# Will fat people bring down the NHS?



## AC986 (Feb 14, 2015)

This apparently is being discussed.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Daryl (Feb 14, 2015)

As long as the food "they" eat has VAT attached, it doesn't matter. It's a bit like all those silly arguments for not treating smokers with lung cancer. Smokers put far more tax into the revenue than they could ever take out due to illness. So, if the government is worried about fat people, just make sure that everything has VAT, no exceptions, and then the problem is solved. Eat an excess? Pay more tax to pay for future treatment.

D


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 14, 2015)

I heard the House Of Lords wants to start redistributing Isogenix to the Fat Bastards in the UK. It's an Australian concept that shreds toxins and drags out Fat Cells by 25-30 lbs. a month without exercising.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 14, 2015)

chimuelo @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> I heard the House Of Lords wants to start redistributing Isogenix to the Fat Bastards in the UK. It's an Australian concept that shreds toxins and drags out Fat Cells by 25-30 lbs. a month without exercising.


It wouldn't matter even if that was true. The House of Lords has no power to do anything. :wink: 

D


----------



## TGV (Feb 14, 2015)

Daryl @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> As long as the food "they" eat has VAT attached, it doesn't matter.


It's not really guaranteed that VAT covers the bills, is it? My health insurance is around €100/month. Suppose you get 10% VAT on fat foods. Then one person needs to eat €1000 of fat food per month to cover that. Sounds impossible. And of course, if you tax fat food, you're also going to tax other foods, so it won't even be an incentive.


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 14, 2015)

I wish I could afford a fat bustard


----------



## AC986 (Feb 14, 2015)

The House of Lords should be abolished along with royalty. So lets clear that up straightaway.

Carry on.


----------



## TimJohnson (Feb 14, 2015)

The news report that I saw this morning said that it is being proposed that only obese people who refuse help will have their benefits cut.

I'm not sure the same thing applies to alcohol or drug addiction (as they are also proposing) as often these people are not in the right state of mind to realise they need help.


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 14, 2015)

Every alleged UK citizen that doesn't have a Swiss bank account should be ashamed of themselves for not earning enough.
And if they're not happy about that we should hire Pinkerton's rifles


----------



## Daryl (Feb 14, 2015)

TGV @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Feb 14 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the food "they" eat has VAT attached, it doesn't matter.
> ...


Two things:

VAT is 20%
The NHS is already paid for out of our taxes, so we don't need health insurance. The VAT would be extra money.

D


----------



## Daryl (Feb 14, 2015)

rayinstirling @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> Every alleged UK citizen that doesn't have a Swiss bank account should be ashamed of themselves for not earning enough.
> And if they're not happy about that we should hire Pinkerton's rifles


Yeah, I was straight on the phone to my accountant to ask why I didn't have a Swiss Bank Account. Apparently I'm not earning enough, and neither are any of my companies that I have set up specifically to avoid paying tax. :wink: 

D


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 14, 2015)

They should never get rid of the traditions and the Royal Family.
England is a great example of maintaining tradition while becoming Communist.

We had a good run for centuries then our Kings and Queens got smart and pretended to be Communists, while leading their flocks of gravellers to utopian enslavement, while maintaining their billions during the redistribution era.

Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 14, 2015)

For God sake, you don't have any Kings or Queens or Lords or Knights (unless you play chess). WTF are you on about now?

This is a conversation about fat people. Can't you understand that?





:mrgreen:


----------



## José Herring (Feb 14, 2015)

And you wonder why we fight nationalized health in the US. Here you can be as fat as you want and get all the healthcare you can afford. Just don't be poor.


----------



## TGV (Feb 14, 2015)

Daryl @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> Two things:
> 
> VAT is 20%


Many foods aren't: bread, oil, eggs, butter, etc., are 0%. (says Wikipedia).


> The NHS is already paid for out of our taxes, so we don't need health insurance. The VAT would be extra money.


A large part of the health services is paid here too from taxes. My point was that the small amount of money you can possibly get from VAT is irrelevant to an institution as large as the NHS. If the problem is small, the VAT is not necessary, if the problem is big, it won't be enough.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 14, 2015)

I think the issue some people have with obesity brought on through carelessness, is more to do with taking up space and services when there are genuinely ill people that need treatment that are being held up. The issue of financing is important but maybe not right at the top of their agenda.

