Obese kids to be taken into care.

Quote:

---

Dangerously overweight children will have to be taken from their parents and put into care because of Britain's worsening "obesity epidemic", council leaders have warned.

One million children will be clinically obese within four years on current trends, storing up future problems from heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure and diabetes.

---

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ts-898972.html

Is it just me being cynical? This smacks of the governments 'targets' for removing children from thier parents and placing them in care. As it is, the family court system in the UK often resembles kangeroo courts, all reasons and decisions are kept secret, on pain of imprisonment.

I can't comment on the UK family court system, but I agree with that part of the article wich argues that letting kids become extremely fat is child neglect. To me it will depend on where they draw the line and how all this will be put to practice.

I predicted this four years ago. A rather fat member protetsed about smoking in public places and I told him obesity would be the next target of the scare industry. This is it. The same arguments are raised: why should one person have to pay for another's obesity/obese child? If this goes on, all natural solidarity and sense of community in societies will be destroyed because every social contact will be based on cost-benefit analysis.

We will be a sick society if we stick to free marketeering concepts of individual health.

Some prominent Brits have refused to have their kids weighed by the government. I hope more will follow.

Yeah, ok.... The government should AID, not FORCE...

Like for example reducing taxes on healthy food and support local sports teams for minors. Not ship people off to concentration camps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

A public health expert, David Hunter, of Durham University, this week warned that rising obesity levels posed as a grave a threat to Britain as terrorism and urged "bold action"...

---

He must be working the statistical analysis side of the question, right? Otherwise, that's a silly, alarmist statement, IMO.

If you guys implement this, I imagine many ugly scenes, with law enforcement being called in. Talk about "cost" then.

It's Nu-labour all over. Why bother to encourage when you can fine/imprison/coerce.

Horetores suggestion is much more sensible, if you want to reduce obesity. I suspect though that this is part of the governments target of having a certain % of children in care. The local authorities get a cash bonus if they meet the targets for child placement/adoption and I can tell you as an ex- local government officer, my erstwhile colleagues will carry out their tasks diligently. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

The local authorities get a cash bonus if they meet the targets for child placement/adoption...

---

You're pulling our leg, right?

No.

It's a national disgrace but one that has slipped largely under the radar. One of the results of prison sentences being handed down from the judges in family courts, mainly to parents who objected to having their children removed and placed into care.

I hunt around for some links.

This is sick. While letting your kid get fat is abuse. This is the worst solution possible. What are they...heck are they even thinking?

Hmm, well on the one hand you have the collective "tax-payers" who are beginning to feel pissed at having to pay out for fat kids who's parents couldn't give a toss. These people pay money damn it! Why shouldn't they get their pound's worth out of society?
It's like a new form of social conscience.

I mean, the reason we have to go to hospital is because we are human right? Humans get sick, injured or killed by doing stupid and unhealthy things. The idea that you stop all this for the sake of the "tax-payer" is ridiculous. It's like society is creating ever more stringent insurance policies. Its the wrong way to go about it imho.

Over here, they are whining on about fatter kids, yet the govt. says P.E is not mandatory after 4th form. Why?

I agree that promoting healthy food and education on the subject is always better, but it will not be enough for some. Not adhering to the best possible diet isn't child abuse per se and of course kids who are only moderately overweight should be left alone.
If a couple has neglected their kid to the point that he/she weighs over 60 kg at the age of 11 though, it's preposterous to believe that a couple of flyers at school or a 10 cent reduction on fat-free foods is going to convert them into capable, caring parents.

So I think that at its basic core, it's not a bad idea - provided that the assessment is done by actual doctors and not based solely on weight, and that they're using child removal as a last resort. The bit about targets is alarming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

If a couple has neglected their kid to the point that he/she weighs over 60 kg at the age of 11 though, it's preposterous to believe that a couple of flyers at school or a 10 cent reduction on fat-free foods is going to convert them into capable, caring parents.

---

Yes, that is a major disadvantage in our society, we are incapable of thinking long term, everything has to be fixed this instance. We only look at the consequences, we never look at the mechanism that cause the problem.

Here's a link for adoption targets and payments.

