So our privatised health care system (or what's left of the NHS) is creaking under the weight of the morbidly obese, unfit and generally out of shape.
We the tax payers have to suffer due to extended waiting lists, over stretched health care workers & spiralling costs.
And as it's a given that the average adult or child that undertakes a minimum level of exercise is far less likely to suffer illness or long term health problems.
Would you, in that case, voluntarily use a smartphone app / pedometer / tracker if it's cumulative readings could demonstrate your commitment to "look after yourself" and as such entitle you to a "fast track" Private heath care style tier version of the Public health care system?
How much exercise would one have to do to get them to treat you before you even got ill?
I'd say that if you are prepared to do circuits more than three times a week you should instantly qualify for the EPO Programme
Would you, in that case, voluntarily use a smartphone app / pedometer / tracker if it's cumulative readings could demonstrate your commitment to "look after yourself" and as such entitle you to a "fast track" Private heath care style tier version of the Public health care system?
Yes I'd strap my smartphone to a dog drive to the park kick it out and let it run around for an hour and shit wherever it wanted while I enjoyed a pint and a fag and then drive back home again to watch daytime tv.
Would mountain biker injuries go to the end of the queue?
Would you, in that case, voluntarily use a smartphone app / pedometer / tracker if it's cumulative readings could demonstrate your commitment to "look after yourself" and as such entitle you to a "fast track" Private heath care style tier version of the Public health care system?
Not sure about lifestyle-related prioritsation, but there certainly needs to be something done about the spiralling health issues caused by 'bad' lifestyle choices.
These days everyone knows what's good/bad for their health. There is masses of advice and support available.
But how do you get people to actually care enough to do something about it?
Or is the the only answer to get all 'big-brother'/'nanny-state' and almost force people to change their lifestyle?
In our modern day society such creative thinking is to be encouraged avdave2. If you applied yourself you may find that you could be entitled to government support funding under the Big Society scheme should you offer to be "Exercising the Pedo meters of the Temporally infirm". Then Society wins, you see this scheme even considers the Left Wing agenda.
Onion, no of course not, MTB injuries would be treated as Priority Incidents.
joao3v16 my government thinktank has thought long and hard about these issues, this is the only fair system and its also works under strict Religion non-interference guidelines by basing its core objectives on the studies of Sir Charles Darwin. Naturally all Jehovah Witnesses are automatically excluded from the EPO Programme.
Is food the next health battleground then?
Taxes on tobacco have been shown to make a difference.
The Scottish Government is to introduce a minimum price for alcohol - and both Labour and Conservative have indicated they will do the same for rUK.
Would it be possible to influence peoples eating habits by the use of taxes?
(a) have some sort of fat content/sugar content index with a sliding scale of taxation
(b) additional taxes on take-away food chains/franchises over a certain number or premises
careful,
if you ever had a smoke and you had problems with your lungs you might be refused treatment.
If you ever had a drink and you had liver trouble you may be refused treatment.
If you ever broke your collar bone riding your bike....
It's all you own doing I'm afraid, we won't patch you up.
Well if we are trying to triage then those in good health who are looking after themselves properly are much more likely to make a full recovery unaided, so should be lower priority than the salad-dodgers.
so sugar or lard in the supermarket will cost more per gramme than columbia's finest?(a) have some sort of fat content/sugar content index with a sliding scale of taxation
Nope this is ALL about personal choice, if you decide to smoke 40 cigarettes whilst working out then that is your own personal choice, if you chose to replace your electrolyte sports drink with a bacon wash bourbon for your 24hr enduro then again this is your own personal choice.
But if you're fit enough then you will conquer or die trying. Being fat or lazy or both is a personal choice, why should everyone else pay for that?
[i]Would you, in that case, voluntarily use a smartphone app / pedometer / tracker if it's cumulative readings could demonstrate your commitment to "look after yourself" and as such entitle you to a "fast track" Private heath care style tier version of the Public health care system?[/i]
Nope. Too complicated, too easy to hack.
I'd simplicate things by having a real fast track. Every week, people wanting health care line up 400m from the entrance to the consulting room and sprint to the door.
The daily mail part of my brain agrees that fatties, drunks and chain smokers should be penalised but the rational side says no refusing treatment would be bad, we should be fixing the underlying causes.
but no I don't have any fixes either.
