The NHS - semi lighthearted debate with friend

[Ozgirl76]

A friend and I were having a debate today about the problems with the NHS and the best ways to fix them. I remember Wes Streeting had said that his preference was that because obesity causes so many issues, it would be best to fix the problems before they’re medical - by basically controlling what people eat.

So we were trying to decide - would it be better for the government to have much more control of our diets, ban smoking entirely, and continue to provide free health care. Or would it be better to continue to have free choice BUT if you met certain thresholds you were made to have health insurance which would cover you if you developed a smoking or weight related disease. We decided that to be fair, if you start the health insurance before the age of (say) 25 and never made a claim for any weight or smoking related disease up until age 70, you would get a lump sum payment back.

What do you think?

And make healthy food cheaper as a result maybe.

For a thread you started as a lighthearted, just a casual conversation between pals, type debate, you are very invested in getting us all to agree with you...

I don't disagree with your thoughts, but think that it would end up being expensive to put into action, political parties may not be motivated to do it due to possible funding from producers of processed foods and sometimes policies like these can end up causing unintended harm.

Word to the wise - if you get all of MN on your side, it still may never happen. I am unsure what your motives are for starting this thread and considering MN's reputation for being a bit funny about food and weight issues, I am honestly not sure you're going to get anything positive out of this. You are maybe enjoying yourself though, so 🤷‍♀️

It's not really light hearted at all, it's quite an emotive topic. Free will should always win out. But regardless of the argument for or against, we already have private healthcare; we should be upfront about it and tell everyone they must have at least a minimum level.

NO NO NO please stop demonising sugar and taking choice away from people.

When companies cut sugar, they replace it with artificial sweeteners and those come with their own health problems. Google artificial sweeteners and diabetes / artificial sweeteners and gut health - there’s ongoing research that suggests potential links between high artificial sweetener consumption and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, possibly due to their effects on gut microbiota and insulin sensitivity. There is also evidence that they impact gut health by disrupting the gut microbiome; potentially leading to inflammation, intestinal problems, and issues with glucose metabolism.

I have Inflammatory Bowel Disease and need to avoid artificial sweeteners at all costs and I can’t tell you how much my diet has been restricted by trying to avoid artificial sweeteners (bloody aspartame is the worst culprit and everywhere). I know if I’ve ingested artificial sweeteners unintentionally by the abominable pain and bloody diarrhoea that follows.

By trying to fix one problem, you might inadvertently cause others.

This ^

There are no easy answers. I think food production could be forced to be better e.g. restrictions on amount of sugar in products. I prefer this approach to higher taxes on some foods.

A focus on mental health would potentially help with preventing some physical issues. For example addiction.

Making exercise easy to access. For example I swim regularly but the pool management is terrible but there is no other pool nearby (this is London). I pay around £40 a month for a state managed shabby pool. I have never understood why PE is not mandatory in sixth form. And in my experience academic subjects always take priority. PE should be fun and engaging and expose kids to a wide range of sport. It doesn't in my experience.

Work places should provide gyms or gym memberships.

Schools should do more to encourage cooking skills.

People want to be healthy!

Certainly didn’t mean to be offensive - sorry if this discussed has made you feel got at.

Im just interested in how the NHS can continue into the future without significant change at one end or the other - either by charging, or by changing people themselves so they don’t need it as much.

I have very much enjoyed hearing the opinions and actually I’m not trying to get people to agree as I don’t agree with either option.

Great discussion!

Agree with all of this.

I would like to be able to opt out of having life saving care after the age of 70, so I die of something else before I get dementia. I'm not sure if that is allowed though.

Jesus, you're being unecessarily offensive. If it's so easy to increase PIP, how about doing it now? The current HIGHEST level of PIP (that's with both the daily living and mobility elements) is less than £10k per year - £20k a year less recent research suggests a single person now needs as a minimum income standard. And over £30k less than the suggested minimum income standard for a disabled person to pay for the extra costs associated simply with being disabled.

https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/uk-minimum-living-standards-earnings-work/

What would life be like if you didn't have/have the use of all your limbs, if you were blind, if you didn't have the dexterity or strength to open a jar or hold a knife, or stand above a stove (or have the ability to stand at all). There's little to no support for people now - where will all the extra support come from to enable carers to visit people daily in order to chop their fresh vegetables and make their meals for them?

Was about to come on and mention diabetes. I think it’s the biggest single cost to the NHS.

If you freed up more NHS money by making the population in general healthier and in less need of NHS care (the ones who can make a choice eg by not smoking or drinking alcohol) there would be more money available to those disabled through no fault of their own.

A fair few of them are also greedy and corrupt. I think we saw during Covid about one rule for them, a different one for everyone else.

How about providing affordable housing. Reasonable wages so some are not working three jobs to buy basics. Adult education restored so that people in all areas can retrain and up skill. Public transport so that everybody can get to work. Driving tests available to everybody again so that they can get work. Fix the social problems so that people are not living miserable lives. Then they may not turn to drugs, drink, smoking, cheap fast food.

More education on and criminalising of the abusers living in society in plain sight. The bullies, narcissists, the coercive controllers, the domestically violent. It's rife. They make people lifelong sick yet carry on in life presumably not paying your NHS tax.

It's too simplistic to marginalise certain people in society and expect them to pay extra.

My mum was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in her late 70's. She was from a farming family and her diet had always been good, old fashioned, wholesome food. Lots of freshly picked veg, free range everything and not the merest hint of junk food. She never smoked, only ever had the odd glass of wine (usually at Christmas) and worked very, very hard all her life - so not remotely sedentary or overweight. So how would that work?