Pounds for pounds - UK

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Quote:

Overweight people in the United Kingdom are being paid to shed pounds as part of a trial undertaken by the country's National Health Service.

Those who sign up to the program stand to gain up to $3,000 for losing 68 kilograms.

The program, Pounds For Pounds, is the brainchild of former banker Winton Rossiter.

He set up a company called Weight Wins and brought the bonus culture to the weight loss industry.

"Our insight is that it's not how you lose weight but why you lose weight. So we looked around for what motivated everybody. It turns out, not surprisingly, that it's money," he said.

"Money for having achieved your targets or gotten most of the way toward achieving your targets.

"And you give someone a long-term contract with money for reaching it, miracles happen, and that's what we found out."

Mr Rossiter says on average people who start the program lose about 12 kilograms a year.

"That is over two times the weight loss of the next most successful method for weight loss, which is structured diets such as Weight Watchers and things like that," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/31/2729499.htm

Good God!
Are we paying smokers for every smoke free day, junkies for every day without a fix, lazy buggers for sticking to thier exercise routines?!
Will people pork up just so they can join the programme and get paid to lose it?

I battle my weight, and I think making things accessible to the everyday person is a good thing. I don't mind paying for my gym access, personal trainer, diet programmes, wardrobe size changes - but some people struggle to afford things like this - which are helpful (maybe not essential). BUT I think we need to draw the line at paying people to lose weight.!!

[RobBright 35]

Relating someone to being obese, which CAN be genetic, to someone who VOLUNTARILY smokes and drinks, smacks of fatism or obesism. Clearly the NHS will have guidelines about this, ie a history of the person on hand, not people just walking in off the street with a pamphlet in hand asking where the line starts.

 

And in the long run, if people do lose the 64kgs, and manage to keep it off, surely it will save more than the quoted $3,000 in the long run?

[HelperElfMissy 42]

I'm sure it would save a massive amount of health related burden if they lost 64kg and maintained it. The woman quoted in the story however lost 10kg of baby weight and was in the overweight catagory - not obese...and she qualified. As she said " I got paid for doing something I was going to do anyway"

 

I have been more than 20 kilo's over weight for much of my adult life (also post kids - I was a skinny little thing before that) - and I have taken it seriously, and worked hard - sometimes with good short term success, mostly with little results. I am the LAST person to be fatist or obesist. I am all for people with weight issues doing something about it, and being healthy, even if they can't manage to be thin....

 

But this scheme seems absurd to me.

 

And as an ex-smoker ---> I gotta say - I chose to smoke when I was 13, and stupid. But it took me the next 17 years of cutting down, cold turkey, patches and relapses before I finally kicked the habit. I don't see a lot of difference between my battle to keep weight off, and my battle to not smoke. Except that when I quit smoking I struggled even more with my weight!

[RobBright 35]

Simply because smoking is a choice - being fat, on some occasions, I don't want to quote percentages as I don't know, is genetic, and/or down to social status. Humans have developed evolutionary to store fat in times of abundance, so in times of need, our bodies can burn it off, yet now, more food is being produced than can ever be used.

 

How about people who have their stomachs stapled at much more expense than this, and don't learn anything in the process? Am sure that if they are taking part in this, it's part of a controlled study, monitored by dietitians, doctors etc who make sure it isn't just a quick get rich scheme, but more of a life style change.

[thursday 1]

if it saves the tax dollars 20-fold, then so be it. Fat bastards deserve to get thin and pocket that dosh if it saves 60,000 a year from the NHS spending on those fat bastards.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

There is a definite small number of people who have an obesity gene - yes.

 

And then there are those like me - with a ridiculously low metabolism - who GAIN weight on medically supervised programs (like Weight Watchers) - and no...I didn't cheat. But a diet that would allow most women my height and age to lose weight was far far too many calories for me. And being in that position truly sux!

