Is the NHS useless?

[onewheeldave]

If you have one takeaway a month, of one Mars bar a month, do you believe that you're damaging your health?

No. that's because I personally have come to the belief that a healthy human body can easily deal with consuming small amounts of poison/harmful food.

 

That tallies with the evidence that shows that disease risk tends to rise as consumption of harmful food does.

 

I'm happy to eat the odd packet of crisps now and again. I believe my body can deal with small amounts of harmful food, and, find the odd treat to make it even easier to stick to my chosen diet.

 

So isn't the point that people are over consuming unhealthy food as opposed to having the unhealthy food available.

 

What we need to do is educate people to make better life choices, instead of trying to shield them from temptations.

I'm MOST DEFINITLY NOT advocating food bans.

 

I'm advocating a ban of marketing proven harmfull 'foods' to children and their guardians.

 

I'm waiting for someone to address that. The reason no one is producing a reason why we shouldn't have such a ban, is cos there isn't such a reason.

 

So isn't it time you apologists got together and campaigned for a reversal on the banning of tobacco marketing? If not, why not?

[JFKvsNixon]

No. that's because I personally have come to the belief that a healthy human body can easily deal with consuming small amounts of poison/harmful food.

 

That tallies with the evidence that shows that disease risk tends to rise as consumption of harmful food does.

 

I'm happy to eat the odd packet of crisps now and again. I believe my body can deal with small amounts of harmful food, and, find the odd treat to make it even easier to stick to my chosen diet.

 

I'm MOST DEFINITLY NOT advocating food bans.

 

I'm advocating a ban of marketing proven harmfull 'foods' to children and their guardians.

 

 

 

I'm waiting for someone to address that. The reason no one is producing a reason why we shouldn't have such a ban, is cos there isn't such a reason.

 

So isn't it time you apologists got together and campaigned for a reversal on the banning of tobacco marketing? If not, why not?

 

I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough for you, but when I was talking about shielding people from temptation and teaching them to make better life decisions I was talking specifically about marketing.

 

Also how far would you go, would you ban the marketing of bread? Three slices of toast with butter and jam would probably have as many calories as a chocolate bar.

[onewheeldave]

I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough for you, but when I was talking about shielding people from temptation and teaching them to make better life decisions I was talking specifically about marketing.

 

Also how far would you go, would you ban the marketing of bread? Three slices of toast with butter and jam would probably have as many calories as a chocolate bar.

 

Could you clarify a bit here? You seem to be against a ban on marketing harmfull foods to children and their guardians?

 

Yet you absolutely refuse to put forward an argument as to why.

 

I'm autistic, and, I'm confused as to why you (and everyone else) seems to be against something yet can't say why.

[JFKvsNixon]

Could you clarify a bit here? You seem to be against a ban on marketing harmfull foods to children and their guardians?

 

Yet you absolutely refuse to put forward an argument as to why.

 

I'm autistic, and, I'm confused as to why you (and everyone else) seems to be against something yet can't say why.

 

Junk food is supposedly already banned from being targeted at children, the ban came into place in 2008. Has it done any good?

 

My point is - it's a waste of time and resources banning completely the advertisement of junk food, those resources should be targeted towards teaching children to make the right life choices.

 

Any complete ban would become over complicated as I asked earlier, how far would ban go, would you ban the marketing of white bread for example?

 

Edit:

 

Something that I'd like to see is for the makeup of the food to made very clear on the packaging/takeaway menu, maybe in a similar manner to smoking kills on the cigarette packets. So calories, amount of fat and salt etc compared to the RDA are clear for people to be able to make better decisions.

Edited November 3, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[onewheeldave]

Junk food is supposedly already banned from being targeted at children, the ban came into place in 2008. Has it done any good?

 

My point is - it's a waste of time and resources banning completely the advertisement of junk food, those resources should be targeted towards teaching children to make the right life choices.

 

Any complete ban would become over complicated as I asked earlier, how far would ban go, would you ban the marketing of white bread for example?

 

Edit:

 

Something that I'd like to see is for the makeup of the food to made very clear on the packaging/takeaway menu, maybe in a similar manner to smoking kills on the cigarette packets. So calories, amount of fat and salt etc compared to the RDA are clear for people to be able to make better decisions.

 

So, you oppose a ban on the marketing of harmful foods, in part, on the grounds that you think a ban wouldn't work and that it would use more resources than the consequences can justify?

 

Fantastic- you've produced an actual argument that's all I've been asking for.

 

Junk food is supposedly already banned from being targeted at children, the ban came into place in 2008. Has it done any good?