Quote:

---

Cash prize for council that hit adoption targets

Telegraph April 14 2008

Hammersmith and Fulham council, in west London, was paid £500,000 as a reward for placing more than 100 children for adoption in three years.

---

http://www.fassit.co.uk/adoption_statistics.htm

As I said, it's a national disgrace. Another Blair lagacy. :shame:

I cannot see how removing obese children from their parents, and the extreme anxiety and heartbreak this will cause can be a healthy solution. What's next...children of parents who smoke must be removed to foster care because of the health dangers of second hand smoke.

Quote:

---

The local authorities get a cash bonus if they meet the targets for child placement/adoption

---

If that isn't a recipe for abuse of authority for profit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

every social contact will be based on cost-benefit analysis.

---

Huh?
Is there anything else you could rationally base them on? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Huh?
Is there anything else you could rationally base them on? :inquisitive:

---

An individuals free will, for example.

Anyway, now that having a fat son is child abuse, what else can be deemed as such? A daughter who has sex before she's 16? How can we tolerate parents who let their kids become such sluts? Jail seems reasonable if the daughter gets knocked up too. And it goes without saying that a child who has smoked a cigarette or drinks alcohol needs to be put away from such horrible parents...

:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Huh?
Is there anything else you could rationally base them on? :inquisitive:

---

Financial costs and benefits of certain acts and transactions between individuals can be calculated, but not the true costs and benefits of institutions, behaviours and customs to a given society.

If you doubt this, I challenge you to calculate the costs and benefits to your country of, say, something elementary like telephony. You don't have to nail them down to the last euro. The last million would be sufficient. For instance what's the financial benefit of a granny talking to her grandchildren over the phone?

I'll see you in 2031 when you have given up.

A simpler way of looking at this would be to grasp Kukrikhan's remark about the costs of the legal, human and institutional hassle of a structural adoption policy for obese children. The true costs and benefits of it to society can never be calculated, even if we all agreed on the values that should rule our society. We don't have the statistical apparatus for it.

Someone said in another thread that it was a parent's responsibility to get their child to adulthood in a healthy state. I'd agree with this.

In Britain, the number of fat kids is increasing. If parents can't be bothered to encourage their kids to exercise and cook decent meals for them, then I say we should stop waisting time and find someone who will.

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craterus

If parents can't be bothered to encourage their kids to exercise and cook decent meals for them, then I say we should stop waisting time and find someone who will.

---

Thereby breaking the bond between parent and child which is most important in all areas of the child's education and well-being. Physical health is not the be-all and end-all of education, it is only a part. To concentrate on it in this obsessive manner is not useful, it is vengeful and stupid and betrays little wisdom, personal experience or empathy on your part. Children should be taken away from their parents only as a last resort. The added scandal of the cash bonus for adoption targets makes this whole scheme ever more detestable.

Hmm, guess I'll add the big fat joke stamp ex post facto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craterus

Hmm, guess I'll add the big fat joke stamp ex post facto.

---

Um, yes. To be honest I didn't see what was supposed to be funny about it, but I do apologize if it was really meant as a joke. :bow:

I hope social services will intervene in the case of clinically obese children. Good plan, great measure. Society is much too lax when it comes to parental child abuse or neglect.

Quota's are an excellent tool to measure and encourage good governmental functioning. Even if it holds the danger of creating it's own dynamic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

it is vengeful and stupid and betrays little wisdom, personal experience or empathy on your part. Children should be taken away from their parents only as a last resort.

---

Pah. http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys3/bootyshake.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I hope social services will intervene in the case of clinically obese children. Good plan, great measure. Society is much too lax when it comes to parental child abuse or neglect.

Quota's are an excellent tool to measure and encourage good governmental functioning. Even if it holds the danger of creating it's own dynamic.



Pah. http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys3/bootyshake.gif

---

https://img516.imageshack.us/img516/...dsmileykf9.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis

Even if it holds the danger of creating it's own dynamic.

---

Louis channels Pindar, lol.

This is a draconian idea.

The government should be there to engineer situations where the public will tend towards the desired result, not waste a fortune in scarring families.

So, of course this is a futile - not to mention expensive - course of action.

