I dunno. Flat bloke having problems breathing has a cardiac arrest while the ambulance crew is with him. He’s so big that they have to call the fire brigade to lift him out through his bedroom window.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8482491.stm



I am in two minds here:
1 - he is ill and should be given help, and that this is the right course of action to take to help him
2 - he is morbidly obese and, without sounding prejudicial, he’s probably inflicted it on himself through unhealthy diet and lifestyle. Why should such manpower be used to help him continue to abuse himself in this way?

At least they didn’t drop him off the trolley this time.

Dude, really? (8+/

Mark

As I said - it’s a duality I tussle with. We know what is good for us. We know what is bad for us. We can make a choice, and we have to live, and at times die, with the consequences of those actions.

he should have the extra manpower to help him but then should be charged for the usage

That would be a fair compromise - but we’d need extra manpower in the emergency services to deal with the extra burden.

No prize, other than some Kudos*, for the person to post a photo of an ambulance with an “abnormal load” warning sign on it. More Kudos if you didn’t Photoshop it.

*Kudos may be virtual, and will be expressed in the form of a smiley.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... bulge.html

Same way that manpower is used for all the drinkers fighting and puking in the street, or the suicide jumper surrounded by police, ambulance and fire brigade. Or the drink drivers that cause accidents and injury, I could go on. Just because he is overweight doesnt mean he shouldnt get the services he needs.

+1, he already pays tax. In fact if he consumes more then his tax burden is de facto higher than your average person's.

Food is a relatively cheap way to harm yourself compared to cigarettes and alcohol, which are specifically taxed to provide health funding. If the tax on the really unhealthy foods was comparable, that might go some way to covering the cost of the damage it causes.

Fruit and veg are already subsidised. Chocolate and biscuits etc are also subject to VAT, whereas "normal" food isn't.

VAT doesn't come close to the duty rates on alcohol and cigerettes. Not even vaguely close. Not by a lot. Seriously.

But I wouldn't want to see punitive tax rates on chocolate et al, in fact I'd vehemently oppose such a move.

tax breakdown
PK 20 fags Specific duty 224.1p plus ad valorem (22% of retail price) 117.1 Tax as % of final price 78.8% (this includes VAT)
Pint beer 33.2 p Tax as % of final price 28.7%
wine (75cl bottle) 145.7p Tax as % of final price 55.4%

Why?

Sensible drinking can help protect against heart disease. On the other hand, there is no sensible amount of chocolate to eat. Any chocolate is too much; refined fat and sugar does not belong in our diet and it's now the biggest killer in the western world.

Chocolate bars should be £10 each.

Maybe that'd give women the incentive to break their addiction?