Remember, 2 months away from a General Election and all this stuff comes out all at once. Trying to call this election is almost impossible because there are a ton of issues out there this time.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 14, 2015)

TGV @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Feb 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Two things:
> ...


Yes, you're right, there are things which are 0 rated for VAT, so as I suggested, if that was changed, there would be more money coming into the government coffers, but my point still stands. The extra money from VAT would cover any shortfall from providing extra health care caused by obesity.

More importantly, once we start restricting healthcare to certain ailments, and attaching blame, we, as a society, are on a slippery slope.

FWIW one of the huge problems with funding in the NHS is primarily caused by the greed of the drug companies. That's easy to fix as well. Set the price that they are allowed to tout their wares for, and if they don't agree, don't give them a licence to sell them in the UK. It's no accident that the two industries that have (by a huge amount) the biggest profit margin are banking and pharmaceuticals.

D


----------



## tokatila (Feb 14, 2015)

I read just the title. But I found it funny that the expression "fat people" and "bring down" are used together. 

Surely fat people bring everything down more easier; literally and I'm sure the choice of words was completely intentional here.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 14, 2015)

adriancook @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> I think the issue some people have with obesity brought on through carelessness, is more to do with taking up space and services when there are genuinely ill people that need treatment that are being held up.


True, but that argument also applies to pretty much all A & E admissions.

D


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 14, 2015)

Same old story about free stuff though. 

The givers make claims they care so much about the little people, then once they get the programs up and running start looking for blame on the costs, and all of those fat people, drug addicts, old unproductive people that should just die sooner...

I doubt the NHS or ACA will ever be brought down, they will just bring others down, so the programs can exist and the Givers will be needed for years to come.

Same as the War on Drugs, War on Education, and endless claims from leaders cherry picking stats so they can justify giving more stuff away.
It just gets shittier and needs even more wealthy folks running things to help out the poor commoners on the road to utopia just around the corner, that never really is in reach.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 14, 2015)

All Ed Milliband had when this electioneering started was the NHS. Now he's got the NHS, Lord Fink, HSBC and threatening fat people.

That's truly brilliant from Cameron and all in the space of a week. :lol: 

The Tory party could easily lose this election.


----------



## Mystic (Feb 14, 2015)

Want less fat people in your country? Start making more regulations to stop markets from selling them low quality crap that makes them fat. Especially here in America, some of the only affordable food for lower income houses is stuff loaded with preservatives and other ingredients that make them blow up like balloons. Forget produce because it costs too much. Forget organic meats because they cost too much.

We also have lost touch with actual cooking in this country. Everyone is either too busy or grew up with hamburger helper or microwave dinners. We've simply forgotten how to cook good healthy food and people don't want to spend the time doing it when they could be spending their time watching The Walking Dead instead.

Then you need to also consider the physio and biological side of things. Some people have a much harder time controlling weight than others. I have a friend whose whole family looks the same: round. He has a terrible time trying to control weight because his issue is biological. Should be also be punished for something he has very little control over? How about people with genetic disorders? Can we also punish people who have very good metabolism but eat worse than the 350 pound person but remain skinny because they have good genes yet end up having heart attacks cause all they eat is fried foods and 2 minute noodles? Fat people in disguise.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 14, 2015)

Jose wrote:



> Here you can be as fat as you want and get all the healthcare you can afford. Just don't be poor.



What Mystic says. I was about to post the same thing, but he did a better job.

Having said that, weight is a constant battle for almost everyone I know. It certainly is for me, and I eat healthy food.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 14, 2015)

Me too. Being too fat put me in the hospital. Lost 25 pounds since then and physically haven't felt better.

But if a government is going to provide healthcare then they have to do it without bias. Can't decide that fat people aren't worth treating. If they do then where would it stop?


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 14, 2015)

For a while there I was considering a career as an artist- and every artist needs a strong band name, so I went with OFM*




*Old Fat Man


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 15, 2015)

Daryl @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> TGV @ Sat Feb 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Sat Feb 14 said:
> ...


Income tax is relatively fair. Excepting the FACT that those with the biggest income can spend some on tax avoidance schemes, however, all other taxes hammer the poor relative to their income. How to change this? Impossible.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 15, 2015)

rayinstirling @ Sun Feb 15 said:


> Income tax is relatively fair. Excepting the FACT that those with the biggest income can spend some on tax avoidance schemes, however, all other taxes hammer the poor relative to their income. How to change this? Impossible.


