I’m no nanny, it’s about saving lives and the system

Front Row says:

08:05am | 13/10/09

If living a normal life is really that economincally damaging, Nicola, just leave the medical servicing of “drunks” like me to the private health care system and get your miserable hell out of my life. Happy to sign a declaration to this effect.
While you’re there, quit funding these health nazis with taxpayer’s money.

Ian says:

08:07am | 13/10/09

The problem with the Rudd Government is that anything they seem to do is all about scoring political points. They like to appear as if they are looking after Aussies. If there is political gain in something then they will jump at it. Kevin we don’t need you to tell us how to feed ourselves mate. How about fixing up the mess of the health system in this country instead of again diverting our attention away from that and replacing it with something else to talk about. You guys were going to fix the health system if things hadn’t improved before June 30????? still waiting! But lets talk about what we should feed our kids now. What a joke!

Wayne H says:

08:21am | 13/10/09

Experts!!!!! You call them EXPERTS. Yeah, drips under pressure. Take your filthy hands off me you lying apes. More waste of our taxes. You can’t even fix a failed health system but you want to throw shit loads of money at so called EXPERTS to tell us all what is good for us. Is Fluoride in the water good for us? NOT! Is Bromide in our bread good for us? NOT! I suppose they will rant on about how this drug is no good for me and that drug is no good for me then they will send me to the nearest clinic and pump me up with some real good (legal) antidepressants so as I feel great all day and will do as I’m told.
You want some EXPERT advice. Back off and get out of my life! I don’t want your interference. The people are starting to stir! We can not breath with out some form of governance. Your war on drugs see’s a million plus people break a draconian law daily. You don’t get it do you! Enough is enough! I didn’t vote for you and I have no faith in anything you have to say. Go away and leave us alone.

acker says:

08:37am | 13/10/09

I sit on a rural hospital commitee and our small hospital often has a lot more beds available than patients.

But that is probably due more to cutbacks in midwifery and procedures doctors no longer perform out in rural areas like ours.

But that only causes another problem becuase these procedures and midwifery have been moved to the delapidated 1950’s looking rat infested Base Hospital at Wagga and that hospital ends up having a waiting list. Like an elderly freind who broke his femur recently who had to wait a week in pain for a bed and surgery at Wagga….and that was not elective surgery.

I recently spent 1 day in a Wagga base hospital ward which I would aptly describe as Hell..the Ambalatory ward, no windows, overcrowded, dirty and the bloke next to me told me that they had him in there “the ambalatory ward” for the past week after had picked up an infection in the Hospital.

From what I know of the system and could wave some majis wands they would be the following.

*Get rid of State Govt Health Authorities, at least from rural areas ..I know we dont have the population of cities but there is a big difference between having another hospital nearby 5-10 km compared to the next nearby one being 100-300 km. They need some spending, and the city orientated State Health system often does not suit.

*Get rid of nursing agencies…just seems to be an expensive way to plug the gaps in lack of fundiong for full time nurses.

*Fix up over beauracracy in Hospital Management clusters, to many non medical admin people in these.

*Uniform nursing awards and conditions across Australia

*Bulldoze the Wagga Base Hospital and build a new one ...pleease

richard says:

08:50am | 13/10/09

So the health police will get more power, much more money and a whole AGENCY to back them up?  I can see it now.  Government monitors in the pubs, calorie cops at my sanwhich shop telling me how diabolical my irregular chicken shnitzel sandwich is.  Just leave us alone. Please.

Bron says:

08:52am | 13/10/09

Excellent-another expensive, tax-payer funded group of experts to restate the obvious!! Believe it or not Nicola, us plebs out here in voterland actually do know that booze & ciggies are bad for us, as is eating too much crap food & sitting on our butt in front of the TV, but guess what-we CHOOSE to do it anyway! How about you invest our tax dollars in research into stuff that people don’t choose-mental health problems, childhood diseases, genetic diseases etc?

COF says:

08:57am | 13/10/09

Death cannot be cured Nicola. At least give the people that voted YOU in the respect to make their own decisions on how they should live and die. It is their life, after all.
Agreed though, your program isn’t as extreme as what I expected, however much I detest social engineering. The problem with social engineering is that whichever way you push (or coax in this case), there is no guarantee that the effect will be positive. If people are living longer, how are generations going to be replenished effectively? A larger and larger percentage of the population will require aged care, and will be unable to either work or breed. How is this going to effect the future of Australia?
I imagine the boffins that have worked on your health figures may be able to predict an answer to this.

Karen says:

09:00am | 13/10/09

More strategically released information so you can take our attention away from the fact you have done a BIG NOTHING so far to fix the health system that you promised you would. I see Rudd is still wondering around hospitals having tea and scones. You guys always appear to be doing something but you actually have done NOTHING! You have been in Government for almost 2 YEARS…..............

