What's wrong with letting people get repossesed ?

LillyJ

ianmr65 wrote: »

I agree with all of that. My point is that smokers and heavy drinkers net contribution to the health care budget is far higher than moderate drinkers, who don't smoke. + By dieng younger they cost the nation less, in pensions and so forth.

And That obesity tables are too broadly painted. We should be mesuring fat= tissue vs lean tissue - cholesterol, blood pressure, BMR, and Resting heart rates + distribution of fat.
Rather than just measuring how much somebody weighs.

Women who have fat distributed around their hips, and bust, are far healtheir, than women who it distributed around their belly.

And men who have an even fat distribution, are far healthier than men who have a beer belly

This is all true BUT most people are just fat, and as a population, being obese increases your risk of disease. If you are in the small minority of people who are obese on BMI but not in reality, then you can ignore it, but it is a VERY small number of people.

I agree about the fat distribution, but as a crude measure (on a population level) BMI is a fairly good indicator of health risk.

mentat72

Bit late for my neighbours, they were repossessed last week

bigheadxx

This government has tricked us all into believing that we have been living through an economic miracle of high growth, low inflation and low interest rates. The reality is that most of our growth over the last 10 years has come from people remortgaging their homes and spending on generally non essential items. This along with the influx of EU nationals has given us the appearance of a healthy economy. This credit binge, where some people have even thought it a good idea to use their credit cards to pay the mortgage was always going to collapse. I agree that many people have been stupid and irresponsible with their finances, egged on by the government and therefore any large scale intervention is unwelcome especially to those who have been more prudent. (remember prudence!!!!!!) Interest rates are very low compared to the housing collapse of the 1990s and it is a sad reflection of this government that such a small increase in interest rates can have such a disastrous effect.

neas

Just shove all the obese people in pens... starve em then we solve the problem.

If people can't take care of themselves... then they should be insitutionalised like insane people/old people.

ianmr65

bigheadxx wrote: »

This government has tricked us all into believing that we have been living through an economic miracle of high growth, low inflation and low interest rates. The reality is that most of our growth over the last 10 years has come from people remortgaging their homes and spending on generally non essential items. This along with the influx of EU nationals has given us the appearance of a healthy economy. This credit binge, where some people have even thought it a good idea to use their credit cards to pay the mortgage was always going to collapse. I agree that many people have been stupid and irresponsible with their finances, egged on by the government and therefore any large scale intervention is unwelcome especially to those who have been more prudent. (remember prudence!!!!!!) Interest rates are very low compared to the housing collapse of the 1990s and it is a sad reflection of this government that such a small increase in interest rates can have such a disastrous effect.

All true, sadly, but you could also have added, the effect of cheap chinese and indian labour, keeping a lid on prices, and the fact that the eastern economies have been lending us in the west huge amounts of money. To keep buying all the stuff they produce.

All in all a massive House of cards.

ianmr65

LillyJ wrote: »

Erm who are the BMI???

No, moderate does not mean 21 units a week, it means one unit per night ie 7 per week. If you drink to the limits of "safety" your risk increases quite a bit, in fact more than those who don't drink.

BMI are british midland international. or body mass index - I meant bma - british medical assocation, :rolleyes: who before 1980, had safe limits at about 60 per week for men, and 50 for women. :beer:

LillyJ

ianmr65 wrote: »

BMI are british midland international. or body mass index - I meant bma - british medical assocation, :rolleyes: who before 1980, had safe limits at about 60 per week for men, and 50 for women. :beer:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I am fairly sure our current guidelines were set by the RCP not the BMA.

LillyJ

neas wrote: »

Just shove all the obese people in pens... starve em then we solve the problem.

If people can't take care of themselves... then they should be insitutionalised like insane people/old people.

Yeah just like if people can't pay their mortgages they should all be turfed out on the streets along with their children.....

ianmr65

LillyJ wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but I am fairly sure our current guidelines were set by the RCP not the BMA.

I think you might be right, the point is what scientific basis did they use to define the safe level?

LillyJ

ianmr65 wrote: »

I think you might be right, the point is what scientific basis did they use to define the safe level?

It is pretty arbitary agreed but whilst I would like to be on the right side of the J shaped curve, I for one wouldn't take the risk with excess drinking, as it is a spectrum. So the cut offs don't mean you are safe at 21 units and unsafe at 22, it is a continuum. It is amazing how many people in their early 20s are getting cirrhosis now days, and women are getting it younger and younger.

I also can't afford to drink to excess, if I did drink more than 14 units a week I would be skint!