I don't think that Income tax is fair, partly because it contains the element of National Insurance. That's the first thing that should be abolished. When running a tiny business such as mine, it is easy to avoid paying it, which is not fair on other people. Particularly as it no longer directly funds anything other than the Treasury.

So, abolish NI, and roll it all into 1 Income Tax payment.

Get rid of Council Tax and make it a local Income tax. There is no reason someone with a falsely inflated house value, who may have lived there for years, should have to pay for services that they don't use and possible can't afford.

Pay every adult the equivalent of the personal allowance as a non taxable payment. Now we don't need benefits, except for extra for people with children or disabilities, where they can't work. It also means that people who don't want to work don't have to. It also means we don't need a huge benefit fraud department, so saves the country money.

Tax people on all their income, now that NI and Personal Allowance has gone. Easy calculation and it means that if you choose to work, you get more money, None of this "it's not worth working" nonsense.

Make sure that child benefit is means adjusted. Stop giving it to well off people.

Scale Corporation Tax to match whatever scale there is of Income Tax. Make huge disproportionate profits, get a large Tax Bill. Simples.

Obviously there are a lot of other things that need to be done, but simplifying things should save money in running government, which in the end is good for the tax payer. Not for the people who lose their government jobs, but if we're going to run job creation schemes, they should be temporary, not ones with early retirement and a (partially) state funded pension.

D


----------



## AC986 (Feb 15, 2015)

Mystic @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> We also have lost touch with actual cooking in this country.



:lol: :lol: :lol: 

I just find that funny as hell. Somewhere on your continent, there are American ladies that are just dying to cook meals for me.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 15, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> Jose wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just can't seem to lose any weight at the moment. I'm not regarded as obese because I'm 6' 2 1/2" tall and 16 stone 2lbs. (226 pounds). That's way too much for me but the trouble is as you get older and less active, your metabolism slows down a lot and it's more difficult to lose weight. I should be around 13.5 stone. That's going to be a big battle.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 15, 2015)

Daryl @ Sun Feb 15 said:


> So, abolish NI, and roll it all into 1 Income Tax payment.
> 
> Get rid of Council Tax and make it a local Income tax. There is no reason someone with a falsely inflated house value, who may have lived there for years, should have to pay for services that they don't use and possible can't afford.
> 
> ...



National Insurance is a bit of a con because of the way it always gets sold. Politicians make out that it goes into a box with your name on it. It doesn't: it's just the same as say, road tax. It all gets lumped in together and blown.

Definitely +1 on Council Tax. CT is going to kill this country if allowed to go on. It needs to be either added to income tax or as you suggest Daryl, a form of local tax.

+1 on child benefits. Utterly ridiculous nonsense of a benefit. Also as an aside, they should also put into place the same as they have in the USA regarding taking and picking up bloody children from school (I can't stand children btw) and have the big yellow school buses here. Take the children to a collection point if necessary and get their parents to collect them there: say a car park or somewhere like that well out of the way, where they don't interfere with normal traffic. 

Corporation Tax. The trouble with Corporation Tax in the EU is that it gets used as a tool to attract people like Ebay or Starbucks.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 15, 2015)

Hey guys I said this before and will mention this again.
Isogenix is the way to replace the nutrients that we no longer have in our food.
I live in a farming community and have had 10 months of eating properly grown food w/o Federal/Monsanto GMO crops.
I know anti Fed, but let's get real. We lease large swaths of land here to the Feds, or their buddies at RJ Reynolds. They grow crops years round, winter wheat (gluten +) and tobacco, corn and soy mostly.
Private farms rotate their fields and harvest and successfully have re entered Microbes vital to the creation of nutrients back into the soil.

Between the food here locally and Isogenix I dropped 30 pounds in 5 weeks and then stopped as I don't believe in the BMI calculations that say I am "overweight" they fail to include age and upper muscle mass from 30 years of vigorous Concrete and Keyboards.

I researched the cold pressed nutrients and found Isogenix. I also ALWAYS admire the State Of California for their heavy hand on regulations when it comes to quality Olive Oil.
If they would remove the Federal/Monsanto year round crop cycles I would be impressed, but they have world hunger and money on their minds.

Any ways read up on Isogenix, watch a video and no shit, a pound a day is what I lost.
I am still 30 heavy according to BMI but I say they're full of shit, 15-20 more tops and now that I recovered from my triple Hernia I will start BMX'ing through Creeks and Corn Fields again and kicking my Bag.