Much better to add a tax on foods with saturated fats above a certain level, and possibly the same for other ingredients. If you want to, then subsidise healthier options - although I imagine this half is too cumbersome.

Most tend towards excessive fats and sugars as they are cheap, easy and give one a quick boost. If this option was going to hurt the wallet then more would opt for other options.

If people still insist on taking the calorie-laden ones, then the money raised could be used for such things as sports projects to at least help burn the fat off again.

~:smoking:

Vegetables are generally quite cheap. If broccoli, and the like, tasted like chocolate candy there wouldn't be a problem. People chose to eat these high processed foods, not because of cost, but because they are conveniently available, advertised to excess 24/7, and they taste good.

I would rather see the government initiate programs with food manufacturers to change their ingredients (eliminate that high fructose corn syrup and saturated fats) and require fast food chains and restaurants to use healthier ways to prepare what they serve. Require education/counselling for families in this predicament. It can't cost anymore than the law suits, civil disobedience and possible violence that this over-the-top policy will generate.

Removing children from their families for this reason sounds like something Kim Jong Il would do. This is Nanny State run amok imo.

I doubt taking away morbidly obese children from their parents is going to make them lose wieght. Now it might scare some families into getting thier children on a proper diet, but not many. I'd definately support forced summer fat camps though, but thats my own opinion and I hate seeing fat children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The government should be there to engineer situations where the public will tend towards the desired result, not waste a fortune in scarring families.

So, of course this is a futile - not to mention expensive - course of action.

Much better to add a tax on foods with saturated fats above a certain level, and possibly the same for other ingredients. If you want to, then subsidise healthier options - although I imagine this half is too cumbersome.

Most tend towards excessive fats and sugars as they are cheap, easy and give one a quick boost. If this option was going to hurt the wallet then more would opt for other options.

If people still insist on taking the calorie-laden ones, then the money raised could be used for such things as sports projects to at least help burn the fat off again.

---

Fats and sugar's are not neccesarily bad and can't be properly regulated well. It's the over abundance of fructose/glucose with alot of saturated fat that is the problem. Just go pick up a gallon of skim milk and look at the sugar content. It's not exactly what you can call low, so not all sugar's are created equal. I think by focusing on sugar and fats we also forget about over acidicy and cronic minor acidic body composition. By suggesting the consumption of grains instead of sugars and fats your not going to be losing any wieght and your going to be boosting your body's acid level's which leads to worsening health over all. Also we can't forget about enviromental estrogens and phytoestrogens that are found in overabundance in a modern society. Soy, flax oils and such have heavy amounts of phytoestrogens something which is incredibly bad in high doses. A recent short term study found that 6 servings of soy a day cuased men to start forming mamaries/moobs in as little time as 10 weeks. Not to mention increased fat storage in the legs and hips...

Obesity in a modern society is not just based on diet alone, we have grain fed cattle, a plethora of plastic eating utensils, estrogens, hormones, and many other problems. The average person has a omega 3 to omega 6 fatty acid ration of 1/20, healthy or even normal is 1/1, with most scientists suggesting we evolved with a 1/2 ratio. There's alot of things wrong with the western diet and punishing parents so cruely is not the answer, education is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

There's alot of things wrong with the western diet and punishing parents so cruely is not the answer, education is.

---

We have education on the subject, and it's just not enough. Incentives have to exist. Maybe a tax reduction for having normal weight children or something like that.

I think in serious cases something has to be done as these children are having their lives ruined, and its not really their own fault. I suppose its easy to say "Oh no! The big bad government is stepping in again", but whatever inconvenience these proposed measures would cause to parents is negligible compared to the damage they are doing to their own children's lives. This would only be for serious cases though, when the problem is caused by neglect.

