Who Will You Vote For?

[mangocrazy]

The NHS does absolutely nothing with our money to tell people how to be generally more healthy.

Being obese is a personal choice in most cases. And you wouldn't want your personal choice curtailed, now would you? 'Take back control' and similar bollocks spring to mind. You can't have it both ways - do you want to take responsibility for your personal health or do you want the 'Nanny State' to intervene?

[Yambo]

The NHS does absolutely nothing with our money to tell people how to be generally more healthy.

This is bollox.

Loads on their website, loads of TV campaigns, visits to schools, the whole "couch to 5k" thing, food "traffic light" labels....

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/

Doesn't seem to be working.

HTH

[Yambo]

The NHS does absolutely nothing with our money to tell people how to be generally more healthy.

Being obese is a personal choice in most cases. And you wouldn't want your personal choice curtailed, now would you? 'Take back control' and similar bollocks spring to mind. You can't have it both ways - do you want to take responsibility for your personal health or do you want the 'Nanny State' to intervene?

I agree, obesity is a lifestyle choice.

Governments have stomped on other 'lifestyle choices' in the past so why not stomp on obesity, bearing in mind the cost to us all?

[Taipan]

Anyone else going?

[%7B%22extra_data%22%3A%22[]%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22surface%22%2C%22surface%22%3A%22notifications_tab%22%7D%2C%7B%22extra_data%22%3A%22[]%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22discovery_top_tab%22%2C%22surface%22%3A%22bookmark%22%7D]%2C%22ref_notif_type%22%3Anull%2C%22source%22%3A%2229%22%7D

[Count Steer]

The NHS does absolutely nothing with our money to tell people how to be generally more healthy.

Being obese is a personal choice in most cases. And you wouldn't want your personal choice curtailed, now would you? 'Take back control' and similar bollocks spring to mind. You can't have it both ways - do you want to take responsibility for your personal health or do you want the 'Nanny State' to intervene?

I agree, obesity is a lifestyle choice.

Or genetic factors. (As demonstrated by, among other things, studies of adopted children).

[Yambo]

The NHS does absolutely nothing with our money to tell people how to be generally more healthy.

This is bollox.

Loads on their website, loads of TV campaigns, visits to schools, the whole "couch to 5k" thing, food "traffic light" labels....

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/

I've just looked on their website to check (unlike most of the population I guess, who look on there for other reasons).

Health A to Z
Your complete guide to conditions, symptoms and treatments, including what to do and when to get help.

Nothing in there to say "How not to develop . . .

But then, maybe I'm just being picky and I should do a better search.

As a sort of related aside, I used to do some advanced driver training. You can't sell safety, nobody wants to know so our company and I guess most others sold reducing fuel consumption. As you will of course know, just about everything you do whilst driving to improve fuel consumption is generally safer. How you go about the training side of things is key to long term success because, as we all know, being told to do something may have an initial effect but that effect may not last.

People do not want to be told what to do or how they should do things that impinge on their 'rights'. There's no incentive to be healthy; if I have a problem, the NHS will fix me. If the NHS said "We can't even attempt to fix you until you lose a shed load of weight . . ." word would soon get around and if it didn't, their obesity may kill them and subsequently free up some places for intelligent people to get treated.

[Mr. Dazzle]

A look over the Atlantic might poke some holes in that theory.

Food is "too" cheap, that's pretty much it Our caveman drives are out of synch with our production brains.

[Noggin]

the NHS 'needs to move to an insurance-backed model'.

I don't mind this idea up to a point. Ok, insurance-backed like the USA is an absolute no-no to me. That will cause pain, suffering and bankruptcy to anyone without a shit ton of money behind them.

But, there's a few EU countries that operate a system similar to France - you have a card to show you are eligible for treatment as a full resident.
The state pays 70% of all costs direct. In some cases they pay 100% (things like cancer, other ALDs (all life disease I think they're called) and, I think but am not sure, things like road accidents).
The 30% is paid for by an insurance (here it's called a Mutuelle). This is available as a government supported insurance for low incomes that is around 5-10€ a month.
Mine, despite the huge amount of costs connected to my shoulder/knee issues, still only costs me 42€ a month - it's gone up 5€ in 6 years. Which I think is pretty ok! I don't want to change it for now as I know what I get and what is covered!! Many people choose not to have cover for that 30%, but that is their choice and they then have to find the 30% if necessary (for me that would have been in tens of thousands, so I'll never not have a decent mutuelle!)

Germany has something similar but there's an element taken from wages I think (my brother explained it to me a few years ago but I can't remember )

When you move to France you have to apply for the Carte Vitale, up to that point you pay for everything but keep the receipts and they will be refunded once the card is received.