David says:

09:00am | 13/10/09

Nicola , the sooner the Govt . brings in a National Health Service , the better . While ‘’ fee for service ‘’ medicine exists in this country , Medicare wont work . Doctors’ income must be capped because the great greedy majority of them are milking the system . Not only the ‘’ hard working’’ GPs in metropolitan areas but also many specialists are involved .
Research and new technologies must take preference over doctors’ incomes .
I think the Govt. is intent on ‘’ making fee for service ‘’ medicine unpopular for all so that eventually economic control will be introduced . The sooner the better . Also with the Libs suffering from a severe moribund disease from which they may not recover , leaves the way open for the socialists to bring in the necessary reforms . This decision should not be a political one but one based on common sense and economics .

jimmy says:

09:12am | 13/10/09

“And, with the Baby Boomer generation poised to become the Chronic Disease generation, I’m more interested in results than headlines.”

When you so blatently throw this in there, how stupid do you think we are? The CHRONIC DISEASE GENERATION!?
How about you make a tough decision for once Roxon. Reinstate local hospital boards and F**K the states off from funding them. They only wash through federal government money these days anyway.
It’s really quite amazing how Kevin Rudd’s “rolling national security crisis”, or in shorthand the GFC, can suddenly give permission for someone like you to look to SAVE money by creating a new Government agency instead of digging in and making the major necessary reforms that you PROMISED at the 2007 election. Now it’s no longer a promise but an objective, much like Gillard’s promise of “no worker will be worse off” under her new draconian 1980s Workplace laws that are still yet to be fully introduced.
Most days I wish the spin doctors had never gotten hold of the GFC.. maybe just maybe we wouldn’t be distracted from your broken promises.

TimT says:

09:17am | 13/10/09

Currently the media abounds with stories about our obesity epidemic, rising rates of chronic disease and problems with alcohol and tobacco.  This Agency will help us do something about those problems.

And that’s just it. This preventative health campaign is partly targeted at actually preventing things, but mostly targeted at the media stories. It’s easier to be seen to be doing good than to actually do good.

There’s currently a work-safe campaign going on here in Victoria - ads about people breaking their legs by not using the stairs, for instance. It’s infantile stuff - because the cost of the ad campaign probably far exceeds the few broken legs that happen at work.

I suspect the ‘positive’ ad campaigns you’re going to run (‘Life Be In It’ style ads, you mentioned) are going to be similarly illogical and wasteful. They will be aimed at making you re-electable, and not particularly concerned with the health or the money of Australians.

Stephen says:

09:30am | 13/10/09

Why do you need a whole new bureaucracy for preventative health?

Isn’t the Depertment of Health and Ageing capable of establishing (or re-invigorating) a preventative health division?

Doesn’t the national Health and Medical Research Council have a new community and public health committee looking at preventative health?

Nothing like a new federal agency to show something is being done.

James says:

09:31am | 13/10/09

Why is it that the federal governments own campaigns (correctly) focus on waist line measurements to determine whether or not someone is overweight instead of the BMI, and the Measure Up campaign website even explains why the BMI is not used and why,

http://www.measureup.gov.au/internet/abhi/publishing.nsf/Content/Weight,+waist+measurement+and+BMI-lp#doesnt

yet so many GP’s that are federally supported focus on the BMI so much (against the fed. govts website advice)  as well as the defence force using and promoting the BMI in the physical assesments for recruiting?

““The Australian Defence Force uses the National Health and Medical Research Council endorsed Body Mass Index (BMI) approach to determine an acceptable weight for height range for the population.”“

I applaud anything that encourages people to take responsibility for their own health before it’s too late, but how about some consistency?

watty says:

09:48am | 13/10/09

The control freak Rudd strikes again.

You can always tell when something is awry in the Labor camp,
Garnaut criticism,more refugees arriving, NSW Gov. saying that wages will drop by 8% if the Wong ETS is introduced etc.

Kevin comes out with a Dr Feelgood nanny state idea/policy plucked from another country and claimed as his own.

These little beauties are usually annpounced when the wheels are about to fall off major policies such as the Garnaut criticised ETS or the granting of full citizenship to refugees who burned their own boat.

What I question is just how many people will be required to successfully monitor the “fat brigade”?What powers will the food police have? Will there be closures of fast food outlets even gourmet restaurants.

Why make laws when you can’t hope to monitor them or is this the creation of the “100,000 Green Jobs” Rudd and Wong keep promising.?

Bob H says:

10:03am | 13/10/09

Oh goodie - another expensive government website full of what we already know.

Mr Tired says:

10:06am | 13/10/09

Makes me laugh - have you ever tried to get government to look at a proven sport initiative for the over 50s that provides massive health benefits - don’t bother they aren’t interested.

