British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
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.
Not doing anything to dissuade you from an activity that might decrease your life expectancy isn't "indirect euthanasia" you freak.
You aren't indirectly euthanasing people because you don't mandate daily exercises jfc , how can people be so bad at logic?
"Not doing everything you do to improve someone else life expectancy" isn't euthanasia, direct or indirect. It's minding your ****ing business about private choices, which should be what the government does every time with adults.
You save on pensions and you save on the reduced amount of years they will need healthcare.
If they die before retirement, you also lose out on their tax income for however many years they would have worked.
So, the 50 year old who dies of poor health might not draw their pension, but the government also lose out on 17 years worth of income tax, national insurance and VAT.
If they die before retirement, you also lose out on their tax income for however many years they would have worked.
So, the 50 year old who dies of poor health might not draw their pension, but the government also lose out on 17 years worth of income tax, national insurance and VAT.
Not sure if you realize it but if you die at 50 the state is already net positive over you on average. OFC at 61 it's even better for the state, but clearly at 80 it's far worse than 50 for taxpayers.
Not that behavioral health related issues can kill you at 50 outside of exceptionally rare cases. It's about dying anyway over 65, just at 74-75 instead of 80-81, stuff like that. And you know that.
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.
It's true that the taxpayer may benefit when 'unhealthy' people (say smokers and drinkers who've poured vast sums of tobacco and alcohol duty into the Exchequer) conveniently drop dead before collecting their pensions, or not long after, whereas 'healthy' people tend to be pensionable longer and then incur heavy end-of-life care costs due to the degenerative diseases of old age which 'unhealthy' people may not live to encounter.
Not sure if you realize it but if you die at 50 the state is already net positive over you on average. OFC at 61 it's even better for the state, but clearly at 80 it's far worse than 50 for taxpayers.
Not that behavioral health related issues can kill you at 50 outside of exceptionally rare cases. It's about dying anyway over 65, just at 74-75 instead of 80-81, stuff like that. And you know that.
Keep attacking the straw man. Clearly, euthanising people at 67 is the way to optimise benefits for the state. No one would argue again this form a financial position.
However, I'm arguing that unhealthy people cost the tax payer more than healthy people, because they do.
The research conducted estimates that the total economic cost of lost output among working-age people due to ill health is around £150bn per annum, equivalent to 7% of GDP, with an additional total cost to the government (in terms of lost tax income, benefits payments and costs to the NHS) of around £70bn
The economic cost of ill health among th...
Furthermore, poor mental health cost the state £300bn.
Now, can you explain how healthy pensioners cost the state £520bn a year?
But if everyone is healthier then the economic cost of ill health among the working age population might not go down much. It may well go up.
That's assuming there is any work for people to do
He's probably talking about economies of scale.
Keep attacking the straw man. Clearly, euthanising people at 67 is the way to optimise benefits for the state. No one would argue again this form a financial position.
However, I'm arguing that unhealthy people cost the tax payer more than healthy people, because they do.
The economic cost of ill health among th...
Furthermore, poor mental health cost the state £300bn.
Now, can you explain how healthy pensioners cost the s
Because it's not apples with apples, the "300 blns" estimate is particularly bananas. It states 60 bln in healthcare costs. The NHS whole budget is 180 bln.
Do you believe one third of the NHS costs are for the mentally ill? no you don't, so you can delete that source and never use it again for any purpose as it is blatantly redicolous as a source.
Missed production is an individual cost not a collective cost, the UK isn't a communist country.
Can you elaborate on this? If everyone is healthier, how can the economic cost of ill health increase??
A healthier popualtion will live longer. The working age will have to be extended and older people have increasing health problems.
It seems more than plausible that an aging problem is an economic problem not a benefit. I'm more agnostic for various tech reasons but there's no way there is a solid economic argument for imposing health.
Can you elaborate on this? If everyone is healthier, how can the economic cost of ill health increase??
Because you get older anyway and in relatively good physical health which means you end up with people who cannot care for themselves for 15-20 + years before dying instead of 2-3-4.
There is hardly anything more expensive healthcare wise, than an old person who needs 24/7 help but who is in decent shape wrt his chronicities (over his lifetime cycle).
