Healthy Dividend: Real Incentive to Change your Lifestyle

The NHS in Britain has had to cope with the increasing costs of caring for Obesity and it's effects for generations. Unlike other significant burdens such as Cancer and Alzheimer's disease, Obesity is an affliction that can be stopped in it's tracks and tackled head on without the need for 20 years of research into a drug which will cost Big Pharma billions to develop and which the NHS may not even be able to afford.

It's time to be proactive about obesity, not reactive. For some it's easy, the will power to eat healthily and exercise regularly means they can maintain a healthy weight. Clearly, this isn't the case for everyone, lots of people attempt to lose weight and invest in many different avenues that promise a healthier "you" and they are unable to maintain that healthy weight.

A "Healthy Lifestyle Dividend" is a real incentive for people to eat healthily and exercise regularly, to reduce the burden Obesity and its effects places on our NHS.

I'm convinced this would not be seen as 'picking on fat people", rather rewarding people who lead a healthy lifestyle. The question is, what should the reward be? What is the incentive? And how do you track how healthy people are in real time?

The dividend could simply be a grant of perhaps £1000 over a certain period of time, let's say 5 years. At the start of a 5 year period a health check is undertaken on the participant to establish whether the grant is appropriate. If it is the opinon of healthcare professionals that the participant will benefit significantly from the scheme (and hence will become healthier and reduce their potential cost to the NHS) they are accepted.

Regular health and fitness checks will be required to ensure participants remain focused on living a healthier lifestyle for the scheme to work. 

The main gain here for the NHS would be the effect on Diabetes, heart disease and Cancers. Those are the expensive afflictions which the scheme will make money on. Potentially a huge saving if used correctly.

Do I want a Religious funeral?

I don't often ponder what my last moments will be, how I will die or what my funeral will be like. But a recent family bereavement got me thinking. If I live my life as an atheist, contribute to my university atheist society and hopefully actively support atheism in the future.. Do I really want my funeral to be dictated by religious tradition? Do I want Christian hymns sung and Christian prayers spoken by a vicar whose views I would have ridiculed? (If I were alive).

The answer is of course "NO". The thought of my family and friends singing random hymns that are so general in sentiment they could and do apply to everyone who has ever lived is a bit scary actually. I really don't want that to happen.

If it did happen I'd want the vicar to tell everyone how important atheism is to me, much like religion is to others I suppose. He would also say that I didnt love/respect a god, but perhaps I loved the fact that I don't have to love/respect any higher power. I did my own thing. I believed in myself and was supported by the immediate people around me, not an almighty deity forged from ancient scripture.

The atheist snob in me would also demand that the vicar tell everyone how irrational religion is and that despite the emotional healing capacity of praying during mourning that is no reason to praise any God. I wonder if a vicar would do this.

I respect that my family may want a normal Christian funeral and I suppose I'd be dead at the time so it wouldn't affect me too much! I'd like to be remembered as an atheist though and cringey Christian hymns are not my style. (And never will be).

So it seems I may have to pre-order an atheist funeral where everyone sings songs chosen by me. My funeral hymn sheet will read:

Songs:
Bangarang by Skrillex.
World's Away by Jebediah (Lockie Leonard theme tune).

Then: Will's views on religion, family, friends, career (hopefully), hobbies.

Instead of a prair, maybe a personal message to my family would mean more.

Then everyone walks out to either "Eye of the Tiger" or "Geekin'"by Will.i.am.

I haven't decided yet.

Weight Watchers - lifestyle support or exploitation?

At first thoughts, a large serving of both.

Having convenient Weight Watchers ready meals with reduced sugar/salt/calorie content is really helpful. Part of the cause of someone being overweight may be simply a busy lifestyle that dictates their diet. Fast food/ready meals and prepackaged lunches etc. Classically high in salt and fat. Hence, a relatively exciting and healthy ready meal option is where Weight Watchers have done well in my opinion.

I also appreciate the work they do on a community level. Having Weight Watchers employees to talk to about your diet/lifestyle and being a member of a club is obviously going to improve an individuals ability to stick to a healthier lifestyle. (More healthy foods, more exercise etc).

There's always a catch... Weight Watchers charge £10.70 upon registration and members must pay £6.25 per weekly meeting. At first glance, not extortionate.

However, I dont think it is fair to charge any amount of money for what should be readily available - healthy, cheap food and a supportive environment which encourages a healthy lifestyle. Of course these things are the luxury of an ideal world and if they were accessible to all there would be no need for a company like Weight Watchers. So what's the issue?!?

It isn't so much the cost of the services companies like WW provide, it is the overriding principle that angers me. For instance, many families, often young (but not always) may be priced out of the services weight watchers provide in addition to the fact healthy fresh food is expensive anyway. It's this "pricing out" of the poorest in our society that is wrong about the WW set up.

The wider issue regarding affordable fresh food is both a serious and frankly farcical one. In the year 2014 the UK cannot ensure it's people can ALL afford healthy fresh food. It's a disgrace.

WW clearly is catering for people who can afford these payments. Perhaps WW should make clear to the public that fresh fruit and veg, excercise and a healthy lifestyle are all things that can be accessed without PAYING US your money and that WW also offers a supportive environment which you may not have at home. (And which has proved effective)

Not a slick business plan, but consumers deserve absolute honesty.

The American Obsession. Guns.

I'm hoping I don't begin to 'slag off' America for the sake of it in this entry, their rather an easy target nowadays much like the devout religious people I mentioned in my previous entry.

Religion and America happen to be hot topics (especially when put together). Maybe i'll touch on this later on. Hence, you'll have to read on...

I'd like to discuss guns first. Specifically, the gun laws in America, which have been criticised even more in recent times as a reaction to horrific tragedies. (Why is it always reactive, not pro-active?).

America's tolerance and love of guns (among some) is dug into American tradition so deep, that to a UK citizen, it seems (through the eyes of the BBC) that guns aren't just cold, efficient killing machines after all. They're of cultural significance (in the US), which supplements the daily lives of 'the American'.

It is also apparent, to me at least, that if Obama banned the ownership of any gun; from pistols to assault rifles, lives would be saved. Is Obama brave enough to put this to the gun crazy Texans in Congress? Not to just bring it up, will he follow it through? (Not all Texans are "gun crazy", sorry).

It's unnerving that the most effective and practical killing machine ever made and that many wish humans had never invented, is legal to own in any country, especially a rich, first world, middle class dominated America! Obama isn't stupid, neither is most of America (I assume). I've seen many an American on TV asking for a ban on guns, and i'm sure the majority realise that only a society free of guns will be free of gun violence and the deaths they cause.

I've had a look on the odd pro-gun site, the national gun association (of America) being the best. They make a point that guns aren't the killing machines, humans are. I find this view terribly niave. If a person is hell-bent on murdering, the fact a gun is not available may not stop the murder, but unless the murderer is a contract killer a knife isn't capable of doing the mass of damage a gun is.

Of course, many murders are not pre-meditated and so making guns illegal and hence unavailable, will make murdering someone generally a harder process. Is that not a good thing? (It's a good thing).

As for guns for self defense, clearly in a one on one encounter having a gun may save your life. At this point I empathise with the pro-gun group. If my family and I lived in a neighbourhood where everyone else had a gun and violence is common, i'd have very little choice. That's a very raw feeling in America, the fact guns ensure the safety of loved ones. Honestly, i'd probably have a gun in that situation and so would you.

I said i'd link religion back to America and possibly guns as as well. Religion in America is concentrated in pockets. The deep south typically Christian. Is gun ownership concentrated in pockets? It may not seem obvious to link religion and guns, but many religious people in America own and use guns. There is nothing religious or spiritual about owning an assault rifle.

The whole debate and indeed my entry is designed to deal with the problem that guns aren't just used for self defense and that an America where guns are illegal is a safer America for everyone.

America will struggle with this issue for a long time to come. There will be no quick fix.

O2 O-Dear

I've always found O2 to be the most reliable network provider and very helpful when solving problems. So I expected the nice O2 man to uphold these standards in store, when replacing my crippled Samsung S2.

He gave me a replacement phone that my nan would be embarrassed by! A 'Nokia house brick' that would be put to better use building permanent accommodation for refugees. At this point you're probably thinking I'm being dramatic (probably), but I pay a considerable amount a month on a contract and expect O2 to acknowledge my commitment to them. I didn't expect a brand new phone as a replacement or even another S2. Just a cheap and cheerful smartphone. BUT NO.

The 'nice O2 man' decided it appropriate to delve into the O2 archives and dredge up a phone that the RAF could have used in WW2 to sink U-boats.

Okay so I'm pissed off that I've got a phone that's got the computing power of a fridge magnet and looks about as streamline as Honey Boo Boo. I can deal with that... I mean it's only until my old phone is de-crippled.

However, what I can't deal with is the cocky O2 guy giving me all his spiel on how good the contracts are and how they match everyone else's prices. His doing his job but there's about 3 other providers at a much better price and O2 can only match and not beat their prices. Of course at this point he realises I'm in the shop for a REPAIR, not to pay off my remaining contract and be impaled onto another O2 contract like Jesus to the cross. 

Basically, O2 (like every other provider) see pound signs, not customers. And would it kill you to give me a decent replacement phone? In the year 2013 touch screen is NOT too much to ask for, especially when I'm paying a lot anyway.

Overated vs Underated

Overated

Jimmy Carr - He's on tv an awful lot nowadays and he's okay I suppose. His laugh sounds forced (not his fault). I've come to terms with the fact he now has to make a light hearted joke about about his tax avoidance on EVERY show he's on.

I know he only exploited a rather small loop hole compared with Google and Starbucks, but they aren't on the TV every week making light of what is effectively stealing.

Underated

Apocalypto - It's a film... Only ever seen it once or twice when shown on BBC 3 but each time i've been transfixed. It depicts an ancient world of mesoamerican tribes. The most powerful of which, the Maya, use their power to capture villagers from other tribes and use them as slaves, or kill them for fun.

The slaves build monuments of worship for the Maya (if they refuse they are whipped to death). The killing isn't fuelled by enjoyment, but religion. They worship and show respect to their gods by 'sacrificing' these innocent villagers. (Brutally butchering them then cutting their heads off).

During this brutality, the film follows the endeavours of a young father who managed to hide his pregnant wife and child before being enslaved himself. I won't say anymore except if you think this is a nerdy history documentary, think again! I've never got really 'emotional' while watching a film, but this Mel Gibson epic came pretty close.

Overated vs Underated

Overated

Formula One - I've watched F1 for years, in the later Schumacher years (Ferrari) I remember it being really quite good. Rules and regulations along with a recent Red Bull domination have made it thoroughly boring in my opinion.

I'm impressed by the cars and the odd race I admit will always be worth watching, like Monte Carlo etc. However the majority of the season is just a procession. The odd challenge from Mercedes GP, Lotus and Ferrari have made the races i've seen just about bearable. The fact you now have to get Sky to watch all of the races must annoy the odd F1 fan also. Sorry Bernie.

Underated

Moto gp - I'm biased. If you want to completely ignore this feel free. I love Moto GP. Ever since F1 pushed me away with it's monotonous viewing i've been watching more and more Moto gp. I'm hooked.

The rivalry between the World Champ Lorenzo and the God that is Valentino Rossi has been thrilling to watch. Throw in Casey stoner (few years ago), Pedrosa (Honda) and the newbie Marquez (Honda) and every season just gets better and better. British rider Cal Crutchlow has really improved british interest in the sport recently and Bradley Smith is one to look out for (both on Yamaha tech 3's).

The mix of dangerous overtaking, 220 mph on a bike and no team orders make for the best motor sport i've ever seen. It's in the nature of this sport that injuries occur, but the death of rider Marco Simoncelli shocked the sport. Everyone was touched and i'm sure some riders had a long think about the risks involved. But they carry on going 220 mph because they love it. Well so do I.