Sith Happens Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 9 hours ago, McRamFan said: 40% of the NHS budget is spent on the over 65's, which is 18% of the population... It would probably be more than 40% if more younger people didnt smoke, eat, drink themselves into ill health. That 40 % have paid taxes etc for 50 years nearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 9 hours ago, FindernRam said: No I don't, but putting limits on the behaviour of 60 million people because of a few misguided souls is not right. Its not a few though when obesity related conditions cost the NHS over 5 billion a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Paul71 said: It would probably be more than 40% if more younger people didnt smoke, eat, drink themselves into ill health. That 40 % have paid taxes etc for 50 years nearly. I thought similar. Older people are always going to be the people most likely to need the nhs. If everyone was in the peak of health, and eating all their veggies, and driving at the speed limit, then the only people using the nhs would be older people. Even if there were only 6 older people in the entire country, they’d be the only people using it. So I don’t think it’s really a statistic you can use to beat older people with. As you say, it’s more a statistic you can use to be younger people with. 60% of the nhs is being used by people under the age of 65, who should, theoretically, be fit and healthy in the prime of their life, so what are those 60% playing at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, TigerTedd said: I thought similar. Older people are always going to be the people most likely to need the nhs. If everyone was in the peak of health, and eating all their veggies, and driving at the speed limit, then the only people using the nhs would be older people. Even if there were only 6 older people in the entire country, they’d be the only people using it. So I don’t think it’s really a statistic you can use to beat older people with. As you say, it’s more a statistic you can use to be younger people with. 60% of the nhs is being used by people under the age of 65, who should, theoretically, be fit and healthy in the prime of their life, so what are those 60% playing at? I guess a lot of that 60% have stuff going on that arent as a result of not looking after themselves. But look at stats on Christmas eve etc when ambulences get record call outs because idiots cant handle their drink. Then you read how much missed gp appointments cost. boils my piss because there is no come back. Make it a rule if you miss a gp appointment you have to pay 50.00 before you can get another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Paul71 said: I guess a lot of that 60% have stuff going on that arent as a result of not looking after themselves. But look at stats on Christmas eve etc when ambulences get record call outs because idiots cant handle their drink. Then you read how much missed gp appointments cost. boils my piss because there is no come back. Make it a rule if you miss a gp appointment you have to pay 50.00 before you can get another. To be fair, I used the nhs a lot this year. Had an operation, fell over chasing my cat and broke my arm, and a couple of other things. So I get that it would have to be an unrealistically perfect world for no one under 65 to need the nhs. But there are a lot of people using it for avoidable things. So I can’t be too against what phe are trying to do. I workednon a project once educating travellers about the evils of energy drinks. Seems obvious really, but drinking litres of red bull a day is not good for you. But the project actually had a significantly positive effect. However, I do often wonder, all these health drives weren’t around when I was a kid. I used to eat sugar sandwiches, Coke Zero didn’t exist, etc. I wouldn’t let my kids eat a sugar sandwich now. There’s so many rules on food companies these days, the food my kids are eating must be so much healthier than the E number filled crap I was fed in the 80s. But I’ve still got all my teeth, I’m in relatively good health. So am I just lucky and have a strong metabolism, or is it all just little differences that don’t really add up to a lot? Or are bits going to start to fall off me when I hit 40? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexxxxx Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 14 hours ago, HantsRam said: Behavioural economics will tell you this is unlikely to work, if the idea is to reduce consumption. Far more effective would be to subsidise /incentivise the right behaviours. An example from my field is vitality health insurance. They worked out that to persuade people to exercise more and hence reduce their risk of I'll health (And claims costs to them), they would offer a subsidised iwatch. They claim it's working well for their business. is it unlikely though? now sugary drinks are more expensive i rarely ever buy sugar coke over coke zero.. and plastic bag usage has plummeted after the charge.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 45 minutes ago, alexxxxx said: is it unlikely though? now sugary drinks are more expensive i rarely ever buy sugar coke over coke zero.. and plastic bag usage has plummeted after the charge.. To many, sugary foods are as addictive as fags and booze are to others and that's a more relevant comparison imho. Consumption has not been materially altered by price rises but by other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Sorry to go all @McLovin on you all, but just putting 2 and 2 together here, what if.... Found on Reddit today. Got to love America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Explains a lot, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, GboroRam said: Explains a lot, frankly. There are people in the UK who believe this stuff too. I suspect there are even people on this forum who believe it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 On 02/01/2019 at 18:15, Parsnip said: Or you could argue that its the super rich pharmaceuticals, who own all the food companies who want to control us by keeping us addicted to salt and sugar, which keeps us nice and ill and fully under their control. Maybe PHE are just trying to reduce the pressure on the NHS. Would we even need an NHS if we didn't