And btw we aren't talking hypotheticals: Italy, Japan and S korea are like that. Italians , koreans and japanese eat insanely better than most other populations, in the "optimal health" sense. Especially old ones. They reach very very old ages (especially women ofc) and they need a ton of help to live their daily lives even if their health is relatively good (for their age, compared to other countries).
Most middle aged italians know that from their parents or uncles or other relatives. They get old in not-disastrous health, they drain their savings anyway, then they become a burden for the state for many more years.
Lots of UK far right twitter accounts are now stickying this
in the belief that it's a get out of jail free card.
An aging population is not the same as an unhealthy population. I agree an aging population is more likely to be an economic problem, and the retirement age may need to be increased. However, that's not what is being debated.
An unhealthy population is an entirely different problem. If someone is unable to work through ill health, then they do not earn money and therefore the government loses tax revenue. They also do not contribute to the productivity of the country. In addition, they also require treatment through the NHS.
Therefore, diseases like obesity and high weight cost a total of £98bn, dwarfing the £19bn the NHS has to fork out.
Because you get older anyway and in relatively good physical health which means you end up with people who cannot care for themselves for 15-20 + years before dying instead of 2-3-4.
There is hardly anything more expensive healthcare wise, than an old person who needs 24/7 help but who is in decent shape wrt his chronicities (over his lifetime cycle).
Average time spent in a care home ("an old person who needs 24/7 help") in the UK is just over a year and a half, so nothing like 15-20 years.
Average time spent in a care home ("an old person who needs 24/7 help") in the UK is just over a year and a half, so nothing like 15-20 years.
Yes because there was no push to mandate healthy lifestyles and the baseline, not mandated lifestyle of british people 50 years ago was horrific for health lol.
massive alcohol abuse (and of the wrong kind, not wine while eating, rather superalcoholics and beer outside the meals), and one of the worst diets on the planet (very few fresh minimally processed fruit/vegetables for ex).
We are talking exactly about that, about the massive changes you would see in your model, which will generate incredible healthcare costs , much higher than today per person over his cycle, rather than the savings you think would happen.
Average time spent in a care home in Italy was 48 months 10-15 years ago. Now nursing homes are so terrible that basically everyone with money pays for stay at home help (which is cheap thanks to immigration, you get 60 hours per week of coverage with 1200 eur per month + live-in accomodation) , only the worst off financially, or those close to death, get sent there so it's around 2 years (still incredible considering the selection bias).
And people smoked a lot 50 years ago.
Yes because there was no push to mandate healthy lifestyles and the baseline, not mandated lifestyle of british people 50 years ago was horrific for health lol.
Apart from smoking you're wrong about that and have typed another load of rubbish you've just made up to try to support your dodgy beliefs.
Before the advent of supermarkets people used to walk to the shops several times a week and often daily to get fresh food. They had less disposable income so spent much less on unhealthy takeaway or fast food for which there were far fewer options anyway. Kids used to play outside every day after school and stay fit that way, not stay indoors on computerised gadgets.
The only times my family ever had takeaways in the 70s, apart from an occasional fish n chips. was when the power strike was on in the mid 70s and pizza was the only option.
Apart from smoking you're wrong about that and have typed another load of rubbish you've just made up to try to support your dodgy beliefs.
Before the advent of supermarkets people used to walk to the shops several times a week and often daily to get fresh food. They had less disposable income so spent much less on unhealthy takeaway or fast food for which there were far fewer options anyway. Kids used to play outside every day after school and stay fit that way, not stay indoors on computerised
Per capita alcohol consumption in the UK double from the 50s to the 70s, then kept growing
//
The amount of alcohol consumed increased from 5.2 litres of pure alcohol per person in 1950, to 9.3 litres of alcohol per person by the mid-1970s (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1986, p. 108). Deaths from liver cirrhosis also rose from just over 20 per million in 1950, to more than 40 per million by 1970
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article....
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm...
I am not talking "ultraprocessed foods" which are a recent phenomenon, i am talking lack of properly cooked vegetables in the diet, it's not like eating porridge and soup and potatoes + some meat and cheese and cakes when available, even if homemade, is healthy.
Northern europe ate terribly until very recently (and many people still eat terribly there), perhaps with the exception of the northern france and contiguous areas. Germany and UK in particularly ate worse than most other populations in world history (for healthcare purposes), taking into account caloric availability wasn't the issue (ie not because of poverty)
British diet was universally mocked worldwide for decades for a reason.
