Obesity and the NHS

[TooNice]

Free gyms for larger people with specialist coaches (I hate going to the gym with all those people with muscle bound perfect bodies and I've got a BMI of 22 - I hate to think how a fat person would feel in that environment!) More obesity clinics with dieticians, physiotherapists and consultants with an interest in obesity?

Given gym costs, I'd find it a bit unfair that obese people would get such privilege for free (yes, I consider gym a privilege), when they could walk/jog in the park for free instead. For the really overweight, it's really the diet (and lots of discipline) that needs to change first.

Oh a side note, I think we are going to have a repeat of this thread: http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...9-fatties.html

[blueball]

If we are to prejudice them because they have health problems by lack of good diet are we going to do the same to anorexics?

I know there are people who just plain overeat but there are genuine problems as well (either chemical or psychological). They need help like anyone else.

[Alex]

Given gym costs, I'd find it a bit unfair that obese people would get such privilege for free (yes, I consider gym a privilege), when they could walk/jog in the park for free instead. For the really overweight, it's really the diet (and lots of discipline) that needs to change first.

To be honest, it makes no difference to me whether it is a privilege or not - you could argue that nicotine replacement is just such a privilege.

The point is that if you did this kind of thing might cost, but would probably save the country money. We had a guy in hospital recently who was from somewhere in the middle east and didn't have travel insurance. He had a heart attack in the UK, didn't even have the full treatment but over a 5 day admission built up a £10,000 bill (which he had to pay himself, not sure how he did this tbh). This is not mentioning the cost of the drugs they are then on for life, the costs of other fat-related illnesses, or the cost of disability allowance/lost working days these obese people almost invariably have.

I couldn't care less if they are getting what many would consider a privilege, if it saves us all money in the long term and gives us a healthier population.

[Lucio]

Fat people are fat. Ergo, they are fatties.

That's like saying it's ok to call people by slang that refers to the colour of their skin or sexual orientation, and it's not! Obese is the medically correct term and I'd like people to remember that other choices can be hurtful.



With regards to the OP, obesity is a problem but the main one is the fact that the food we're being offered is grossly over-sized for our needs in many cases. For example, since I've started my diet some foods are out because their portions just aren't easily controllable or sensible for a single person. Also, ready meals aren't unhealthy per se, I've found them really helpful in loosing weight as they're a dead easy way to control the calories I eat.

[nibbler]

It's not a particularly derrogatory term, that's my point.

[Alex]

Eating healthily is only half the battle though, if you think that a fatter person can have 10 stone plus of extra fat tissue, this is a lot of fat to get rid of.

Eating healthily may help you stop putting on weight, but to lose it you need to use up the energy you may have stored up in your body - which you aren't going to do watching TV.

In addition, exercise reduces the risk of many of the obesity related illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease.

[Steve]

I think the NHS has to cater for whatever medical conditions people come to it with, regardless of whether they're self inflicted, as a result of a poor lifestyle, hereditary, psychological, etc. If we need to update facilities to cater to the populous, then so be it.

But encouraging better lifestyle through education and food taxation, well that's fine by me. So long as it's done right, which is nigh on impossible. Some people can eat whatever they like and not get fat; should they be penalised for this? Some people smoke their whole life and don't get cancer... Tricky!

I think we have to do something, so in principal I'm all for making bad food expensive, and more importantly, making healthy food cheap.

Or, you could employ a policy I once heard on Look Around You: On the spot fines for obesity.

[megah0]

Or, you could employ a policy I once heard on Look Around You: On the spot fines for obesity.

Make the fines starjumps or squats and you might be onto something.

[piggeh]

Yes, I don't mind a tax on bad foods. We should tax Potatoes, Rice, Bread, Pasta, and refined sugars, all of which massively affect your insulin levels and thus your body's willingness to turn this into fat as well as leading to unsulin resistance, and various western diseases like Alzheimers.

Of course others will say we should tax stuff based on fat content - until you have a universal agreement on what makes people fat, then how can you agree on what to tax?

[Alex]

No one thing makes you fat, just how much you eat of it, and therein lies the problem. People who regularly eat 4 burgers and 16 sausages a day will be obviously obese, but then a burger as part of a more balanced diet isn't a problem.

You could argue that foods made with hydrogenated fat (i.e. almost all of Gregg's) are always bad for you but then even if you imposed a 100% tax they'd still be 3 large pasties for £2...

I prefer the idea of heavy subsidies for fruit and vegetables, this would help both the agriculture business and the eating healthily problem. Well, I say that, but then perhaps it wouldn't, carrots are hardly expensive are they?

[megah0]

Yes, I don't mind a tax on bad foods. We should tax Potatoes, Rice, Bread, Pasta, and refined sugars, all of which massively affect your insulin levels and thus your body's willingness to turn this into fat as well as leading to unsulin resistance, and various western diseases like Alzheimers.

