Advanced search

Benefits chopped for fatties.

(116 Posts)
Iggly Thu 03-Jan-13 11:07:53

Benefits Chopped for fatties?! really?

I'm just astounded. Who shall we demonise next?

Sunnywithshowers Thu 03-Jan-13 11:19:03

That's shitty.

Prescribed gym membership still costs money.

AgentProvocateur Thu 03-Jan-13 11:26:45

It's not saying that all "fatties" - horrible word - will get their benefits stopped. Only those who have been "prescribed" and given a local gym membership and not used it. Even our council gym costs £60 a month. I think it's fair enough to put sanctions in place if people are being given £720 worth of facility that they're not using. If they've been prescribed it from a GP, their size is causing them medical issues.

It's fair enough to expect people to help themselves a bit.

FlimFlamMerrilyOnHigh Thu 03-Jan-13 11:33:27

It's a proposal. I seriously doubt it would even be put forward in parliament.

Iggly Thu 03-Jan-13 11:34:17

I didn't say "all".

Why pick on obsese people on benefits? What about obsese people who are working and getting NHS treatment? Should that be rationed until they lose weight?

AgentProvocateur Thu 03-Jan-13 11:41:48

It often is - obese working people can't get IVF unless they lose weight

orangepudding Thu 03-Jan-13 11:46:48

In my PCT obese people can't have certain operations unless they lose a certain amount of weight first, smokers can't have the same operations either.

happycake Thu 03-Jan-13 11:54:35

how would this work? if something has been prescribed to a patient by a GP, isn't that confidential information, so how would the council even know about it?

picketywick Thu 03-Jan-13 12:28:54

I would be suprised if it was ever a widespread policy. (No pun intended)

Sunnywithshowers Thu 03-Jan-13 12:30:35

My DB was prescribed a gym membership when he was unemployed. However, on benefits he couldn't afford to use it - he still had to pay a fee every time he went to the gym.

SparklingSnow Thu 03-Jan-13 13:29:04

I can't see this actually happening, but if it did, it would be completely unfair.

Smokers cost a lot of money. So do drinkers and drug addicts. But they won't be targeted. Yet DLA and other sickness benefits are awarded for being a drug addict and an alcoholic.

That really isn't fair. Especially considering that genuinely disabled people are seeing their DLA applications turned down and being told they are fit for work when they aren't.

msrisotto Thu 03-Jan-13 13:33:33

You don't need a gym for fitness though, how do you monitor that though?

CotherMuckingFunt Thu 03-Jan-13 13:33:49

Perhaps if buying fresh ingredients was cheaper than fast food/ready meals this wouldn't be necessary. It astonishes me when I go back to the UK that a McDonald's is cheaper than a meat and veg meal.

CloudsAndTrees Thu 03-Jan-13 13:37:10

Obese people who are working are at least contributing to the society that will have to pay for their inevitable healthcare.

I don't think there's anything wrong with making people who don't financially contribute to society responsible for ensuring that they don't cost society any more than is necessary.

Obesity related illness costs this country a fortune, I don't see anything wrong with measures that encourage people to be responsible for their own health when their lives are already dependant on other people.

Sunnywithshowers Thu 03-Jan-13 13:38:52

I agree it's probably another one of these stupid, 'divide and rule' announcements from IDS et al.

Like happycake said above, being prescribed anything should be confidential.

Northernlebkuchen Thu 03-Jan-13 13:40:26

This is a non story, it will never happen. Exercise has been prescribed but like any other treatment it cannot be forced upon a patient. If this were a policy (which it isn't) then that would mean benefits could be cut for people who don't take their anti-depressants or their HRT or their statins or BP meds. It's absurd.

claig Thu 03-Jan-13 14:18:30

Unfortunately, I think these things will eventually happen. They are flyers at the moment and are used to test the water with teh public, but the public is being slowly moved to accept these measures, just as they have been conditioned to believe the climate catastrophe warnings.

It started in a big way with George Best and discussion of whether the NHS should pay for his liver transplant etc. Radio show discussions etc. brought it to public attention and then we have mdia pumping out stories about people who are 40 stone costing services thousands extra to be able to take them to hospital etc.

As orangepudding said, it is already beginning

'In my PCT obese people can't have certain operations unless they lose a certain amount of weight first, smokers can't have the same operations either.'

