Now then...do exercise or have your benefits cut ??

adouglasmhor

keithrgj wrote: »

what about people who have just been made unemployed through redundancy or ill health and paid into the system for the last 30 years, are they scroungers stealing your or OUR MONEY

What about them, do you deny they are spending our money? Just like previous claimants spent theirs?
Do you think that instead of expecting a magick pill from the doctor they should be made to take reasonable steps to improve their health if appropriate? A large number of conditions which many people suffer from can be alleviated or cured by moderate weight loss and improved CV fitness. It is often hard for working people to find the time to exercise, surely those not working should be glad of something to fill the time which also has health and wellbeing benefits.

I have been paying in for over 30 years. I have had a couple of short spells of unemployment in that period. When I was claiming I was not earning so someone else was paying for me. So I was aware I was using someone else’s money.

Conrad

keithrgj wrote: »

poland 1942

dont be alarmed, we are just sending you to a work camp

the reality is their are more overweight people in work than unemployed

Unemployed massive women are forever in our GP's surgery. GP can do nothing really. Thier sore joints, bad backs, fold fungus and high blood pressure could all be solved with a bit of effort on thier parts.

Even the things they read in the surgery tells you all you need to know - celeb banality rather than picking up a mag they might actually learn something from.

This !!!!less careless irresponsibility was built by the left. It's terrible for society and the poor folk drawn into this welfare lifestyle. Worst of all it's terrible for thier children.

Tough medicine is going to turn around lives and many will look back and see this period as the wakeup call they needed.


Your model perpetuates an excuse culture and propogates a divided hopeless class of people.

danothy

Generali wrote: »

I think that eggs and berries are good for you. You should be forced in a measurable way to eat them because I say so. If you refuse then you will have all alternative means of sustenance removed.

Enjoy your new diet.

Generali wrote: »

It has been decided that you eat fish and tomatoes. Fish and tomatoes are good for you.

Win-win.

In reality though enforcing a healthy diet and a healthy activity level would be far less narrow in its prescriptions than this. There's great latitude to develop a suitable method to meet consumption and activity targets in a way that would suit any given individual.

Don't get me wrong, I don't actually support dictatorial policy like this. I just acknowledge that there is a significant number of people out there who would be better off if they were dictated to in this way. Whether those people are benefit claimants or not is another matter entirely.

lippy1923

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver wrote: »

Micromangement of the Poor whilst the Rich get away with it.
Rule for the Poor and One for the Rich with this caring sharing Condem administration.
I am appalled but in principal I support it. Benefits need to be raised to afford healthy food and cooking lessons given.

Why can't they go to their local library and borrow cooking books for free? They can walk there and help lose weight in the process.
Or they could learn to cook online (because no matter how 'poor' they claim to be they always have the sky package and broadband.)

GeorgeHowell

Conrad wrote: »

Your model perpetuates an excuse culture and propogates a divided hopeless class of people.

Exactly. It's all a classic case of how the socialist model aims to bring everything down to the lowest common denominator instead of trying to bring everyone and everything closer to excellence. To the left, criticising obese, unintelligent, uncultured, non-contributing individuals with empty lives in this way is simply 'elitism', and their condition is all the fault of "the wealthy". The socialist solution is that everybody must chip in to keep them as comfortable as they are, like running some sort of national hospice to provide palliative care for the economically/socially terminally doomed and their offspring.

What an intellectually bankrupt, defeatist, and nihilistic political philosophy.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

George Howell you have a very distorted view of Socialist Philosophy.
When you read a book like The Precariot; The new dangerous class Guy Standinghttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Precariat-New-Dangerous-Class/dp/1849663513 and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0141024534/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357308043&sr=1-1
for example you see an entirely different world portrayed in which the poor are thrust into precarious economic existence short term work then back onto benefits which take ages to come through, something academics call 'flows'.
Or that our Tory pals are forcing neoliberal shock therapy on us with their corporate pals taking OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY resulting in the suppression of dissent and Cameron not listening to professional bodies concerns over so called benefit reforms.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

You have a caricutured ill thought out view of Left wing philosophy. I would read some books before you comment further. I plan to read one or two corkers on the Right wing and conservatism.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Tory elitist policies are making the poor poorer with an ignorant poor of cooking of recipes and good tasting food, and exercise, they are up against it.

N1AK

ILW wrote: »

Could it be that some communities are poor because they are fat and lazy, rather than the other way round?

In short yes; in fact it is very likely, imo, that it is the case that this is a factor. What I would argue against is assuming that is the lone, or even primary, reason. Laziness could be down to apathy or a feeling of powerlessness to change your life in which case just taking away benefits and/or punishing them more won't solve the problem.

adouglasmhor

N1AK wrote: »

In short yes; in fact it is very likely, imo, that it is the case that this is a factor. What I would argue against is assuming that is the lone, or even primary, reason. Laziness could be down to apathy or a feeling of powerlessness to change your life in which case just taking away benefits and/or punishing them more won't solve the problem.

Would improved dopamine and energy levels gained though say exercise, combined with more self esteem be a good first step to getting out of that rut of apathy and powerlessness?