Of course others will say we should tax stuff based on fat content - until you have a universal agreement on what makes people fat, then how can you agree on what to tax?

You wish to put tax hikes on staple foods?

This may not go down well.....

[Moby-Dick]

By all means tax fast food - as long as you levy an equivilent tax on anything sold at a DIY store and all sporting equipment. All of those sunday footballing and gardening /home improvement injuries cost the NHS too.

[TooNice]

To be honest, it makes no difference to me whether it is a privilege or not - you could argue that nicotine replacement is just such a privilege.

Except that as a non-smoker, I have no interest in nicotine replacement. Yet gym membership is something many health conscious people can appreciate and you are suggesting that those who poses less health financial risk end up paying more than those who poses more financial risks.

It's just the complete opposite of how my health insurance work. I get rewarded for staying healthy by getting discounted gym, lower premium, and a couple of treats. Granted, being fit is a reward in itself, but to me it just makes more sense to reward people who are putting in some efforts (and less costly to society). If you were offering a plan where every one starts out in the park, and those who make progress end up with free/discounted membership, then fine, though I'd like to see that extended to the general public too.

I am not particularly of overweight people, but if they start getting free privilege (as opposed to what's necessary) I may end up with a reason to be resentful. Yes in order to help them, there is going to be a cost. I can understand offering them things that might help that the average person has no use for (e.g. counselling), but when it comes to exercise, I am not in favour of giving them paid services when there are free options available.

Eating healthily is only half the battle though, if you think that a fatter person can have 10 stone plus of extra fat tissue, this is a lot of fat to get rid of.

Eating healthily may help you stop putting on weight, but to lose it you need to use up the energy you may have stored up in your body - which you aren't going to do watching TV.

I think that's another place we disagree. I'd say that diet is not half, but most of the battle. You may not be particularly fit if you only exercise once per week, but you can easily lose quite a bit of weight just by controlling your diet.

[Moby-Dick]

are you equally resentfull of people who have subsidised housing ?

[Alex]

But surely going to the gym is necessary for them. Why do you mind if they get it, if in the end it means less cost coming out of our taxes?

Bear in mind most of these people, once they get to this stage, are so overweight they don't work as well. If you could get them fitter and back to work then not only will you be paying a lot less toward their health costs, they could then be claiming less benefits and paying income tax too.

The real point of the suggestion though, was that I can imagine how it would be very hard for a fat person to go to a gym where everyone there is 'perfect' bodied - and having gyms set up toward weight loss might be a lot easier to persuade them to go to. Maybe it would make sense to do this at cost, rather than for a profit, but to me even if it was for free at the taxpayers expense it makes sense to me if it would save the taxpayer money overall. Perhaps means tested?

[TooNice]

are you equally resentfull of people who have subsidised housing ?

Depends. I know someone someone who lives in a not-exactly cheap area in Central London, and openly admits that if he was to get employment, he'd lose the benefits and wouldn't be able to live in such area, so he might as well not bother. Not exactly a praiseworthy attitude surely?

I don't mind people getting subsidies/help for getting a roof over their head, in fact I didn't say anything about the idea of coaching. However, I have an issue of giving people what I consider to be luxuries (see next).

But surely going to the gym is necessary for them.

When I say privilege, I mean luxury. Luxuries are not necessities. A brisk walk down the street, kicking a ball in the park, rope skipping, pushups, there are plenty of exercises one could do without going to the gym. Yes, gyms are nice, comfortable environment (for what they are), but that's exactly why I see them as luxuries rather than necessities. I just don't see why people should be pampered for not taking care of themselves.

The real point of the suggestion though, was that I can imagine how it would be very hard for a fat person to go to a gym where everyone there is 'perfect' bodied - and having gyms set up toward weight loss might be a lot easier to persuade them to go to. Maybe it would make sense to do this at cost, rather than for a profit, but to me even if it was for free at the taxpayers expense it makes sense to me if it would save the taxpayer money overall.

What I am thinking is, does it really have to be a gym? Based on how much they charge, it can't be cheap to build/maintain. Given that you can lose weight/build strength using some of the methods previously listed, wouldn't you save even more taxpayer money?

Sooner or later they are going to have to learn not to be so self-conscious (in my eye few people including myself are "perfect-bodied"), and exercising in public will help with that. In this relatively PC society, anyone who points and laugh at overweight people exercising in the park are more likely be the ones getting shunned. People like to root for the underdog, and also, they are probably going to appreciate seeing overweight people genuinely fighting that uphill battle in trying to break their habits.

You can't shelter insecurities forever, let's say they graduate from a gym for overweight people with a BMI similar to yours (normal range). They go to a 'normal' gym and see what you see, feel worse than you feel, then retreat back to their home leading to a relapse. Wouldn't that be a waste? And of course, you can't keep them in the overweight gym either, since you'll then put off those who are 10 stones overweight.