British Politics

Finally we agree. I propose

Free large scotch with third pint
Free Kebab and chips with 6th pint

Big mac with every 20 ****

Start by removing the fradulent extra-taxes on "vices" implemented with the excuse that the NHS exists (see above as to why that's a utter lie, a bad faith argument) and move from there.

The problem with any unhealthy behaviour that reduces life expectancy in old age, is that it also reduces the quality of life for the individual, and the burden of care for the NHS.

For example, type 2 diabetes is a lifestyle disease that reduces life expectancy, reduces quality of life, and also costs the NHS 9% of its whole budget.

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/case-studies/nhs-...

Subsidising behaviour that reduces life expectancy is a terrible idea.

Luciom's jut working up to the idea of guillotining everyone dependent on benefits on their 70th birthday.

see this is a very good example (thanks) of misleading statistics.

The way they put the 10 billion tag there, you would think you would save 10 billions if no one had type 2 diabetes right?

Go find the source for the claim if you want, and you'll discover that's procedures of all kinds to people with type 2 diabetes.

Which are more than 6% of the population, and older than average.

Do you get what i mean?

(again: this is exclusively about taxpayers burden, for the argument that tries to justifies regulation in order to save taxpayers money. No consideration of individual quality of life can apply to that argument, that's another completly different argument)

So: IN THE PRESENT, they are costing 2-3 billions max (the over-average cost, not the entire 10%). But each of them over their life? you spend a tad more per year, but for fewer years. Balance can be negative or positive or about break even, depends on details. But it's far from being a 10 billion cost right?

Then add the savings in pensions if they die sooner and you basically always are in the positive as a taxpayer, if they die sooner, is it more clear now?

I tell you guys it's completly false that taxpayers lose money when people reduce their life expectancy, ofc the counter is "you want to kill them".

JFC every time the same.

If you didn't write about wanting to kill large numbers of people who break the law people would be more charitable in interpreting your posts.

For the claim of the 10 bln elrazor, source (it's actually 9 see)

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/f...

The current cost of direct patient care (which includes treatment, intervention and complications) for those living with diabetes is estimated at £9.8 billion
£1 billion for Type 1 diabetes and £8.8 billion for Type 2 diabetes

/

How many people have diabetes type 2 in the UK (diagnosed)

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about-us/new....

Our new figures show that 4.3 million people are now living with a diagnosis of diabetes in the UK. Registration figures for 2021-22 are up by 148,951 from 2020-21, and more than 2.4 million people are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the UK.

We know that approximately 90% of diagnoses are of type 2 diabetes, and around 8% of diagnoses are type 1 diabetes, with the other forms of the condition making up the remaining 2%

-> so approx 4M

4 / 67 -> 6%

So, if the population with type 2 diabetes was as old as the rest, NHS would spend on it 7 billions anyway if the total NHS costs were 110 bln, as implied by the "10%, 9% of budget"

Except we go check the budget for the NHS and it's 180 billions

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and....

What is the NHS budget?
Public funding for health services in England comes from Department of Health and Social Care’s budget. The Department’s spending in 2022/23 was £181.7 billion. The vast majority of this spending (94.6%, or £171.8 billion) was on day-to-day items such as staff salaries and medicines. The remainder was largely capital expenditure on long-term fixed assets such as new buildings or equipment.

/

WAIT A SEC so you are telling me the 9 billions over 180 spent for the 6% of the population who has diabetes type 2 diagnosed aren't 9% of the budget, rather are exactly what you would expect to be spending on them to being with , in a per capita attribution of costs???

How come , impossible that people with an agenda to push for something lie about statistics to make the problem they work for appear bigger than it is, it never happened before.

So we agree it's not even true that type 2 diabetes diagnosis generate extra NHS expenses at the present time lol? my bad to having believed the 10 bln -9% the first time, i should expect even more malfeisance every time statistics are used

Given here i am writing against against laws to limit behaviour in private life there is no connection at all with what i think should be done to serious criminals. Only in your mind.

