Originally Posted by dunroving (Post 11496899)

As with many of these political hot potatoes, it's the extremes that get people all agitated, and as with many of these political hot potatoes, somewhere in between the extremes is the way to go. It's just difficult to figure out how to implement the middle ground so politicians etc. go for the "easy to regulate" option. Cut-off points for body fatness and smoking are easily monitored.

As for charging drunks for A&E care, I am at the extreme end on that one - breathalyse them and charge them.

Originally Posted by Editha (Post 11496911)

Personally, I'd support compulsory insurance for sporting activities.

People have a choice about whether to ski or play rugby. Nobody chooses to be obese.

Originally Posted by Editha (Post 11497281)

No, I don't.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11497288)

You're willing to give obese people a free pass whilst at the same time imposing a "financial burden" on those that participate in "sporting activities" that may well help people keep fit and control their weight. I don't see how that's a sensible policy.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 11497295)

That's bollox. Low risk sport should be covered by the NHS high risk (paragliding for instance) could be covered by private insurance.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11497300)

The poster I was responding to made no distinction between "high" and "low" risk; they stated that "sporting activities" should require compulsory insurance.

And good luck in defining what is actually "high risk".

In general, we should be encouraging people to partake in sporting activities. The benefits afforded to those that exercise regularly are pretty clear.

Originally Posted by Editha (Post 11497372)

Actually, I don't think there is very much difficulty in defining 'high risk'. The injury rate from rugby, for example, has become so high there have been calls to ban it in schools.

Originally Posted by dunroving (Post 11497356)

Agree - the benefit-risk ratio of sport participation is high, so taxing, charging or requiring insurance for sport participation will only put people off doing a healthy activity (high-risk/daft sports possibly excluded)

Can't really see any benefit in eating too much or smoking, OTOH.

Originally Posted by bigglesworth (Post 11497573)

The McGovern report's original conclusion was "Eat less, Do More".
Seems pretty simple.

Originally Posted by dunroving (Post 11497851)

Yes,when I was in NC, the Institute of Nutrition's motto was Eat Smart, Move More. Our lab's current motto is Move More, Sit Less.

As you say, not exactly rocket science, in fact I despair at the number of "Breaking News" stories that reveal the latest highly-funded study's findinngs that "children who play more get sick less", or some other of the 57 varieties of the "No shit, Sherlock" brand of what is loosely called "research"

Originally Posted by Editha (Post 11496911)

Personally, I'd support compulsory insurance for sporting activities.

People have a choice about whether to ski or play rugby. Nobody chooses to be obese.