I think one reason children are getting fatter nowadays is not necessarily due to neglectful parents, but the fact that they have less time to cook proper meals due to work etc. Both my parents work, and when I was younger I would end up either at a fast foot place every night or getting a frozen meal because they were too stressed or just didn't have the time to do anything else. Both my brothers are still doing this, one used to be pretty fat and the other's somehow got a beer belly and he's only ten. I tend to just go aneamic when I'm unhealthy, so I wouldn't have to worry about fat camps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Fats and sugar's are not neccesarily bad and can't be properly regulated well. It's the over abundance of fructose/glucose with alot of saturated fat that is the problem. Just go pick up a gallon of skim milk and look at the sugar content. It's not exactly what you can call low, so not all sugar's are created equal. I think by focusing on sugar and fats we also forget about over acidicy and cronic minor acidic body composition. By suggesting the consumption of grains instead of sugars and fats your not going to be losing any wieght and your going to be boosting your body's acid level's which leads to worsening health over all. Also we can't forget about enviromental estrogens and phytoestrogens that are found in overabundance in a modern society. Soy, flax oils and such have heavy amounts of phytoestrogens something which is incredibly bad in high doses. A recent short term study found that 6 servings of soy a day cuased men to start forming mamaries/moobs in as little time as 10 weeks. Not to mention increased fat storage in the legs and hips...

Obesity in a modern society is not just based on diet alone, we have grain fed cattle, a plethora of plastic eating utensils, estrogens, hormones, and many other problems. The average person has a omega 3 to omega 6 fatty acid ration of 1/20, healthy or even normal is 1/1, with most scientists suggesting we evolved with a 1/2 ratio. There's alot of things wrong with the western diet and punishing parents so cruely is not the answer, education is.

---

Man, you sound like a health industry brochure. Cut the junk science already.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the idea that (1) being fat is bad for you, (2) we have an 'obesity epidemic', (3) dieting or education or 'fat camps' or any of this commercialized health crap ever works, or (4) children 'eat what they watch' somwe must 'tackle advertising'.

The mere expression 'morbidly obese' is a criminal misnomer. No classifications of weight or obesity correspond to an increased risk of premature death, serious illness or thwarted development. We are turning body weight into a measure of moral soundness, thus isolating children even more, both socially and emotionally, than they already are by today's hysterical wave of fitness and bodysculpture. Besides, it smacks of a war on the poor and disadvantaged. This is a favourite strain of modernity: the poor have always been held in contempt (and blamed) for rampant alcoholism, supposed sexual depravity, crime, and all kinds of diseases.

This is just another mindless health scare. People are made to feel sick and worried baout their 'toxic food environment' until we all think we need medical treatment, therapies, pills and diets to stay alive. The health industry 'professionals' are laughing all the way to the bank.

If you want to know what's going down, a look at the Social Issues Research Centre in Oxford is a good starter. They are constructing a Timeline of Dietary Advice which is a huge laugh, considering 'the fall and rise of single food items, including those that are claimed to cause cancer, then protect against cancer, and then be totally unrelated to cancer, or blood cholesterol, or obesity, or heart disease, or migraines, or whatever.'

Their director has exposed the junk statistics behind the present British obesity scare. You might consider reading their essay 'An epidemic of confusion', which is equally informative.

I'm no fattist, I have many plump friends, I even let one (or two if they'll fit) into my home. I'll have no truck with 'stoutism', I say,

"Corpulants of the world arise, you have nothing to lose but your burgers"

Back OT, actually what AII is saying makes a lot of sense. There is no correlation between heart disease and rotundness. I've recentley taken a personal interest in this area. :sweatdrop:

Maybe I came out a bit to vicious Adrian II. But I wasnt so much raving about obesity, as the over consumption of estrogen and out of wack fatty acids. Both of which actually have been proven to cause and increase the risk of cancer. Over saturation of omega 6 causes inflamation, which is steadily being seen as the cuase of most heart and cardiocascular problems. Having to much estrogen in the male body leads to increased cortisol levels, which does cause and lead to cardiovascular problems. It also causes feminate fat storage in men which is directly linked to the risk of both prostate cancer and the risk of male breast cancer. Male breast cancer was unheard of a few decades ago, but it's steadily becoming more and more common.

Take a person off a western diet and they'll have improved cardiovascular health, decreased fat, more even distribution of fat, better insulin sensitivity. We don't need medical treatment, capsules, or therapies. What we need is more home cooked food, from scratch, and more awareness of whats in the stuff we're eating.

I've already stated that one food or just fat alone leads to increased cancer rates, heart disease, erectile disfunction, or what have you. It is a diet as a whole that does, and a diet alone that vastly controls body composition.

