Jump to content

Health - who's reponsibility?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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? :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :!::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :roll:

 

Have you stopped smoking and drinking obs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :?:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :wink:

 

Discuss :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...