 

As for the stomach stapling - I have some insight into this. I have 2 acquaintances with Gastric Banding and a very very close friend who had a Tubal Gastrectomy (stomach stapling). The two with the band have not learnt anything - they are medically supervised - and constantly find ways to 'cheat' the band - like by drinking their calories. Melted chocolate goes down a treat. This works because the band creates a small pocket and people feel full on small amounts of solid food. Liquids just slide past the band and into the large remaining stomach below.

 

The girl with the stapling - it is permanent. She has a teensy tiny stomach. She learnt fast what will make her throw up, and what foods she can and can not eat. It sounds like the easy way out - but I went through the process with her and it was HARD. She had counseling, accepted the risk of death, and grieved for her loss of ability to ever eat normally again. But the benefits (health benefits) outweighed the negatives. So she forked out the cost of a holiday or two to do it (no government assistance for her - she took responsibility for her OWN situation). It did not go without hiccups - she came close to death before the long road to health.

 

Interestingly her diet is very very similar to the diet I am following that is finally, and very slowly seeing me shrinking to be a shadow of my former self. For her it is dictated by her physical ability. For me it is planning and discipline.

 

Smoking may be a 'choice'...but so is putting food into your mouth.

I am not saying it is easy. It is not. But if you can do it with the carrot of a cash bonus then you could have done it without it! If you have a serious problem that diet/willpower and exercise are not working for then you need some other kind of solution - like gastric banding.

[Jynxx 4]

It's prolly all that Brit binge drinking ...

[RobBright 35]

An additional quote

 

Quote:

 

Parool Hall has been on the program two years and has lost 10 kilograms and kept the weight off.

 

It has earned her $830.

 

"I had to eat certain portions of fruit and vegetables a day; I cut out my carbohydrates at night and my fat content - I obviously had to reduce that in order to lose weight and drink plenty of water and exercise; that's key," she said.

 

 

If you are going to quote the story MB, please make sure you include everything important to allow people to fully understand.

 

Originally Posted By: "The Telegraph"

Under the Weight Wins scheme, overweight people sign up for a 13-month slimming programme and only get paid if they complete it successfully.

 

They have seven months to get down to their target weight, with monthly weighings at their GP surgery or health clinic. Six months after that they have to show that they haven't increased their weight again.

 

Around 2,000 people have applied for 400 places on the programme. There are also 40 overweight nurses taking part to set patients a healthy example.

 

Under the scheme payments increase with the amount of weight lost. Someone who loses 50lb, for instance slimming from 15 and a half stone to 12 stone, would receive the maxium amount. Losing 30lb is rewarded with £160, and 15lb with £70.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...ose-weight.html

 

Now according to this story, the monetary amount is a lot less than stated in your story. And according to this story, it seems a lot more structured than simply going in and losing weight.

 

And in regards to drug users, there are a lot of clinics and lessons set up for them for FREE by various communities and health organizations around the world, where for example heroin users are given methadone for free to help ween themselves off it. It also seems nowadays that it's social acceptable to pick on overweight people yet we don't know the circumstances why they are overweight.

 

And going back to my point about class structure, next time you decide to venture into the ghetto, run down areas, poorer areas of your city, have a good look around and try to find out how much access they have to affordable, clean, healthy food and then compare it to cheap, unhealthy, junk food. A good example is in Chelsea/Knightsbridge in London.

 

Went there last year, and its a very well off area, not a single fast food outlet in the area, or that I could see. Went to Brixton, generally deemed as a poor area of London, and there were fast food shops left right centre, but health food shops or veg/fruit shops, were next to none.

 

Food for thought as they say.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Rob,

 

I understand the issues of weight loss. Believe me. Lived it, breathed it. I am not doubting it is a serious issue. I am not saying that overweight people don't come up against mean and nasty attitudes assuming they are all lazy binge eaters that lay on the couch - I have had that leveled at me in the past, and nothing could be further from the truth.

 

What I disagree with is the cash bonuses system. By all means spend the cash providing programmes, healthy food education (go Jamie Oliver!), and even residential clinics on the NHS (or Aussie equivalent) for the morbidly obese - but I don't like the cash bonuses.

 

The core issue for me is that the people who will lose weight and keep it off under this system are people who would do it alone anyway. It is the rest of the overweight population that need the help. The ones who can't stick to the programme - who try and fail. They are the ones who are a burden on the health system.