I also absolutely loathe seeing fat children. It's one of the few times in your life when you have the ability to run around freely, play in the streets and with so many friends. Being obese cuts down on your ability to do that. That and it's just plain disturbing.

Quote:

---

What we need is more home cooked food, from scratch, and more awareness of whats in the stuff we're eating.

---

Amen to that brother, amen to that. It will save your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Maybe I came out a bit to vicious Adrian II. But I wasnt so much raving about obesity, as the over consumption of estrogen and out of wack fatty acids. Both of which actually have been proven to cause and increase the risk of cancer. Over saturation of omega 6 causes inflamation, which is steadily being seen as the cuase of most heart and cardiocascular problems. Having to much estrogen in the male body leads to increased cortisol levels, which does cause and lead to cardiovascular problems. It also causes feminate fat storage in men which is directly linked to the risk of both prostate cancer and the risk of male breast cancer. Male breast cancer was unheard of a few decades ago, but it's steadily becoming more and more common.

Take a person off a western diet and they'll have improved cardiovascular health, decreased fat, more even distribution of fat, better insulin sensitivity. We don't need medical treatment, capsules, or therapies. What we need is more home cooked food, from scratch, and more awareness of whats in the stuff we're eating.

I've already stated that one food or just fat alone leads to increased cancer rates, heart disease, erectile disfunction, or what have you. It is a diet as a whole that does, and a diet alone that vastly controls body composition.

I also absolutely loathe seeing fat children. It's one of the few times in your life when you have the ability to run around freely, play in the streets and with so many friends. Being obese cuts down on your ability to do that. That and it's just plain disturbing.

---

According to you all Japanese men should have tits for eating soy all day. Sounds like junk science to me.

Ban softdrinks and junk food from school canteens for starters. That the schools raise money through junk food is stupid.

More home economics classes and physical education. Emphasis on creating a healthy fun lifestyle not a gold medal athlete. Teach children how to prepare their own food, most people are adverse to learning something new about food unless someone introduces them to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

According to you all Japanese men should have tits for eating soy all day. Sounds like junk science to me.

---

Most asian diets have 1 to 2 servings of soy a day. Well below 6+ used in the study, they are also usually unprocessed soy products. Phytoestrogens attach to the same receptors in protiens as estrogens, they are far weaker. In low doses phytoestrogens actually help lower aromatization and overall natural estrogen in men. But high doses cause the same problems as high estrogen levels. The japanese diet is also very rich in resveratrol so why arent their blood vessels as brittle as glass and their skin paper thin? Or maybe one has to do with the other, maybe it's a very well balanced diet, maybe, just maybe this could be one of the many reasons why the japanese have one of the highest life expectancies in the world....:juggle2:

You may consider reading "The whole soy story" interesting book on one of the most earliest plants to be cultivated and the only plant, afaik, to have a 1.0 protien quality ranking.

Was the 6+ servings for humans and how large are the servings? Because it would be pretty easy to get more then 2 servings a day in an Eastern diet.

Soy is pretty good. Tofu is on par with skim milk in a lot of categories (plus it has fibre).

Interesting find in my reading: Hemp Milk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Was the 6+ servings for humans and how large are the servings? Because it would be pretty easy to get more then 2 servings a day in an Eastern diet.

Soy is pretty good. Tofu is on par with skim milk in a lot of categories (plus it has fibre).

Interesting find in my reading: Hemp Milk

---

It was 6+ for human males, a serving size was consistent with the fda serving size list. A cup of soy milk = 1 serving, 1/4 cup of tofu ='s 1 serving.

Yes getting 2 or more servings a day can actually be pretty easy. Especially with alot of cereals and "breakfast" bars starting to use soy to boost the protien content. I'll see if I can't find the study, will probably have to wait till after work though.

Never heard of hemp milk, looks interesting, but I think I'll stick to my near gallon of whole milk a day though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

There is no evidence whatsoever for the idea that (1) being fat is bad for you,

---

I'll not try to prove that obesity causes diabetes or whatnot. I think it should be obvious though that being severely overweight spells trouble for your knees...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

You may consider reading "The whole soy story" interesting book on one of the most earliest plants to be cultivated and the only plant, afaik, to have a 1.0 protien quality ranking.