Jane says:

10:11am | 13/10/09

Yes Watty - you forgot to mention he had his wife out yesterday do the rounds and making speeches about people living in poverty. She tells us her hubby is going to throw a bit more money to them, strategically timed again. How long before Australians wake up to Rudds approach of stocking up on feel good stuff to be released only when any bad press or scrutiny is heading his way.

yornup says:

10:19am | 13/10/09

I have an idea. All the naysayers condemming the setting up of what they decree to be the ‘Health Police’, who do not want any third party, let alone those big scary socialists in Canberra looking out for their future welfare even though they are blind or willfully dismissive of the consequences, should be encouraged to opt out of this program. By doing this, when they develop cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, renal failure etc. (and they will develop these) as a consequence of their willfully sedentary and junk-food based lifestyles Medicare will not be obliged to cover the costs of treatment. Instead they will have to resort to private health insurers who are more and more looking for ways to prevent themselves from having to pay out for treatments that could have been prevented by the direct actions of their clients. BAM, billions of taxpayers dollars saved. Maybe this scheme can be made even more attractive by waiving the Medicare levy for those who choose to opt out. So what if this reduces the amount of tax coming in, the savings down the line will be in the billions.

watty says:

10:21am | 13/10/09

I wonder Jane if this means another wardrobe change for Rudd’s meetings with the poor (with TV cameras,print and radio journos covering the event.

Hard hats.Fluro jackets.White coats. Hardly de rigeur for sitting down with the poor?

Yon Toad says:

10:21am | 13/10/09

Yep, you’re from the government and you’re here to help us. Now, about them fairies that have taken over the bottom of me garden….

Simon Mundy says:

10:23am | 13/10/09

BMI based Fat Tax for all the greedy face stuffers, push the health risk costs onto themselves,  abuser pays revenue system.  And don’t give me the old “I’m big boned”, “its a medical condition” nonsense, try stopping shovelling food down ya gob. 
Thanks - I feel better for that.

Terry Barnes says:

10:25am | 13/10/09

It appears that The Punch is letting in pieces ghost-written by public servants masquerading as ministers.  That’s disappointing and I hope it’s something that’s nipped in the bud to keep the site as lively as it’s started.

Whoever wrote this tendentious piece, this approach starts from the starting premise that ordinary people are incapable of judging what’s good and bad for themselves.  Self-appointed experts on six-figure salaries with Fitzroy, Glebe and especially Manuka soy latte lifestyles condescendingly telling families in working-class suburbs and rural Australia how to live their lives, is that it? 

Minister, why not instead give people responsibility for their own choices instead of suffocating them with your nanny state goodness?  Do you merely see people who live outside the latte belt as Labor voting fodder and not as intelligent individuals capable?

I hope that, in the interests of saner views prevailing, the Opposition throws out the agency legislation and makes Labor accountable for their leftwards lurch back to their social engineering roots.  Standing up against encroaching lunacy like this can give the Coalition some of the purpose that it currently is desperately lacking.

Liz says:

10:25am | 13/10/09

Go for it and lets make sure we fix the hospital system,provide enough beds for the young with psychiatric problems, provide a proper dental system everyone can access and cut waiting lists first.

PL says:

10:42am | 13/10/09

The government told me that cigarettes were bad for me, so I gave them up. I gained ten kilos. The government then told me that I was overweight and that i should go on a diet, so i went on a diet. I was drinking and alcopop the other day and the government told me that this wasn’t appropriate so I changed to something I didn’t like.
I was only doing twenty minutes exercise a week, which the government says wasn’t enough. So I increased it.
Now I am healthy and likely to live well into my hundreds, guaranteed to keep the hospital system busy for years in my old age as I die of nothing. I’m bloody miserable as well. I like cigarettes, food and alcopops, and hate exercise.

The only thing you are discouraging is free will.

SD says:

10:44am | 13/10/09

Shouldn’t the title of this piece read:

“I’m no nanny, it’s all about saving money and my job”?

David C says:

10:46am | 13/10/09

I appreciate that morbidly obese people are asking for health problems but marginally overweight?? Come on thats a stretch. I would suggest this is only an issue for the extremes of weight issues, what percentage of the population is morbidly obese?
Please can we base all these studies on empirical evidence not statistical models.
Does preventable medical problems include sporting injuries or going out without a coat on a cold day or not wearing a scarf?? Or not wearing shoes?
This sounds a lot like the old making yourself look busy when you really arent doing anything about the real problem

Stephen says:

10:48am | 13/10/09

Why an independent agency? 

So it can lead public debate and recommend policies that no government would dare.

Jade says:

10:51am | 13/10/09

Ok, thanks for the advice, but i wont follow it, and i think you will have a hard time finding people that will. goodluck, I am sure there is a better way to waste our money isnt there????

watty says:

10:55am | 13/10/09

Perhaps yornup the same strategy could be used in weeding out the “permanently"unemployed who live off the taxpayer from cradle to grave including free medical treatment?

