"MOT-style health checks for men over 40 will form part of the Scottish Labour Party's manifesto commitments.These tests would include:
Under the plans, men would be invited to take the check-up when they reach 40, looking for problems that might get worse if not addressed early."
"Checks on blood pressure and cholesterol would identify those at a high risk of heart disease and stroke.And if you think I made the last one up, it's only the form of words I changed.
Such men could be given diet and exercise advice.
Drugs could also be prescribed to limit the risks among those who caused the most concern.
The MOT would also look for signs of diabetes.
Men would face questions about their lifestyles.
Those who smoked could be directed to smoking cessation services to help them quit.
Flabby bastards would be urged to do more press-ups..."
This is in order to reduce the gap between the life-expectancy of men and women. Is it just me? It is just me if the comments under the article are anything to go by but I think, why? Women's life-expectancy used to be lower than men's essentially because of child-birth. This is much safer now, and women do this less anyway, leaving the men popping their clogs at a younger age. This is because a) we smoke more b) drink more c) take more drugs d) work longer [I doubt the Executive will be planning to eliminate this vice from our lives] and e) avoid the goddam doctor.
Women do less of the above apart from e) - so they live longer, but statistically are more likely to enjoy poorer health. Probably because they're going to the doctor more often and being diagnosed with stuff. With the exception of d), it seems to me we get the better deal. Shorter life but more enjoyable. So what's the problem? We don't live long enough but if we do, they complain we're a burden to the state? There's no pleasing some people. As I've said before, it's not really joined-up social policy, is it?