Reply to: British girls fattest in Western Europe

[SpontaneousOrder]

If you can't trust the government ...

Good one


Anyway, I don't need the advice of the government or any charity to know that I shouldn't live on a diet of pizza & chips.

Unfortunately life doesn't work like that - you can eat as healthily and exercise as much as you want but if you got screwed genes or have say something like asthma you are going to need medical care.

And I might get run over by a bus tomorrow. So what?

If you eat healthily and exercise sensibly then statistically you're chances of needing expensive treatment are much lower and that will be recognized by the insurance company when they're quoting me a premium.
Equally, if I race motorbikes and base-jump I'm statistically much more likely to need treatment and the insurance company will recognize that too when quoting my premium, while deciding that the odds of me being run over by a bus aren't any higher than anyone else's and so ignoring that small risk.

If I'm born with bad genes which will make my premiums expensive through no action of my own, then so be it. There is nothing prohibiting people taking out family cover which guarantees that children born with conditions will be covered to some extent; families will pay a premium for this, such is the nature of offsetting the risk of something that may or may not happen.

Alternatively there's always a place for charity. The NHS is just charity obtained by force in instances where the donator is unwilling. I would bet that people in general would be ALOT more willing to fund a healthcare scheme in which recipients of treatment did so only in order to treat such disorders - and not to treat self-inflicted disease or injury.

[SueEllen]

I don't really understand your reply, so perhaps we're talking at cross purposes...

I'm not advocating taxing anyone more than anyone else - I'm advocating not taxing people at all for healthcare and letting them buy their own insurance. No one gets a free ride, hence eating healthy and exercising sensibly are rewarded with the lower premiums associated with less risk.

Unfortunately life doesn't work like that - you can eat as healthily and exercise as much as you want but if you got screwed genes or have say something like asthma you are going to need medical care.

Now you will say that most people don't have screwed genes but over the years I've know a few women on experimental contraception. Virtually all of them have put on an excess amount of weight on the contraception and lost it without changing their life style when they got it removed.

Most people are surprised to find how bad their supposedly healthy food can be because they are too lazy to research what they are putting into their bodies. This is economically viable because the associated cost of ignorance is socialised.

Have you looked the nutritional advice being given out by the likes of NHS Choices and Diabetes UK? The advice is bad for the average person, and no dietitian who is up to to date with current research would advise you to eat a diet like that.

If you can't trust the government and well-known charities to give you good advice then who can you trust?

[SpontaneousOrder]

5ft 7 and built like a human wrecking ball

BMI charts weren't designed with human wrecking balls in mind !

[SpontaneousOrder]

On the part of people giving advice, almost certainly yes!

That was a question posing two potential options to answer with. Lol.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Your argument falls down as you will end up taxing those who injury themselves i.e .sprain ankles, break bones doing sporting and active pursuits regardless of body size a lot more, and allowing those with a good genetic make up who do very little exercise who get seriously ill in their 50s and 60s a free ride.

Part of the issue is the food industry.

Most people are surprised to find out how many calories are in food that is advertised as "low fat". They don't realise that low fat equals high sugar, and "reduce fat" means it still has a damn lot of fat in it.

The food industry are running scared as they are worried they will end up like the tobacco industry when governments and regulators work out how much they are costing Nationalised Health services and sue them.

Why do you think the food manufacturers are lobbying the government to stop a tax on sugar? Why do you think supersized meals suddenly disappeared in Macdonalds, etc when the EU said it was going to legislate against them?

I don't really understand your reply, so perhaps we're talking at cross purposes...

I'm not advocating taxing anyone more than anyone else - I'm advocating not taxing people at all for healthcare and letting them buy their own insurance. No one gets a free ride, hence eating healthy and exercising sensibly are rewarded with the lower premiums associated with less risk.

Most people are surprised to find how bad their supposedly healthy food can be because they are too lazy to research what they are putting into their bodies. This is economically viable because the associated cost of ignorance is socialised.