Fact of life .Obese,just plain fat, skinny as a rake if you work you pay taxes and part of that goes to medical treatment.

Rudd should try tackling the declining hospital care, the abysmal pay to nursing staff,the “empty bed” problem in our hospitals before initiating another “policing” policy that just can’t be monitored .

Check the reults in California and New York where a similar program(displaying calorie content) was implemented.

Love your “let the fatties suffer and die” touch.Should get a few votes

COF says:

11:00am | 13/10/09

Yornup,

as I said before, the boffins are quite selective in the way they analyse health and resultant financial figures. They may say health problems associated with poor lifestyle habits cost the taxpayer, but I’m sure they don’t know the full cost of say, increasing the life expectancy by three years. Lets make some predictions.
Pension payments for an extra three years per person
Aged care for an extra three years per person.
Large amounts of hospital time are spent on people of deteriorating health regardless of their age or lifestyle choice. Do you think people of good health die on the spot?
Loss of productivity as the population ages (a lower percentage of working age populaiton) which could eventually lead to economic bankruptcy and recession.
Lack of opportunity for resources for the young as a result, leading to:
A lower birth rate
A higher crime rate
Eventually it is quite possible that the human population will die out as a result, as the death rate remains stable (because people will die regardless of the age they live to) while the birth rate plummets.
Sure it could happen another way, but it could happen this way.

Spare me the “taxpayer” argument. You just don’t like people who like eating. Keep your ignorant prejudice to yourself thank you.

Wayne H says:

11:01am | 13/10/09

Oh yes Stephen, smart isn’t it? Another independent agency to tell the government what to do! And lets just piss another $133 million up the wall just to tell us what is good for us. It is proven that a mouth full of bad teeth lead to poor overall health and can lead to death, FACT. Now why is it that there is a 7 year wait to see a public dentist in Bundaberg? We no that’s not good for us but the powers to be do nothing. Fix that before you waste more money on feel good crap Minister!
You don’t need any more EXPERTS to tell you that the health system has died.

Stacy says:

11:18am | 13/10/09

Do you really think anonymous, unelected bureaucrats who will never be elected are in the best position to make unilateral decisions about what we should eat and drink?

yornup says:

11:30am | 13/10/09

COF, I agree with you re: the cost (direct and indirect) of the ageing population. However I don’t think the answer is to just sit idly by and watch generations of people eat and laze their way into an early grave. Surely education and thereby prevention should be looked at as a good idea. And if the government isn’t going to do it, then who will? Someone has to take the first step. The way things are going there won’t be a middle-aged population able to contribute proportionally to the work force because they’ll all be off recovering from heart attacks and renal failure.
I also enjoyed your aprting pot-shot, however poorly aimed it may be. I do like people who like eating. Hell, eating is one of my absolute favourite things to do. But there is a difference between eating lots, well, and eating lots, poorly. Although I must admit I do rather enjoy pointing out obese parents waddling around with their obese children in tow. They are up there with the orange fashionistas for entertainment value.

watty says:

11:49am | 13/10/09

yornup asksthe usual nanny question “If the Government isn’t going to do it who is”

We are not yet a fullt Socialist/Communist State (though heading that wat) and there is still such a thing as freedom of choice isn’t there?

As for your strange even warped habit of studying and laughing at others body shapes I suggest you might expect a midnight visit from the ‘thought police” ?

COF says:

12:11pm | 13/10/09

Yornup,
you agree that the societal costs of being overweight or obese is ambiguous, but you still believe people are obligated to change their habits? WHY?!?!? What is it you don’t understand about free choice? Who are you to judge the life choices of other people and is it any of your business?

The parting pot shot still stands I’m afraid. And your final description of the state of the obesity crisis, quote “obese parents waddling around with their obese children in tow” sounds like it came straight from a Today Tonight exclusive. A large majority of people do not look like this, yet a large majority of people are paying for this education program. Let people be for god’s sake!

K says:

12:37pm | 13/10/09

Wow - way to miss the point.

This type of action is happening because there are people out there who have continuously shown their unwillingness and inability to take responsibility for their own well being. I Agree with this.

Who are they? That’s easy. They are the ones dying. Sometimes before their kids grow up, often leaving husbands, wives, friends and family devastated.

The government shouldn’t have to tell you not to be overweight, they shouldn’t have to tell you to exercise, not smoke, and they certainly shouldn’t have to lecture you about what you drink. I also agree with this.

Grow up people. Look after yourselves, so that you can grow old with your loved ones. Illness is an ugly and terrifying fate which awaits those who refuse to be mature enough to deal with their most basic responsibility - to keep them selves healthy.

It’s not a political argument it’s a human one.
If you choose to ignore it, shame on you.