'supposedly' is the weak point here. I know, & you know, children are seeing ads and marketing designed to get them to eat 'foods' that science has shown to be extremely harmful (when consumed in the way the ads are there to encourage i.e. in excess).

 

The (total) ban I'm talking about has not been tried with food.

 

It has been tried, with great, great success, with tobacco.

 

My point is - it's a waste of time and resources banning completely the advertisement of junk food, those resources should be targeted towards teaching children to make the right life choices.

 

What time and resources? You pass a law banning it, and it's banned. In proportion to the potential savings in health, the resources necessary are tiny.

 

 

Any complete ban would become over complicated as I asked earlier, how far would ban go, would you ban the marketing of white bread for example?

 

Personally, I'd ban all advertising of anything. Advertising/marketing is a leech industry that has been instrumental in creating the mess that humanity is currently rolling around in.

 

However, I'll stick to the food stuff. Not complicated. Ban all marketing of foods.

 

If you're right, and it's 'too complicated' then you've two options 1. leave things as they are, and watch the population get ever fatter, and ever more ill, or 2. ban all marketing of food

 

option 2 is very uncomplicated.

 

Or, face up to the fact that a less-than-total ban will be complicated, and deal with it. The bans on marketing tobacco, I believe, came in in dribs and drabs.

[Beauchiefs]

So, you oppose a ban on the marketing of harmful foods, in part, on the grounds that you think a ban wouldn't work and that it would use more resources than the consequences can justify?

 

Fantastic- you've produced an actual argument that's all I've been asking for.

 

'supposedly' is the weak point here. I know, & you know, children are seeing ads and marketing designed to get them to eat 'foods' that science has shown to be extremely harmful (when consumed in the way the ads are there to encourage i.e. in excess).

 

The (total) ban I'm talking about has not been tried with food.

 

It has been tried, with great, great success, with tobacco.

 

What time and resources? You pass a law banning it, and it's banned. In proportion to the potential savings in health, the resources necessary are tiny.

 

Personally, I'd ban all advertising of anything. Advertising/marketing is a leech industry that has been instrumental in creating the mess that humanity is currently rolling around in.

 

However, I'll stick to the food stuff. Not complicated. Ban all marketing of foods.

 

If you're right, and it's 'too complicated' then you've two options 1. leave things as they are, and watch the population get ever fatter, and ever more ill, or 2. ban all marketing of food

 

option 2 is very uncomplicated.

 

Or, face up to the fact that a less-than-total ban will be complicated, and deal with it. The bans on marketing tobacco, I believe, came in in dribs and drabs.

 

Advertising

Try internet search for healthy eating then try search for harmfull food.

[JFKvsNixon]

So, you oppose a ban on the marketing of harmful foods, in part, on the grounds that you think a ban wouldn't work and that it would use more resources than the consequences can justify?

 

Fantastic- you've produced an actual argument that's all I've been asking for.

 

'supposedly' is the weak point here. I know, & you know, children are seeing ads and marketing designed to get them to eat 'foods' that science has shown to be extremely harmful (when consumed in the way the ads are there to encourage i.e. in excess).

 

The (total) ban I'm talking about has not been tried with food.

 

It has been tried, with great, great success, with tobacco.

 

What time and resources? You pass a law banning it, and it's banned. In proportion to the potential savings in health, the resources necessary are tiny.

 

Personally, I'd ban all advertising of anything. Advertising/marketing is a leech industry that has been instrumental in creating the mess that humanity is currently rolling around in.

 

However, I'll stick to the food stuff. Not complicated. Ban all marketing of foods.

 

If you're right, and it's 'too complicated' then you've two options 1. leave things as they are, and watch the population get ever fatter, and ever more ill, or 2. ban all marketing of food

 

option 2 is very uncomplicated.

 

Or, face up to the fact that a less-than-total ban will be complicated, and deal with it. The bans on marketing tobacco, I believe, came in in dribs and drabs.

 

Fantastic you've finally managed to understand that I've been putting an argument forward! It only took 4 posts for you to grasp that I was putting forward an argument. Well done!

 

No I don't oppose a ban on marketing of junk food because it would take up more resources than the results would justify, I just don't think that a ban would be effective at all. The resources would be used better elsewhere in educating people to make better life choices. Then it would also help to combat the temptation when it comes to buying the junk food and consuming the junk food. It would also help people understand the benefits of living a more active lifestyle.

 

It would be a holistic approach looking at developing people and improving society as a whole rather than a restrictive approach looking at limiting people's choices.

 

Individuals are going to respond more positively to ideas that help them develop and take charge of their own lives, rather than one that openly treats them as people that aren't capable of making the right choices.