eat sugar and salt? You’re awake, well done son. Expect to get a knock on your door by men in Black if you dig any deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsnip Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 16 minutes ago, David said: Nope. It's not tinfoil hat stuff. If you don't think the pharma/food companies would prioritise profit over health then i refer you back to the Nestle baby milk scandal. In a nutshell Nestle gave away free formula milk new new mothers in poor African communities and discouraged breast feeding. The free formula milk was just enough for the poor mum's breast milk to dry up - then they would bleed her dry of every penny she had by selling her their product. This was a business model. Thousands of dead babies were the collateral damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 4 minutes ago, Parsnip said: Nope. It's not tinfoil hat stuff. If you don't think the pharma/food companies would prioritise profit over health then i refer you back to the Nestle baby milk scandal. In a nutshell Nestle gave away free formula milk new new mothers in poor African communities and discouraged breast feeding. The free formula milk was just enough for the poor mum's breast milk to dry up - then they would bleed her dry of every penny she had by selling her their product. This was a business model. Thousands of dead babies were the collateral damage. I got a free can of Carling when I hit 18, the rest is history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsnip Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 minute ago, David said: I got a free can of Carling when I hit 18, the rest is history. Yeah same story here. Although i think i was 14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 18 minutes ago, Parsnip said: Yeah same story here. Although i think i was 14. Still drink it today knowing the damage it does to your body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsnip Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Just now, David said: Still drink it today knowing the damage it does to your body? Nope. Been on the wagon since the start of the year. Feeling good. Although its my 40th on Sunday so i may very well fall off it for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Parsnip said: Nope. Been on the wagon since the start of the year. Feeling good. Although its my 40th on Sunday so i may very well fall off it for the day. You see that answer throws me right off where I was planning on taking you, damn your sobriety. I can’t buy into your theory but I have one that’s close. Cancer Research alone raises £650m each year according to Google. They’ve been going since 2002, you don’t need a calculator to figure out that’s a shed load of money. Why are we not figuring it out, are we any closer to cracking it and can they tell us exactly where this money is going? Can anyone explain why pharmaceutical costs are so high, take the vets thread, why is it a few ear drops should cost £80? I think there’s a lot of big pockets out there being lined by people which may have a preference over expensive treatment plans over cures. Not the doctors and nurses who work damn hard to look after us the best they can, but those much much higher up that run the labs that do the research. Could the planet cope if we started curing everyone, at the rate we’re breeding Marketon Island would be chaos. I don’t think the food companies are in on this, they are simply feeding our addictions whilst we’re here, cigarettes, alcohol, confectionary addictions which have their side effects but we’ve pretty much figured out now that everything kills you so why not just enjoy yourself within reason whilst we’re here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsnip Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 55 minutes ago, David said: damn your sobriety 3 days and counting... ? 55 minutes ago, David said: I don’t think the food companies are in on this Check this graphic out... These are the 10 food companies that basically own everything we eat and drink. They are mega rich. They make billions in profit. And to sustain that profit they invest heavily in everything from politics to pharmaceutical research. If you wonder why there are cakes and chocolate represented on the food pyramid you were shown at school, it's because the research used to make that pyramid was paid for by these companies. They're in it together and they're making billions. If you eat clean you probably won't get cancer or anything else. But that's no good to Big Pharma or Big Food's bottom lines. There's no money in salad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 57 minutes ago, David said: You see that answer throws me right off where I was planning on taking you, damn your sobriety. I can’t buy into your theory but I have one that’s close. Cancer Research alone raises £650m each year according to Google. They’ve been going since 2002, you don’t need a calculator to figure out that’s a shed load of money. Why are we not figuring it out, are we any closer to cracking it and can they tell us exactly where this money is going? Can anyone explain why pharmaceutical costs are so high, take the vets thread, why is it a few ear drops should cost £80? I think there’s a lot of big pockets out there being lined by people which may have a preference over expensive treatment plans over cures. Not the doctors and nurses who work damn hard to look after us the best they can, but those much much higher up that run the labs that do the research. Could the planet cope if we started curing everyone, at the rate we’re breeding Marketon Island would be chaos. I don’t think the food companies are in on this, they are simply feeding our addictions whilst we’re here, cigarettes, alcohol, confectionary addictions which have their side effects but we’ve pretty much figured out now that everything kills you so why not just enjoy yourself within reason whilst we’re here. I asked a question to do with my blood cancer at a forum and got shot down. I take a medication which keeps it under control but i said i was cynical and thought thats what the drug company wanted, keep it under control at a cost of 40k a year or give you a pill to cure it. Which do they genuinely want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.