Pete V says:

01:02pm | 13/10/09

the problem is that most people who choose a bad lifestyle and becomes obese, develops lung cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, heart diseases, diabetes etc etc will likely end up in a hospital bed.

a hospital bed that could be used for someone who is seriously sick and couldn’t have avoided it. and we wouldn’t have a problem with ‘shortage of hospital beds.’

and that person will take up the time of doctors and nurses, whose time could be better spend treating serious illnesses. and they wouldn’t be so overburdened.

and all thise wastes taxpayer money that could be better spent on fixing the many problems in the health system.

taxpayers money like mine. and yours. so why should I pay for your bad lifestyle?? when you’re smart enough to realise you’re ruining your health and making others pay for it - but too lazy to care.

anyway, I’m sure the money the government loses on taxing beer and cigarettes the economy will be made up through increased productivity of a healthier nation.

yornup says:

01:16pm | 13/10/09

COF and watty,

I can only echo the opinions of K and Pete V above. They have summarised what I have been trying to say, and in much better ways than I could have.

Now, let me propose an analogy. Say I saw a friend of mine inhaling asbestos. Naturally, knowing of the harmful effects of inhaling asbestos I would want to intervene and let him know why I think it’s probably not a good idea to be snorting said asbestos. Should I sit down and not interrupt him just because another friend tells me that to intervene would be to curtail his personal freedom?

Lord Grognard says:

01:18pm | 13/10/09

I’m a person, not a number in the national budget.

H says:

01:35pm | 13/10/09

You know, the freedom to eat bad food, smoke and drink has to come with responsibility. Perhaps if the prices of obesity, cigarette cancer and drinking is going to go up so much, we could just raise the tax accordingly on confectionairy, booze and ciggies? Don’t get me wrong Nicola I appreciate your proactivity by creating a preventative health agency it seems like smart policy to me…but I also think some people won’t heed the or hear the preventative message…and through extra tax they can cover what this will mean to the health system

E says:

02:11pm | 13/10/09

Pfft, who is going to listen? I’m pretty sure that like most smokers, most habitual eaters wish they could stop, but they have an emotional impulse to eat which often wins. Just being told something is bad for you doesnt stop you doing it, same as driving too fast, unsafe sex, drugs and booze. This is at best treating the symptoms of underlying issues rather than the cause.
I think that the PM should stop hiring beuracrats and start firing them ,specifically the ones in charge of the state health services, railcorp and the Qld Ambo service (remember him, culture of bullying leading to suicides and he keeps his job?). But no, we will hire some more! Great!
Also note that while these are technically ‘jobs’ they arent productive ones, the public service is often parasitic on the rest of society, taking much but offering little.
So fix the health service, give those unfortunate people with bad teeth a fair go and then raise taxes on high fat foods to cover the costs of keeping the users of high fat foods in hopsital when they burst, nice example of user pays while the healthy responsible people just get on with our lives.

Peter says:

02:29pm | 13/10/09

Clearly there are positive social consequences for preventative medicine. Regarding preventative medicine saving money and freeing up hospital beds, one could also argue that it simply delays the inevitable.
If one looks at it coldly and unemotionally in terms of money, I would imagine that many smokers, obese, gamblers and alcoholics are more lkely to not pay much income tax as these problems are associated with poorer socioeconomic circumstances. They do pay tax on their vices though and stimulate certain parts of the economy through their vices. Keeping them alive also probably leads to the government paying more for their centrelink benefits. Then at age 65 or 67 or whatever it is now, they get paid a pension. Then if their medical problems had been prevented they live longer and end up being a drain on the health system eventually anyway. The question is, will it truly make any difference to the health budget ? Will it truly free up beds? Should we just let them live their lives as they please? It would be interesting to know the answer.

Fit and well says:

02:31pm | 13/10/09

In China people did not pay their doctor if they became ill, only if they remained well. Seems like a plan to me.

David C says:

02:51pm | 13/10/09

H why would you put taxes on confectionery??? Please provide any evidence that a sugar calorie is different to any other calorie

Neo says:

03:32pm | 13/10/09

Thanks Nicola another great waste of tax payer funds do we really need another government agency who’s preaching will fall on death ears people who drink, smoke and eat bad food already are aware of the consequences of their habits you can make 1000 agenies but it won’t fix the problem, regulations of various chemicals and preservatives in foods ,elimination of various processed type items would help much more sure it takes away a bit of convience but anyone who would choose to save a little time each night instead of benefit their health is really just wasting my and your oxygen anyway . Gee I hope these new preventative measures for alcohol and tobacco are far more effective then the current preventative policy for all other drugs because thats just a blatant waste of tax payer funds aswell. It would be more beneficial that instead of telling people how they should live their lives you do something about the pathetic state of the health system and hospitals in this country. This government seems intent of fulfulling the wishes of a moral minority for political point scoring rather then approaching issues head on and actually finding resolutions beneficial to all the people in our country

Donny says:

03:42pm | 13/10/09

No wonder Australians are fat! Just look at these comments!

watty says:

03:43pm | 13/10/09

Yornup your analogy doesn’t work for me.

