Is It Cheaper In The Long Run To Operate?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29953082
I'm in 2 minds here. I'm not exactly thin but I'm not really fat enough to consider surgery but I do have some sympathy with the idea that surgery can improve quality of life as well save money in the long run, what do we think?

[pastafreak]

@I agree many do...but it doesn't excuse labeling them with so many derogatory terms.
And no...I am not overweight or obese,in case anyone is thinking that. ;-)

[pastafreak]

"@ ummmm"

[ummmm]

Have you ever watched 'Secret Eaters'?

Some people just don't know, or block out, what they eat. They think they eat a healthy diet and are baffled by their weight gain. They forget about the half pack of biscuits, going through the drive through at McDonalds, snacking on crisps...etc. In reality, they are in denial.

[Old_Geezer]

No one should encourage the government to use tax to manipulate folks' life choices. Government should keep their noses out of what is not their business, and should only apply fair taxation not discriminatory taxation based on something other than an individual's ability to contribute.

[pastafreak]

//Have you ever watched 'Secret Eaters//

Oh Yeh...I think we are all guilty of it to some extent. Depends on how much bad food is available in the house. Some will find it easier than others to ignore temptation.

[jomifl]

pasta, the only person I labelled as an idle glutton was me and I don't defend myself let alone anybody else.

[jomifl]

OG, I think government should interferein peoples life styles if they are self destructive or a burden to others. It doesn't need policing just some sensible rules and taxing of the junk food vendors plus some encouragement for the weak minded.

[ludwig]

// No one should encourage the government to use tax to manipulate folks' life choices. Government should keep their noses out of what is not their business, and should only apply fair taxation not discriminatory taxation based on something other than an individual's ability to contribute. //

As long as we have a national health service people's health is the government's business. That's why they're always 'poking their nose' into our eating, drinking, smoking habits, and passing laws to make people wear seat belts and crash helmets etc.

If we all weren't collectively paying for it no-one would give a toss. You could eat til you were 50 stone and sort out the consequences with your insurance company like they do in America.

[Old_Geezer]

I could not disagree more. The NHS is effectively a compulsory health insurance, nothing there permits interference in how folk live their lives. The government's job is to ensure it is funded and run properly, nothing more.

[ludwig]

// The government's job is to ensure it is funded and run properly, nothing more. //

Correct, and one of the ways they do that is to put large taxes on cigarettes (to raise revenue and discourage smoking), large taxes on alcohol (to raise revenue and discourage excessive drinking), alongside running health awareness campaigns, ultimately aimed to reduce nhs expenditure.

If you and I both paid an agreed monthly sum into a joint account for the purposes of privately funding our health care when we needed it, it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to take an interest in my health and whether I was looking after it.

For example, if I took up smoking, drinking whisky all day, and eating nothing but cream cakes so my weight ballooned, I would probably need to be dipping into our joint account pretty regularly. You might be concerned that when it came to needing treatment tourself, there'd be b8ggerall left, thanks to my chosen lifestyle.

I think you'd be perfectly within your rights to suggest that if this joint scheme were to continue, then either I took more care of myself, or paid more into the pot.

[Old_Geezer]

Not really, what one possibly loses on the health thing one gains on the unpaid pension.

[ludwig]

^ Possibly. I guess judging by that logic you'd also support taking all the tax off ciggies so they cost a few pennies a packet, and bringing back tobacco advertising.

That way we'd save a fortune on pension payouts - as long as all the smokers co-operated with the plan and died asap.

I don't think they would though. I think they'd still cost us more in cancer treatments etc than we'd save on pensions payouts.