A healthy nudge - Telegraph

Quote:

The theory of “nudge” is all the rage in the Coalition government. This is the idea that personal behaviour is more effectively changed by a judicious mix of inducement, advice and encouragement than by constant “nanny state” hectoring or heavy-handed legislation. It is, of course, arguable whether the state should be trying to change our behaviour at all; but where public health is concerned, it has a legitimate interest due to the costs of dealing with the consequences of excessive eating and drinking. In his White Paper Healthy Lives, Healthy People, Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, sets out to turn theory into practice. He proposes that, when it comes to public health, local authorities should be responsible for delivering the nudge, as they have the best grasp of local problems. Council areas with the highest levels of obesity, alcoholism and other ailments associated with poor diet and excessive consumption will get the most money from a ring-fenced budget to pursue their public health goals. This seems a sensible way of targeting scarce resources – it is certainly better than lecturing the country as a whole, much of which does not need to be “nudged” and resents being told how to live. It must be said, however, that some of the ideas for incentivising people to look after themselves are of doubtful value. Vouchers for gym membership and swimming pool visits will inevitably be taken up by those who already use such facilities. Nor can it be said that advice about healthy living has been thin on the ground: Labour constantly urged people to improve their eating habits, even as obesity levels continued to rise. Ministers can often overestimate the extent to which such messages are listened to, especially in areas where the problems are greatest, and where modish Whitehall theories hold little sway.

I think I'd almost rather have a nanny state than a sanctimonious, passive-agressive girlfriend state...

Also, "the costs of dealing with the consequences"... As opposed to..? Again, I don't like to be the bearer of bad news, but everyone suffers at least one fatal illness during their lives. Is the cost of paying for an obese Glaswegian's statins for a couple of years more than that of paying for a jogging fanatic's osteoporosis treatment?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Again, I don't like to be the bearer of bad news, but everyone suffers at least one fatal illness during their lives. Is the cost of paying for an obese Glaswegian's statins for a couple of years more than that of paying for a jogging fanatic's osteoporosis treatment?

That's what actuarial calculation was invented for... I cannot remember/find the data anymore but, as i said before, i think that smokers were slighlty "positive" for the state - The extra taxes and savings realised from the early deaths beating slightly the extra costs inflicted on the health services.

From a societal balance sheet point of view, you want people who've been healthy all their lives to die at around 60-65 - and by cardiac arrest. Basically, what is very costly is lenghty, chronic diseases - Obesity qualifies but so does old age - It is indeed expensive, especially the last year: Most of the costs are concentrated there, afaicr.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Apparently health costs also actually decline after about 65/70 - there seems to be a danger zone just following retirement, and if you survive that you're actually safer and cheaper than people going through it. I've never known why - if you've got any ideas..?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Hmmm... No, I got no clue. What I had heard was that the first five years are the costly/dangerous ones (kids are always sick... till they cross over 5 yo when it does get a lot better) and the last few ones... with the last one being THE killer one (baddum-tish: I meant cost-wise, not just deadly). But that "last year bill" being outrageously expensive was more or less valid at any kind of age, whether 75 or 85...

Edit: Maybe it's just that a significant % of the pop. has a lifestyle/type of work that means that, by 60-65, health costs go up at an aggregate level? And, once that's gone, the surviving people (which may not be the same as the ones having the 60-65 danger zone) are okay till they hit their own danger zone.

i.e the working class killing zone is 60-65 and the professional killing zone is post 75 or whatever...

I've read somewhere (maybe here in one of Contra articles) that the problem with funding retirement was disproportionately caused by professionals living longer - Thus it was provocatively phrasing the issue of increasing the retirement age as asking the floor sweeper to work till he dropped so that the corporate lawyer could enjoy a fully funded retirement...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Sure class has an effect, but not that much of one - a female worker will live longer than a male boss, for instance.

Perhaps there's a range of diseases that tend to strike around 70 and if you miss out on them you're more or less safe. I'd guess it might be down to cardiac troubles - if you're going to get them that's when you're likely to really start feeling them.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Yeah, it could very well be that: A danger zone, like the first 5 years.

Though, here is a tidbit of data: Why accountants live longer than builders - Telegraph

The difference in life expectancy between a male professional and a male unskilled manual worker (arguably, the widest) is 7.3 years. Between a male and female professional: 5.1 and between a male and female manual worker: 5.4.

Otherly said, class is actually more important than gender...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Okay, I was going based on French stats, which I don't have to hand and can't be bothered to track down.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Those godless socialist euro countries... No wonder everything's fucked if the poor don't die like they should...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Those godless socialist euro countries... No wonder everything's fucked if the poor don't die like they should...

US Congress is working hard on it. By choosing to not continue unemployment benefits as the nation enters what may be an especially harsh winter, many of them should freeze to death - and it may be a better way to go than dying of starvation.