[OwlHoot]

Part of the issue is the food industry.

Most people are surprised to find out how many calories are in food that is advertised as "low fat". They don't realise that low fat equals high sugar, and "reduce fat" means it still has a damn lot of fat in it.

The food industry are running scared as they are worried they will end up like the tobacco industry when governments and regulators work out how much they are costing Nationalised Health services and sue them.

Why do you think the food manufacturers are lobbying the government to stop a tax on sugar? Why do you think supersized meals suddenly disappeared in Macdonalds, etc when the EU said it was going to legislate against them?

Absolutely. I walk past a sign in my local Sainsburys saying something like "We've ditched the junk", and one's obvious first thought why was the junk there in the first place, and how much still is?!

The snag is that taxing sugar might impact the UK's relationship with producers such as Jamaica and even the US. But there should definitely be clauses in the upcoming free trade agreement that allow for taxes on sugar.

Also, the UK manages to export loads of the repulsive sugary confectionary manufactured in this country, even (unbelievably) to places like France where you'd think they knew better and preferred to eat proper chocolate and less refined food!

[OwlHoot]

Or even better..... drumroll......

Remove this absurd idea of universally free at the point of use health care. Make people pay for their own care, and allow charity to fill the gaps.

Problem solved. No need to criminalise someone for eating a pack of doritos.

At last, someone with some common sense and not one of the brainwashed masses.

Been saying it for years!

[SueEllen]

Or even better..... drumroll......

Remove this absurd idea of universally free at the point of use health care. Make people pay for their own care, and allow charity to fill the gaps.

Problem solved. No need to criminalise someone for eating a pack of doritos.

Your argument falls down as you will end up taxing those who injury themselves i.e .sprain ankles, break bones doing sporting and active pursuits regardless of body size a lot more, and allowing those with a good genetic make up who do very little exercise who get seriously ill in their 50s and 60s a free ride.

Part of the issue is the food industry.

Most people are surprised to find out how many calories are in food that is advertised as "low fat". They don't realise that low fat equals high sugar, and "reduce fat" means it still has a damn lot of fat in it.

The food industry are running scared as they are worried they will end up like the tobacco industry when governments and regulators work out how much they are costing Nationalised Health services and sue them.

Why do you think the food manufacturers are lobbying the government to stop a tax on sugar? Why do you think supersized meals suddenly disappeared in Macdonalds, etc when the EU said it was going to legislate against them?

[tractor]

...

Is that due to low intelligence/education though?, or wilful ignorance?

On the part of people giving advice, almost certainly yes!

[SpontaneousOrder]

Said without even a hint of irony

Why not just send out the functionaries of your Stasi state to count the number of bottles and cans in people's recycling and levy a charge on those who are deemed to have overconsumed?

Or even better..... drumroll......

Remove this absurd idea of universally free at the point of use health care. Make people pay for their own care, and allow charity to fill the gaps.

Problem solved. No need to criminalise someone for eating a pack of doritos.

[Gittins Gal]

BMI should be a statuary statistic on the self assessment form. Tax the fat / sugar as we would tobacco.

Said without even a hint of irony

Why not just send out the functionaries of your Stasi state to count the number of bottles and cans in people's recycling and levy a charge on those who are deemed to have overconsumed?

[SpontaneousOrder]

I would say half the nation would not have the maths ability to do the calculations. That is education then mainly.

I doubt that personally, but if it were true it would certainly explain alot of other frustrations!

[d000hg]

Rubbish, it is categorising food as good or bad, junk or not junk as you have done is at the heart of this problem. There is no such thing as junk food, only poor diets made up of too much and or too little of certain things.

You're being obstreperous now.

[DodgyAgent]

No need for that warning on here!

Why? most people on here don't have any partners when they have sex

[minestrone]

Is that due to low intelligence/education though?, or wilful ignorance?

I would say half the nation would not have the maths ability to do the calculations. That is education then mainly.