationing body nice determines "those who need it" according to the mores of nice, i.e. nanny nice knows best. It's called authoritarian socialism.

Floflo wrote:
This is a good example of how investing money now can save much more in the long run. Obesity costs the NHS billions so better to try prevent it. Obesity is often a symptom of depression and is far more complicated than the implication of the same old tired stereotypes. . If we look to refuse treatment on the NHS what about other self inflicted ills. Would it be acceptable to refuse treatment for people who don't get 30 minutes exercise every day, people who eat lots of fast food, or simply people who have stressful jobs? These lifestyles are also associated with preventable illness and cost the NHS billions.

They already have help available - Weightwatchers, Slimming World etc... (and various other diet programs). Why should the NHS pay for something self inflicted which has such a simple solution??

The UK is flooded with information on diet and healthy eating.

Make doorways narrower.

LadyPenelope wrote:

Floflo wrote:
This is a good example of how investing money now can save much more in the long run. Obesity costs the NHS billions so better to try prevent it. Obesity is often a symptom of depression and is far more complicated than the implication of the same old tired stereotypes. . If we look to refuse treatment on the NHS what about other self inflicted ills. Would it be acceptable to refuse treatment for people who don't get 30 minutes exercise every day, people who eat lots of fast food, or simply people who have stressful jobs? These lifestyles are also associated with preventable illness and cost the NHS billions.

They already have help available - Weightwatchers, Slimming World etc... (and various other diet programs). Why should the NHS pay for something self inflicted which has such a simple solution??

The UK is flooded with information on diet and healthy eating.

Do you every drink over the recommended max units of alcohol? Perhaps you smoke? Do you always eat 5 portions of fresh fruit and veg a day? Do you get enough regular exercise? Do you do any risky sport - maybe skiing?
.
If you answer 'yes' to any of these then any NHS treatment you need may be self inflicted. Should you be refused treatment for this reason?

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
floflo the rationing body nice determines "those who need it" according to the mores of nice, i.e. nanny nice knows best. It's called authoritarian socialism.

So do you suggest the NHS has an unlimited amount of money available? Or maybe you object to 'authoritarian socialism.' do you suggest that the patient pays for all treatment instead?

So do you suggest the NHS has an unlimited amount of money available? Or maybe you object to 'authoritarian socialism.' do you suggest that the patient pays for all treatment instead?
It hasn't enough cash for the rationing body to sanction spending on its current bee in the bonnet. I think the patient does pay for all the treatment-it's paid for by direct and indirect taxation, isn't it? That taxation reduces the amount of GNP available to individuals so , effectively, they pay . This is a fairly benign manifestation of authoritarian socialism , but you might reflect that Cuba spends a lot on healthcare and keeps its political opponents in prisons run by the secret police.

Floflo wrote:

LadyPenelope wrote:

Floflo wrote: This is a good example of how investing money now can save much more in the long run. Obesity costs the NHS billions so better to try prevent it. Obesity is often a symptom of depression and is far more complicated than the implication of the same old tired stereotypes. . If we look to refuse treatment on the NHS what about other self inflicted ills. Would it be acceptable to refuse treatment for people who don't get 30 minutes exercise every day, people who eat lots of fast food, or simply people who have stressful jobs? These lifestyles are also associated with preventable illness and cost the NHS billions.

They already have help available - Weightwatchers, Slimming World etc... (and various other diet programs). Why should the NHS pay for something self inflicted which has such a simple solution?? The UK is flooded with information on diet and healthy eating.

Do you every drink over the recommended max units of alcohol? Perhaps you smoke? Do you always eat 5 portions of fresh fruit and veg a day? Do you get enough regular exercise? Do you do any risky sport - maybe skiing? . If you answer 'yes' to any of these then any NHS treatment you need may be self inflicted. Should you be refused treatment for this reason?

You're missing the point. The "treatment" for obesity doesn't require NHS intervention - it's simple exercise and eating less. The NHS should be for treating people with genuine illnesses that can't be cured on their own.

