Govt cash incentives

Keith47

Just heard on the news that the Govt is considering offering cash incentives to encourage people to give up smoking and for overweight people to adopt healthier lifestyles!! WTF!!? :evil: Why not just threaten to stop their benefits instead, that would save the taxpayer a lot more money.
Sorry if that sounds self righteous, but we all choose our own lifestyle, if people choose to smoke and overeat by all means educate them (where possible) but to pay them to change.....?
Is it me or has the world gone mad...............

Cressers

And there I was thinking that the nation was skint...

Don't worry, it'll never happen, this is just Sunday paper kite-flying a day late. By far the best way of tackling obesity (as if someone else's lifestyle was any of your concern) would be to have size limits on clothing. Slim or go naked!

daviesee

I've lost 1 1/2 sone in the last year or so.

Where's my cash? :twisted:

Won't change a thing presuming it is results based and retroactively paid.

World went mad quite a while ago though.................

daviesee

Cressers wrote:

And there I was thinking that the nation was skint...

Don't worry, it'll never happen, this is just Sunday paper kite-flying a day late. By far the best way of tackling obesity (as if someone else's lifestyle was any of your concern) would be to have size limits on clothing. Slim or go naked!

Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock:

Cressers

What would be the chances that the ex-fatties would blow it all on celebration cakes?

Anyway, where would you all be without people to tabloid bully by proxy or feel superior to?

Keith47

Cressers wrote:

What would be the chances that the ex-fatties would blow it all on celebration cakes?

pneumatic

This was just one of three cuckoo items on Radio 4 this morning during the short time it took me to choke on my breakfast porage:

1. Some kind of Milliband household soap opera script writing contest ended up with someone wasting airtime by saying darkly in italian "Brothers! Daggers!". Get over it Dave and Ed, you're supposed to be serving us not your own irrelevant egos!!!

2. This item about it being cheaper to give bribes to unhealthy people than spend the money on curing them. Excuse me? Never heard of unintended consequences???

3. And to finish, some pair of entrepreneurial slickers announcing a new dating website for married people to facilitate their infidelity. "We didn't invent infidelity, we've just perfected it!" said the american w*nker who is making money out of this. John Humphries' complicit sniggering made me hope his old lady was at it while he chortled. :twisted:

Oh Lord, I'm getting old if I've started shouting at the wireless! :oops:

Stewie Griffin

pneumatic wrote:

This was just one of three cuckoo items on Radio 4 this morning during the short time it took me to choke on my breakfast porage:

1. Some kind of Milliband household soap opera script writing contest ended up with someone wasting airtime by saying darkly in italian "Brothers! Daggers!". Get over it Dave and Ed, you're supposed to be serving us not your own irrelevant egos!!!

2. This item about it being cheaper to give bribes to unhealthy people than spend the money on curing them. Excuse me? Never heard of unintended consequences???

3. And to finish, some pair of entrepreneurial slickers announcing a new dating website for married people to facilitate their infidelity. "We didn't invent infidelity, we've just perfected it!" said the american w*nker who is making money out of this. John Humphries' complicit sniggering made me hope his old lady was at it while he chortled. :twisted:

Oh Lord, I'm getting old if I've started shouting at the wireless! :oops:

You are old if you call it a wireless

bails87

Cressers wrote:

And there I was thinking that the nation was skint...

But if paying someone £100 to lose weight saves the NHS £500.....

But then it's like the community based sentences that are proven to be far more effective at preventing reoffending than sending someone to prison. People will never be happy with it because it doesn't seem right, they want to see people punished, regardless of the fact that it makes them more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

finchy

Keith47 wrote:

Just heard on the news that the Govt is considering offering cash incentives to encourage people to give up smoking and for overweight people to adopt healthier lifestyles!! WTF!!? :evil: Why not just threaten to stop their benefits instead, that would save the taxpayer a lot more money.

Some fat people have jobs. But I guess you weren't being serious.

Keith47 wrote:

Sorry if that sounds self righteous, but we all choose our own lifestyle, if people choose to smoke and overeat by all means educate them (where possible) but to pay them to change.....?
Is it me or has the world gone mad...............

I agree up to a point, but then when you end up with 40% of the nation being obese, it ceases to be an individual problem and becomes a social one - like how the hell do we cover healthcare costs, what about reduced productivity at work, etc, etc.

