eat donuts for breakfast? pay for your own health care

[Lycosa]

It's a daft idea - where do you draw the line if someone injures themselves whilst cycling? Climbing? Doing DIY? These are peoples lifestyle choices as well, and it makes more sense to do what they do currently, which is to tax cigarettes, cakes etc. at the point of sale.

I'd also assume that obese people will on average have a much lower lifespan, so I guess that's a money saving mechanism built in.

I think it would be fair to draw a line between someone who is taking part in an activity that has a low potential for causing injury (that requires professional medical attention), but otherwise improves their health, and someone who is knowingly damaging their health through poor lifestyle choices.

Whats the point of the NHS if it only treats healthy people then???

How about for treating people who are ill/injured through misfortune, not because they deliberately drink/eat/inhale poison.

 

[Morba]

Even the lowest common denominator information system (that traffic light ********) doesn't get people understanding that 300 calories from lard is far worse for you than 300 calories from protein.

I didn't get schooled in this country, do they not cover the whole food make-up thing with kids? Empty calories, bad calories, food pyramid, etc?

I think that they are being taught more about good foods and bad foods and why bad is bad and good is good. It didn't used to be that way though.
Sad that they try to teach this then generally give them crap for school dinners.

 

[rsatd]

That kind of attitude along with the rubbish advice the NHS gives out is what's wrong with this whole issue. Fat doesn't make you fat, it doesn't cause any of the issues they're generally blamed for either, low fat high carb diets are what make you fat and increase your chances of a variety of conditions.

I am interested, tell me more. Not completely excluding fat, just seeing what I eat and based on the daily recommended limit, stop eating when its reached. So far I feel great after starting it and keeping my current weight, which is perfectly fine for my height. Add in some exercise on the side and I feel like I am doing ok, but always interested in learning from other people's experiences. Being fair I go for gluten free and that sort of healthy sounding stuff...

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

How about for treating people who are ill/injured through misfortune, not because they deliberately drink/eat/inhale poison.

Ok, I'm obese, self inflicted, the only time I've been to hospital was once 20odd years ago to have my tonsils out. I've been to see my doctor maybe 3-4 times in the space of as many years.

So because my current health is self inflicted you are telling me that I shouldn't be treated?

 

[Mickey]

I think that they are being taught more about good foods and bad foods and why bad is bad and good is good. It didn't used to be that way though.
Sad that they try to teach this then generally give them crap for school dinners.

The real shame is that AFAIK they're being taught that animal fats are bad for us and getting most of your energy from grains is the healthiest way to live. Total BS.

 

[:(Rhodri:)]

I think it would be fair to draw a line between someone who is taking part in an activity that has a low potential for causing injury (that requires professional medical attention), but otherwise improves their health, and someone who is knowingly damaging their health through poor lifestyle choices.

It sounds a nice idea, but would be a nightmare in practice. Where would alcohol related injury fall? (Discounting alcohol related diseases even) or someone that injures themselves due to speeding, or rock climbing?

I still stand by free healthcare for all, but with higher taxes on things we know to be unhealthy - be it cigarettes, alcohol or unhealthy foods. The more someone shoves in their face, the more they're contributing to NHS services, which can help pay for the crane to lift said individual from their home.

I'd be interested to see an average lifetime cost comparison between an average sized person and an obese person, to see if there really is a huge difference.

 

[Efour]

phew its been 6 months since this horse was flogged im glad its back for another beating.

 

[Gackt]

How about for treating people who are ill/injured through misfortune, not because they deliberately drink/eat/inhale poison.

And if those poisons are consumed because of another issue? Depression? Existing illness? Abuse?

Will they be taken into account on a person-by-person basis or will they be cast aside simply because they 'chose' to become addicted?

 

[Mickey]

I am interested, tell me more. Not completely excluding fat, just seeing what I eat and based on the daily recommended limit, stop eating when its reached. So far I feel great after starting it and keeping my current weight, which is perfectly fine for my height. Add in some exercise on the side and I feel like I am doing ok, but always interested in learning from other people's experiences. Being fair I go for gluten free and that sort of healthy sounding stuff...

This is a fairly decent write up of the subject, there are many more if you google though - http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/

For me, following the advice from that site and other paleo/primal/low carb sources for diet (quite strict) and exercise (as much as I can, I work too much etc..) has taken me from my starting point last year of taking 5 pills per day to 0 pills per day, weighing 148kg to my current 87kg (and still falling) at 6'3, Hba1c down from well into the diabetic range to totally normal, blood pressure down from elevated to normal healthy levels, cholesterol from high to normal... My doctors (apart from one I saw recently) can't understand how I've gone from totally following their dietary advice and getting worse, to going totally against their dietary advice and having such a dramatic improvement.

 

[Ahleckz]

It's this sort of thinking that diminishes the already dwindling idea of self-responsibility even further. People are becoming entitled brats who are never responsible for anything they do, and it's pathetic.

ps. I'm not agreeing with a blanket ban, but I wouldn't have any issue with some sort of diminishing returns for self-inflicted crap.

How do you prove that the smoking causes lung cancer though? It happens to people that don't smoke as well as those who smoke. You just wouldn't be able to police such a policy.

 

[rsatd]

Thanks for the link, will check it out.

 

[Lycosa]

Ok, I'm obese, self inflicted, the only time I've been to hospital was once 20odd years ago to have my tonsils out. I've been to see my doctor maybe 3-4 times in the space of as many years.

So because my current health is self inflicted you are telling me that I shouldn't be treated?

I don't think people with unhealthy lifestyles should be denied free general health care. But I don't think people should get treated completely free for a self inflicted disease.

