Michael Buerk "Let fat people die to save the NHS money "
- Thread starter gentlegreen
- Start date
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
To repeat, the NHS isn't the only place that has costs associated with smoking. Pretending that all the money raised goes to them is beyond daft.I am not saying smoking is good for anything, I am saying that it isn't a drain on the taxpayer as some would have it. Far from it some hospitals should have wings named the Marlboro wingbecause that is where the funding is coming from.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
They pay for lots of weapons too.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Interesting article, NHS costs are low though as I thought, not sure about the additional costs they add up to that large figure.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It's from a Policy Exchange paper, so should be 'properly' researched, but the link is dead now to check it out.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
And then there's us older workers - at 58 and now at 59 I got sick and took months to be fit for work - nothing meaningful diagnosed, and I have mostly healthy habits - but I am obese - and possibly mildly diabetic probably due to that - which probably doesn't help ...
andysays
Love and solidarity
According to that Telegraph article, £2.9 billion of that is people taking smoking breaks at work.
I think it's fair to say that arriving at a genuine figure for costs is going to be difficult.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Anyway whether it's a net gain or loss for the treasury is irrelevant and a bit of a grim way of thinking really isn't it, the financialisation of lives, so who fucking cares
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Gonna eat a sausage roll and have a fag and call Michael Buerk a cunt now
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Costs of smoking are pretty complex to work out. Do fag breaks reduce productivity, or are they just part of the daily rhythm of a productive smoker? (My non-scientific observation of that is that the people who complain about fag breaks are generally the more useless people in any given workplace.) Reduced pension payouts for years in retirement of smokers are also a factor.
But as said above, all of this is anti-human. Our NHS costs should be going up as new treatments are developed so that people can live longer and better. Likewise, increased pension costs just show that our retirements are becoming longer. These are good spends, and more and more and more should be spent on them.
But as said above, all of this is anti-human. Our NHS costs should be going up as new treatments are developed so that people can live longer and better. Likewise, increased pension costs just show that our retirements are becoming longer. These are good spends, and more and more and more should be spent on them.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Isn't this just a topic for a forthcoming Moral Maze program?
If it is then Buerk doesn't necessarily believe it, it is just a proposition.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Why should the costs go up? - shouldn't new treatments be socialised instead of produced for profit?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What's a proposition young man?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Who said anything about profit?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It's what happens when socialised research is privitaised.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Our NHS costs should going up as new treatments are developed. D'you think the costs are solely the amount required to develop the drugs or other treatments - that minimal profit is taken by pharma? Of a piece with your ignorant claim council tenants not exploited.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
And anything illegal that does the same, does it because of criminalisation, so should be made legal!
weltweit
Well-Known Member
You know what I mean't, The Moral Maze argues all sorts of crappy position weekly.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
You could say the same about alcohol, perhaps that should be banned too.
After all, banning drugs always solves the problems.
Oh, hang on a minute.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Well, I can take LBJ's point that if people are living longer and dying of more complex things (as we make progress with the "big early hitter diseases), then you can't grumble too much about needing more complex therapies. Similar arguments could apply to pension costs.
The question of how new treatments get developed is kind of complex, but the current setup has lots of downsides we could all point at.
maomao
普費斯
Most drinkers drink sensibly (70% of drinkers consume less than the government guidelines). Genuine social smokers are as rare as hen's teeth. Smoking is so bad for your health that smoking poor quality black market tobacco is unlikely to be any worse for your health.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I don't deny more and better treatments have emerged. But I differ with his costs should rise. Maybe they will rise, but I don't think they should.
urbanspaceman
Well-Known Member
Buerk's way of thinking about the NHS is quite widespread, and I have long been perplexed by it.
The NHS is framed as an semi-holy and fragile entity, distinct from the the UK government or society, which we should try not to trouble, as if (bizarrely) the NHS is providing medical care out of its own resources. I have watched audience members on Question Time claim that they are happy to die if they develop a serious illness, rather than "burden" the NHS. People speak reverently of the NHS as if it were a person (a god ?), who should not be imposed upon. This perspective is ridiculous. The NHS is a vast tax-payer funded bureaucracy, which sometimes works well, and sometimes doesn't. Its millions of staff are of similarly variable quality. Overall, it delivers a quite good level of healthcare, and at reasonable cost.
