Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

Garry H

Don't even need to watch it, heard it all before. Laziness, combined with gluttony and a victim mentality.

bbrap

They need to build special soundproof rooms at the hospitals. Lure the land whales in and just lock the door. Let them out 6 months later, job done. They could have one of those tubes like in a hamster cage so they do not die of thirst, and a small slot to allow an occasional piece of fruit. Oh and a litter tray.

mrb123

bbrap wrote:

They need to build special soundproof rooms at the hospitals. Lure the land whales in and just lock the door. Let them out 6 months later, job done. They could have one of those tubes like in a hamster cage so they do not die of thirst, and a small slot to allow an occasional piece of fruit. Oh and a litter tray.

Land whales! Brilliant!

rjsterry

Garry H wrote:

Don't even need to watch it, heard it all before. Laziness, combined with gluttony and a victim mentality.

Do need to watch it. Wrong on every count. Ironically, the programme was about people being denied medical treatment for heart disease and other conditions because of exactly that attitude in the medical profession.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Don't even need to watch it, heard it all before. Laziness, combined with gluttony and a victim mentality.

Do need to watch it. Wrong on every count. Ironically, the programme was about people being denied medical treatment for heart disease and other conditions because of exactly that attitude in the medical profession.

I see your point rjsterry but I didn't contradict the notion that there was inherent prejudice in the NHS. All I was pointing out was the problem with overweight people.

On a similar subject, the 'Viewsnight' piece by a heart surgeon on Newsnight last night was very valid.

30 minutes in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... t-13042017

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

There was a documentary the other night about fat folk wanting more surgery and the 'prejudiced NHS'. They are full of bollox. I'm not saying that there isn't prejudice in the NHS, it's just that they are determined to blame their obesity on other factors than too many calories in and not enough going out. I bet less than a few percent actually need stomach reducing surgery because of a genuine medical complaint. We never saw the amount of overweight people in the 70's and 80's that we do now.
Personally, I have had to overcome all sorts of obstacles to get out on my bike including under active thyroid. What's their excuse?

I don't know what other people thought of the programme:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... is-the-nhs

Good for you in overcoming those obstacles.

The NHS doesn't and shouldn't determine treatment on the basis of whether the patient has any responsibility for the illness or injury. Heading down that road is a slippery slope to doctors making dubious decisions on whether the patient 'deserves' the treatment. Where do we then stand on any mental illnesses or conditions that have a mental component? Should they all just pull themselves together?

I took the point of the programme to be that by the time dangerously obese people are eligible for gastric surgery, the possibilities for 'just eating less and doing more exercise' are long gone. They were all effectively stuck in a position where the secondary conditions related to the obesity - serious heart disease, diabetes, depression - made meaningful exercise and weight loss required by the CCG in order to qualify for treatment was impossible. I think the secondary point was that general societal attitudes to obesity - that it's really all their own fault - are affecting treatment decisions at earlier stages, which ends up pushing more people into the kind of situation shown on the programme.

I think the question of why obesity is more of a problem now is probably mostly to do with the availability of cheap very high sugar food, but if it was as simple as that we'd probably already be solving it.

rjsterry

TL;DR

It might well be 'their fault' but the NHS shouldn't be determining treatment on that basis.

veronese68

I agree with RJS, I know he's right. But I can see the other point of view and sympathise with it.

Garry H

rjsterry wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Don't even need to watch it, heard it all before. Laziness, combined with gluttony and a victim mentality.

Do need to watch it. Wrong on every count. Ironically, the programme was about people being denied medical treatment for heart disease and other conditions because of exactly that attitude in the medical profession.

Sounds like proper use of resources then. Give it to folk that have at least attempted to live healthily.

rjsterry

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't take responsibility for their own health. Just that the NHS shouldn't be some sort of arbiter of who does and doesn't deserve treatment. Even if it did, why should that particularly apply to obesity? What about alcohol related illness and injury?

rjsterry

Garry H wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Don't even need to watch it, heard it all before. Laziness, combined with gluttony and a victim mentality.

Do need to watch it. Wrong on every count. Ironically, the programme was about people being denied medical treatment for heart disease and other conditions because of exactly that attitude in the medical profession.

Sounds like proper use of resources then. Give it to folk that have at least attempted to live healthily.

And who determines what constitutes a sufficient attempt? Why does this particularly apply to obesity and not all the other conditions that can in some way be self inflicted?

