observer Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Who's responsible for YOUR health - you or the Government? Booze, fags, junk food etc can represent unhealthy lifestyles and ultimately result in higher costs to the public purse, hence Gov attempts at intervention. But has it gone too far? The case of the kid being pulled up for having a packet of crisps in his lunch box - an example of Nanny going too far? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Grey area. The first wealth is health. Is the state to look after us from cradle to the grave?. Not too many people worry about physical fitness these days. I think they should but who's to say that's right - other than perhaps common sense. On balance, the individual should police himself. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 The case of the kid being pulled up for having a packet of crisps in his lunch box - an example of Nanny going too far Out of the millions of kids that take crisps to school you find ONE example of a child being pulled up, and then moan about it, Can we expect you to moan when a teacher pulls someone up for having their shoe laces undone. You live by extremes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 nope, I merely note cases of extremes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 The whole health thing is getting blown out of all proportion. We can't keep on finding cures for every disease under the sun; keeping people alive for longer than they naturally should be, without curbing people from having children. The country and indeed the world cannot cope with that kind of population management. It is sad when someone dies, but when they do, it is their time. People don't die before their time, they just are kept alive longer than they should be unless we stop people having kids to compensate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 I think the theory is that prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure; hence the involvement in lifestyle politics by Gov. Your right Baz, there is an obsession with longevity nowadays, with folk clinginging onto life at all costs (and it's usually at someone else's cost), in some nursing home; the cost of which is only now being seen as a social time bomb. And all this in the context of an over-populated planet, where fresh mouths are being born into areas that can't feed them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Hmn Obs - Wait till you are "clinging on to life". Someone else's cost? -Not if you have saved or got a house. Slightly Hitlerite phrasing in my opinion. Live and let live for me. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 I think the theory is that prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure; hence the involvement in lifestyle politics by Gov. Your right Baz, there is an obsession with longevity nowadays, with folk clinginging onto life at all costs (and it's usually at someone else's cost), in some nursing home; the cost of which is only now being seen as a social time bomb. And all this in the context of an over-populated planet, where fresh mouths are being born into areas that can't feed them. Have you stopped smoking and drinking obs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Harry, Live and let live indeed.... but live and help to live longer? Maybe you are right and in that position maybe I would cling on to what is left, but because the option is there to keep people going past their sell by date, the expectations get ever more ambitious.... and then what about the future with more and more kids coming into the world? Live and let live is one thing, but keeping everyone going and creating bigger problems in terms of food supplies and heaven knows what else .......... and as for Hitler..... remember a lot of his regimes experiments on Jews and Gypsies provided a lot of information for health discoveries we rely on today didn't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Good question Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 I follow Baz's argument. I am 78 and reasonably able so I hope I am alright. Would that apply to my neighbour of a similar age who is in a nursing home and has a loving family. What about a person who has all his/her faculties but is crippled, say. I am sure science will provide an answer. if we still grew crops the way they did when I was younger, horse and cart-wise, we would have starved long ago. The population of this country used to be 52 million. now its 60 or thereabout. We manage quite easily in the civilised countries and there is plenty of slack. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Harry, what happens when there is 80 million and a bigger proportion are people who are being kept alive artificially? Then add into the mix the kids that the greater population will bring.... eventually it will all grind to a halt. I'm not advcating euthanasia, but we can't keep saving people on their deathbeds and then letting more and more people in to have more and more kids on top of the more and more that the indiginous population create without some kind of repercussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 The solution is Soylent Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 The solution is Soylent Green a very Hitlerite suggestion if I may say so...... isn't that at odds with your liberal principles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Actually Harry, you've no need to quote Hitler, just read up on the Spartans! We're going to discover over the next four years that sentiment costs money, and the cold hearted calculations of a fiscal based policy will be impacting on quite a few cherished social provisions. The bill for the care of Alziemers cases alone is set to soar - so some really fundemental questions are going to enter the realms of public debate. Now there is a growing number of perfectly rational folk who do not wish to become a burden on their families or the State, but our warped sense of "doing the right thing". prevents them from deciding their departure time with dignity. Meanwhile, we are prepared to condone the sending of fit young men and women to Afghanistan to be murdered and maimed - the mind boggles at these self inflicted moral and ethical dilemas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Baz , Its just me doing my bit for recycling, and showing my green credentials Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 I appreciate this is all with good intent. If the old are to be left to die. what happens when we hit 90 million. Do people born with bad defects then have to go. Repeat it all sounds a little Hitlerite to me. Still think science will provide answers GM crops and the like. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted October 2, 2010 Report Share Posted October 2, 2010 Getting back to the main thread -- If you are an adult, then you are responsible. A child, well their parents should be responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2010 That's the problem H; science has allowed us to break the boundaries of population control set by nature and bred a culture of arrogance that we can control nature; which, as we are now often reminded by natural disasters, isn't the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted October 2, 2010 Report Share Posted October 2, 2010 Just a last call on this one. I think there is a comparison between this isssue and as it was in the fifties. Mass production and machinery was going to put everybody out of a job, but I'd guess that the working population has increased rather than gone down. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 3, 2010 Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 The trouble is Harry we have a rapidly ageing population, There will soon be more people retired than working, the people in work support the retired people, When you were working your Ni contribution paid for the people that had retired, The Ni that I am paying at the moment contributes to the people who have retired. what happens when I retire and there are not enough working people to account for all the retired people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 Hence moves by all Governments to increase the age of retirement and keep folk in harness longer; problem is, infirmity doesn't stick to a rigid age line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 3, 2010 Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 Hence moves by all Governments to increase the age of retirement and keep folk in harness longer; problem is, infirmity doesn't stick to a rigid age line. Did you nick that from Confucius? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 3, 2010 Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 Hence moves by all Governments to increase the age of retirement and keep folk in harness longer; problem is, infirmity doesn't stick to a rigid age line Making it unfair for the people still working, Should the people who have already retired not contribute Discuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 3, 2010 Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 the people in work support the retired people, When you were working your Ni contribution paid for the people that had retired, The Ni that I am paying at the moment contributes to the people who have retired. so by working to support the current crop of retirees, who also worked to support the previous crop, have you not contributed already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.