It will spread to alcoholics, binge drinkers, smokers etc. etc. and we will be told that citizens have duties as well as rights etc. etc. and just as we are told that workers should not have to subsidy shirkers, we will possibly hear similar stories about the fit subsidising the ill.

It is a disgusting move, but I think we will see it escalate over the coming years. It is about picking on people and blaming people, when the real major reason for obesity is the crap they put in our food.

People have faith in authorities and believe that what they eat is generally OK. People are unaware of some of the crap that is really put into our food by large food-processing conglomerates - crap that actually causes people to become obese. But we don't hear calls to ban it, we just hear about rationing of treatment and possible cutting of benefits unless people exercise to fight off what has been caused by crap food.

Here are some articles about high-fructose corn syrup which is in so much of our food nowadays

SleighbellsRingInYourLife Thu 03-Jan-13 14:23:46

"Westminster council and the Local Government Information Unit say new technologies such as smart cards could be used to track claimants' use of leisure centres, allowing local authorities to dock housing and council benefit payments from those who refuse to carry out exercise prescribed by their GP."

I wonder how GPs would feel if treatment they prescribed could be used as a pretext for removing people's benefits?

"I don't think there's anything wrong with making people who don't financially contribute to society responsible for ensuring that they don't cost society any more than is necessary."


Jesus is their no indignity people like you wouldn't like to see visited on the unemployed?

Being out of work is less of a burden on society than being a selfish, objectionable cunt.

JakeBullet Thu 03-Jan-13 14:26:19

Yeah didn't take long for an MNer to post an agreement did it? hmm

CloudsAndTrees Thu 03-Jan-13 14:30:59

High fructose corn syrup is generally found most often in foods that people shouldn't be eating regularly anyway. So I don't really see that the inclusion of it in food can be blamed for obesity.

Obese people often can't have certain operations because anaesthetising them presents a bigger risk to their health than just not giving them the operation at all. Denying them the operation until they have lost weight is usually medically indicated, rather than because of some kind of fat person prejudice. The same goes for smokers. There is no point in spending NHS money on a smoking related illness when the patient is determined to waste the chance they have been given by continuing to smoke. I say that as a smoker. I don't expect to be given treatment that would either be unnecessary if I stopped smoking, or would be wasted if I continue to smoke.

claig Thu 03-Jan-13 14:35:34

If people are going to be denied treatment because of their lifestyles, then why should they pay taxes just so that non-smokers and non-drinkers can get treatment. It is divide and rule and people's lifestyles should not be judged by 'think tanks' and cost-cutting officials.

CloudsAndTrees Thu 03-Jan-13 14:43:30

If they are out of work long term, then they aren't paying taxes.

And can we try to remember that rather than damaging people, actively encouraging obese people to lose weight is in the interests of their own health! They would benefit from it, not be harmed by it!

JakeBullet Thu 03-Jan-13 14:49:15

Most crappy foods are cheaper....hence people on lower incomes buy them.

And the unemployed DO pay tax.....nothing is reduced for them VATwise . I am currently on benefits as a Carer but I still pay the same price for petrol as I did while working.

claig Thu 03-Jan-13 14:51:34

'actively encouraging obese people to lose weight'

What do you mean, by doing the following
'allowing local authorities to dock housing and council benefit payments from those who refuse to carry out exercise prescribed by their GP'

It is disgraceful. These people have paid taxes and should not be penalised in any way.

High-fructose corn syrup is in breakfast cereals, yogurts, orange juice, bread, processed meals etc. etc., even in fruit juices that we are told are healthy. These are foods eaten by millions of children and people in the country. Some of the ingredients in our food are causing obesity due to the way that they interact with leptin and insulin etc. People are not aware of what these ingedients are doing to them.

While teh 'think tanks' are being paid by someone to 'think', millions of ordinary people are out there busily working and they trust that what they eat and what is sold to them is not doing them harm. Going to a gym will not combat what some of these ingredients are doing to them.

SparklingSnow Thu 03-Jan-13 14:53:06

What some people don't seem to realise is, if this does go ahead, then who is to say they won't target something else next? And something else after that. Then it might be something that would affect you. And by then it would be too late for anything to be done about it.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now