---

I'm sorry, I think I'll pass.

Medical and epidemiological studies have linked soy to malnutrition, digestive trouble, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, impotence, infertility, birth defects, immune system breakdown, heart disease and cancer.

Yet by the looks of it the Japanese are not a monstrously deformed, decrepit and prematurely demented race.

Studies have also linked soy to prevention of cancer, heart disease, digestive trouble, thyroid dysfunction, and osteoporosis. Could be. Or couldn't. Frankly I don't care one way or the other. It's the same with eggs. According to some they keep the doctor away, according to others they kill you instantly.

Most laboratory studies are done on rats. I don't know about you, but I'm no laboratory rat. Laboratory rats seem to develop cancer if you feed them five kilo of soy a day. Or carrots. Or eggs. Particularly if you make them smoke 150 cigarettes after the meal on behalf of the tobacco industry. I suppose it's because laboratory rats have a suppressed personality. If I were a laboratory rat, I know I would. :wink:

Soy doesn't kill you. Sugar doesn't kill you. Fat doesn't kill you, and neither does cholesterol, meat, veggies, processed foods, sodium or anything else considered food for that matter. The real problem is that a lack of restraint when it comes to eating, an imbalanced diet and unawareness of what is being eaten. That kills you. Just eat a balanced diet with a proper amount of proteins, fats and carbs, while getting plenty of exercise and you should be fine. Remember, being fat doesn't kill you, but plaque in your arteries will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

Just eat a balanced diet with a proper amount of proteins, fats and carbs, while getting plenty of exercise and you should be fine. Remember, being fat doesn't kill you, but plaque in your arteries will.

---

Agreed.

Decades ago when I was a sailing instructor I had four mates who were in Sports Academy together. They were very close, they graduated together and when they were called up (this was back in the days of conscription) they all applied to be paratroopers. Three were admitted straight away, the fourth was refused because acording to the regulations he was fourty pounds overweight. He challenged the recruiting officer to let him do a test: running, climbing, push-ups, weight lifting, the works. He passed with flying colours and they made an official exception for him.

I guess what it comes down to is this tautology: it's unhealthy lifestyles that are unhealthy.

Slightly off topic, but things like this always remind me of the answer my grandfather gave my father when he told him my mother was on a diet:

Quote:

---

Diet? Why should she go on a diet? During the World War, there were no fatties and nobody went on a "diet". Ha! We ate eggs almost every day back than, because we were lucky enough to have chickens that weren't taken away by the Germans! And now that there is plenty of food, everybody goes on a diet? And they call me a crazy old fool because I say it's ridiculous? Idiots!

---

Or, in other words: we are really talking about luxury problems of a decadent western society... We should be very happy that we can actually worry about something like people being too fat.

Having the luxury of worrying about being too fat, aren't we all very lucky?

While half the world is starving to death, we have to put obese children in "fat camps"? Hilarious :laugh4:

But also very sad :shame:

People who are unlucky because they are too fat, should move to Ethiopia.

People who don't want to pay taxes for fatties, should also move to Ethiopia or another country were people are starving to death. It will probably be paradise for them, because they won't have to pay taxes for expensive healthcare of fatties over there. Good luck and send us some pictures :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

We will be a sick society if we stick to free marketeering concepts of individual health.

---

Sorry, but I must take issue with this.

The problem is not the ruthless cost-benefit analysis based on what's best for society, like a corporation deciding what departments to slash.

The problem is the theory of a parental society that has determined to provide all care for its citizens. Since society, or rather the government, now has to deal with the consequences of an individual's actions, the government starts to demand a say in how an individual acts, as in this case.

Part of it as well is the rise of the nanny state, which wants to control what you do for your own good.

Both are the opposite of individual liberty. If you want to stop kids being taken from their parents, don't rail against the tool being used, argue against the philosophy that has enabled it.

CR

Fat fight at children's hospital

Quote:

---

Overweight teenagers had a higher risk of growing into overweight adults, with an increased chance of developing type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, arthritis, sleep apnoea and non-alcohol fatty liver disease, Dr Alexander said.

