Obesity benefits cut for refusal to exercise

awec

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20897681

In England, in 1 council, to put it into perspective.

Honestly, I can see the merit in it. Exercise sessions can be prescribed by doctors over there if you are fat. If you refuse to attend these sessions then why should you continue to receive money from the taxpayer?

Of course, we'll hear all this "I'm fat and it's out of my control". I'm sure that's true in some cases, I'm also sure it's not true for the majority of cases. A lot of people are fat because what comes in is more than what goes out.

Provided it is judged on a case-by-case basis by doctors (which appears to be the case) then I say it's a good idea.

thebigbiffo

Fat chance...

With that out of the way, I'd like to voice my approval for this initiative.

donvito99

We need Simpson's style Fat Camps

SEPT 23 1989

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABluNAn9Esk

Daftendirekt

Terrible idea.

Leaving aside the intrusiveness of the proposal, has it occurred to these people that this might actually deter some people from seeking medical advice or assistance in the first place?

Also, if this is to be rolled out, why only obesity? Why not force diabetics or people suffering with some form of muscular dystrophy to take up these exercise regimes as well? Regular exercise is important for people suffering with these conditions to maintain their health, so why only target fat people?

And what good is compulsory exercise to someone who has no inclination to change their diet anyway? Should people have to report everything they eat to the local welfare office?

This is an idea designed to appeal to the kind of person who likes to abuse fat people while pretending to be concerned about their health or the financial burden they put on the healthcare system. Not a way to reduce obesity.

lim abroad

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Terrible idea.

Leaving aside the intrusiveness of the proposal, has it occurred to these people that this might actually deter some people from seeking medical advice or assistance in the first place?

Also, if this is to be rolled out, why only obesity? Why not force diabetics or people suffering with some form of muscular dystrophy to take up these exercise regimes as well? Regular exercise is important for people suffering with these conditions to maintain their health, so why only target fat people?

And what good is compulsory exercise to someone who has no inclination to change their diet anyway? Should people have to report everything they eat to the local welfare office?

This is an idea designed to appeal to the kind of person who likes to abuse fat people while pretending to be concerned about their health or the financial burden they put on the healthcare system. Not a way to reduce obesity.

There should be no such thing as obesity benefit in the first place

orestes

Bucket of KFC + fishing rod + treadmill = problem solved.

tayto lover

Some of the doctors I know are obese themselves. Come to think of it James Reilly and Mary Harney as Ministers for Health say it all.

Daftendirekt

lim abroad wrote: »

There should be no such thing as obesity benefit in the first place

Not sure if serious, but...

... I don't think there is.

Fromthetrees

Right so, will the money saved by cutting these benefits go into better nutritional educational in the schooling system?

Froyo

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Terrible idea.

Leaving aside the intrusiveness of the proposal, has it occurred to these people that this might actually deter some people from seeking medical advice or assistance in the first place?

Also, if this is to be rolled out, why only obesity? Why not force diabetics or people suffering with some form of muscular dystrophy to take up these exercise regimes as well? Regular exercise is important for people suffering with these conditions to maintain their health, so why only target fat people?

And what good is compulsory exercise to someone who has no inclination to change their diet anyway? Should people have to report everything they eat to the local welfare office?

This is an idea designed to appeal to the kind of person who likes to abuse fat people while pretending to be concerned about their health or the financial burden they put on the healthcare system. Not a way to reduce obesity.

Yeah because being obese is akin to having a disorder such add muscular dystrophy!

What a silly thing to say.

Obesity is a 'condition' that is fully preventable and curable. It involves, to an extent, a person making the correct lifestyle choices.

There should be no benefits for essentially being fat and lazy.

In some cases, counselling should be provided to help them on their way. That's it.

Hilly Bill

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Terrible idea.

Leaving aside the intrusiveness of the proposal, has it occurred to these people that this might actually deter some people from seeking medical advice or assistance in the first place?