I have had friends who have suggested at times I eat too much and back in my earlier years suggesting that more than 2 bottles of red at a sitting was an ample sufficiecy. I must admit I did sometimes listento them.

Now if some Government official was given the power to TELL me what to eat and drink I would see this as a gross interference in my private life and freedom of choice.

Not being so bright I still cannot see how a policy’program like this is to be monitored or even iof it is to be qualified people policing the policy.

ts says:

04:24pm | 13/10/09

most things can be prevented, generally at the expense of fun.

Peter says:

04:32pm | 13/10/09

If you have a health system which punishes the good and rewards the bad - free universal health care irrespective of lifestyle, ‘community rating’ of medical insurance - then why are you surprised, Nicola, when people choose not to be good?

I don’t smoke or take drugs, and drink very moderately.  I exercise regularly and have great cholesterol and BP for my age. 

But I still pay more for health care than the smoking, drug-addled, piss-heads up the road in the public housing who feed their kids junk food from Macca across the road because they can’t be bother giving them a real meal. 

They live like sybarites and leech on the community, I live like a spartan and pay for their indulgent lifestyle choices.  Didn’t you get the memo? Socialism is dead, Nicola.  Time to move back from ‘each according to his needs’ to ‘each according to his abilities’.

H says:

04:37pm | 13/10/09

David C, A sugar calorie is no different to say a, calorie in the noodles in a stir fry. The difference is calories (including sugar calories) in “food” as oppossed to calories in confectionairy is that food calories come with nutirents, where as confectionariy calories come with ummm…nothing beneficial. Add the High GI and the health problems associated with that, and hence why I am associating confectionary with health costs. Don’t take my word for it though, try a GP, Dentist or Nutritionist

acker says:

04:41pm | 13/10/09

There seems to be one group and subject that a couple of posters mentioned that the Government is almost totally in silence about.

Euthanasia

If I was confronted with the option that my lungs and airways would collapse and I would die of asphyxiation or some other terrible death due to

*Emphysema
*Lung, Throat or Airway Cancer
*Pneumonia
*Influenza
*Or any other disease likely to end in suffocation, paralysis, dementia or great pain

I would like to think that I had the option to depart life via a Euthanasia procedure.

We seem to spend a lot of money keeping people alive, that I think if they were given the options would probably prefer to pass away peacefully and with dignity.

To many vested interest religious radicals are hijacking this argument and every day people’s opinions.

Life by presciption says:

04:54pm | 13/10/09

This is a crazy idea.
Suggestions put forward by the experts will fall on deaf ears. Most of us have a good idea how to lead a healthy life - the information is everywhere. Whether we choose do so or not is ultimately up to the individual. A panel of expert recommendations will not sway the decision at all. This includes lifestyle choices, vocational choices, political choices, as well as consumption of food and drugs. What happens when the recommendations fall on deaf ears? Force people to do ‘the right thing’?  We were already been forced into such brilliant schemes as Fluoride in our water supply before the science was done! This had better not be a step towards more ‘new world order’ decisions.
The panel of ‘experts’ will find ends that justify their own means. Science & medicine are the WORST examples of ‘cash for comment’ corruption we have, next to Politics and the media. Walk into your doctor’s office and take a look at the pharmaceutical sponsorship, it’s disgusting. Then have a look at your prescriptions and see if you can find the link…Corporate sponsorship of scientific & medical method have already seen the ruination of this planet, as well as the increasing number of prescription junkies lining up for their daily fix. We all know personal examples of this, such is the prevalence in today’s society. The experts in this proposed plan will be as susceptible to pushing their own agendas as the doctors writing our scripts and the pollies making our laws. Stop wasting our money and provide a decent health system!

David C says:

05:32pm | 13/10/09

H so now we have to move on from food that makes you overweight to food thats good or bad for you? So is the end game we just eat beans and brussel sprouts? And what is the negative high GI problem??
The problem is not confectionery its the people that eat too much of it, and dont penalise me for their choices

Bob H says:

05:43pm | 13/10/09

I wonder which of the parties mates will be populating this cushy number of an agency.

Terry Wright says:

06:06pm | 13/10/09

Let me get this right, Nicola.

You have a health plan that is supported by the experts and if examined properly will make absolute sense. This plan has been recommended for years by experts but political posturing has held it back ... until now. But still, this plan is opposed by the ignorant, conservatives and those with a political agenda.

Apparently this plan will reduce unnecessary deaths, illness and suffering. It will make more sense than what we are doing now. It will save us $billions in costs. It will benefit us all. It won’t encroach on our rights. It will make us much more healthy. It will free up many resources involved in maintaining our current system and most importantly, Its going to be based on hard facts and robust evidence.