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
So do you suggest the NHS has an unlimited amount of money available? Or maybe you object to 'authoritarian socialism.' do you suggest that the patient pays for all treatment instead? It hasn't enough cash for the rationing body to sanction spending on its current bee in the bonnet. I think the patient does pay for all the treatment-it's paid for by direct and indirect taxation, isn't it? That taxation reduces the amount of GNP available to individuals so , effectively, they pay . This is a fairly benign manifestation of authoritarian socialism , but you might reflect that Cuba spends a lot on healthcare and keeps its political opponents in prisons run by the secret police.

Wrong Lord P - "the patient doesn't pay for all the treatment". The populous may well fund the NHS but inevitably those individuals unfortunate to need prolonged (and/or expensive) treatment will take more out of the NHS than they have contributed.

With this piece of nonsense you rather duck Flo's question - i.e. that whilst you rail against the body that has to decide on the cost efficiencies of treatments (NICE) you fail to put forward any idea that would render such decisions unnecessary.

Love to hear more on your theory linking draconian regimes to per capita health spending? Perhaps you could explain where, for example, China, Sudan and North Korea fit into this rationale? Or maybe not......

The real problem here is modern society in my view. Modern technology means there is far more choice on tv, bigger and better games consoles than before, faster broadband speeds etc, etc, so adults and kids alike spend their time in front of a computer or tv screen. There are more and more choices of takeaway and the vast majority deliver so it's no real surprise that our population is getting fatter and fatter

LadyPenelope wrote:

Floflo wrote:

LadyPenelope wrote:

Floflo wrote: This is a good example of how investing money now can save much more in the long run. Obesity costs the NHS billions so better to try prevent it. Obesity is often a symptom of depression and is far more complicated than the implication of the same old tired stereotypes. . If we look to refuse treatment on the NHS what about other self inflicted ills. Would it be acceptable to refuse treatment for people who don't get 30 minutes exercise every day, people who eat lots of fast food, or simply people who have stressful jobs? These lifestyles are also associated with preventable illness and cost the NHS billions.

They already have help available - Weightwatchers, Slimming World etc... (and various other diet programs). Why should the NHS pay for something self inflicted which has such a simple solution?? The UK is flooded with information on diet and healthy eating.

Do you every drink over the recommended max units of alcohol? Perhaps you smoke? Do you always eat 5 portions of fresh fruit and veg a day? Do you get enough regular exercise? Do you do any risky sport - maybe skiing? . If you answer 'yes' to any of these then any NHS treatment you need may be self inflicted. Should you be refused treatment for this reason?

You're missing the point. The "treatment" for obesity doesn't require NHS intervention - it's simple exercise and eating less. The NHS should be for treating people with genuine illnesses that can't be cured on their own.

Just admit it Pen. You hate fatties, and can't accept they may have a medical problem.

loco, my solution, since you ask, would be a popular vote on priorities. The results might not be very happy reading-I would personally vote to prioritise the treatment of working over non-working people- but it is the only rational way, given there's not enough cash for everything. The system we have now, where cash is spent on what the authority thinks is right, is a very bad way, as all would agree.

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
loco, my solution, since you ask, would be a popular vote on priorities. The results might not be very happy reading-I would personally vote to prioritise the treatment of working over non-working people- but it is the only rational way, given there's not enough cash for everything. The system we have now, where cash is spent on what the authority thinks is right, is a very bad way, as all would agree.

Thanks Lord P – an interesting suggestion. Whilst I might stop short of prioritising social groupings (such as working/non-working) – feels a little too close to a ‘Logan’s Run-esque’ scenario – I’d certainly advocate, say, investment in dialysis equipment over gastric bands for those with a demonstrably sedentary lifestyle. Sadly I think a hypothetical debate as I can’t see any political party being bold enough to embrace what I fear could only be seen as a vote loser? No, they’ll toss that hot potato to some regulatory body…..