Downside for where I live is that all the healthcare inn resort is private - so I pay for everything at the doctor (appointment fee is 25€ but xrays are extra) and everything at the pharmacy has to be paid for in full. BUT, the 70% is refunded to your bank within 2-4 days usually and the mutuelle refunds the 30% within 3-5 days usually.

Only issues come if you want something not covered or if you choose to see a specialist that charges more than the government will refund - but you don't have to choose that particular specialist.


The French aren't exactly backward in going to see doctors, so it does mostly work. Although I've spoken to a handful of medical people who say it isn't sustainable, but I guess as with all countries there is an aging population that needs more care?

But it's got to be better than a USA type system

[Taipan]

The NHS does absolutely nothing with our money to tell people how to be generally more healthy.

This is bollox.

Loads on their website, loads of TV campaigns, visits to schools, the whole "couch to 5k" thing, food "traffic light" labels....

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/

I've just looked on their website to check (unlike most of the population I guess, who look on there for other reasons).

Health A to Z
Your complete guide to conditions, symptoms and treatments, including what to do and when to get help.

Nothing in there to say "How not to develop . . .

But then, maybe I'm just being picky and I should do a better search.

As a sort of related aside, I used to do some advanced driver training. You can't sell safety, nobody wants to know so our company and I guess most others sold reducing fuel consumption. As you will of course know, just about everything you do whilst driving to improve fuel consumption is generally safer. How you go about the training side of things is key to long term success because, as we all know, being told to do something may have an initial effect but that effect may not last.

People do not want to be told what to do or how they should do things that impinge on their 'rights'. There's no incentive to be healthy; if I have a problem, the NHS will fix me. If the NHS said "We can't even attempt to fix you until you lose a shed load of weight . . ." word would soon get around and if it didn't, their obesity may kill them and subsequently free up some places for intelligent people to get treated.

That's a tired response. A lot of dangerous activities out there as well as unhealthy eating habits and not all obesity is down to unhealthy eating and the NHS was never designed to be judgemental, just a catch-all.

[mangocrazy]

People do not want to be told what to do or how they should do things that impinge on their 'rights'. There's no incentive to be healthy; if I have a problem, the NHS will fix me. If the NHS said "We can't even attempt to fix you until you lose a shed load of weight . . ." word would soon get around and if it didn't, their obesity may kill them and subsequently free up some places for intelligent people to get treated.

Agree entirely. The same should apply to smoking and alcohol-related 'illnesses'. But it's a two-edged sword - what if motorcycling became officially stigmatised as 'dangerous' and any motorcycling-related injuries were treated similarly? Be careful what you wish for...

[Horse]

From our friends' experiences, the French system works well. Quick and efficient.

[Yambo]

Being obese is a personal choice in most cases. And you wouldn't want your personal choice curtailed, now would you? 'Take back control' and similar bollocks spring to mind. You can't have it both ways - do you want to take responsibility for your personal health or do you want the 'Nanny State' to intervene?

I agree, obesity is a lifestyle choice.

Or genetic factors. (As demonstrated by, among other things, studies of adopted children).

Ah, yes, genetic factors!

Fatty A goes to the doctor with issues of obesity and associated problems. The doctor says "You need to eat less and move more. Eat less sugar and fat, make some dietary changes and start doing some gentle exercising to start with and slowly increase the intensity of that to assist in the weight loss. All of this should have an effect on your weight and the associated issues. Here's a diet sheet."

Fatty A: "Is that really the issue? I understand there could be a genetic link to obesity."

Doc: "Yes, there could be a genetic link and it's something we can look at if reducing your intake and exercise has little or no effect. There are other options but they involve surgery and it's too early to jump into that right now."

Fatty A: "Oh OK.

Fatty A goes home. His wife says "What did the doctor say?"

Fatty A: "He says there could be a genetic link so there's not much I can do really. May need an operation but don't really wanna do that. Burgers for lunch?"

[Count Steer]

Well yeah, that and endocrine, autocrine, cytokines, leptin, adiponectin etc. So yup, just burgers.

Methinks your view may be skewed by tourists in search of sun, cheap beer and food.

Try getting out of the other side of bed tomorrow eh?

[Horse]

Well yeah, that and endocrine, autocrine, cytokines, leptin, adiponectin etc. So yup, just burgers.

No idea what most of that is, apart from 'burgers'.

But you can add 'gut biome' to that list, proven by research. Or you might scoff at it (see what I did?
).

Have we covered 'cheap food being crap' too?

[MrLongbeard]

Well yeah, that and endocrine, autocrine, cytokines, leptin, adiponectin etc. So yup, just burgers.

+ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9138445/

[Yambo]

Try getting out of the other side of bed tomorrow eh?

Not sure what you mean by that remark, perhaps you could explain for me.

