Of course, is using Google really that hard? rlhttp://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/10/17/48030/obesity-set-to-cost-nhs-up-to-6.3bn-a-year-by-2015.htmlrl

The 2015 date has since been brought forward due to the ever-increasing numbers of overweight citizens. You can have paid your tax for 45 years or more but you still haven't offset the cost to the NHS for your self-inflicted poor health, this is when it crosses over into being everyone else's problem as well. A fat tax would certainly help, much as smokers pay extra for the privilege of freedom, a similar tax on alcohol wouldn't go amiss either as its also costing the NHS a great deal in this day and age.

Sorry to burst your bubble but being overweight is certainly a serious problem that is costing everyone dearly, why should others have to fund your fat addiction?

There's most certainly an element of cookery programmes selling cookery books. But equally, there's obviously a market - or publishers wouldn't bother.

Obviously, I have no idea how many are used frequently, but I think even if they are hardly used, they do suggest a desire to cook or cook better.

My niece (23) grew up in a household where her mother (a single parent) would barely cook and, by what I hear, had a pretty dismal approach to providing food for her daughter. And I haven't had that much influence over her. But she likes to cook and will try things like homemade pizza - and did comment that, at university, she was one of the few who would actually cook things. I don't know what triggered her to do this, but she hasn't been made to and she takes a real pleasure in good food. I doubt she's unique in this, so there are at least some young people out there making an effort.

Setting aside the question of tax for the purpose of changing behaviour, a fat tax would be daft since fat, per se, is not the problem. Obesity has risen in exactly the same period that fats in general have been demonised and natural fats in particular.

Obesity has risen along with the number of public sector employees. Maybe we'll start to see it reduce now?

Of course, fat people are the problem. Perhaps I should have said, "Fatty Tax" instead of "Fat Tax"!

As an aside, I can't say I'm really convinced about your argument in favour of saturated fats - there are many, many links between saturated fats and various illnesses and health problems ranging from cancer to bone mineral density. I will agree that replacing fats with carbohydrates isn't good though.

so by that theory then the same rules must apply to smokers & drinkers,not to mention junkies with all the diseases that they may contract which must be costing the NHS (as well as every health service in the world) billions each year ?


you're not a drinker or smoker Rinkadink by any chance ?

I asked for facts and methodology to determine those facts not an opinion stated by a discredited Chief Medical Officer over three years ago.

I rarely eat processed junk. My fats consist of dripping (beef & pork), butter, lard, goose fat and olive oil. I would never knowingly eat and margarine or any "healthy" spreads because I've seen the grey sludge that they really are before the addition of all the colourings and flavour enhancers.

Look for all the fatties out there, there'll still be plenty of Jim Fix characters. Starve yourself to the bone or run yourself into the ground if you wish. Don't tell me how to live my fooking life

Don't be daft, the NHS should only be there for healthy people

Of course, smokers already pay through the nose for the privilege as I alluded to before. You also pay increased tax on alcohol albeit a smaller amount when compared to cigarettes, it might need increasing?



All of the above are drugs, I take it you mean illegal ones? If so the cost to the NHS is negligible, especially when compared to the £6.2 billion figure. I say legalise them all and use the tax generated to cover rehab costs and the like. It will also be safer for users.



Ex-smoker and very occasional drinker, maybe a few pints once a month.

You ask me to prove something? You're the one making so-far unsubstantiated assertions and your comparison with the a US-style system of healthcare is pure bollox. I am paying (and have been for the last 45 years) for someone else's healthcare, whether that be caused by obesity, drug overdoses, sex reassignment or traffic collisions. I don't have a problem with that, I'm quite happy to keep contributing. What I don't need is some evangelical nutjob like you, telling me what I should or shouldn't be eating or how much exercise I should take. If I can still drag a bass or turbot off the sea bed and then put it on my plate, then I'm happy.