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.

You don't see a contradiction there?

No, I don't.

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.

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

Dunroving: like the A&E charging drunks idea, maybe for repeat offenders though.

I may be influenced by once having had to wait for treatment at A&E, on a Sunday afternoon, when all the rugby injuries were arriving.

People do not have to play dangerous sports to keep fit.

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.

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.

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.

The injury rate is about twice that of soccer and according to this study is constant rather than increasing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/sp...pagewanted=all

However, that's a study of top-class players only.

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

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"

"Kill the chair" is the one I like. Saw it on Dr Max Mosely's program on the TV. Time to do that right now!

I think you would find the majority of obese people did indeed choose to be. I don't mean they sat down one day and decided to be obese but it was none the less a life choice for most. If you sit in front of the TV and eat pizzas and chips and drink gallons of Coke then it is your choice. I get angry when I see these shows about the morbidly obese crying about how unfair it is. They chose to eat to excess.

Perhaps this is the wrong way round?
Obese people die 14 years earlier than healthy people- NIH study finds extreme obesity may shorten life expectancy up to 14 years

Smokers 18 years earlier The effect of smoking on life span - Medical News Today

Alcohol is unclear but logically must cut by a significant amount Life expectancy calculator points to alcohol, tobacco consumption as biggest factors for who lives the longest | National Post

Given that the overwhelming majority of expenditure occurs over the age of 65, http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content...tech-Annex.pdf
an age few obese, alcoholic smokers exceed, if the purpose of BTWs post is to save the Health Authority money, surely it is the rest of us who should be barred from treatment?

The unhealthy ones save the NHS a fortune.