My little (made up) story was not about all the possible systems, proteins, hormones etc that may be at play but more along the lines of obese people don't want to try and make any changes. I could have told you about Fatty B, who followed his doctor's advice and got into a better overall condition or Fatty C or Fatty D.

[Yambo]

+ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9138445/

The study of obesogenic compounds in food is still in its early phase, and people are constantly exposed to obesogens, either directly from food or contaminated food. Regarding the objectives of food industry technologies, i.e., the extension of expiration dates, cost reduction, the best attainable palatability, optimization of production effectiveness, and food safety in terms of the absence of pathogens, over 4000 new substances have entered into foods. In most of the new substances, their impact on overall metabolic homeostasis remain unknown.

I'm probably wrong but isn't that saying that if you eat less, you'll eat less bad shit that is in your food and that you eat healthier you'll also eat less bad shit that is in your food. I suggest the 'move more' part of the mantra should be on a different thread.

[Noggin]

Try getting out of the other side of bed tomorrow eh?

Not sure what you mean by that remark, perhaps you could explain for me.

My little (made up) story was not about all the possible systems, proteins, hormones etc that may be at play but more along the lines of obese people don't want to try and make any changes. I could have told you about Fatty B, who followed his doctor's advice and got into a better overall condition or Fatty C or Fatty D.

Tell any middle aged women it's ONLY about what you eat and how much exercise you do and nothing to do with hormones, gut health and a myriad of other things that go on in our systems and see the resulting distress/anger.

There are soooo many things that affect weight and not that many doctors that look for reasons other than "you eat too much and are lazy".

Yes, some people are fat because they eat too much but to say all 'fattys' are the same is incredibly narrow minded and a little offensive

Maybe a little like saying "all bikers that break the speed limit are stupid idiots that don't deserve any sympathy/treatment for any injuries or death" - I can't imagine anyone on here has NEVER broken a speed limit

[MrLongbeard]

+ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9138445/

The study of obesogenic compounds in food is still in its early phase, and people are constantly exposed to obesogens, either directly from food or contaminated food. Regarding the objectives of food industry technologies, i.e., the extension of expiration dates, cost reduction, the best attainable palatability, optimization of production effectiveness, and food safety in terms of the absence of pathogens, over 4000 new substances have entered into foods. In most of the new substances, their impact on overall metabolic homeostasis remain unknown.

I'm probably wrong but isn't that saying that if you eat less, you'll eat less bad shit that is in your food and that you eat healthier you'll also eat less bad shit that is in your food. I suggest the 'move more' part of the mantra should be on a different thread.

That particular study is only looking at the chemicals in food, so for that narrow exposure method yes, eat less food intake less chemicals, although eating 'healthier' is probably a red herring.
But does not take into account the clothes you're wearing, the air you're breathing, the water you drink or swim in, your cookware etc etc etc, they're in a lot of shit

[Yambo]

+ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9138445/

The study of obesogenic compounds in food is still in its early phase, and people are constantly exposed to obesogens, either directly from food or contaminated food. Regarding the objectives of food industry technologies, i.e., the extension of expiration dates, cost reduction, the best attainable palatability, optimization of production effectiveness, and food safety in terms of the absence of pathogens, over 4000 new substances have entered into foods. In most of the new substances, their impact on overall metabolic homeostasis remain unknown.

I'm probably wrong but isn't that saying that if you eat less, you'll eat less bad shit that is in your food and that you eat healthier you'll also eat less bad shit that is in your food. I suggest the 'move more' part of the mantra should be on a different thread.

That particular study is only looking at the chemicals in food, so for that narrow exposure method yes, eat less food intake less chemicals, although eating 'healthier' is probably a red herring.
But does not take into account the clothes you're wearing, the air you're breathing, the water you drink or swim in, your cookware etc etc etc, they're in a lot of shit

the clothes you're wearing . . .

There are definitely some people who shouldn't wear lycra.

the air you're breathing . . .

To be fair, I think the air we're breathing is better than it was 50 years ago although there are probably different chemicals in the atmosphere that we know little about.

the water you drink or swim in . . .

I wonder if the NHS has been having a word with government about the amount of sewage that is being pumped into water courses and is also fouling a lot of beaches. If these things are a danger to public health then I would expect the National Health Service to be shouting that it must be stopped and those culpable, punished. I hear no shouting from the NHS.

your cookware . . .

Wasn't there a school of thought some years ago that aluminium cooking pots could be in the frame for a cause of dementia/Alzheimers? Of course were all using non-stick pans nowadays so while we may have lessened that particular issue we may have created another.

We wash our dishes with a non-ionic surfactant which as we all know keeps more things in suspension but could be killing us all slowly (very slowly of course because we are generally living longer).