 

As an overweight individual I have no weight related disorders - no diabetes, no high blood pressure, no high cholesterol - nada. Because I am fit and healthy, although overweight. I should not qualify for a program like this - because I am capable of caring for my health myself, and am not a burden on the health system. My friend who had the Tubal Gastrectomy however - she should have had access to support .... her actions in paying for her surgery have saved the government coffers HEAPS in future spending by reversing her pre-diabetes, lowering her medicated blood pressure to normal and unmedicated etc etc.

 

I think this scheme - well meaning as it is - is targeting the wrong population.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Originally Posted By: RobBright

And going back to my point about class structure, next time you decide to venture into the ghetto, run down areas, poorer areas of your city, have a good look around and try to find out how much access they have to affordable, clean, healthy food and then compare it to cheap, unhealthy, junk food. A good example is in Chelsea/Knightsbridge in London.

Went there last year, and its a very well off area, not a single fast food outlet in the area, or that I could see. Went to Brixton, generally deemed as a poor area of London, and there were fast food shops left right centre, but health food shops or veg/fruit shops, were next to none.

I understand that is true. It is not so pronounced here in Perth - there are slightly less fast food outlets in wealthier area's and slightly less in the way of gourmet fresh food choices in poorer area's, but the raging disparity that you have in the UK and also is apparent in the USA is not the case here. That is a product of supply and demand - and would be a good place to start targeting health spending I suppose. Both in subsidies to help healthy fresh food businesses get established in those regions, and in educating people to use them.

I might be living in one of the wealthier suburbs now, but that is not where we came from, and Papa and I did many years in one of the battler suburbs - and we always found fresh food cheaper than junk food. It is just more effort and management. But as I say - this is Perth - the inequalities are less here.

[pie-eater 207]

People should eat more wholesome pies.

[pie-eater 207]

(Sorry that wasn't very helpful was it. I apologise).

[RobBright 35]

But in reality, the cost per year of diseases brought on by obesity is over £4.2bn a year. And roughly 40% of the british population is overweight, and at a 2009 estimate that equates to 61mil (CIA Factbook and Wikipedia.), we're talking about 24mil.

 

So some maths equates to roughly £175per person per year is spent treating them. And of course, if they are continuously overweight, then that money goes up year, if not more per year, than at least double on that estimate.

 

However, if the study says, and the people lose weight and keep it off, they gain money, yet the NHS will manage to save money. Even if they only lost 15lbs, they gain £75, how much will that save the NHS in the long run, that is directly and indirect through diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart by-passes etc.

 

Some people don't have the will power like you or I do, other people have that comfort zone, and even if they are told they might die from being obese, still nothing happens. In this day and age, people need different motivation, is it any different to parents that offer their kids money to improve their grades.

 

And you bring up the Jamie Oliver point - well, that's all well and good if it works in all schools, but as he pointed out himself, it didn't work in all school he tried in and think the system failed in others.

 

Originally Posted By: shamefully taken from Wikipedia page

Starting in February 2006, Oliver returned to his crusade to see how his flagship Greenwich school, Kidbrooke, was progressing. Overworked and under pressure, Nora reveals that she is losing money due to the decision to close the school tuck shop (which sold junk food and snacks), that she wasn't being paid for the extra hours, and that she hadn't seen any of the promised money. The end-of-year deficit is between £12000 and £15000 (the school management declined to be precise, on the advice of the local council), the children are slipping back into their old habits, and Jamie's new menu is losing popularity.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

I agree that if by spending $? now you will save $?x2 later on that it is a good thing. A good thing for the people too. What I don't agree with is that the people who have no willpower will suddenly have willpower when a 50 quid note is waved in front of their faces. Maybe initially - but long term - I have serious doubts.

 

And there is only a finite pot of health cash - if it is spent on this scheme, are the people with more significant obesity problems for which this is far too hard going to miss out on appropriate help?