I agree though that we shouldn't be paying them to lose weight, we should just spend more money on pointless humiliating TV programmes about fat people and teach our children to point and laugh at them instead. (facetious mode off)

CyclingBantam

bails87 wrote:

Cressers wrote:

And there I was thinking that the nation was skint...

But if paying someone £100 to lose weight saves the NHS £500.....

But then it's like the community based sentences that are proven to be far more effective at preventing reoffending than sending someone to prison. People will never be happy with it because it doesn't seem right, they want to see people punished, regardless of the fact that it makes them more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

Spot on. I'm sure it will never happen either however, like you say, whilst it isn't right, if it saves money I would rather they did that. Bigger picture etc.

Not sure how many people would have the shame to actually collect the benefits but if they did, I'm sure they would have to prove they were quitting etc.

pneumatic

Stewie Griffin wrote:

pneumatic wrote:

Oh Lord, I'm getting old if I've started shouting at the wireless! :oops:

You are old if you call it a wireless

As it happens, my audio broadcast receiver is fed by signals transmitted via the wifi network in our house. (because living where we do, all other reception seems to come from the bottom of a large crisp packet full of wrestling voles! ) :evil:

(One consequence of this, however, was that, the other night my son was cheering Arshavin's goal at the Lane a full six seconds before I heard it hit the back of the net!!)

deptfordmarmoset

But if paying someone £100 to lose weight saves the NHS £500.....

I heard the item on Radio 4 this morning and an eminently sensible guy from NICE was explaining that they were exploring the ethics around the question above that bails87 just wrote. He specifically mentioned a small programme where obese people had been offered gym sessions at a reduced rate as an incentive. And there was a short commentary from someone who had participated and had learned that gyms are not only for the young, slim and superfit. (If you were obese, you'd probably find it pretty embarrassing to walk into a gym...)

And he seemed open to discussion about the possible resentment from the gym members who are already paying for their exercise facilities - thereby effectively paying their own money to save the NHS future expenses. So it's not a done deal, it's a discussion/consultation and the ''benefits'' look like they're going to be pretty modest if such a programme went ahead.

rhext

I listened to the R4 article too: I can't see the problem of offering (eg) subsidised gym memberships if there's a direct payoff in terms of reduced NHS costs.

Every time someone proposes something like this there's two immediate howls of protest...

- these people should take responsibility for their own health?

Answer - well, maybe they should, but they don't. And anyone who makes policy on the basis of the way that people should behave as opposed to the way they actually do behave is frankly wasting my money.

- why are they penalising the people who do look after their health?

Answer - they're not penalising them, they're just not rewarding them. To my mind, society would be a better and more productive place all round if people generally took better care of themselves. For some people the rewards associated with being fit are sufficient. If there are others who would respond to slightly different encouragement, and society generally is the better for it, then why not?

spen666

bails87 wrote:

Cressers wrote:

And there I was thinking that the nation was skint...

But if paying someone £100 to lose weight saves the NHS £500.....

But then it's like the community based sentences that are proven to be far more effective at preventing reoffending than sending someone to prison. People will never be happy with it because it doesn't seem right, they want to see people punished, regardless of the fact that it makes them more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

Do you really believe those figures re punishment. They are a great example of spin and show how gullible the public generally is

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Cressers wrote:

And there I was thinking that the nation was skint...

But if paying someone £100 to lose weight saves the NHS £500.....

But then it's like the community based sentences that are proven to be far more effective at preventing reoffending than sending someone to prison. People will never be happy with it because it doesn't seem right, they want to see people punished, regardless of the fact that it makes them more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

Do you really believe those figures re punishment. They are a great example of spin and show how gullible the public generally is

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you...

rake

Keith47 wrote:

but we all choose our own lifestyle

its a ridiculous idea to be paying smokers and fat people. agreed.
i dispute that we all choose our own lifestyle. not everyone can afford gym membership, bikes, sports activities, healthy food etc

bails87

spen666 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Cressers wrote:

And there I was thinking that the nation was skint...

But if paying someone £100 to lose weight saves the NHS £500.....