A public health system reconstructed by stealing the best bits of the Canadian, Japanese, Singaporean, antipodean and European systems would provide better outcomes at comparable cost, but since the NHS is effectively a national religion, such reforms are off the table. But Buerk is wrong - if fat people get ill, they will cost their fellow taxpayers more, not some mythical entity. The NHS exists to be used when you get ill. That's the whole point of it. If fatties push up healthcare costs, then we all as voters will decide (however indirectly) how much more we want to pay through our taxes to preserve our neighbours' health. I would rather pay a bit more than let people die by making snotty moral judgements about fatness, or smoking, or any other lifestyle factor. I am reminded of how in The Man in the High Castle, the disabled, infirm, etc. are exterminated, because they are "Useless Eaters".
Also notice that Buerk didn't dare touch the third rail of HIV. Using his analysis, HIV is a disease caught through lifestyle choices, and it is a "burden" on the NHS. But he doesn't suggest letting people with HIV die without treatment, because he knows that he would be cancelled immediately. However apparently it's OK to apply the same vicious logic to fat people.
And the other deep green thread running through Buerk's commentary is a distasteful misanthropy, an attitude that often leaks out of members of the elite (eg, Attenborough, Prince Charles, Prince Philip). There are simply disgusted by the mass of people in the world, and basically feel no empathy. Just look at the breathtakingly callous way he talks of his fellow human beings, but perhaps he doesn't seem them/us as fully human. This hatred of mass humanity often underpins discussion of climate change, with all the hyperventilation about overpopulation (a fading problem) and resource use. Consider Camp Google - again the elite worries about the burden that the other 7.5Bn of us represent.
The NHS is framed as an semi-holy and fragile entity, distinct from the the UK government or society, which we should try not to trouble, as if (bizarrely) the NHS is providing medical care out of its own resources. I have watched audience members on Question Time claim that they are happy to die if they develop a serious illness, rather than "burden" the NHS. People speak reverently of the NHS as if it were a person (a god ?), who should not be imposed upon. This perspective is ridiculous. The NHS is a vast tax-payer funded bureaucracy, which sometimes works well, and sometimes doesn't. Its millions of staff are of similarly variable quality. Overall, it delivers a quite good level of healthcare, and at reasonable cost.
A public health system reconstructed by stealing the best bits of the Canadian, Japanese, Singaporean, antipodean and European systems would provide better outcomes at comparable cost, but since the NHS is effectively a national religion, such reforms are off the table. But Buerk is wrong - if fat people get ill, they will cost their fellow taxpayers more, not some mythical entity. The NHS exists to be used when you get ill. That's the whole point of it. If fatties push up healthcare costs, then we all as voters will decide (however indirectly) how much more we want to pay through our taxes to preserve our neighbours' health. I would rather pay a bit more than let people die by making snotty moral judgements about fatness, or smoking, or any other lifestyle factor. I am reminded of how in The Man in the High Castle, the disabled, infirm, etc. are exterminated, because they are "Useless Eaters".
Also notice that Buerk didn't dare touch the third rail of HIV. Using his analysis, HIV is a disease caught through lifestyle choices, and it is a "burden" on the NHS. But he doesn't suggest letting people with HIV die without treatment, because he knows that he would be cancelled immediately. However apparently it's OK to apply the same vicious logic to fat people.
And the other deep green thread running through Buerk's commentary is a distasteful misanthropy, an attitude that often leaks out of members of the elite (eg, Attenborough, Prince Charles, Prince Philip). There are simply disgusted by the mass of people in the world, and basically feel no empathy. Just look at the breathtakingly callous way he talks of his fellow human beings, but perhaps he doesn't seem them/us as fully human. This hatred of mass humanity often underpins discussion of climate change, with all the hyperventilation about overpopulation (a fading problem) and resource use. Consider Camp Google - again the elite worries about the burden that the other 7.5Bn of us represent.
Last edited:
eoin_k
Lawyer's fees, beetroot and music
I worked for a company that underwent a big rebranding following a merger, which involved sending all staff to a nightmare corporate jolly at the NEC in Birmingham that Buerk hosted. By accident they sat me next to him, so over dinner and after a skinful of drink I asked him 'Do the BBC pay you so badly that you have to tart yourself out to these grubby little events.' This proved to be a bit of a conversation killer. Fortunately some of my workmates were much worse behaved, and having restrained myself from engaging in physical violence management had bigger fish to fry the following week.
Argonia
Happy go licky
Overpopulation isn't a fading issue mate, it's fucking apposite as we cruise relentlessly on towards ten billion and beyond.
eoin_k
Lawyer's fees, beetroot and music
Many projections show a plateau in world populations on the horizon, or even a dip before we hit the ten billion mark, so I'm not sure 'cruising' is the best term to describe current demographic trends, stalling or faltering might be more accurate. And most of them wont use a fraction of the resources of that waster Buerk.
Similar threads