You are going to finally repeal prohibition and legalise/regulate drugs!

Wayne H says:

06:41pm | 13/10/09

Spot on Terry Wright, now ya talking my language. Biggest money maker ever…

john says:

07:12pm | 13/10/09

Yay I can’t wait for my government sanctioned bowl of steamed Brussels sprouts and rice washed down with 0.1% alcohol strength beer.

Ideas such as this and internet censorship and other nanny state measures are leaving me very pessimistic about what Australia’s future will be like

KaXien VaLa says:

09:33pm | 13/10/09

Wonderful… public aknowledgement that preventative medicine has an important place in the future of our species. Educating society as to the true nature of the human organism and its potential for modifying its relationship with its status to achieve increases in potential and productivity. Allopathic medicine should be seen as a last resort and functional lifestyles should be designed and implemented as the new culture of the aware individual begins to illuminate the things of the world previously innaccessable.
Enlightening individuals to the cause and effect relationships present in our lives and placing responsibility to care in the hands of the people shall have wideranging positive effects on the invisioning of humanities relationship to the environement and even as far as excising the death paradigm from the interdependantly arising phenomenon of the mind.
This new paradigm shall be ushered in through the consistently represented conflicts of change, burning the stale traditions, providing nourishment for the renewal of creation.
This time is blessed, the spirit is moving.
May Honour and Honesty guide your actions and peace be upon us all.

Paul says:

09:34pm | 13/10/09

The Government is already far to prescriptive.
Nanny state, more like an Orwellian dystopia and it is getting worse not better. It honestly makes me shudder to see my lifestyle choices being proscribed little by little, how much longer before we are all criminals in a prison state
If change is what is needed, provide better education and let people decide how to live their lives.

“That government is best which governs least”

Helen L says:

10:55pm | 13/10/09

Gee I like the idea of being able to keep myself healthy and not cost the system much…

It would be easier to do that Nicola if you supported legislating for the correct labelling of palm oil in supermarket products. It’s really unhealthy and yet is hidden under the name ‘vegetable oil’.

Without that, your claims of wanting to help us make better health choices by educating us are obviously untrue and your legislation is meaningless.

Legislate for full disclosure of palm oil in supermarket products Nicola. You can’t blame us for our health problems if you deny us accurate information about what we are putting into our bodies.

MSH says:

11:19pm | 13/10/09

I am absolutely amazed at the number of comments related to this article from people who really don’t give a **** what their lifestyle does to their health. Drink to excess, smoke themselves to death…etc. And they don’t want anyone to tell them it’s bad for them or to get them to consider to lead healthier lifestyles. Fair enough. You’re all adults and should do as you please. Perhaps, though, treating these lifestyle illnesses, which you will get eventually, like lung cancer, liver diseas, type 2 diabetes and so on, all by personal choice, shouldn’t be paid for by our taxmoney? Get private insurance, and pay for your own treatments. This may save us heeps of money, sort out our health system and pay for the hospitals.

Wayne H says:

08:33am | 14/10/09

MSH says: 11:19pm | 13/10/09,
You miss the point! I don’t think anyone here advocates drinking to excess or smoking yourself into an early grave, but people will. There are so many basic things that can be done to improve the quality of peoples lives in the here and now that get pushed under the carpet daily by a bureaucracy out of control. I am an adult who considers himself to be reasonably fit of body and mind. Is it not reasonable for me to make my own decisions about what is right for me? Just a little bit of research would prove to you that just because your government says it is so doesn’t mean they are right. There will always be losers who spiral out of control with anything. Funny how the things in this world that can do us the most harm are legal. Just do a little research on fluoride. I wouldn’t drink it if you paid me to but your Government poisons your water every day. Come on people! Are you sheep or do you think for your self???

H says:

09:40am | 14/10/09

David C, its arguable you are being penalised for their choices as a huge chunk of your income tax is going to health care for obesity related illness. Perhaps with a tax, they would pay more of a percentage of their care and if you are eating only a little bit of it, then your penalty could be less than it is currently, as your income tax (which previoulsy had big chunks of it spent on health care) might be spent on services (school for your kids, public transport ect) which would be more beneficial to you.

COF says:

11:45am | 14/10/09

Spot on Wayne H - no one is advocating a poor choice in lifestyle here, just the right of the government to regulate it. How would you like it if the government took exception to people driving european cars because of economic disadvantages in trade, or having a one storey house because it was not an economic use of private land? You would be up in arms and rightly so.
The lack of understanding about weight issues is alarming. my wife has been battling her weight since her teens, perpetually dieting and exercising daily. Try as she might, she has never been able to get herself out of the “overweight range” in the BMI. To see people hurl abuse at overweight people as if they were lower forms of human being, frankly, says a lot about the human beings responding on this thread.
More than anything, a progressive and peaceful culture needs to be based on the principles of mutual respect of human life, regardless of what personal decisions or paths each human life takes. I see none of that in this policy. Because if you cannot find it in yourself to have respect for others, how can you possibly expect to demand it yourself?