But then it's like the community based sentences that are proven to be far more effective at preventing reoffending than sending someone to prison. People will never be happy with it because it doesn't seem right, they want to see people punished, regardless of the fact that it makes them more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

Do you really believe those figures re punishment. They are a great example of spin and show how gullible the public generally is

They were in the Daily Mail, so they must be true. You're only worried because they're a threat to your income

rake

they were in the daily mail so they must be false?

daviesee

rake wrote:

Keith47 wrote:

but we all choose our own lifestyle

its a ridiculous idea to be paying smokers and fat people. agreed.
i dispute that we all choose our own lifestyle. not everyone can afford gym membership, bikes, sports activities, healthy food etc

True.

But equally, they could choose not to sit on their fat asses eating junk. That option is free.
Yes. I do know people like that.

bexley5200

not everybody has £3000 to spend on atheletic equiptment i expect most people on here have had to lose a stone or two sometime in there lives

Bikerbaboon

rake wrote:

Keith47 wrote:

but we all choose our own lifestyle

i dispute that we all choose our own lifestyle. not everyone can afford gym membership, bikes, sports activities, healthy food etc

Shock horror

you dont need to go to the gym or even have a bike to ride or even paid for sport activities to lose weight. My wife whos on the large side of things has dropped a 1.5 stone by walking more and eating less rubbish between meals and taking a packed lunch in to work... over all its saved us money.

Good healthy food is cheaper than the high fat processed food that many people eat. ( hell if you are realy realy that skint you can grow your own food and exersize at the same time)

rake

youre right. but its harder in some circumstances with time and job type and the like.im not sticking up for slobs but i sympathise with people whove been dealt a trump card.life isnt equally troubled for everyone. it does take some thought and effort to be healthy. a happy mental state makes it easier which depends on many factors such as does my bike look good.

rjeffroy

But if paying someone £100 to lose weight saves the NHS £500.....

It won't though. Even if you are fit and healthy you are still going to die and there is no reason to assume that your terminal disease is going to be cheap for the NHS

Also got to consider the costs on our creaking pension system of increased longevity.

There are a lot of good reasons to encourage people to live healthily but saving money is not one of them.

tebbit

There are a lot of good reasons to encourage people to live healthily but saving money is not one of them.

It is a perfectly reasonable reason to encourage people to live healthily, a lot of benefits we now take for granted like decent housing and running water came as a result of economic imperatives, as did education for the masses.

Ollieda

Why not have a fat tax / smokers tax - ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the carrot and the stick argument!

rake

it could save the nhs money. diabetes is at epidemic levels and costs them a LOT. thats just one of many.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/ ... s.diabetes
£1m an hour enough?

deptfordmarmoset

Ollieda wrote:

Why not have a fat tax / smokers tax - ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the carrot and the stick argument!

Carrots! I'm not eating carrots, that's bleedin' rabbit food. If carrots was real food they'd sell them at McDonald's, wouldn't they? I mean, it stands to reason.... You'd feel a right prat ordering a big Mac, extra fries with carrots on top. Some people, eh, no idea....

Frank the tank

Ollieda wrote:

Why not have a fat tax / smokers tax - ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the carrot and the stick argument!

I think you'll find smokers pay a fortune in extra tax, it's on each packet they buy.

As for fat taxperhaps we should all have a annual medical and people who are deemed to be dangerously over or under weight pay a levy.

spen666

Frank the tank wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

Why not have a fat tax / smokers tax - ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the carrot and the stick argument!

I think you'll find smokers pay a fortune in extra tax, it's on each packet they buy.

As for fat taxperhaps we should all have a annual medical and people who are deemed to be dangerously over or under weight pay a levy.

you can imagine the excitement on budget day waiting to hear how much on a pint & the new weights for the fat/ thin tax limits

Frank the tank

spen666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

Why not have a fat tax / smokers tax - ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the carrot and the stick argument!

I think you'll find smokers pay a fortune in extra tax, it's on each packet they buy.

As for fat taxperhaps we should all have a annual medical and people who are deemed to be dangerously over or under weight pay a levy.

you can imagine the excitement on budget day waiting to hear how much on a pint & the new weights for the fat/ thin tax limits

With this comprehensive spending review coming up I wouldn't rule anything out. Come to think of it we ought to be careful don't want to be giving them any ideas. :?