Now given your african descent (as you claimed) you probably ate far better than most in terms of health, which might skew your perception
Is this real or fake news?
Per capita alcohol consumption in the UK double from the 50s to the 70s, then kept growing
//
The amount of alcohol consumed increased from 5.2 litres of pure alcohol per person in 1950, to 9.3 litres of alcohol per person by the mid-1970s (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1986, p. 108). Deaths from liver cirrhosis also rose from just over 20 per million in 1950, to more than 40 per million by 1970
So much wrong thinking crammed into one post.
You were comparing fifty years ago with today, so compare alcohol consumption for those periods, not seventy years ago,
Properly cooked vegetables were part of the diet fifty years ago, bought fresh from shops, and I should know. Arguing about things you have no knowledge of just leads to more and more **** posts of the type most of the forum is complaining about.
It wasn’t the British diet that was universally mocked, it was British food, which was bland but not unhealthy.
Also I’m not of African descent so wrong yet again.
If you want to continue this stupid line you could just compare obesity rates from the 70s with now and then shut up.
So much wrong thinking crammed into one post.
You were comparing fifty years ago with today, so compare alcohol consumption for those periods, not seventy years ago,
Properly cooked vegetables were part of the diet fifty years ago, bought fresh from shops, and I should know. Arguing about things you have no knowledge of just leads to more and more **** posts of the type most of the forum is complaining about.
It wasn’t the British diet that was universally mocked, it was British food, which was bl
Ok man the british lived healthy lives in the 70s, lol
An aging population is not the same as an unhealthy population. I agree an aging population is more likely to be an economic problem, and the retirement age may need to be increased. However, that's not what is being debated.
An unhealthy population is an entirely different problem. If someone is unable to work through ill health, then they do not earn money and therefore the government loses tax revenue. They also do not contribute to the productivity of the country. In addition, they also requ
It is what debated though. You can reduce the days lost to obesity etc related illness etc but in doing do you are likely to increase the numbers of age related illness days off. Whenever these arguemnts are presented it ignore the reality of all these older people - they will both have to work longer and become an increasing economic burden when they stop because theyr'e too old or no jobs for them.
If we're going to have nanny state polices then lets be honest and straightforward they we think it's the job of the state to encourage certain behaviors. Economic arguments on people living longer are disasterous for older people and it's not a road we should go down even if some think it's going the right way for a while.
Instead of this convoluted route you've chosen to "prove" that 70s eating habits were less healthy than now you could simply have gone to the obesity figures.
But you didn't, and it's pretty clear why.
Because i adhere to CICO (calories in calories out) theory of weight gain (and loss), not sure if you do, and i didn't want to open another can of worm.
IE, people eat more calories than they consume these days, absolutely true, and that's negative for health, true as well, BUT as far as macronutrient and diet variety go, i truly think british diet in the 70s was horribly worse than today (for whites; other cultures had a better food culture on average back in the day)
That's genuine. Underfunding of the entire criminal justice system (police, courts and prisons) since 2010 means the prisons can't cope with the rush of detainees since the riots, even on a remand basis, so they're having to be held in police cells pro tem, up to and sometimes after conviction. We've also got crumbling court buildings, cuts to the legal-aid programme and a ridiculous backlog of criminal cases awaiting trial for years (which has been leapfrogged where the rioters are concerned because of the threat to public order).
Because i adhere to CICO (calories in calories out) theory of weight gain (and loss), not sure if you do, and i didn't want to open another can of worm.
IE, people eat more calories than they consume these days, absolutely true, and that's negative for health, true as well, BUT as far as macronutrient and diet variety go, i truly think british diet in the 70s was horribly worse than today (for whites; other cultures had a better food culture on average back in the day)
Shouldn't think so. Britons 50 years ago ate more home-cooked meals with fresh ingredients, where frightening numbers of people now subsist on ready-meals and takeaways. Life expectancy was still climbing in the 1970s, and continued to do so until a few years ago when it went into reverse. Our longest-lived generation so far was the one that was young during the Second World War, when rationing ensured enough for everyone and not too much for anyone (unless they could afford black-market stuff) and there was frozen Florida orange juice to provide Vitamin C for children and the food was mostly pretty unpalatable but sufficient.