GrahamS, that makes no sense, why should society drag its lazy and greed bloated hanger on's around like some kind of penance to freedom? Its time for people to stand up and be counted, make the effort or suffer the consequences of your own actions and don't expect those hard at work to carry you!
D0NK you misunderstand, if people are prepared to be fit and active then they are welcome to get drunk or smoke as much as they like. That said should the participants within this Human Race be practitioners of self destructive pursuits they should also have no objections to agreeing to voluntary euthanasia should the cost of their treatment outweigh their contribution to society.
IanMunro, now you are just being silly
GrahamS, that makes no sense
Just saying, in triage terms you generally give higher priority to those in the most danger (i.e. at an accident the ones that can still talk will be lower priority than those unconscious).
Us fatties are in the most danger. You'd save more lives by prioritising us over the fit whippets 😀
Shouldn't sedentary exercise ie exercise under monitored, controlled and preferably indoor, conditions generate the highest number of priority points? Circuits, rowing machines and static bicycles are effective, and relatively safe.
'Wild' exercise - mtb'ing, fell running, lake swimming only increase the risk of other health and accident related problems, so really shouldn't be overly encouraged.
Anyway, it's spring, you should be down at your allotment, keeping an eye on the boundaries.
In retrospect I hadn't thought it though properly.
The problem with the 400m sprint, is you'd have to clear part of the car-park which looses a valuable revenue stream.
My new solution just involves having a really really narrow entrance door.
We need to work out how many fatties will die as a result of their treatment being delayed and how many will need more costly treatment as a result.
We also need to work out how much they're generally contributing to society... how much VAT are they paying on all that food? How much NI are they paying, and what are the chances of them never clamining their pensions?
What should happen is that all the unclaimed private pension contributions made by chunky chaps should somehow end up in the communal purse.
why? alchohol and smoking cost the NHS a lot of money aswell, I don't have the figures so dunno how they compare but from memory obesity booze and fags are big hitters and contribute to lots of other illnessesif people are prepared to be fit and active then they are welcome to get drunk or smoke as much as they like
so possibly mountain biking and definitley road cycling (in the eyes of the rest of society)practitioners of self destructive pursuits
The daily mail part of my brain agrees that fatties, drunks and chain smokers should be penalised
You mean by more than an early death?
Ian last time we had a shuffle at work I suggested sports hall everyone at one end chairs at the other end for jobs, top manager job furthest away, middle managers behind that, lowly minion posts about halfway across the hall, not enough chairs for everyone, someone shouts go. Despite the head man being a bit of a runner my idea was poo pooed.
why? alchohol and smoking cost the NHS a lot of money aswell, I don't have the figures so dunno how they compare but from memory obesity booze and fags are big hitters and contribute to lots of other illnesses
Smokers might be a net contributors to the govt. Not only do smokers pay high taxes but they don't draw pensions for very long if at all.
GrahamS, What good is saving the unsavable?
what point is there in supporting those who won't support even themselves?
What is it in a persons nature to select a life of lethargy and gluttony?
Why should their life be immune to the selection of nature?
For far too long society has cosseted and comforted the lazy and notbothered, for too long comfort has prevailed over effort and responsibility.
Now is the time to cast off these fatted chains of sedentary populace, give them the chance to prove themselves or give them death.
irc well shit, why don't we just legalise heroin and tax the **** out of that? pretty sure heroin junkies don't draw much pension either.
vinnyeh you make a good point, contained exercise could also be used to generate electricity, that said there is no reason to penalise those opting for 'Wild' forms of exercise as it is important to also promote tourism and the great outdoors.
IanMunro now you're thinking, Class B citizens could be treated in garages.
Or you could really try and educate people to take responsibility for themselves.. hmm.. good luck with it too.
D0NK - Memberirc well shit, why don't we just legalise heroin and tax the **** out of that? pretty sure heroin junkies don't draw much pension either.
it would certainly save the UK a huge amount of money doing just that - and cut crime massively as well
it would certainly save the UK a huge amount of money doing just that - and cut crime massively as well
How's that then?
GrahamS, What good is saving the unsavable?
We're all going to die sooner or later. No matter how much exercise you do.