At my age this was the smart thing to do and it was easy.

I'd say test your BMI and just get into the overweight area as I said the Mayo Clinic calculator is the closet one, but they don't use Muscle Mass as a test.
Try Isogenix for a month and tell me you didn't drop 30 lbs.

The cold pressed nutrients they provide in their liquid supplements is what takes away our desire to eat.

Remember we over eat because our bodies tell us they aren't getting the right nutrients, so we keep eating.
This is the whole problem, get the right nutrients (Cold Pressed) and you eat less, after 3 weeks a large portion surprisingly cannot be finished.

This is the best advice I ever gave here, especially since live performers are damn near extinct.
So listen to me on this one, at least read about it.
Don't believe me, just replace your cooking Oil with California Cold Pressed Olive Oil and save your Heart/Blood Pressure/Kidneys.

Cheerz you fat bastards.........


----------



## wesbender (Feb 16, 2015)

Mystic @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> Want less fat people in your country? Start making more regulations to stop markets from selling them low quality crap that makes them fat. Especially here in America, some of the only affordable food for lower income houses is stuff loaded with preservatives and other ingredients that make them blow up like balloons. Forget produce because it costs too much. Forget organic meats because they cost too much.



Low-quality food laced with preservatives has very little to do with people getting fat. Weight gain comes from choosing to consume more than you expend. Key word being "choose". 

I agree that it's rather unfortunate that lower-income people often can't afford food of decent quality these days, but if a person is familiar with what a calorie is and how it works in your body, managing weight with crap food is just a simple as it is with quality food.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 16, 2015)

Ugh. Low income people who choose to be fat. I can't count the number of times I've tried to help my less fortunate friends. I keep finding myself telling them that the key to a low calorie salad they'll love is to just head over to Whole Foods where they'll want to pick up some bell peppers from Holland, Chanterelle mushrooms, baby arugula, and some locally sourced frisée. But I find their eyes just kinda gloss over - they totally don't get it.

You can lead a horse to balsamic vinegar, but...


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 16, 2015)

wesbender @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> Mystic @ Sat Feb 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Want less fat people in your country? Start making more regulations to stop markets from selling them low quality crap that makes them fat. Especially here in America, some of the only affordable food for lower income houses is stuff loaded with preservatives and other ingredients that make them blow up like balloons. Forget produce because it costs too much. Forget organic meats because they cost too much.
> ...



I admire your deep and abiding empathy re the human condition.
By the way, who IS John Galt?


----------



## Mystic (Feb 16, 2015)

wesbender @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> Low-quality food laced with preservatives has very little to do with people getting fat. Weight gain comes from choosing to consume more than you expend. Key word being "choose".
> 
> I agree that it's rather unfortunate that lower-income people often can't afford food of decent quality these days, but if a person is familiar with what a calorie is and how it works in your body, managing weight with crap food is just a simple as it is with quality food.


There is enough research done that states otherwise. Here's a good read if you have the time: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 014-0094-y

There are some people who do choose not do eat right. There is no debating that one bit. Hell, you can't walk out of the grocery store without seeing carts full of cereal and Coke. On the other side though, it costs us nearly double what we use to spend in the store for produce now that we eat healthier. We can easily spend $200+ in a single trip that will last us about 4 days.


----------



## Mystic (Feb 16, 2015)

chimuelo @ Sun Feb 15 said:


> Hey guys I said this before and will mention this again.
> Isogenix is the way to replace the nutrients that we no longer have in our food.
> I live in a farming community and have had 10 months of eating properly grown food w/o Federal/Monsanto GMO crops.
> I know anti Fed, but let's get real. We lease large swaths of land here to the Feds, or their buddies at RJ Reynolds. They grow crops years round, winter wheat (gluten +) and tobacco, corn and soy mostly.
> ...


I'm hoping these come to the US: http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-p ... undai.html

We can plant during summer months but right now we have a foot of snow on the ground which makes getting fresh produce impossible apart from driving an hour to get to Wegmans. Even then, we lost a good amount of herbs last year to beetles which made me very displeased.