Also, if this is to be rolled out, why only obesity? Why not force diabetics or people suffering with some form of muscular dystrophy to take up these exercise regimes as well? Regular exercise is important for people suffering with these conditions to maintain their health, so why only target fat people?

And what good is compulsory exercise to someone who has no inclination to change their diet anyway? Should people have to report everything they eat to the local welfare office?

This is an idea designed to appeal to the kind of person who likes to abuse fat people while pretending to be concerned about their health or the financial burden they put on the healthcare system. Not a way to reduce obesity.

Why should someone who cant be arsed finding a job because they are happy enough to sit at home stuffing their face with cream cakes and watching Jeremy Kyle on the telly get benefits and then claim that they are too obese to work anyway.
There is a difference between someone who is lazy and obese and could do something about it and someone who has a medical condition through no fault of their own.

awec

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Right so, will the money saved by cutting these benefits go into better nutritional educational in the schooling system?

The idea is to reduce spending. Reduce the amount of money being pumped in to the NHS.

Cuts being made somewhere doesn't mean there has to be more spent somewhere else!

Daftendirekt

Froyo wrote: »

Yeah because being obese is akin to having a disorder such add muscular dystrophy!

What a silly thing to say.

Obesity is a 'condition' that is fully preventable and curable. It involves, to an extent, a person making the correct lifestyle choices.

Nothing silly about it. The stated aim of the proposal is to reduce the healthcare budget. If it's acceptable to intrude into the lives of welfare recipients to do this, then why single out one condition over another? The fact that obesity is preventable and curable is beside the point.

There should be no benefits for essentially being fat and lazy.

There are none that I know of.

In some cases, counselling should be provided to help them on their way. That's it.

Agreed.

Daftendirekt

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why should someone who cant be arsed finding a job because they are happy enough to sit at home stuffing their face with cream cakes and watching Jeremy Kyle on the telly get benefits and then claim that they are too obese to work anyway.

Feel free to point out where in the article it mentions people like this. Because I can't see it.

Conall Cernach

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Not sure if serious, but...

... I don't think there is.

There is an alcoholism benefit in the UK. If you are certified as an alcoholic you can get extra payments. If you successfully kick your addiction you lose this benefit.

PaurGasm

GOOD...Might get the aulde pair off their bloody asses before they kick the bucket

Daftendirekt

Conall Cernach wrote: »

There is an alcoholism benefit in the UK. If you are certified as an alcoholic you can get extra payments. If you successfully kick your addiction you lose this benefit.

Got a link?

krudler

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Terrible idea.

Leaving aside the intrusiveness of the proposal, has it occurred to these people that this might actually deter some people from seeking medical advice or assistance in the first place?

Also, if this is to be rolled out, why only obesity? Why not force diabetics or people suffering with some form of muscular dystrophy to take up these exercise regimes as well? Regular exercise is important for people suffering with these conditions to maintain their health, so why only target fat people?

And what good is compulsory exercise to someone who has no inclination to change their diet anyway? Should people have to report everything they eat to the local welfare office?

This is an idea designed to appeal to the kind of person who likes to abuse fat people while pretending to be concerned about their health or the financial burden they put on the healthcare system. Not a way to reduce obesity.

Diabetes and muscular dystrophy are in no way comparable to being fat. Fat through medical reasons is one thing, I was on steroids before and balooned, fat from being a lazy fcuker is something else entirely.

Daftendirekt

krudler wrote: »

Diabetes and muscular dystrophy are in no way comparable to being fat. Fat through medical reasons is one thing, I was on steroids before and balooned, fat from being a lazy fcuker is something else entirely.

Right, maybe muscular dystrophy was a bad example. Point still stands for diabetes though, which is often preventable.

awec

Daftendirekt wrote: »

? The fact that obesity is preventable and curable is beside the point.

Er, that's EXACTLY the point. It seems the point is going way over your head.

Obesity is not only preventable but it is curable. Hence why it is targeted. You can often fix it without even needing medication!

