AIBU to think that actually it's the healthy living folk who will end up costing the state most?

[Frontier]

Not the fat smokers.

All of us will get ill and die eventually. Something will get us in the end and towards the end we are very likely to need some medical attention.

Those who are ill young may cost a lot in the short-term with cancer treatment or through diabetes etc but people who live an extra 30 years and then still need at the same (or more) treatment and care will surely cost more over their lifetime.

I might even argue that dying young and suddenly from say, heart attack does the NHS a favour. Caveat, I'm not being entirely serious but offering an alternative view to the one doing the rounds here ATM.

The majority of cancers are not caused by lifestyle but by work and poverty

Really?

Lots of contracting jobs still carry this risk, carpenters breathe in wood dust or worse mdf dust, builders breathe in brick dust, workplace accidents.

Work and poverty contribute to lifestyle though so in effect it is lifestyle?

One off surgeries like hip replacements are pretty cheap by comparison with chronic disabilities such as diabetes and COPD though mordirig.

Yes, morphine being poor or needing to work is 'lifestyle'

But it's not like you can help having to work

You'll find though that those who are fitter and healthier and work longer, will have more of a pension and more assets, meaning the government won't be providing free home help or care assistants, as their own money is used, like my MIL at the moment.

I don't think those can compare to aspestos and mining to be fair.

My point was those who are fit and healthy for longer, can work for longer and pay more tax. So even if they do end up living longer they've paid more in.

To consider another point, think of all those fit, healthy grandparents that help out with childcare, doesn't that benefit the economy? My own parents are in their 60s, have serious health problems due to smoking and poor lifestyle, and often express that they wish they could help us out more than they do (not that I would ever expect them to).

Good point Rubber

There's also the issue of people being fitter and healthier, meaning they don't have to retire as early which means there aren't as many jobs available for the younger generation; they may have to rely on benefits for a while.

Off the point but.

A bit of a crass and insensitive thread considering there's parents on here who have lost children through cancer etc. I doubt saving the NHS a bob or two is the first thing they would have thought about.

Actually it's not quite true. Due to a much better diet we are much healthier so the vast majority of people are healthy enough to work the whole of their working lives.

No matter how much you pay in anyway it doesn't compensate for costing the state for retirement for 40 years.
Living to a 100 is not desirable for the state.

Even within my own family there's an elderly lady who has never worked and who's now healthy in her 90's after having successful cancer treatment and 2 new hips. I'm sure she's cost the state a fortune.

I heard on the radio a while ago (moneybox I think?) That the average babyboomer over their life will cost the state £200,000 more than they have contributed. Not sure I believe it's that high but I think the young are definitely carrying more than their fair share.

I have also heard that yes, it is health people who cost the state more because of years and years of extra pension payments, not sure I believe that either. I expect the most expensive people are the disabled who need life long care but can never work. God that looks horrible written down, makes me sound like Hitler. But anyway, some people cost more than others, but some people need more than others, thinking about it the Queen probably costs the most.

my problem is not that "fat people cost the state money". So do smokers. So do depressed people. so do people who get cancer.

I am worried that we are sliding into a culture (and its not just the UK) where obesity is "normalised".

Before you accuse me of "fat" bashing consider the sad fate of The Cook Islands (kind of near Fiji!)- used to eat healhily, fish, veges etc. Post colonisation and globalisation they live on imported food- often very high fat version- now diabetes is rife and there are multiple amputees due to this.

Think about the fact that this generations of kids are likely to die younger than earlier generations due to obesity related health problems.

Think about the fact that if we have a culutre that normalises a certain way of eating, we have way way WAY more children that are overweight. Look around you. I see them everywhere.

I think its a real shame that we cant discuss this issue as we get accused of "being mean to overweight people"- its bullshot

namechange I read that my generation were actually one of the most unhealthiest, so I'm not sure if that will be the case for us.

To be fair I dont care how much people cost the state because that's the great thing about the NHS, free equal treatment for all, but it's an interesting debate.

fromparis I spoke about that in this thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a2141050-to-be-angry-at-the-fact-women-MUST-NOT-BE-FAT?msgid=48500713#48500713

There's so few people with life long disabilities that it's negligible cost to the state. The elderly are by far the biggest cost.

At least 90 per cent of NHS costs go on pensioners. The NHS famously refuses to admit the true percentage of what seniors cost.

And care homes are mostly funded by the councils and their central govt budget, so add that to the cost of old people.

The real crisis is in funding pensioners - including their health costs.

I'm not sure what the most expensive diseases are, and I'd like to know, but dementia costs a fortune (unlike most mental illnesses which are hilariously cheap to treat compared to, say, a broken ankle).

YABVU.

I work in the NHS. People who live healthily and well into their 90s die of one of two things generally (of course, not in all cases, but from my experience):- 1. they die very suddenly from an infection they would have fought off had they been younger or 2. they choose to die, either from suicidal actions (refusing food, self-destructive behaviour, refusing routine medication) or from declining treatment (declining chemo for a treatable cancer for example).

Healthy nonogenarians tend to be on a lot less medications and have fewer hospital stays than unhealthy 60-somethings. The "sudden heart attack" you're talking about is generally years of countless medications, several hospital stays and probably an operation or two in the making, and these people don't bounce back. They come in for routine procedures and then stay for weeks because they don't heal properly, are more susceptible to infection and more likely to have complications like blood clots. Their obesity and poor circulation makes them more difficult to care for and to treat, and makes them more likely to acquire things like pressure ulcers. When not in hospital, diabetes and other weight related conditions require constant monitoring when not controlled and can lead to things like ulcers which needs redressing within the community.

Honestly, give me a 92 year old teetotal vegetarian over a 65 year old obese smoker any day.

i think we are aligned morphine

Fat is NOT a feminist issue any more- its an global issue affecting men, women and children and we need to take it more seriously as its affecting the next generation

that last thread missed the point spectacularly

Well 68% of people are overweight so there won't be that many slim healthy people to 'cost the state more'. Retirement age is rising so the fit and healthy will have to work longer and pay tax whilst the 'too fat to work brigade' will stop work early and claim disability benefits whilst receiving treatment for their obesity related health disorders.
Costing the state money as a fit and healthy person is no excuse for being fat.

At least 90 per cent of NHS costs go on pensioners. The NHS famously refuses to admit the true percentage of what seniors cost.

But how many of them have been fit and healthy non smokers and non heavy drinkers?

Fat is NOT a feminist issue any more- its an global issue affecting men, women and children and we need to take it more seriously as its affecting the next generation

Agreed.

I get the impression from reading this thread that some posters think that if one maintains a healthy lifestyle, then the typical outcome is going to be a healthy old age and then suddenly popping one's clogs.

I would have thought a large number of those in their 80s and 90s are going to be undergoing years of gradually decline and worsening health. I could be wrong though.

I think people are talking in simplified terms, I know I am. I'm well aware there's a steady decline and that some conditions are genetic, but for the sake of the debate I over simplified.

Nauticant: I think most people regardless of lifestyle will require a lot of ongoing healthcare in their last decade of life. However ibthinkbtgatbthosecehovare fit and healthy can potentially work longer and therefore spend more years paying taxes.