Observer says:

12:30pm | 14/10/09

If only there was some remote camp somewhere so I could be forcibly restricted in what I can eat for the forseeable future.  Then the daily fights with the medication increased hunger attacks might be easier to deal with.  Then, if that doesn’t work, they will just walk me to the gas chambers…...

Peter says:

12:31pm | 14/10/09

“I don’t think anyone here advocates drinking to excess or smoking yourself into an early grave, but people will.”

No they won’t - not if they have to pay for the consequences of their actions or die. 

Reject socialised medicine and make people pay for their own follies!

Neo says:

02:26pm | 14/10/09

A furthwer thought that has just come to me is if they are going to subject the rest of the nation to this useless service I hope the politicians in Canberra are subject to it as well , just watct question time have you ever seen that many overstressed , overweight , generally unhealthy looking people in any one work place in your entire life Politicians should lead by example if they want to push prevenative health on the rest of us and looking at the majority of our leaders it will be a cold day in hell before that ever happens

James Birius says:

03:12pm | 14/10/09

wow, what a joke.
So we have these people wasting money on another joke of a group, preventative health.  We got Rudds mate Conroy forcing a unwanted Internet Censorship down our throats, we got more taxes on alcohol and cigs, got money being handed out for votes.  Mean while nothing of substance has been done.  Workchoices? Hospitals? Education?

Im sorry, but im sick of the fluff.  Australia needs to start being socially progressive instead of regressive with nannism and censorship GRRRR.  Labor will never get my vote ever. Wowser christians are comming people.

Jim says:

11:27pm | 14/10/09

The agency of unelected, unaccountable, taxpayer-funded lobbyists will provide a micromanagerial prime minister and his commisars an excuse to further intervene in our lives. 

Read some of the targets from the 2008 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Preventative Health, which this agency will be required to monitor and which states will be required to deliver:

‘increase in proportion of children at unhealthy weight held at less than five per cent from baseline for each state by 2013…

‘increase in mean number of daily serves of fruits and vegetables consumed by children by at least 0.2 for fruits and 0.5 for vegetables from baseline for each State by 2013…

‘increase in proportion of children participating in at least 60 minutes of moderate physical activity every day from baseline for each State by five per cent by 2013…

‘increase in proportion of adults at unhealthy weight held at less than five per cent from baseline for each state by 2013…

‘increase in mean number of daily serves of fruits and vegetables consumed by adults by at least 0.2 for fruits and 0.5 for vegetables from baseline for each state by 2013…

‘increase in proportion of adults participating in at least 30 minutes of moderate physical activity on five or more days of the week of 5% from baseline for each state by 2013…

‘reduction in state baseline for proportion of adults smoking daily commensurate with a two percentage point reduction in smoking from 2007 national baseline by 2011…’

All well and good, and exactly what each of us, individually, should be encouraging ourselves, our children and our families to achieve. But how will this government agency measure baselines and progress? What controls will governments put in place to ensure the targets are met? And at what cost to our liberties and freedoms?

You’re right, Ms Roxon—that’s not nanny, that’s tyranny!

Chris says:

11:26am | 15/10/09

A new McDonald’s is going up in Sanctuary Lakes, Point Cook, right next door to a new retirement village.  I am not sure the surrouinding residents even know this yet, but obviously the Wyndham Council have agreed to it as rates would be astronomical.  This Mc’Donalds is going to be no less than 3kms away from one already existing in Laverton.  All this hype about health, yet these projects by large multinationals are progressing unhindered.  As usual, the average person suffers by these proposals.  To that I say, bollocks.  To hell with the government.  Leave us alone!

gusgrogan@gmail.com says:

01:12pm | 15/10/09

Thanks but no thanks Nicola

KaXien VaLa says:

06:59pm | 16/10/09

Basically the essence of this idea comes down to the process used to treat health issues and the pathway through treatments. The key elements to consider when proscribing a treatment is the risk to effectiveness relationship.
Typically the more severe the issue the more potent the treatment…this means that for most illnesses experienced by the medical profession their are simple and gentle treatments that will be noticed as effective which will gradually mutate into lifestyle as preventatives and permanent treatment.
The order of treatment options from most gentle to most severe are as follows:
1 Counseling, hypnotism and meditation using excersize and yoga to reprogram mental structure. Homeopathy and flower essences.
2.Herbal medicine and ayurvedic techniques.
3.Synthetic substances, antibiotics.
4. Radiation and chemo therapies
5. Surgery

Once this order is accepted and utilized by GP’s and healers under the wing of “the medical profession” the treatments which require integration into peoples lives will become socially accepted and widespread, increasing quality of life and bringing a new perspective to the integration of health-care into everyday life.