Comparisons with MD or diabetes are total nonsense.

What the **** does obesity have to do with claiming benefits? What a load of bull****. Also if it's the NHS budget they're trying to save on then why not target working families since they make up the majority? Reduce their tax credits or charge them extra tax if they drive to work. There's no logic behind the idea at all.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

What the **** does obesity have to do with claiming benefits? What a load of bull****. Also if it's the NHS budget they're trying to save on then why not target working families since they make up the majority? Reduce their tax credits or charge them extra tax if they drive to work. There's no logic behind the idea at all.

If your weight affects your ability to work you get benefits. That's what it has to do with it

Why target people who work? Why target those who contribute? Why not target those who don't contribute?

Daftendirekt

awec wrote: »

Er, that's EXACTLY the point. It seems the point is going way over your head.

Obesity is not only preventable but it is curable. Hence why it is targeted. You can often fix it without even needing medication!

Comparisons with MD or diabetes are total nonsense.

Fair enough, I get where you're coming from now.

awec

awec wrote: »

If your weight affects your ability to work you get benefits. That's what it has to do with it.

How many cases are there of that? Other than the people who are at the stage that they can't exercise and need to have a wall removed from their house how many people can't find work because of obesity?

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

How many cases are there of that? Other than the people who are at the stage that they can't exercise and need to have a wall removed from their house how many people can't find work because of obesity?

Plenty.

You don't need to be at wall-removal stage of obesity to be able to say you can't work.

awec

awec wrote: »

Plenty.

You don't need to be at wall-removal stage of obesity to be able to say you can't work.

Got a link to any guidelines? I'm pretty extremely obese but it doesn't get me out of cleaning out guttering or helping mates put up fences.

MagicMarker

Utterly retarded idea, people can exercise all they want but it's not going to help one bit if they're eating a burger and chips every night.

the_syco

Sounds like a great idea. The benefits are leverage to get obese people to eat healthier and do some exercise as opposed to taking meds and doing sweet f**k all at home. In the long term, they'll live a better life, and won't need the state to nanny them as much when they get older.

krudler

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Right, maybe muscular dystrophy was a bad example. Point still stands for diabetes though, which is often preventable.

wtf, so if someone contracts diabetes, no free insulin for you, its preventable. what tosh.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Got a link to any guidelines? I'm pretty extremely obese but it doesn't get me out of cleaning out guttering or helping mates put up fences.

Fair play to you. Do you clean gutters and put up fences every day though?

Conall Cernach

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Got a link?

Unfortunately no. But my uncle gets it if that's any help. :pac:

Sam Kade

If this goes through the Chawners will have a serious wake up call.

Hilly Bill

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Feel free to point out where in the article it mentions people like this. Because I can't see it.

Thats the whole point of the cuts is so that they get healthy enough to look for work. Cut the welfare and cut the intake of cakes. simples.

awec

awec wrote: »

Fair play to you. Do you clean gutters and put up fences every day though?

No, but that has little to with my being a fat bastard, the same as the majority of people who are unemployed and happen to be overweight aren't in the situation due to their weight. A 16 stone woman and a 9 stone women are both laid off from an office job and unless the 16 stone woman starts exercising she'll receive less than the other one? It's a bull****.

Hilly Bill

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats the whole point of the cuts is so that they get healthy enough to look for work. Cut the welfare and cut the intake of cakes. simples.

You sure? They're talking about council tax benefit etc., nothing to do with not being able to find work due to obesity.

Hilly Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

No, but that has little to with my being a fat bastard, the same as the majority of people who are unemployed and happen to be overweight aren't in the situation due to their weight. A 16 stone woman and a 9 stone women are both laid off from an office job and unless the 16 stone woman starts exercising she'll receive less than the other one? It's a bull****.

I'd say it would be based on how long someone has been claiming and out of work .

Hilly Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

You sure? They're talking about council tax benefit etc., nothing to do with not being able to find work due to obesity.