Be careful with losing too much too fast. That can also cause problems if you're not careful.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 16, 2015)

choc0thrax @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> Ugh. Low income people who choose to be fat. I can't count the number of times I've tried to help my less fortunate friends. I keep finding myself telling them that the key to a low calorie salad they'll love is to just head over to Whole Foods where they'll want to pick up some bell peppers from Holland, Chanterelle mushrooms, baby arugula, and some locally sourced frisée. But I find their eyes just kinda gloss over - they totally don't get it.
> 
> You can lead a horse to balsamic vinegar, but...



Just noticed-damn...you really ARE bitter about this TO thing.....


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 16, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> choc0thrax @ Mon Feb 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh. Low income people who choose to be fat. I can't count the number of times I've tried to help my less fortunate friends. I keep finding myself telling them that the key to a low calorie salad they'll love is to just head over to Whole Foods where they'll want to pick up some bell peppers from Holland, Chanterelle mushrooms, baby arugula, and some locally sourced frisée. But I find their eyes just kinda gloss over - they totally don't get it.
> ...



TO as in Toronto? I dunno, maybe 7 or 8% more bitter by my calculations. The one upside of being here is that it is - apart from the recent -40C weather - generally milder than where I'm from in Montreal. I believe the extra warmth is residual heat from the backyard barbecuing of Toronto Maple Leafs jerseys. Hockey joke! But damn it's been cold. I really took notice when I went to kick a pigeon out of my way but instead of flying off it kinda just shattered like Wesley Snipes in Demolition Man.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 16, 2015)

choc0thrax @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax @ Mon Feb 16 said:
> ...



Yah, the big TO, like the ATL and the NYC and suchlike. I like to use the language of the street, yo. Anyway, I just noticed the plaintive "i guess." Heh.

The chill is everywhere. I thought I was pretty chill before but I swear I'm 'bout deep frozen- like that old package of Mrs. Paul's Fish Sticks that was in your parents' freezer for a decade. We usually have comparatively mild winters, but this is ridiculous. I'm moving to Winnipeg.


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Feb 17, 2015)

josejherring @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> And you wonder why we fight nationalized health in the US. Here you can be as fat as you want and get all the healthcare you can afford. Just don't be poor.



Well until you hit 65... then it's Medicare's (tax payers) problem. The US spends more tax dollars on healthcare than any other country in the world, per capita. 80% of all healthcare costs in the US are spent in the final *year* of a person's life, and 40% of that in the last 3 months and a third in the final month. 

Almost half a trillion dollars a year, spent on keeping people alive on machines for an extra 4 weeks. Yep, the market system works really well for health - don't let the commies take it away from us...


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

Wooloomooloo @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> josejherring @ Sat Feb 14 said:
> 
> 
> > And you wonder why we fight nationalized health in the US. Here you can be as fat as you want and get all the healthcare you can afford. Just don't be poor.
> ...



Medicare begins at 65.


----------



## Mystic (Feb 17, 2015)

American healthcare focuses more on how many overpriced medications they can push rather than being healthy and a lot of those medications cause more problems than they solve whether by accident or design.

I've opted for more of an Eastern philosophy on healthcare in recent years and am trying to put it into practice now.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

Mystic @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> American healthcare focuses more on how many overpriced medications they can push rather than being healthy and a lot of those medications cause more problems than they solve whether by accident or design.



There are a lot of bad things one could say about big Pharma, but I think your point is arguable given the steady increase in longevity.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 17, 2015)

> Low-quality food laced with preservatives has very little to do with people getting fat. Weight gain comes from choosing to consume more than you expend. Key word being "choose".
> 
> I agree that it's rather unfortunate that lower-income people often can't afford food of decent quality these days, but if a person is familiar with what a calorie is and how it works in your body, managing weight with crap food is just a simple as it is with quality food.



Webender, I assume you're Republican, right?

Just guessing.


----------



## Mystic (Feb 17, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> There are a lot of bad things one could say about big Pharma, but I think your point is arguable given the steady increase in longevity.


There is that though I find it interesting that the FDA consistently blocks a lot of treatments proven to work better and with less side effects in other countries.

I do understand a bit of the cost factor after talking with a Pharmaceutical Scientist. New antibiotics can take billions of dollars to find and make so the companies behind them have to be able to make their money back before it goes generic. However, I'm completely against the ability to patent strains in order to keep other scientists and companies from working on cures for them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 17, 2015)

The FDA consistently blocks a lot of treatments proven to work better etc.?

I doubt that.

But there are much better ways to fund drug development than our present patent system, which is one of the main reasons our healthcare costs are higher than in other places. One of them is already in place: government funding. Or the government could buy the patents. There are several ways to go about it.