 

With your desire to ban advertising on everything, you have to find a way to acknowledge that advertising funds an awful lot of things that people enjoy in our society, if you take away that advertising then you're going to have to find ways to fund these things. For example the over all majority of television stations are funded by advertising, the majority of sports events are funded by advertising where are you going to find the money to keep these things going?

 

Let's move on to your proposed advertising on all foods. Without food advertising how cold a new food product launch? All banning food advertising would do is cement the current brands into a position where no one else could ever challenge them. So if someone thought there was a gap in the market for a range of healthy breakfasts, well it would be tough luck there would be no way of letting the population become aware of their new product.

 

Now, lets return to my point in the beginning of my reply. There is an elephant in the room, and I've left it till last, it is namely the impossibility of banning all unwanted advertising from people in the IT era. With more of our lives moving from older types of media to online media, it would be impossible to ban and then police that ban of unwanted advertising.

 

Rather then becoming King Canute, and wage an unwindable war against advertising, lets equip our population to become more rounded and more responsible individuals able to make better life choices. The benefits that this would bring to society would dwarf any imagined benefits of an outright ban of advertising food.

[Cyclone]

Kids get dinner money for school. Parents can't monitor what they purchase with it.

 

They almost certainly don't get enough to order something from justeat.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 08:49 ----------

 

I don't know if it's after the watershed (as I've not watched a tv for several years) and, given that you'd just previously told me that food ads for children weren't allowed on TV, you'll forgive me for waiting for someone to verify your 'belief' concerning watershedage.

What I told you was that they were restricted, and then I quoted the ASA.

Perhaps you can take it up with the ASA if you aren't happy with what "restricted" means.

 

In the meantime, lets reflect on why you're even thinking it's relevant, given that you know as well as I, that many children watch tv after the watershed.

 

Plus, as we are in danger of getting overly focused on tv ads, you may recall I was saying that we need a ban on all marketing/promotion of scientifically-proven-to-be-health-damaging 'foods' to children, which includes billboards, tv, magazines, online, etc, etc.

I'll have to ask you to explain what is scientifically proven to be harmful...

Unless you're going to say Arsenic or Cyanide, I expect you're going to come back with a list of foods that are entirely fine in moderation, and not fine in excess... Which is pretty much everything.

 

Yes, it's called moving on to one point after another.

It's called moving the goal posts, I note how you never actually conceded that you were wrong though on the NHS performing preventative medicine.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 08:50 ----------

 

Right, so you literally thought you weren't in a logical debate?! That explains so much

 

In reality, you were in a logical debate (there's no other kind) and now we've sorted that out, if you want to continue, you'll need to start making some logical point.

 

No, he's in a debate with you, where you keep asserting things. There's precious little logic involved, just your opinion.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 08:52 ----------

 

 

So isn't it time you apologists got together and campaigned for a reversal on the banning of tobacco marketing? If not, why not?

 

For someone who's "not so good with words" you manage to dig out the pejorative "apologist" to describe anyone who disagrees with you didn't you...

 

Here.

 

This is what you're still banging on about.

 

https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Hot-Topics/Children-and-advertising.aspx#.VjnHJ_ntlBc

 

Without bothering to find out the current situation (again).

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 08:54 ----------

 

Could you clarify a bit here? You seem to be against a ban on marketing harmfull foods to children and their guardians?

 

You've now extended this ban to include parents, carers, grand parents and many other adult guardians...

Yet you absolutely refuse to put forward an argument as to why.

You don't need a reason to be against a ban, you need a good reason to be for it.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 08:56 ----------

 

To be clear. The ban you are arguing for is already in place. It's likely to be ineffectual, and when you jumped to include guardians it starts to infringe on personal liberties of adults. And you only ever started talking about this specific topic, to get off the previous one which you were wrong about, the lack of preventative measures taken by the NHS to avoid illness in the first place.

[sgtkate]

Indeed. There's a difference between a free service and a service that has a goal to be free at the point of use.

 

The service that is free at the point of use isn't free. The NHS has to be paid for through taxes but (most of the time) not when you need to use it. No bills to pay, no upfront fees, no invoices, no insurance claims, no admin costs for collecting payments.

 

Just like the Police, Fire Service, Schools etc. Yet few people seem to have issues with these. Why does the NHS get people so hot under the collar?

[unbeliever]

Just like the Police, Fire Service, Schools etc. Yet few people seem to have issues with these. Why does the NHS get people so hot under the collar?

 

The fire service rarely gets criticised. I supposed because we have a sense of admiration for people who's job it is to run the "wrong" way in the event of a fire.

The Police perhaps also benefit from this to an extent, but there's no shortage of criticism of them in my experience.

As for schools, we rarely stop talking about them.