Supporting a change to taxation that would encourage people to lead unhealthy lives so they die younger is merely a dishonest way of supporting the state killing people for being too old or too unhealthy.

I said "if anything", meaning "if we want to use the logic of doing what's best for taxpayers, who fund the NHS, in order to decide how to legislate, THEN" you should subsidize behaviours that reduce life expectancy.

Given i don't want to use the state to influence private behaviours, i am against using the fiscal system either to incentivize or disincentivize private behaviour, and the existence of a public healthcare system doesn't make a private behaviour public.

And the logic of costs is based on lies, because "bad personal behaviour" (behavior that decreases life expectancy) DOES NOT cost anything to tax payers, in most cases it saves them money.

So do you now at least agree with the fact that it is utterly false that smokers, drinkers, or people who eat badly, are a burden for taxpayers through NHS costs?

Yeah but it’s not, so your “calculations” are wrong.

And that is excluding the most important factor that people with illness have lower QoL.

btw lucium has discovering that it was that old ultra left marxist Winston Churchill who introduced suspended sentence in 1910 helped change your view on locking up all criminals?

maybe you didn't think it through, given it's older, even more money would be spent anyway on them so the numbers are even more to my side.

QoL of the people affected is utterly irrelevant for the argument "taxpayers lose money if people get diabetes".

so how can it be the most important factor given you justified regulations with the argument of NHS spending too much?

trash that argument because it's false and use the real one then: you want government to be allowed to choose for the people because people don't choose right according to your definition of good and right and your preferences.

you use the (completely false) NHS expense argument because you know if people don't contest it like I do it's almost impossible to counter it given the externalities.

but the purely paternalistic argument is much weaker because then you lose the power to be against ANY paternalistic legislation on the ground that paternalism is inherently bad, and you open the door to legislation of morals

I don't know what exact system Churchill had in place but I am not against suspended sentences used exactly once lifetime, for up to 3 years of sentence (the Italian model).

but we were talking serial criminals and serious crimes.

being found guilty of 39 different crimes in different moments in time should remove you from society in perpetuity (crimes, not misdemeanors).

we were specifically talking about a fairly young first offender the judge said was not looking to make trouble and was provoked.

that's a serious crime anywau though, preterintentional.

keep in mind that for me intentionally organizing to violently riot would be life no parole material

Well we can't agree on everyhting. I'll stick with my free scotch and kebab

I get subsidising/capping sandwiches or bottled water maybe, but kebabs?

To be clear, you are arguing for euthanising old people via unhealthy lifestyles because they are too expensive. I’m not going to agree this is a reasonable proposition regardless of what data you believe you are showing me.

However what I am arguing is that people who lead unhealthy lifestyles get older, faster. For example, if a forty year-old person Has such a poor lifestyle (which is what you are encouraging ) that their health is comparable to a 60-year-old, then they are going to cost the NHS the same money as a 60-year-old.

This is not a good situation for the individual, and it is certainly not good for the NHS.

No jfc. I am arguing for not regulating unhealthy behavior in any way.

And I am arguing that people with unhealthy behavior DO NOT cost more to taxpayers, which was your claim.

Even the "40 yold with the health of a 60y old" (something very hard to achieve behaviorally to be clear, the big problems almost always start later) will die a lot sooner on average so you won't have to pay for his health care at 70,80,90 which is where the bulk of the costs are.

He will almost certainly die before becoming demented needing years of extensive care for example

Exactly. So you are arguing for indirect euthanasia of people with unhealthy lifestyles because otherwise if the government intervened to incentivize them to lead healthier lifes they'd live longer, which you don't want...which is morally equivalent to guillotining them at a certain age or level of ill health.

Which part of the rest of the argument don't you understand, or agree with? You save on pensions and you save on the reduced amount of years they will need healthcare.

It's absolutely not an obvious fact that people without diabetes cost less than those with diabetes over their entire life, which is the proper comparison, not per year.