We're too fat! Give us more money!

[IDrinkaRum]

Family in Britain too fat to work?

They make approximately $40,000+ on government checks even though the couple hasn't worked in 11 years.

[Boozy]

$40,000 doesn't cover much for a family of four, especially in certain areas of Britain. I'm also suspect of the $40,000 number, since the article describes that as total "benefits", and some of those benefits may not be monetary. For example, my sister-in-law uses several community services (such as transportation for the disabled) which are assigned dollar values for tax purposes.

So perhaps benefits for the genuinely disabled are insufficient. But I reserve judgement there because I don't know the British system.

However, the real question here is whether or not obesity-related diseases can be considered disabilities, considering that obesity is not exactly a no-fault medical condition for most individuals.

[AFPheonix]

One of them tried out for X Factor too. Simon was not impressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1j73o8lric

edit: ha ha ha, she's apparently a glutton for punishment. Glutton....I made a funny!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVB8XYBAftM

[Lace Neil Singer]

I have to say it; maybe if they didn't spend so much time with their heads in the trough, they'd be able to spare a bit more cash for living expenses. -.- Their food bill must be astronomical.

[Rapscallion]

Audrey Chawner admitted the family's diet isn't the best. But healthy food is "too expensive," she said.

Bollocks.

Healthy food - the basic and lower in fat - is generally far cheaper than anything process. Boil up some brown rice with vegetables, and a bit of lean protein of choice (chicken is my preference - easy to cook). Add some sort of spice, and you can feed a family cheaply. Pasta dishes are also cheap for the basics.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Healthy food - the basic and lower in fat - is generally far cheaper than anything process. Boil up some brown rice with vegetables, and a bit of lean protein of choice (chicken is my preference - easy to cook). Add some sort of spice, and you can feed a family cheaply. Pasta dishes are also cheap for the basics.

I agree. In my experience, the worst foods are the prepared foods, which are laden with fat and sodium. And prepared foods are expensive. I can eat more cheaply cooking healthy stuff.

[AdminAssistant]

But in order to eat healthy AND cheap - you have to cook. Which, I imagine, is the problem here. Heck, I have that problem - I'm pretty much superbusy all the time, I don't have time to cook dinner every night. Sometimes I don't have time to do a big cookup on the weekends. It is really hard to do healthy and fast and cheap.

[Rapscallion]

My usual Thai green curry takes me approximately half an hour to cook. I get about six portions out of it - three eaten over the next day or two, and three in the freezer.

Not that I live off Thai green curry, or anything...

Rapscallion

[Lace Neil Singer]

Plus supermarkets over here have economy ranges that include vegetables and fruit; they are perfectly edible as well as being cheap. I often buy from those ranges and I'm not exactly rich.

In any case, as far as I'm concerned this is no different than if a family of drug addicts or alcoholics was demanding money to support their addiction. Their benefits should be cut off and they should be told to slim down on their own. A visit to the doctor for healthy eating plans and exercise advice doesn't cost squat, and walking is free exercise. This family are just greedy and lazy.

[Boozy]

But in order to eat healthy AND cheap - you have to cook. Which, I imagine, is the problem here. Heck, I have that problem - I'm pretty much superbusy all the time, I don't have time to cook dinner every night.

How busy can they be? They don't have jobs.

I'm sympathetic to those people who work two jobs to to make ends meet, or are working their way through school. You can usually still eat healthy, but you have to be very good at money and time management. Sometimes that McDonald's drive-thru is the best you can do.

[tropicsgoddess]

There's ways to get healthy food for cheap: it's called farmers market, wholesale or grow your own fruits and veggies!!!! Learn to budget!!

[AdminAssistant]

I know, Boozy, I was speaking in general as opposed to this specific case, I guess.

Honestly, I think a condition of their benefits should be consultations with doctors, nutritionists, and exercise coaches. That would solve their problem, it seems.

Y'know, I always hear good things about farmer's markets, but the ones up here are always MUCH more expensive than the regular grocery store. Maybe because the client base is mostly yuppies who can afford it, I dunno. I'd love to have a little garden, but my landlord would likely frown on it, we aren't even allowed to have window boxes.

[kiwi]

our farmers market is also more expensive than a supermarket

but its STILL cheaper than maccas and of processed crap

saying healthy food is more expensive is a complete and utter cop out

what costs more... an potato chip or a potato

sugary cereal or rolled oats

you can get a kilo of the no brand pasta here for 88 cents

I don't begrudge anyone who is genuinely disabled from accepting help, but my own mother who is also disabled because of illnesses and injuries she sustained because she was too obese and who needs a walking aid at the age of 50 STILL works a 40 hour week

there are so many companies that will help place people with disibilties, there is no excuse for their attitude, it makes me sick

[Rapscallion]

Honestly, I think a condition of their benefits should be consultations with doctors, nutritionists, and exercise coaches. That would solve their problem, it seems.

Who decides who needs to see who?

If I went to the unemployment office and signed on, would it only be allowed at the discretion of someone behind a desk? Would I have to get a medical at the doctor's office first?

I'm sort of in favour of your concept, despite the 'nanny state' objections going off in my head (should the state take the place of parents?), but I'd have to say that there should be limits. First of all, it should only be offered after a reasonable period of unemployment. We do have job centre people who help long-term unemployed seek work, but should it go as far as telling people to diet? I'm a heavy bugger - about 250 punds - but I can work many of my colleagues under the table. Even if there was a level where it could be enforced, would we employ people to watch over every meal and every purchase choice made by the people who need help?

The real issue is that they just don't want to do it. It's far easier to suck off the state's teat for some people - they don't have enough pride in themselves to get off their arses and seek employment. I've met people like that. I've known one recently who was getting familial help and then regressed to the former couch potato standard as soon as they were out of sight. That person actively sought the easier life of a slob rather than continue with exercise and self-improvement.

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

My disability pension required that I see a doctor and get the doctor's signature that I'm disabled. I think that's totally appropriate!

I think the categories of care that Australia has are reasonably good. Aged needs proof of age. Disabled and carer-of-disabled require medical certification (but don't ask things the State has no business knowing). Student requires enrollment and reasonable grades (and covers trade as well as academia). Unemployment requires efforts to get work.

If you remain unemployed past a certain period of time, you see a vocational counsellor who tries to find an appropriate program to put you into; or helps you move to a better job market. (The 'appropriate program' can include arranging enrollment in a trade/academic course.)

The formerly-disabled who have been treated and can work also get vocational counselling and assistance; and an employer can get a certain amount of money to support things like retrofitting bathrooms or buying specialty chairs.


Yes, this all costs money. But a formerly disabled or unemployed person who becomes a taxpayer instead of needing welfare benefits the State in the long run.
Even a disabled person who is treated to the point of needing less care benefits the State.


Um. Bringing this back to the main point: I think the "we're too fat" people should be treated either as unemployed or as disabled. If disabled, they should be under medical care. The State shouldn't dictate what medical care, necessarily, but these people should be seeing whatever diagnostic specialists are appropriate (given obesity, I'd recommend endocrinologists and internal-medicine specialists, possibly diagnostic psychologists or psychiatrists), then trialling a course of treatment agreed on by them and their medicos.

The State needs only to know that they're under medical care and actively working on it. (With some psychiatric illnesses, that latter clause will need to be removed - some types of psychiatric illness make patient cooperation really &*^#ing difficult. I haven't decided what my personal ethical position is on those.)