Larry, two separate issues: advances in medicine, and how they're paid for.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 17, 2015)

And advertising prescription drugs - "ask your doctor about xxx" - is a total perversion. John Oliver had a good segment on just that in his show last weekend.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> The FDA consistently blocks a lot of treatments proven to work better etc.?
> 
> I doubt that.
> 
> ...



I agree, but the answers are not simple at all. This is an instance where profit motive has decidedly increased longevity. Government financed research to do the same thing (if that was doable) would be incredibly costly as well. All in all, it's just not as straightforward as one would like it to be.

I'm invested in a company that came up with a cure for Hep C. Not a symptomatic easing, but a CURE-in 12 weeks, with a one pill a day regimen and very few side effects. Said company was vilified for the amount they were charging. Some competition sprang up. The amount is now approximately half- still a lot, but MUCH less than a liver transplant, if a liver was even available. So, to re-cap-the company makes huge profits, millions of lives are saved, market efficiency brings down the cost. There's more to the story of course, but there's a fair amount of win/win.

Now you know I deplore the fact that we don't have single payer which would bring costs down much further, but I can't really see it happening anytime soon.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 17, 2015)

The two most profitable industries are banking and pharmaceuticals and by a huge margin. So, if governments refuse to give a licence for a drug until the price is acceptable, then the drug companies could still make a big profit, and the cost of the drugs could be half of what they are now.

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> The two most profitable industries are banking and pharmaceuticals and by a huge margin. So, if governments refuse to give a licence for a drug until the price is acceptable, then the drug companies could still make a big profit, and the cost of the drugs could be half of what they are now.
> 
> D



... and capex would go down.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 17, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > The two most profitable industries are banking and pharmaceuticals and by a huge margin. So, if governments refuse to give a licence for a drug until the price is acceptable, then the drug companies could still make a big profit, and the cost of the drugs could be half of what they are now.
> ...


What's capex?


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

Capital expenditures. In this instance, research money. Big Pharma makes a lot of money but also invests and loses a lot of money in various phases. It's sort of like the old model of record companies- the companies invested in a lot of bands were never profitable, but the one that sold 7 million copies carried them.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 17, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> Capital expenditures. In this instance, research money. Big Pharma makes a lot of money but also invests and loses a lot of money in various phases. It's sort of like the old model of record companies- the companies invested in a lot of bands were never profitable, but the one that sold 7 million copies carried them.


Yes, but the record companies never made this much profit. So they cut capex. Less drugs, sold cheaper means even less profit, so they are better off not cutting capex.

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

If FCF (free cash flow) goes down, if market cap is smaller because fewer shareholders see investments as being as profitable as they did previously, capex is almost always reduced. You're a business owner, right? (though I assume you're private instead of public). Unless you're a radical dice roller, you're probably not spending more in leaner times. Certainly, large businesses don't here in the States. When things shrink, they fire people and lower all expenses.

Ok, so I've been overeducating myself in the investment game in the past ten years. I wanted to try to understand it BEFORE I became a centenarian


----------



## wesbender (Feb 17, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> I admire your deep and abiding empathy re the human condition.
> By the way, who IS John Galt?



I'm not following. 

You could try again, I suppose. This time with a more direct response, lacking in sarcasm. (I'm generally a fierce proponent of ever-so-mildly-disrespectful sarcasm, but I'm truly stumped on this one).




Mystic @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> There is enough research done that states otherwise. Here's a good read if you have the time: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 014-0094-y



Enough research done? I don't think so. Certainly nothing conclusive. Obesogens are a fairly new point of research in the nutrition world, with mostly inconclusive results in terms of causation of weight gain in humans. (It's rather difficult to perform studies on whether something definitively contributes to weight gain in a person, as the subjects are rarely, if ever, in a completely controlled environment. Yes, there are mice, but...)

But let's say that, yes, hypothetically, the rise of obesogens definitively make it more difficult for us to manage our weight. Certainly not a pleasant scenario, but hardly a "This is why people are fat" scenario either.

There's plenty of research showing the bad things that we consume on a regular basis, things that are detrimental to our health. But the research becomes rather inconclusive when trying to attach these things to fat gain over a period of time.