...

"It is amazing that it has got to this stage," Dr Brydon said. "I wish we could get funding to do the same thing because we are seeing a real increase in the number of overweight children, and obesity has a huge impact on cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

"All the improvements that have been made in combating these diseases is being wiped out by obesity."

---

Fat plus no exercise is not a good combination...

Quote:

---

People who don't want to pay taxes for fatties, should also move to Ethiopia or another country were people are starving to death. It will probably be paradise for them, because they won't have to pay taxes for expensive healthcare of fatties over there.

---

War is sweet for those who haven't experienced it, huh?

But seriously, I love how a democratical chosen by the people government takes away the freedom of their citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Sorry, but I must take issue with this.

The problem is not the ruthless cost-benefit analysis based on what's best for society, like a corporation deciding what departments to slash.

The problem is the theory of a parental society that has determined to provide all care for its citizens. Since society, or rather the government, now has to deal with the consequences of an individual's actions, the government starts to demand a say in how an individual acts, as in this case.

Part of it as well is the rise of the nanny state, which wants to control what you do for your own good.

Both are the opposite of individual liberty. If you want to stop kids being taken from their parents, don't rail against the tool being used, argue against the philosophy that has enabled it.

CR

---

That's the nub of the issue.

If you pay for your life you decide what you do.
If I'm paying for your life I decide what you do.

Since the Nanny state way requires layer after layer of checks and assessments I'd rather scrap most of it altogether. The savings would leave individuals fewer taxes to pay so they could choose how to sort themselves out.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The problem is the theory of a parental society that has determined to provide all care for its citizens.

---

The problem is finding a balance between this nanny state (which by the way doesn't exist except in totalitarian countries, although the tendency is quite marked in democratic countries like Britain) and your free-for-all health policy in which only the healthy can get health insurance and only the rich can get proper cures and therapies (a type of society that doesn't exist in pure form, although there are clear tendencies towards it in a country like the U.S.).

The private health insurers in your model want to control the behaviour of their clients just as much as the state does in the nanny model. Look at all the collective health schemes of companies these days, where they nanny their employees on behalf of the insurers. These companies have the exact same 'fat' policies, only in their case they have you fired instead of taking your kid away. Because profit instead of health is their main motive, doctors are unduly pressured by health insurance companies, etcetera. They're just as intrusive as said nanny state, wanting to act like interfaces between patient and doctor, which means privacy and confidentiality go out the door.

I believe the National Coalition on Health care's numbers nicely compliment the picture of a private health industry growing fat on its clients.

• In 2005, the United States spent 16 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2016.
• Although nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.
• Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• In a Wall Street Journal-NBC Survey almost 50 percent of the American public say the cost of health care is their number one economic concern.

We're not doing so badly in Europe with our 'socialised medicine'.

Ah, but even private insurance gives you the choice of behaving in a healthy way or paying more. The Government does not. And I must say I haven't heard of a statistical significant number of people being fired for poor health.

Health care costs, like insurance premiums, are too high, but one way to fix that is to go the route Texas has, which has met with success; they've lowered insurance rates by putting a lid on malpractice suit payouts.

CR

I'm with the AID not FORCE krew. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian

The mere expression 'morbidly obese' is a criminal misnomer. No classifications of weight or obesity correspond to an increased risk of premature death, serious illness or thwarted development.

---

Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Ah, but even private insurance gives you the choice of behaving in a healthy way or paying more.

---

So they decide what's healthy for you?

Quote:

---

And I must say I haven't heard of a statistical significant number of people being fired for poor health.

---

It's been around since Henry Ford. Google a bit and you'll find examples.

The Cleveland Clinic has openly admitted that starting September 1st, 2007 if pre-employment screening finds nicotine in a potential employees system they will immediately be denied employment. A company called Clarian Health has sent notifications to it’s large pool of employees letting them know that starting in 2009 employees will be charged $5 per paycheck if they are found using tobacco. The charges don’t end there. Clarian has also stated that if tests show the employee has abnormal levels of cholesterol, blood pressure and a growing list of other tests they will be charged $5 on each paycheck for each occurrence of those criteria.

