Unemployed obese people - start losing weight or lose your benefits
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
Data please.
Yeah, but now you described just about any heavy drinker or "substance" abuser, regardless of whether skinny or fat? Which would mean we target unemployed fatties not because they are proven or guaranteed to be more of a strain on resources than anyone else with unhealthy and/or risky life style, but just because they are easy to pick on and make for popular target?
Really? Not everyone is overweight and some of us enjoy a fat greasy burger every now and again!
its doing my head in the goverment trying to control our choices constantly now. dont eat this, we will tax it more. dfont smoke we will tax it more, dont drink we will tax it more. just sit in your house and do nothing
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,409
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
IMO I just don't understand why benefits are actually paid at all bar small amounts, just provide healthy food parcels as part of signing on, utility cards etc. Benefits should not be about choice, they should be about providing the necessary support to meet basic living standards.
I understand the target of this scheme, at least I think I do. Its not the short term benefits claimants, its the long term ones.
Those who would be happy to spend years living on benefits, living sedatory lives, eating and/or smoking and/or drinking to excess and hence putting themselves into a worse physical state than they "should" do. Using tax payers money to fund this lifestyle and then absorb more tax payers money to treat it.
IMO its bad enough to have to pay someone to spend all week sitting on their **** its even more of a **** take to have to pay again to treat the symptoms.
The easiest way to have cheap nice food is using a slow cooker, it best suits cheap "tough" flavourful cuts of meat, plus root veggies etc (normally available in decent cheap bags). It takes a little time early in the day to gather and do some simple prep work then throw them in the pot. 6-8 hours or so later a good meal having used fairly limited energy is produced, which will be fairly flavourful, including almost no addatives etc will be produced. With some basic spices its a world better than the vast majority of ready meals and its actually quite hard to get wrong so unless your a total **** you would struggle to ruin the food.
A lot of frozen food is also considerably cheaper than fresh but ignored as it requires a little planning, ie defrosting. By combining frozen meat and frozen veg plus a slow cooker decent food becomes very affordable for those with the time and planning to take advantage, there is absolutely no excuse for "having" to eat the cheaper pre-prepared meals if you have hours available to prepare your own food each day.
I understand the target of this scheme, at least I think I do. Its not the short term benefits claimants, its the long term ones.
Those who would be happy to spend years living on benefits, living sedatory lives, eating and/or smoking and/or drinking to excess and hence putting themselves into a worse physical state than they "should" do. Using tax payers money to fund this lifestyle and then absorb more tax payers money to treat it.
IMO its bad enough to have to pay someone to spend all week sitting on their **** its even more of a **** take to have to pay again to treat the symptoms.
The easiest way to have cheap nice food is using a slow cooker, it best suits cheap "tough" flavourful cuts of meat, plus root veggies etc (normally available in decent cheap bags). It takes a little time early in the day to gather and do some simple prep work then throw them in the pot. 6-8 hours or so later a good meal having used fairly limited energy is produced, which will be fairly flavourful, including almost no addatives etc will be produced. With some basic spices its a world better than the vast majority of ready meals and its actually quite hard to get wrong so unless your a total **** you would struggle to ruin the food.
A lot of frozen food is also considerably cheaper than fresh but ignored as it requires a little planning, ie defrosting. By combining frozen meat and frozen veg plus a slow cooker decent food becomes very affordable for those with the time and planning to take advantage, there is absolutely no excuse for "having" to eat the cheaper pre-prepared meals if you have hours available to prepare your own food each day.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
Data suggests you loose 12 stone an hour if you adopt the Boxing Stance.
They use BMI, I'll be knackert as most people from the Gym Rats Thread!
Pretty sure people with the lean muscle mass to make them obese in the eyes of BMI couldn't maintain that muscle on benefits.
Erm...what's the problem with either of those? The government is here to serve the people and if they can save money and appease them at the same time what's the issue?
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 730
hmm...not sure what to say about this...lol
although it seems a good plan,
although it seems a good plan,
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,160
- Location
- London
I'd be more concerned about the vast amount of taxpayer money that goes towards paying for us to stockpile weapons, invade other countries and support fraudulent banking systems etc.
I guess it's easier to blame immigrants/chavs/fatties etc than it is to look at some of the real causes. Helps you feel better about yourself too judging by a lot of posts.
If the number of benefit claimants halved, do any of you actually believe you'd have more money in your pocket?
I guess it's easier to blame immigrants/chavs/fatties etc than it is to look at some of the real causes. Helps you feel better about yourself too judging by a lot of posts.
If the number of benefit claimants halved, do any of you actually believe you'd have more money in your pocket?
Do you really think that setting targets for sales people in order that they can earn more is comparable to forcing people you deem unhealthy or overweight to exercise under the threat of having the benefits they rely on taken away?
Forgive me, but Westminster Council is proposing to cut benefits for the overweight. That surely counts as government intervention even if it's based on a professional opinion.
This is the point! What count's as concerted effort? How are they classifying overweight? And how are they determining between those people who are overweight due to genuine issues? Some people can be overweight due to mental illness or depression which causes them to eat more - is targeting such people by penalising them fair?
I'm not running away with myself, I'm posing genuine questions that need to be answered before this proposal gets anywhere near getting off the ground. I can't see what relevance your health and weight have on your right to access benefits, other than increased healthcare costs, and even then I think there are too many mitigating practical, moral and emotional circumstances to address.
I don't buy the assertion that it will have a positive effect. Some people are overweight for genuine reasons. They could eat too much due to depression, or anxiety, or any number of issues. They aren't just lazy, they are sick.
I agree such people could do with help, but I think taking away benefits from them is likely to do more harm than good. If you want to stem the issue, you could follow the advice of the professional opinions quoted in that article:
British Medical Association GP committee chairman Dr Buckman said:
I'd like to add, I'm by no means incredibly liberal when it comes to my attitude toward the welfare state, but I certainly don't buy into the opinion that nearly everyone on benefits is a scrounger who deserves nothing, as the tabloid press would often have us believe. We do need to improve the administration of our welfare state, but attacking those who already rely on it and are very vulnerable is not the way forward.
Just made me spit my tea out in the office!
Make the benefit in the form of a voucher, and fix it to the top of a thick rope. If they can climb to the top and take the voucher they get some money*.
* I lied, I'd be sneaky and make them climb the rope only to find the "voucher" is actually a job application form - the lazy ****s.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 4,652
- Location
- Nottingham
I would also advocate anybody requiring help from the NHS to undertake an assault course to prove that they are fit enough to be eligible for assistance. All social housing should be abolished cuz that'll teach them freeloaders. Oh an pensioners, once they retire, what use are they? just a drain on resources, we should get rid of them right off the bat..
I'm beginning to think we never won WW2 with some of these things they're coming out with lately, it's absolutely disgraceful, we're getting more and more like Nazi Germany every day!
Is this all being done in the name of austerity?
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 1,466
- Location
- Bedfordshire
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 664
A glimpse of sanity in an insane world, thanks!