 

Jamie Oliver did an amazing thing in those kitchens transforming the school dinners - and transforming attitudes - it could be done, but as you showed it did not solve the problem long term, because it wasn't as easy to continue as shoving the prepackaged fast food nasties in the oven. I kinda reckon the same will happen to the pounds for pounds program. Re-educating one person is all well and good, but if one person is bucking up against a system that is not supportive they soon go back to their old ways. It is the entire system that needs re-educating.

 

He also taught some families/people from a northern battler town about healthy cooking/shopping - that show seemed to have more impact to me - those people began to realize that it was CHEAPER to buy fresh stuff and prepare it, if you do it in a planned fashion.

[RobBright 35]

So if we shouldn't pay people, sorry give, bonuses to people for losing weight they shouldn't have in the first place, then in that thinking we shouldn't give people bonuses for doing work they should already be doing?

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

 

Of course there are going to be stringent checks on who deserve to be on this trial, which is all it is at the moment, it hasn't been rolled out across the UK, just in my home county Kent, ironically nicknamed "The Garden of England".

 

Whilst I understand your hesitations about giving people money, it's notably not the first time money has been given to people ie money to have babies, not support, but to have in Japan or in China where people were paid not to.

 

Simple fact is some people are controlled by greed, and I for one dislike paying tax on cases like this; however, in the long run, if it saves the NHS money that can be better spent elsewhere, surely at the end of the day, that is a better option for everyone involved?

[RobBright 35]

And in regards to education, it's a 13 month course they have to do, and get follow up advice and support from doctors, dieticians, nutritionists etc. and they have to keep the weight of for 6 months.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Hope it works.

 

FWIW I am against the Baby Bonus paid here in Aus as well... I am a deadset liberal/capitalist.

 

I think there are far more pressing area's that tax dollars need to be spent. When a kid born with kidney disease can't get access to a dialysis machine, or a mother with breast cancer has to wait for her surgery because dollars are being spent on preventable diseases I get a touch cranky.

[RobBright 35]

So if this bonus money paid towards the overweight people, saves money that can be better spent elsewhere, you'd agree with it?

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Yes.

 

I just don't think it will be sustainable in the long term.

 

I dont think it sends the right message - rely on state to fix your woes etc etc .... but yes - if it free's up $$ for young 'johnny cystic fibrosis' to get his lung transplant - then I would get behind it.

[bobby12 0]

The UK gov is stupid - they should simply make a law that forces people over a certain BMI to pay for private health insurance.

 

All fat-related hospital costs will then be covered by the insurance (saves NHS money) and fatties will have 'motivation' to reduce weight, without it coming out of the taxpayers pocket.

 

Same should go for smoking, although now it is all smoke free in the UK this will become a mute point in 10-20 years time.

 

Anyway, this kind of tax wastage is one of the main reasons I left the UK. They were taking 30% of my salary to keep layabouts alive and breeding.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/output/2009/10/21/story13983772t0.shtm

 

the above is my local newspaper website and the story basically is that this family has chronic weight problems, all their 7 kids are also obese so my home town Local Authority have taken the kids into custody and it has split opinions in half. I can see arguements on both sides and feel its a difficult situation for the local social work department.

 

(sorry for the link SJ but I didn't know how to quote the story)

[RobBright 35]

Originally Posted By: bobby12

The UK gov is stupid - they should simply make a law that forces people over a certain BMI to pay for private health insurance.

So the insurance companies can thus charge silly money to the "fatties". These insurance companies are the last people you want to be helping, at least if the money is spent by the government on the nhs it usually stays in the NHS.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

true Rob. Now that I live over here and away from the nice blanket of the NHS I totally appreciate what it is. I hate having to pay for health insurance ansd I'm against Private Insurance in anyway taking over as the primary means of health care. Health care should be for everyone not just the rich

[oblivion 5]

Don't you UK citizens pay for health insurance?

[Tubby Beaver 209]

its all included in our tax. So sure we stll pay for it BUT when you are sick, you just go to the doctor or hospital and they will see you and fix you without any problems. No filling in forms, no asking to pay first (and then claim it back) and no paying the first 30%