Link

Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Link

The Scotts Company did just that. They fired 30 year old Scott (obviously no relation!) Rodrigues of Bourne, Massachusetts, when a drug test came up positive for nicotine. Scott is now suing Scott for violating his privacy and civil rights. The company, a subsidiary of Scotts-Miracle Gro, Inc., instituted a policy early this year forbidding smoking, on or off the job. The policy has only been implemented in the 20 states that apparently allow it (which include Massachusetts). The company is upfront about the requirement. It's posted on the website for potential hires. They perform a post-hire test on all new employees for nicotine. Their stated goal is to promote healthy lifestyles and hold down insurance costs.

Link

Etcetera. The fact that you can't find a statistic doesn't mean it's not happening. And it's a wider trend, I suspect, because according to McKinsey health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component and will probably overtake profits by 2008.

link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Really?

---

Im 6 feet tall and weigh 242 lbs my BMI is 32.8 and that is in the obese category yet my blood pressure is 120/80 I can run 400 meters in 56 seconds and can meet the requirements for the USMC in body weight exercises (pushups sit ups and pull ups) I agree the media today is overblowing the fat craze and I am complete agreement with My Dutch friend on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Im 6 feet tall and weigh 242 lbs my BMI is 32.8 and that is in the obese category yet my blood pressure is 120/80 I can run 400 meters in 56 seconds and can meet the requirements for the USMC in body weight exercises (pushups sit ups and pull ups)

---

That's all mightely impressive but more importantly, it means I outrun you.

*resumes courting Strike's younger sister :jumping:*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That's all mightely impressive but more importantly, it means I outrun you.

*resumes courting Strike's younger sister :jumping:*

---

OH MY GODDDDD IM TEH FAT AND UNHEALTHY!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

OH MY GODDDDD IM TEH FAT AND UNHEALTHY!!!!!!!!

---

Come on SFTS, don't be so hard on yourself. It's a well known fact that the French are the best runners. ~;)

But if you chase him into a pool then you'll have the advantage...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

OH MY GODDDDD IM TEH FAT AND UNHEALTHY!!!!!!!!

---

Nah. You're simply big and healthy. Muscled up. At least, that's what your sister is saying on MSN right now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Nah. You're simply big and healthy. Muscled up. At least, that's what your sister is saying on MSN right now...

---

https://i171.photobucket.com/albums/...az24/fat-1.jpg

She said she took this pic of herself earlier today! :furious3:


https://img517.imageshack.us/img517/...dyappleni2.jpg

Nice

Quote:

---

Etcetera. The fact that you can't find a statistic doesn't mean it's not happening. And it's a wider trend, I suspect, because according to McKinsey health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component and will probably overtake profits by 2008.

---

Point well taken, sir.

But even then, if the government institutes such rules then that controls everyone, not just people at certain (and growing) corporations.

Quote:

---

So they decide what's healthy for you?

---

What that's what the UK government is starting to do, is it not?

And the reason corporations are doing this is because health insurance in the US became tied to employment because of government regulations on wages in WWII (Thanks a lot, FDR :glare: ). One advantage of a system of reform such as McCain's is that it gives you more personal control over health insurance, instead of having to go through an employer.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

She said she took this pic of herself earlier today! :furious3:


https://img517.imageshack.us/img517/...dyappleni2.jpg

---

That candy apple looks delicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

She said she took this pic of herself earlier today! :furious3:

---

Oh, that girl. Yeah, I had courted her, too. She's a great Cox sucker*.

Wait .. that means the fat bloke who ran after us and tripped over his own belly muscle was Strike? I always wondered what that was about.

*That is a dessert Cox she is holding, no? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichigo

That candy apple looks delicious.

---

Apples aren't my sort of...thing. I must be honest here.

Bugger the apple!

I'm at work and I better not stand up from my desk!

It is amazing that some part deep within my brain reacts so quickly and noticably to a particular view of a particular area of skin... Not that the rest of me is complaining :grin:

http://www.gearsandwidgets.com/exter...hreadgoing.jpg

To bring us closer to the original topic, and to cause more problems...

With all the cases of foster parents starving their kids (at least in the US), I'm sure this new measure will sort things out sharply.