DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: LiveSpark
And the point you either aren't getting or are willfully ignoring that GPs ARE doing those things but there is only so much they can do.
If they are already doing this, then what's the point of a program that asks GP's to do what they're already doing?
It's in the article.
A partnership.
The age-old belief that 'two heads are better than one'.
There is an element of government control, of course there is, because the government are involved as one stakeholder of a few and so they want results and want some sway in controlling the path toward those results. That much is obvious and should be taken as read, and certainly unworthy of page after page of what amounts to a tit-for-tat cycle of verbal violence which thinly veils an attempt to manipulate posters into stating: "yes, there is an element of government control"; and one thing this type of correspondence is certainly failing to do, miserably, is masquerade as discussion.
I'm not the one making any claims that the UK, by way of the NHS, is going to institute 1984 on you. The discussion about how compliance would be "ensured," ended up with me being on the side of "ensured" not being the correct word ("promoted" being a much more accurate term, imo).
quote:
The idea that government intervention is always mischievious, or malevolent, or taking liberties; is a touch distasteful, especially as the government interfere in many aspects of life, some of which are genuinely dangerous and often times go ignored by the 'libertarian' (not that such a thing exists in practice: it's tantamount to a monumental load of bollocks serving only to self-deceive) advocates.
You have greater faith in the UK's government than I do for the US government. I sincerely hope it's well-founded.
quote:
In terms of economics, obesity is costing the British tax-payer an inordinate amount of money that would be better served elsewhere. And, after all, the government have been elected to serve all of our interests, not only those who are ferociously busy trying to eat themselves into oblivion.
In terms of the social/health aspect, I doubt that many people are overly concerned with the health of some bloke down the street who is too lazy to buy some vegetables and steam them, but, and this much should be obvious: we don't want to pay for the outcome.
Why don't you want to pay for the outcome? Isn't that what socialized medicine is all about?
My biggest criticism of socialized medicine for the US is that we, for the most part, are gluttonous, consumers who would absolutely abuse the system to continue to make our own self-placating decisions, forcing others (who don't really have any say in the matter) to pay for our choices. I'm much more supportive of personal responsibility and personal liberties, so that the choices you make are yours to deal with (outside of others personally choosing to help). Citizens of the UK may be growing more like US Citizens (as far as materialism and consumption are concerned), but you lot have a long way to go before you catch us (sadly).
quote:
You continue to ask why the government are poking their noses in when 'all of the information is out there'. Are you're being mischevious, or are you leading posters down a path to your next question, or are you simply bored?. I would suggest you take a look around you, and even a cursory glance would lead to the conclusion that the information 'being out there' alone, is evidently not sufficient to check a growing problem.
Government "poking their noses" into people's lifestyle choices is what I would consider a proper function when government is the one having to pay for the results of those choices. Government should have a responsibility to taxpayers to not waste money, and having people consume more than their "fair share" of health care resources, solely due to personal choices, would be wasteful to those who aren't consuming more than their "fair share."
I don't want that in the US. If you want that in the UK, that's fine. Keep it. I could accept that the Citizens of the UK are far less likely to abuse the system than Citizens of the US.
To what end, though, is government getting involved? Is it just to disseminate information? Obviously, we already agree the information is already out there. If people aren't doing what they can now, what is the next step for the NHS?
I have to mention that I found humor in the very last phrase you used. When you described it as a "growing problem," I chuckled at the literal and figurative truth it is.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread