09 May 06
Originally posted by Redmikedoes it?
It supports the conclusion that poverty is bad for the health.
how wealthy are all those Iraqis?
And are they living in poverty?
The Guardian article indicates they have enough money for booze, fags, and fast food. It's a lifestyle choice.
09 May 06
Originally posted by aging blitzerYou should go to the Calton.
does it?
how wealthy are all those Iraqis?
And are they living in poverty?
The Guardian article indicates they have enough money for booze, fags, and fast food. It's a lifestyle choice.
You'll see that the people there don't have the choice between fast food or healthy food.
They don't choose to drink or take drugs.
There aren't any alternatives there. There aren't health food shops, coffee bars and gyms.
Poverty and poor education are what cause people to live such unhealthy lives, not a 'lifestyle choice'.
09 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeAs to my 'ridiculous claim', see 'The Scotsman' 21st May 2005. The relevant figures quoted there are £7640 per head in Scotland against £6270 in England.
Firstly, you've made this sort of ridiculous claim about money from London before, and you couldn't back it up then. Can you back it up now, having had a few months to research it?
I have to say that I'm unaware we've had socialist rule in any part of Glasgow for many years - again, can you give me a link to the headlines on the series of bye-elections I must have missed. For all I know I might be a councillor without knowing it.
If you have not had local socialist rule in Glasgow, who does rule there? The Tories?
09 May 06
Originally posted by NargagunaCan you give a link to the Scotsman article - I think I recognise it, but I want to be sure.
As to my 'ridiculous claim', see 'The Scotsman' 21st May 2005. The relevant figures quoted there are £7640 per head in Scotland against £6270 in England.
If you have not had local socialist rule in Glasgow, who does rule there? The Tories?
Yes, we have Blair's tories running the council in Glasgow.
09 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI haven't been there, but it sounds like nonsense.
people there don't have the choice between fast food or healthy food.
They don't choose to drink or take drugs.
There aren't any alternatives there. There aren't health food shops, coffee bars and gyms.
Poverty and poor education are what cause people to live such unhealthy lives, not a 'lifestyle choice'.
No choice my arse.
What is the level of car ownership?
The Iraqis must have loads of health food shops, coffee bars and gyms.
Or maybe they're better educated.
09 May 06
2 edits
Most working-class people have a limited range of choices when it comes to their leisure time for all sorts of reasons, some culturally-defined, some environmentally, some economically (the price and accessibility of healthy foodstuffs) - just as most middle-class people have a notoriously limited dress sense not because they can't afford it, but because wearing pac-a-macs and looking terminally uncool is more than just an economic decision, it's fundamentally the middle class way.
09 May 06
Originally posted by NargagunaIn some areas of Glasgow the life expectancy is as low as 64 years (for men). However, I don't think this is because of the benefits lifestyle, although about 48% of men in this area are on long or short term incapacity benefit, I don't think the benefits are responsible for the low life expectancy, but both stem from a common factor, unhealthy living.
I read today (Telegraph) that life expectancy in East Glasgow is less than in Baghdad, but apparently there are more bods living on 'benefits' there than in any other part of the UK.
So does this support the conclusion that a benefits lifestyle is bad for the health?
09 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeYip. These folk are so poor they can't afford a healthy lifestyle. Oddly enough, though, they can afford illegal drugs, cigarettes and excessive quantities of alcohol, all of which tend to be more costly than a healthy lifestyle. The "poverty" argument does not add up; admittedly poverty is a bad thing, but lifestyle is essentially a choice and even poor people can afford to live healthily, at least more easily than living in a self-destroying manner.
It supports the conclusion that poverty is bad for the health.