Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Nanny Bans Fat People

Nanny Bans Fat PeopleNanny, as we all know, has had a long hatred for all of those people who are different to her. One of the recurring themes of her daily harangues is that of food, specifically what we eat and how much we eat.

Needless to say, those of us who do not conform to her "analy retentive" beliefs on this subject are castigated as being second class citizens.

Specifically, those people who Nanny would describe as being "overweight" are subjected to daily lectures about getting more exercise and losing weight.

Up until now, the lectures and the implied ostracism were the "only" things that the "overweight" had to put up with. However, Nanny has now added a new weapon to her armoury in her war against the "obese". She has now decided that those people that she classifies as "overweight" will be denied certain operations on the National Health Service (NHS).

At least that's what her acolytes in Ipswich Primary care Trust have decreed. These charming people, unelected and unaccountable, have decided that the overweight will be denied hip and knee replacements; until the appropriate amount of weight has been lost.

Their rationale?

They need to save money, and fat people take longer to heal after such an operation; therefore they propose not operating on fat people.

Easy isn't it? Especially if your not "fat"!

However, I can see a few "flies in Nanny's ointment" over this:

  • Who precisely decides as to what constitutes fat? Are these arbiters of fatness going to reveal themselves in public, so that they can debate the issue? I bet they don't.


  • The NHS currently works on the principle that people pay, via the national insurance contribution, for a guaranteed health system that will treat (within the available resources) all manner of diseases and all people. There has been no list of exceptions issued, or communicated, to the people paying into the system.


  • I suspect that the faceless bureaucrats introducing the "fat bar" had more than a little smile of smug self satisfaction, as they issued their decree. You see Nanny has so conditioned us to despise fatness, that "fat" people are rapidly becoming second class citizens. Once someone is deemed to be less worthy/human than you, it is so easy to treat them a little differently, isn't it? Need I draw reference to Nazi Germany?


  • Today we ban fat people from having operations; tomorrow it will be smokers, drinkers and the elderly (they are going to die anyway, so why waste money on them?) who end up on Nanny's "not approved" list. In fact, let us go the whole hog in respect of saving money, and only treat people on the NHS who are healthy. In other words, if you are ill or injured the NHS won't treat you; isn't that the most logical way to save money?
In truth, the British people have been lied to over the last 40 years or so by politicians of all parties as to the abilities of the NHS. As people live longer, and medical techniques advance, the system will simply not be able to afford to treat every single ailment; unless there is a radical overhaul, and debate about what it should be able to do.

Most politicians are cowards, they have stifled the truth and the debate for fear of losing office. The British people need to debate openly about what the NHS is actually there to do, and how it can be funded.

My view, for what it is worth, is that a basic system should be implemented that guarantees a.o. single rooms for all, and treatments for regular and common illnesses eg hip replacements, apendix removals etc. Where the disease or illness is beyond the "norm", eg heart replacement, there should be a private funding top up made by an individual's private health scheme. Where an individual does not have one of these policies, he/she would be offered pain relief and the necessary basic care to ensure that his/her final days were as dignified as possible (including the option for suicide).

Doubtless many will disagree with the above proposal; but that's the point, the issues are not easy. However, if Nanny does not even allow us a debate about them; by the time we reach 65, there will be no health service left at all and it will be suicide pills for all.

5 comments:

  1. Best argument I've read for the abolition of national health care.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Isn't is odd that Nanny discriminates against us when it suits her, yet we are all sent to hell and back should we ourselves discriminate against others!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. grant5:24 PM

    Some intersting ideas there Ken, not too dissimilar to my own thoughts recently.

    In the meantime I think Nanny should prove she is not doscriminating by banning thin people as well. Often they don't have enough mass to survive operations without extra attention and probably suffer from eating disorders - self inflicted of course - so they should be excluded. (Can I use the word EXcluded?)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:16 AM

    Interesting Tidbit
    Anyone with a BMI of 30 or over is considered "Obese" according to Ipswich PCT.
    This would apply to half of Englands pack, in Rugby.

    Anyone want to tell Andrew Sheridan or Steve Thompson that they are too "Fat" to receive treatment.

    f*** me, these boys are solid muscle, the proverbial Barn Doors.

    They are hardly Obese Couch potatoes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. grant4:38 PM

    Ah, the BMI.

    When the USA reduced the BMI number at which people were considered to be obese a few years ago half the nations athletes suddenly qualified.

    No better way to create an obesity epidemic though ...

    ReplyDelete