payment from nhs for diet class

RichOneday_2

aliasojo wrote: »

I'm surprised you had to ask 'what scheme' since we are clearly discussing an NHS initiative whereby people are being subsidised by the NHS to encourage them to attend classes in a bid to help them lose weight.

Obviously the classes are available without NHS involvement but the quote in post 73 explains why this seems to tip the balance for some.

Indeed! Post 73 sums up that certain people are too lazy to help themselves, but will quite happily be nannied to take exactly the same course of action that is available for them to take themselves.

Why all the sympathy?

If people aren't prepared to help themselves and aren't motivated enough to get the help that they know is available then so be it, that is their choice.

But if they take that choice, why should they then be offered our money and hand holding to take exactly the same course of action.

What about all those that quite happily do fund themselves because they feel it is worthwhile to their long term health?

The fact that certain people have a higher degree of laziness doesn't give them a greater right to public funding!

Emmzi

RichOneday wrote: »

Why all the sympathy?

Compassion.

Humanity.

A loathing of 'I'm alright Jack' attitudes.

Altruism.

vik6525

RichOneday wrote: »

Indeed! Post 73 sums up that certain people are too lazy to help themselves, but will quite happily be nannied to take exactly the same course of action that is available for them to take themselves.

Why all the sympathy?

If people aren't prepared to help themselves and aren't motivated enough to get the help that they know is available then so be it, that is their choice.

But if they take that choice, why should they then be offered our money and hand holding to take exactly the same course of action.

What about all those that quite happily do fund themselves because they feel it is worthwhile to their long term health?

The fact that certain people have a higher degree of laziness doesn't give them a greater right to public funding!

:T:T:T:T:T

Couldnt agree more...

Im stick thin now, but I most certainly have been on the absolute other side too. I was nearly 20 stone. I made the decision to loose the weight, and I got off my lazy, greedy fat @ss and did something about it.

Same with smoking. If and when I decide to give up, I'll damm well buy my own patches! If people can afford 30 odd quid a week to spend on fags, then they can ruddy well buy their own nicotine replacement therapies!

aliasojo

RichOneday wrote: »

Why all the sympathy?

I dont think I'm being sympathetic, it's just that I think I can understand some of the points made, even if I dont particularly feel the same way.

If people aren't prepared to help themselves and aren't motivated enough to get the help that they know is available then so be it, that is their choice.

I agree but different things motivate different people and whilst a paid for class wouldn't be the factor that would make a difference for me, I can accept it might for others.

The fact that certain people have a higher degree of laziness doesn't give them a greater right to public funding!

I haven't changed my mind, I'm still not saying people should be subsidised, I dont think they should....but I think the problematic issues involved with being overweight are much more complex than simply laziness and I can see the pov from the 'other' side.

RichOneday_2

Emmzi wrote: »

Compassion.

Humanity.

A loathing of 'I'm alright Jack' attitudes.

Altruism.

There is something about this thread that stops certain posters answering the points that are raised and instead responding with emotive nonsense.

Where does the 'I'm alright Jack' thing come from - that's an assumption you've decided to make for some reason. Fwiw I was obese as recently as last October. It never for one second occurred to me that it might be someone else's fault or deserved sympathy. So I have no idea where you got that one from!

Emmzi

RichOneday wrote: »

There is something about this thread that stops certain posters answering the points that are raised and instead responding with emotive nonsense.

Where does the 'I'm alright Jack' thing come from - that's an assumption you've decided to make for some reason. Fwiw I was obese as recently as last October. It never for one second occurred to me that it might be someone else's fault or deserved sympathy. So I have no idea where you got that one from!

You asked why the sympathy. I can only answer as to why I have sympathy. I cannot and would not attempt to speak as to why you have none.

I have directly addressed the question you asked. (why the sympathy?)

However I am not sure this is about money saving any more. Perhaps if you wish to continue we should take it to discussion time?