Garry H

Never said it should. But there's a good argument for discriminating over who gets treatment in an economic environment where resources are being overstretched. Somebody will always lose out. Why shouldn't it be those who haven't given a thought about themselves until it's too late?

seanoconn

I agree with Veronese68, rjs, Pinno and sometimes garry.

seanoconn

People who sit on the fence, lily liveried whatsits.

Garry H

seanoconn wrote:

People who sit on the fence, lily liveried whatsits.

I agree with you, but on the other hand...

First.Aspect

Garry H wrote:

Well i would.

She's bound to be somewhere in the "inexplicable crushes" thread.

Garry H

First Aspect wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Well i would.

She's bound to be somewhere in the "inexplicable crushes" thread.

She most certainly is! How do you think she got there...

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

Garry H wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Don't even need to watch it, heard it all before. Laziness, combined with gluttony and a victim mentality.

Do need to watch it. Wrong on every count. Ironically, the programme was about people being denied medical treatment for heart disease and other conditions because of exactly that attitude in the medical profession.

Sounds like proper use of resources then. Give it to folk that have at least attempted to live healthily.

And who determines what constitutes a sufficient attempt? Why does this particularly apply to obesity and not all the other conditions that can in some way be self inflicted?

I have sympathy with your argument but the natural conclusion of offering "free" healthcare to all regardless of whether the patient has wilfully contributed to their own illness is national bankruptcy. I don't have a perfect solution, but I think that the pressures of an ageing population will force more rationing on us and frankly if we have to make hard choices then why should a smoker or someone who is clinically obese against all good advice get priority over people who have looked after themselves? Rationing is already on us in any case.

shortfall

Garry H wrote:

Never said it should. But there's a good argument for discriminating over who gets treatment in an economic environment where resources are being overstretched. Somebody will always lose out. Why shouldn't it be those who haven't given a thought about themselves until it's too late?

^^^^^^^^^^^^
This

BelgianBeerGeek

Had a summer shearing the other day. Might have been too early, but hey-ho. Then washed bonce in shower and the shampoo came out like it was under pressure. I only wanted an amount the size of a 10p coin, not half a pint.
As a massive skinflint, most of the excess was washed away with my tears. I was hoping to make that bottle last until August

pinno

I have moved this debate about the NHS to here:

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13078743&p=20113512#p20113512

pinno

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Had a summer shearing the other day. Might have been too early, but hey-ho. Then washed bonce in shower and the shampoo came out like it was under pressure. I only wanted an amount the size of a 10p coin, not half a pint.
As a massive skinflint, most of the excess was washed away with my tears. I was hoping to make that bottle last until August

A proper skinflint (like me) would buy themselves a head shaver and save money in the long run. I bought one of these:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Braun-Cruzer-5 ... ruzer+head

...and it's on offer at the moment.

bobmcstuff

People who eat burgers with a knife and fork. Get on with it loser.

BelgianBeerGeek

Pinno wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Had a summer shearing the other day. Might have been too early, but hey-ho. Then washed bonce in shower and the shampoo came out like it was under pressure. I only wanted an amount the size of a 10p coin, not half a pint.
As a massive skinflint, most of the excess was washed away with my tears. I was hoping to make that bottle last until August

A proper skinflint (like me) would buy themselves a head shaver and save money in the long run. I bought one of these:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Braun-Cruzer-5 ... ruzer+head

...and it's on offer at the moment.

Have a shaver for the face. Buzz the beard off now and then. Haven't yet plucked up the courage to do the head. Plus my hairdresser is a MILF (probably GILF ) and I like the way she finishes me off. Hmm, might sound wrong, that last bit.

pinno

Funnily enough, it was the last bit that won me over. Stick with it.

veronese68

Does she charge extra for the happy ending bbg?

pinno

Veronese68 wrote:

Does she charge extra for the happy ending bbg?

There is no mistaking the Italian in you VN.

rjsterry

Foxes.

Actually this may not be trivial.

A selection of turds of varying consistency left strategically around the garden, on the back doorstep in the middle of the patio, and now the orange ****erst have taken to shredding the webbing on the littl'uns trampoline. It's time fox hunting was rebranded as a variant of parkour.

BelgianBeerGeek

Pinno wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Does she charge extra for the happy ending bbg?

There is no mistaking the Italian in you VN.

No. Flat pricing. But I always tip. Regardless of the outcome.
Happy Easter everyone.

pinno

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Does she charge extra for the happy ending bbg?

There is no mistaking the Italian in you VN.

No. Flat pricing. But I always tip. Regardless of the outcome.
Happy Easter everyone.

Happy Easter. Don't forget it's a Pagan thing.

Back OT (sort of): I was implying that VN was thinking of the pimp job as well as the income.