> There are some people who do choose not do eat right. There is no debating that one bit. Hell, you can't walk out of the grocery store without seeing carts full of cereal and Coke. On the other side though, it costs us nearly double what we use to spend in the store for produce now that we eat healthier. We can easily spend $200+ in a single trip that will last us about 4 days.



My entire point is that, yes, there are certainly people who are at a disadvantage in their struggle with weight management, whether nature-induced or as a result of any number of chemical/hormonal imbalances. But the concept of weight loss for them is just the same as it is for everyone else, it's basic thermodynamics. You consume more than you expend, you get bigger. You find your basal metabolic rate, mostly through trial and error, you tailor your diet (energy consumption) and exercise (energy expenditure) to fit your goals. Body composition (muscle vs fat) largely depends on macronutrient balance, which also has a notable impact on your metabolism.

Never easy, of course, but nor is it terribly complicated for the overwhelming majority of people on this planet (there are more severe exceptions, of course, but they aren't at all common).



Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> Webender, I assume you're Republican, right?
> 
> Just guessing.



Well, my entire stance on this topic is based on fundamental science... so no, not Republican. 

I'm just one of those odd folks who isn't thrilled with the unfortunate amount of misinformation and over-complication of nutrition and fitness in our society.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

@Wes- fair enough. I found your response to the somewhat interlinked problems of poverty and poor nutrition to be kind of patrician.

John Galt is a character from a breathless and deathless Ayn Rand novel. Cheers.


----------



## wesbender (Feb 17, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> @Wes- fair enough. I found your response to the somewhat interlinked problems of poverty and poor nutrition to be kind of patrician.
> 
> John Galt is a character from a breathless and deathless Ayn Rand novel. Cheers.



Ah, I see. I was somewhat familiar with the character reference (though have managed to avoid the book thus far in my life). My befuddlement was more toward the 'lack of empathy' comment, though I can see how my original post could have been construed that way (not at all my intent).

No worries, in any case.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 17, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> You're a business owner, right? (though I assume you're private instead of public). Unless you're a radical dice roller, you're probably not spending more in leaner times.


I'm spending exactly the same. Any good businessman would know that if you reduce the quality of the product, you lose your market. The only exception would be if the capital expenditure was too large a proportion of turnover, in which case you risk making a loss. Which in the case of the exorbitant profits of the pharmaceutical industry, it isn't. So it's pretty much down to greed, and I don't have an answer for that.

D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 17, 2015)

> Government financed research to do the same thing (if that was doable) would be incredibly costly as well. All in all, it's just not as straightforward as one would like it to be.



We already have tons of government-financed research through the NIH.

And actually it's completely straightforward.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2 ... india.html


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 17, 2015)

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicati ... 004_09.pdf


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 17, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> choc0thrax @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> ...



Ah ok thought so. I've been to Winnipeg and the trick to staying warm is to ask your mugger to run a flame under the blade for 30 seconds before inserting it into your abdomen. Another thing to try is joining the subset of the population that regularly consumes antifreeze. _#Lifehacks_


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > You're a business owner, right? (though I assume you're private instead of public). Unless you're a radical dice roller, you're probably not spending more in leaner times.
> ...



Reducing capex and degrading product quality do not necessarily go hand in hand. The assumption is flawed.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

@Nick- is there a set of bang for the buck statistics in your links?... because that was my point. Tell me there is and I'll go read them. I find it hard to imagine government absorbing and paying for the research of every publicly traded large cap (and small cap for that matter) pharmaceutical company.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 17, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> ...


If that is true, then there is no problem. The same drugs are produced at a lower price so everyone is happy.

D


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 17, 2015)

The problem with private drug research is this:

Researcher #1: "I have an idea that could cure a rare disease with a single dose."

Executive: "Next."

Researcher #2: "I have an idea that would require most everybody to take three doses a day for life."

Executive: "How much funding do you need?"


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 17, 2015)

Larry, click on the second one, the report. Scroll down to the advantages/disadvantages of the different proposals. Well, scroll down after reading the abstract and the proposals themselves.



> I find it hard to imagine government absorbing and paying for the research of every publicly traded large cap (and small cap for that matter) pharmaceutical company.



Why? Right now we're paying for the research as well as the huge profits - and the cost of marketing, the bribing of the doctors, etc.

Not every country works the same way we do.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 17, 2015)

Back to the original subject: obesity drives our healthcare costs in the US, but what about smoking? That actually is a choice people make, and it leads to lots of preventable disease that we nonsmokers are stuck paying for.