Ted_Hutchinson

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

So I can keep smoking 20 a day but so long as I take Vit D then I won't get cancer? ooohh...tremendous, thanks for that.

Because Human Lung Tumors Destroy Anti-cancer Hormone Vitamin D it is particularly important that those with lung cancer maintain optimum Vitamin D status that is why higher Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels predict survival in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer patients.
We also know that women and young participants with a higher level of vitamin D were observed to have a lower lung cancer risk.

But that is NOT saying or implying that those with higher vitamin D status won't get lung cancer, nor does it mean they won't die from it.
It means only that your chances of getting it are less and your chances of dieing from it are also lowered if you have a 25(OH)D status above 125nmol/l (ie take 5000iu/daily).

Why do you always try to misinterpret what I am actually trying to show you?

But when it comes to the crunch which do you think is worse for your lungs?

Smoking or being Vitamin D deficient?

While this isn't an excuse to light up the fact is that pulmonary function is worse in people who are Vitamin D deficient than in smokers. So although it is clear smoking damages your lungs and causes lung cancer being vitamin D deficient damages your lungs more and also allows lung cancers to begin sooner and develop more rapidly.

The same interrelationship between obesity and Vitamin D status occurs if you look at the science.

Daytona_nev

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

Because Human Lung Tumors Destroy Anti-cancer Hormone Vitamin D it is particularly important that those with lung cancer maintain optimum Vitamin D status that is why higher Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels predict survival in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer patients.
We also know that women and young participants with a higher level of vitamin D were observed to have a lower lung cancer risk.

But that is NOT saying or implying that those with higher vitamin D status won't get lung cancer, nor does it mean they won't die from it.
It means only that your chances of getting it are less and your chances of dieing from it are also lowered if you have a 25(OH)D status above 125nmol/l (ie take 5000iu/daily).

Why do you always try to misinterpret what I am actually trying to show you?

But when it comes to the crunch which do you think is worse for your lungs?

Smoking or being Vitamin D deficient?

While this isn't an excuse to light up the fact is that pulmonary function is worse in people who are Vitamin D deficient than in smokers. So although it is clear smoking damages your lungs and causes lung cancer being vitamin D deficient damages your lungs more and also allows lung cancers to begin sooner and develop more rapidly.

The same interrelationship between obesity and Vitamin D status occurs if you look at the science.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ted_Hutchinson

Daytona_nev wrote: »

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I used to spend my time trying to help people with their benefit claims, but I came to the conclusion that many, perhaps in fact the majority, were actually, like our MP's simply trying to manipulate the system.

I thought a better way of helping people would be to show them the most recent science that would enable them to lower their chances of becoming ill and needing to claim those disability benefits.

It is clear that for most people the appeal of being disabled, being obese or having cancer is far more appealing, because of the financial benefits that accrue and the prospect of having people feel sorry for you and the pleasure of having them care for you. rather than look after themselves and take responsibility for their own health.

It is now more acceptable to play the invalid/disabled card," I need help and money because I'm a poor disabled person" than make the mental effort to understand the reasons why your body behaves the way it does and take appropriate action to prevent disease and chronic disability.

Bronnie

What if you were age 30, with a young family depending on you and 5 stones overweight?

What if you went to see your GP because you were feeling breathless going up and down stairs, your knee joints were aching and you were constantly exhausted?

What if your GP examined you and said there was nothing seriously wrong with you at the moment that losing the weight wouldn't cure, but if you continued to carry that amount of excess weight you would be laying the foundations for a whole raft of serious conditions that would drastically reduce your quality of life in future and could lead to an early death?

What if your GP said, we can give you advice and support to lose weight through the surgery, but actually many of my overweight patients go to a Slimming Club around the corner, and have had great success there, the woman who runs it is very supportive and the eating plan fits in with all the healthy guidelines, it costs £4.50 a week and I do believe in your circumstances it could really help you and is worth considering.

Would you take GP'S advice and go?
Would you pay, Yes or No?