eBay

margaret*e · ‎22-12-2014

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/should-obesity-been-seen-disability-4841801

Divided opinions on this.

Although mostly self inflicted it's effects can be disabling.

mr-expresso · ‎22-12-2014

If the obesity is as a result of glutony ...then no.. if as a result of a medical problem then yes...

However.... what is the difference between overeating and becoming 'disabled' and smoking and becoming disabled... or alcohol or drugs..

________________________________________________________________

Ignore anything under this ^^^^^ line... It's just my signature....

aernethril · ‎22-12-2014

I agree - but then it should be the underlying medical condition that sets the disability. I can understand that there being a need to protect obese people from discrimination at work to an extent, but obesity like smoking is costing the NHS far too much money at the very least.

The 'incentive' idea has never worked in this country with other projects and why should someone be rewarded for getting fat and then losing a bit of weight?

Will they have to give the rewards back when they put their weight back on?

How does that help the few who are genuinely obese due to medical conditions or medication that have no choice about their condition?

And what about those who look after themselves and keep fit where they can - are they discriminated against by not being eligible for 'rewards'?

It's too devisive.

And there's not a lot one can say about the grabitandrun legal spokeswoman - of course she loves it - another wonderful opportunity to rake in the dosh.

If someone cannot do their work because they are morbidly obese, then the employers should not be penalised for needing to relinquish them. If employers have to keep someone on and pay for extra and expensive equipment, or pay compensation, then those employees who are fulfilling their job requirements may well face very reduced pay rises or even the company going down the drain.

And the other thing which is not mentioned there is that if obese people can claim disability, then they claim a disability car to get to their special parking place right next to the front door.

It will create a lot of dissatisfaction with those who have to go without because they look afer themselves.

********************************************************************************
My body is an old warehouse full of declining storage, my mind is a dusty old reference library, strictly for members and archaeologists only

electric*mayhem*band · ‎22-12-2014

Another looney edict from Brussels, that hasn't been thought through properly.

(Edit Smiley).

Anonymous · ‎23-12-2014

What about drinking too much alcohol....how much more disabled can you get.

ed_blackadder_1 · ‎23-12-2014

Alcohol doesn't seem to come into this debate as per normal. It always comes down to obesity and smokers. Would be interestef in how much it costs NHS to treat alcohol related diseases and injuries, alcoholism is surely a disability too if they are going to make obesity and smokers disabled.
I think it's all getting a bit silly really.

i-am-legion-too · ‎23-12-2014

The government's own figure on cost to NHS of smoking related diseases is between £1.4 and 1.5 billion.

http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB11454/smok-eng-2013-rep.pdf

Other research estimates it to be much higher, depending on which report one reads, anything upto £5 billion.

One figure that cannot be disputed is that tax revenue from tobacco products is currently over £12 billion pa and rising every year.

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/

Whatever our views on the subject, it's not very fair to say smokers are a drain on NHS resources, they are clearly self-funding.

It could be argued that they help to subsidise the non-smokers.

aernethril · ‎23-12-2014

The problem with these various 'Duties' is that they just go into the great melting pot of the inland revenue and are not used for any specific purpose.

eg Car Tax - actually it's Vehicle Excise Duty (for whatever that means that is so different) - people think it's levied to pay for the roads but it is not and apparently was never meant to be.

If that tax was diverted to spending on roads, we'd have no pot holes at all anywhere. But it isn't - it goes into the pot and then money is reallocated for major project from that pot whilst local road maintenance comes from local taxes - Council, Business etc.

So, if that revenue from tobacco sales was allocated purely to the NHS and associated organisations to help people affected by smoking and to fund the NHS in general, we'd all be cruising!

But it's not and so it cannot be said that smokers are 'self-funding' at all - and certainly they're not subsidising non-smokers in any way.

Fot that to be valid, one would have to see that tobacco revenue actually go into the NHS and have an accounting of what it was spent on.

The same applies to alcohol duty - if only that was paid into the NHS to help manage all the disturming mass of binge drinkers who clog up A&E on an increasing basis, we may well be able to fund places where those gits could be safely left and just monitored whilst they sober up.

Personally, I'm all for leaving them where they fall, but that's another matter.

The real issue is that in all honesty, it's impossible to get accurate accounting from the Govt, because they're just not going to admit to how much they rake in and how much they spend where they don't want people to know, and how much is funded with borrowing. The figures will all be massaged for one reason or another.

If only I could be massaged like that on a regular basis, I'd be a svelt nimble thing in no time!

********************************************************************************
My body is an old warehouse full of declining storage, my mind is a dusty old reference library, strictly for members and archaeologists only

bankhaunter · ‎23-12-2014

Car Tax - actually it's Vehicle Excise Duty (for whatever that means that is so different)

It's based on emissions, some cars are zero rated, if everybody used those cars the revenue would dry up.

___________________________________________________________
Parents of young, organic life forms are warned that towels can be harmful if swallowed in large quantities.

vamo48 · ‎23-12-2014

No, it's not a disability

sagr2519 · ‎02-02-2024

Obesity is about two-thirds genetic. Smoking and alcoholism may have genetic predictors but you can avoid them by just not using the addictive substances in the first place.

bits_n_bobs_heaven · ‎29-03-2024

@sagr2519 wrote:
Obesity is about two-thirds genetic. Smoking and alcoholism may have genetic predictors but you can avoid them by just not using the addictive substances in the first place.

Yes, I agree. When it's a genuine genetic disorder, then yes, it is/can be a genuine disability. Especially in such a PC society that is obsessed with looks. However, I suppose it depends how this affects your general day to day living i.e. getting a job etc and the physical issues that obesity also procures.

Truth hurts. Maybe not as much as jumping on a bicycle with a seat missing, but it hurts.

You may think you have pushed ALL my buttons, but you still haven't found the mute!

sagr2519 · ‎08-04-2024

Whoops, I wasn't talking about myself. But you're right that obesity would have to be quite severe in order to meet the equality act definition. This discussion seemed to be more about "if it's their own fault, need we consider them disabled?" When we could say the same about permanent injuries, which are sometimes a result of neglecting safety rules. Maybe the difference is that obesity is reversible. What about people who refuse treatment for other curable conditions?