(I HATE using the word "choice" when it comes to public policy, because it's a word that invariably indicates you're a flaming conservative sick doodie. But in this case it really does apply.)


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> Larry, click on the second one, the report. Scroll down to the advantages/disadvantages of the different proposals. Well, scroll down after reading the abstract and the proposals themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry-put "our" before "government". I thought that was assumed.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> ...



Not quite. Reduced capex=less research money=more targeted spending-i.e.money flows largely to the surer bets and much less to the riskier ones, and fewer breakthrough lucky strikes are achieved.

Btw-I'm talking about the situation as I see it presently, not the far better world I'd like to live in.

That said, have the final word, Daryl. I think we both know you need to win this thing, and I'm fine with that.


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Feb 18, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> Wooloomooloo @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Sat Feb 14 said:
> ...



Well that changes everything, obviously. o=<

If you have been on disability benefit for 24 months at aged 59, and have certain diagnosis, you can enroll in medicare at 59. But for the general population, it's 65 - my mistake. It doesn't change anything else about what I said.


----------



## pixel (Feb 18, 2015)

So... why I can eat "crap food" (god i am so lazy...) and i am still skinny? 
I'm active, right, but I have never ever had any problems with overweight. 
I am living example that "crap food" is not one and only factor that people gettin fat.

What was the difference between me and OP "fat people"?
A: I was grew up eating good, healthy (more or less but natural) quality food. 
Now we can see parents feeding their 4,5 or more years old kids with fast foods. 
Here, where I live 3/4 kids below 10 years old are already fat, seriously FAT. Their inner structure is already f*d also eating habits to. It's not their fault that their parents are completely IDIOTS.

Few weeks ago I heard from one guy that he is happy when his kids eat mcdonalds because they are so skinny... 

Next thing: we have growing trends and fashion that fat people are beautiful and normal weight people are too skinny. 
Ruben's ghost is hunting us


----------



## Daryl (Feb 18, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> That said, have the final word, Daryl. I think we both know you need to win this thing, and I'm fine with that.


Oooo. That's an old trick, designed to stop debate, for fear of doing what has been predicted, and I'm not falling for it. :evil: 

Um, what were we talking about?

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 18, 2015)

Wooloomooloo @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Wooloomooloo @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> ...



True, but assuming you're not on disability, it's probably something you might want to know at 59 BEFORE you drop your insurance and expect the guvmint to look after you


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 18, 2015)

> So... why I can eat "crap food" (god i am so lazy...) and i am still skinny?



It's the luck of the draw!

Why are you your height when most other people aren't?


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 18, 2015)

pixel @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> Few weeks ago I heard from one guy that he is happy when his kids eat mcdonalds because they are so skinny...



This happened to us too. My kid at 2-3 years old was too close to being underweight, which is not good for developing brains. McDonalds french fries? Better than underweight. There was no getting him to eat vegetables. At all. Now he's 6'2", in the military and in unbelievable shape. Strong like moose. Eats everything.

I just KNOW you don't have kids!!


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Feb 18, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> Wooloomooloo @ Wed Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> ...



Hopefully people making such big decisions won't be relying on iNTerWeBz forumz for their information. There are more reliable sources, like Fox and CNN, and Talk radio... oh wait... >8o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 18, 2015)

"Scientists announce anti-HIV agent so powerful it can work in a vaccine"


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 073059.htm

This was funded by the NHS. Just an example.


----------



## pixel (Feb 18, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> I just KNOW you don't have kids!!



You got me! :D


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

Well, this is topical:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31507861

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 20, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> "Scientists announce anti-HIV agent so powerful it can work in a vaccine"
> 
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 073059.htm
> ...



"The bulk of the institute's funding is derived from the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies. In today's environment of increasing competition for shrinking federal dollars, however, collaborative industrial partnerships with leading pharmaceutical companies provide additional funding in several areas key to the organization's research objectives."

As, if you read farther, do large scholastic research facilities.

In any case, my statement was that government shouldn't and couldn't do it all efficiently. I have high hopes for initiatives like the Gates Foundation, NGOs that can pour a tremendous amount of money into solving targeted problems. They've done a good job with malaria although there's still a long way to go.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 20, 2015)

Okay, so that was a bad example.

The federal dollars shouldn't be shrinking and we need to change our patent system. "Partnerships" usually mean people want to make money on things that shouldn't make money.


----------