It mentions benefit payments in the article.

Teyla Emmagan

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This is an idea designed to appeal to the kind of person who likes to abuse fat people while pretending to be concerned about their health or the financial burden they put on the healthcare system. Not a way to reduce obesity.

Absolutely. There's no point forcing someone to exercise if they don't change their eating habits. Something like 90% of weightloss is down to diet. No one is going to lose weight if they attend their state sanctioned exercise class and then have a bucket of chicken on the way home. And you can't police every mouthful people put into their mouths, thankfully we don't live in that sort of a society.

This is only designed to punish, not to help. They'd be better off helping the offending party learn about nutrition and how to cook their own meals from scratch. But if humiliation is the name of the game you're not going to take a holistic approach like that.

Absolutely bullsh*t initiative.

Hilly Bill

Hilly Bill wrote: »

It mentions benefit payments in the article.

Benefit payments mean an awful lot of things.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

donvito99 wrote: »

We need Simpson's style Fat Camps

Family guy, FTW...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_A1aXCeeSM

strandroad

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Absolutely. There's no point forcing someone to exercise if they don't change their eating habits. Something like 90% of weightloss is down to diet. No one is going to lose weight if they attend their state sanctioned exercise class and then have a bucket of chicken on the way home.

I did think so for a minute but then I changed my mind. A lot of overweight people are stuck in their homes half-depressed and the initial effort to start any sort of activity must be tremendous and often overwhelming so it never happens. If this incentivises them to move and get a little endorphin rush, perhaps it will actually be very helpful at least to those who genuinely want to lose weight.

JRant

Well if they're claiming disability benefits due to being over-weight then GTF. There are very few medical reasons for being morbidly obese.

If it's unemployment benefit I can't see how they can discriminate.

Then again heart consultants can and do refuse to deal with smokers or at least put serious pressure on them to quit.

Add "Nutrition" to the exercise class regime and it could be useful.

However they'll need to **** that ridiculous food pyramid out the window and teach these people to get back to basics to conquer most of their issues.

10 stone overweight is going to take a long long time to rectify...

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

10 stone overweight is going to take a long long time to rectify...

Bet I'll sort it in a year. :pac:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Bet I'll sort it in a year. :pac:

1.2kg of weight a week

~ 9000kcal deficit per week.

I wouldn't recommend that to anyone without medical supervision tbh.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

1.2kg of weight a week

~ 9000kcal deficit per week.

I wouldn't recommend that to anyone without medical supervision tbh.

I've done 3 a week for a few months a couple of times til boredom got the better of me. :pac:

LETHAL LADY

Has anybody mentioned Fat Fighters?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I've done 3 a week for a few months a couple of times til boredom got the better of me. :pac:

so an unsustainable amount?

I know a guy that ran the first 5miles of a marathon in 23 minutes. Was on course for world record pace.

Didn't finish the race though...

That's the important part. There's a slow and steady process to create a sustainable path to 'freedom' for obese people. You can't eat rabbit food and drink watery milkshakes for 15 months and then suddenly expect to be able to behave appropriately when someone places a 200g bag of Doritos, a 2l bottle of Coke and some Haribo in front of you.

Teaching people information about nutrition and how to prepare and care for themselves appropriately would be far more beneficial to an obese person than forcing them to do 200kcals worth of low energy, low enthusiasm work.

Heck, send em to the Nutrition and Diet forum and tell them to read some stickies and post some questions.

A single Snickers bar undoes all the work of a 30minute run and more.

twinytwo

If they really want to sort this problem, they need to start with the kids. Get them eating well, playing sports and try to move them away from the whole idea of sitting inside all day playing xbox or what have you.

Froyo

Deleted User wrote: »

I've done 3 a week for a few months a couple of times til boredom got the better of me. :pac:

2lbs a week should be your maximum weight loss goal - a sustainable and safe one.

That's 8 per month. 1 stone = roughly 14lbs.