Why should their life be immune to the selection of nature?
It's not. Surprisingly most adult fatties still manage to reproduce and successfully raise their waddling offspring.
In fact, that they are fat suggests they have done an excellent job of securing fertile hunting grounds (e.g. Iceland, McDonalds).
We also need to work out how much they're generally contributing to society...
Now we're talking! Who cares how fat someone is if they are a net contributor to society (for any given measure: financial, social, cultural, moral etc).
Surely the workshy, the ****less and the immoral should be bottom of the priority list 😉
legalise, regulate and tax, drugs business is a big earner you may have heard. Also get the police to concentrate on more important things that they might actually be able to stop.How's that then?
I am pro legalisation was just using heroin as an argument against the rather callous "smokers die early and pay lots of tax so that's OK"
Wasn't sure how the 'tax the shit out of it' bit worked, I'd hazard a guess that most of it would be provided gratis on state funded programs to untreatable addicts?
Is heroin actually legal anywhere for sale and purchase by consumers?
irc well shit, why don't we just legalise heroin and tax the **** out of that? pretty sure heroin junkies don't draw much pension either.
I go for it. Most of the problems heroin causes are due it being illegal. High prices causes crime so users can feed their habit. Poor quality supply means infection and accidental overdoses. Dealers can't settle disputes in court so resort to violence.
We already give addicts free daily methadone on the NHS so legsalising heroin is not that big a step away.
After all it is perfectly legal to kill yourself with booze and smoking. The Americans tried prohibition for booze. Where did that get them?
I am pro legalisation was just using heroin as an argument against the rather callous "smokers die early and pay lots of tax so that's OK"
Callous? Insurance companies calculate death rates all the time. I was pointing out that the poor life expectancy of smokers gives the lie (arguably) to the claim they cost the country money.
I see the point you're making irc but isn't the argument that "smokers cost the NHS money"? If several million people start smoking more will the NHS get more funding? I doubt it, the money isn't ring fenced is it? More smoking might be good for government coffers but not the nhs.
Lets not get too hung up on my heroin line, it was just a (bad?) example.
Smokers might be a net contributors to the govt. Not only do smokers pay high taxes but they don't draw pensions for very long if at all.
Nope. A single night in hospital costs hundreds these days, it is very easy to spend your whole life's contribution in tobacco duty relatively quickly on gp appointments, outpatients, COPD specialist nurses, prescriptions and so on, and that's before you become a cancer patient or 'revolving door' COPD inpatient. And of course the better we get at prolonging life by treating COPD, lung, mouth and throat cancer the less your net contribution helps. Besides, it is most unclear how much of tobacco duty raised is actually put into the health budget at a national level. 😕
Furthermore, I honestly don't know about the rest of the country but the 'bootleg baccy' trade is still so bouyant in the south west that most 'savvy' smokers here actually fund healthcare in France and Holland.
my heroin line
You're doing it wrong.
i think the op's missing the essential point of private healthcare i.e. the provider doesn't care how fat/unfit or whatever you are so long as you can pay for it.
which makes the liver figures for englandshire released today interesting reading. true, as expected the 'lower orders' are well represented but not that well represented. a significant part of those figures are well, people like stw. could be you were a steamer in your early days, could be you're a woman who just doesn't know when too much really is too much, could be that wee brush of hepatitis you got is making a daring comeback.
is your insurance going to cover this? i think not. and neither will it cover your wee granny when she's got the dementia. or your child if it's got diabetes.
so while the 'let them die' argument would make parts of my life much, much easier i'd like to see some action to back this up. perhaps advocates of this approach would have the nads to apply this criteria to them and theirs. i've seen exactly zero evidence of this throughout my career. or maybe they could volunteer to do the turning away in the transitional phase of such a system?
i've only met (aside from jehovah's and one rasta) one person who walked it like they talked it the face of serious deisease. she had non-hodgkins lymphoma and was 'particular' about what drugs she'd take or what blood products. i won't say my colleagues were much impressed but i was and it was both a challenge and a joy to look after her until she died on her terms.
and for those blubbing about how 'their' healthcare would be so much cheaper once the markets sort out 'gold plated' types like me - i was earning more in 1990 working in the states than i would in an equivocal post now. and i didn't work in a money making area!