And if those poisons are consumed because of another issue? Depression? Existing illness? Abuse?

Will they be taken into account on a person-by-person basis or will they be cast aside simply because they 'chose' to become addicted?

In an ideal system, they could be taken into account on a person-by-person basis (if they had no choice but to consume these poisons or genuinely didn't know that they were damaging their health). I think people with poor lifestyle choices should still be entitled to free health care where the disease is not directly related to their lifestyle choices.

I understand a system like this would be very difficult to implement and I don't actually have a problem with the current system. I'm just saying this for arguments sake.

 

[Gackt]

In an ideal system, they could be taken into account on a person-by-person basis (if they had no choice but to consume these poisons or genuinely didn't know that they were damaging their health). I think people with poor lifestyle choices should still be entitled to free health care where the disease is not directly related to their lifestyle choices.

I understand a system like this would be very difficult to implement and I don't actually have a problem with the current system. I'm just saying this for arguments sake.

Of course, I wasn't really insinuating anything about your wishes, but rather thought it was an interesting point to make. As is yours.

I suppose when it comes to poor lifestyle choices it's interesting to look at why they choose to live that way. Is it through lack of education? In which case, where is the shortfall coming from and how do we plug that gap to avoid it in the future? If it's through existing issues, then are any of those issues things that we can provide help for and stop?

I wonder for those who support the idea of subsidising your healthcare if you live dangerously would say that those who ride motorcycles should pay more? Or if you drive a car as opposed to walk? Those in high-risk jobs? etc.

 

[krooton]

How do you prove that the smoking causes lung cancer though? It happens to people that don't smoke as well as those who smoke. You just wouldn't be able to police such a policy.

I'm no doctor, but I would have thought there are other tells in the condition of a person's lungs beyond lung cancer that would indicate that they are a smoker.

Perhaps some sort of rolling coverage based on a person's unhealthy choices? If you do something that actively increases the risk of developing something, you have limited coverage of that something.

If you don't smoke, you get full treatment for lung cancer and the like.
If you do smoke, you only get £x treatment before you have to start paying for yourself.
If you are obese, you get limited amount of free treatment from illness resulting from your obesity.

This might actually give a few people a kick up the backside to change their ways. At the moment, people just do what they want as any issues in the future will be covered.

 

[kwerk]

If you regularly deplete your glycogen the way nature intended through exercise or fasting, you can basically eat anything you want with no ill-effect.

The problem starts when you constantly overfill your liver and start storing fat. the fat clogs up and inflames the cells and makes them insulin resistant, which makes you more hungry, which makes you eat more, which makes you fatter, which makes you more insulin resistant until you get diabetes, fatty liver, metabolic syndrome and other ailments.

Humans are supposed to work on a feast/fast cycle with constant liver depletion/repletion. there's nothing wrong with stuffing your face with donuts as long as you "pay it back" later with fasting or exercise. It's the same as a cavemen finding some berry bushes for example. I'm sure they would stuff their faces with berries until they stored fat. But the difference is they would have to walk miles and have days of fasting before finding another patch of berries. In which time they have depleted the fat/glycogen.

Low carb is just a trick to get the same effect but still being able to eat all the time.

 

[shoes]

But surely those should be put to better use than curing people who are ill through their own fault?.

Seems like a fair trade to me.

No smokers = no tax anyway
Smokers = more tax than the cost of their car = profit

Problem?

 

[Mickey]

If you regularly deplete your glycogen the way nature intended through exercise or fasting, you can basically eat anything you want with no ill-effect.

The problem starts when you constantly overfill your liver and start storing fat. the fat clogs up and inflames the cells and makes them insulin resistant, which makes you more hungry, which makes you eat more, which makes you fatter, which makes you more insulin resistant until you get diabetes, fatty liver, metabolic syndrome and other ailments.

Humans are supposed to work on a feast/fast cycle with constant liver depletion/repletion. there's nothing wrong with stuffing your face with donuts as long as you "pay it back" later with fasting or exercise. It's the same as a cavemen finding some berry bushes for example. I'm sure they would stuff their faces with berries until they stored fat. But the difference is they would have to walk miles and have days of fasting before finding another patch of berries. In which time they have depleted the fat/glycogen.

Low carb is just a trick to get the same effect but still being able to eat all the time.

To an extent, but there is the issue that a lot of what's consumed in most people's every day life is also bad for us in other ways. One of the biggest offenders of this is gluten, something which you also generally cut out going low carb.

Low carb also works to help people who are already broken. I couldn't go back to filling myself with glucose, even if it was only every other day, I'd still be doing damage. I can eat a low carb diet and suffer none of the ill effects consuming high amounts of carbs would give me.

 

[Zefan]

That kind of attitude along with the rubbish advice the NHS gives out is what's wrong with this whole issue. Fat doesn't make you fat, it doesn't cause any of the issues they're generally blamed for either, low fat high carb diets are what make you fat and increase your chances of a variety of conditions.

Basically this.

 

[Mickie]

What's the best ratio when it comes to carb fat and protene ?

 

[mattyfez]

It's this sort of thinking that diminishes the already dwindling idea of self-responsibility even further. People are becoming entitled brats who are never responsible for anything they do, and it's pathetic.

ps. I'm not agreeing with a blanket ban, but I wouldn't have any issue with some sort of diminishing returns for self-inflicted crap.

Playing sport of any kind puts you at risk of injury, as does driving a car, or Indeed stepping out the front door in the morning... totally Irresponsible behaviour!, how exactly would your scale of deminishing returns work? As Non Horse rider, why should my tax money go toward hip Replacements for Those who are silly enough To jump on the back of a dangerous animal?