Should fat people and smokers be denied medical treatment .

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:24 am

I read an article in one of the newspapers the other day about this and thought it would be a good topic to bring here; so, should fat people and smokers be denied medical treatment .

Personally i think it's a slippery slope and wrong, if you deny fat people because they've made themselves fat what about Anorexics and junkies . I would also say imo, that treating someone whos a smoker and needs a heart operation would be far more important than say a sex change - again my opinion . I understand the health risks attached but i still think it's a cop out . The NHS here is struggling - we all know that so, why are we treating every tom dick and harry that comes to england ...why can't immigrants take out insurance like we have to when we go to another country .:-5

What do you guys think ????

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:46 am

Absolutely not. A doctor's responsibility is to treat people's ailments and not to punish people for what they think are poor health choices. If you did this to smokers and the overweight you could end up extending it to people who don't take cholesterol pills or people who don't wear seatbelts/helmets, or people who sleep around....soon hardly anyone would warrant treatment. In the case of overweight people, they have an eating disorder just like anorexics/bulimics do. Smokers are foolish to have started, but they have an addiction to a powerful drug. How can you hold up the Hippocratic Oath ("first do no harm") when you deny patients for these reasons? There should be no prejudice against any patient who needs help.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:50 am

RedGlitter;760116 wrote: Absolutely not. A doctor's responsibility is to treat people's ailments and not to punish people for what they think are poor health choices. If you did this to smokers and the overweight you could end up extending it to people who don't take cholesterol pills or people who don't wear seatbelts/helmets, or people who sleep around....soon hardly anyone would warrant treatment. In the case of overweight people, they have an eating disorder just like anorexics/bulimics do. Smokers are foolish to have started, but they have an addiction to a powerful drug. How can you hold up the Hippocratic Oath ("first do no harm") when you deny patients for these reasons? There should be no prejudice against any patient who needs help.

Red, it is happening already.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:15 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;760117 wrote: Red, it is happening already.

In the UK? You mean doctors are really refusing to treat people for those reasons? That's crazy! I think it's fearful wrong to cherrypick who will and won't get medical help.

How do they get away with that??

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:37 am

I'm going along with what Red posted, addictions can come in a multitude of guises, not just the obvious ones like smoking, drugs, over eating and alcohol. What about the addictions to power, money, control or work that can adversely affect one's own and another's health? Where do we draw the line if forced to choose whom we will treat medically? Is one addiction better than another?

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:09 am

It all boils down to money:-5 . I've only heard them talk about smokers and obese patients but what about alcoholics and junkies, their a drain on resources too.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:16 pm

I wonder if any of this relates to the enormous increases in litigation. Liability for the outcome of surgical procedures. Insurance etc. Extreme, heavy smokers may have serious problems with anaesthesia. Treating very obese patients probably also carries much higher risks.

Some Australian doctors are refusing to deliver babies, for liability reasons.

Of course it's just fiction, but in an old House episode I watched last night, a young woman would not have been given a place on the heart transplant list if it had been recorded that she had been bulimic. With very limited spare heart resources, she would presumably have been "less worthy" for receiving a second chance.

It's a difficult question. Series of questions. Do you make more effort treating old people than young people? Where do you discontinue treatment, as no longer financially viable? What about the massive expense of caring for very premmie babies?

In the straining public health systems, money and politics and social issues are going to come into it, and there must be a lot of doctors agonising over their hypocratic oath.

Footnote:

Triage for first aid in a situation where there are a number of serious casualties. You treat them in order of likelihood of a good outcome.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:45 pm

AussiePam;760264 wrote: Of course it's just fiction, but in an old House episode I watched last night, a young woman would not have been given a place on the heart transplant list if it had been recorded that she had been bulimic. With very limited spare heart resources, she would presumably have been "less worthy" for receiving a second chance.

Sorry to hijack the thread but I've been watching a lot of this series in the last month. The Hallmark channel shows the current episodes and a couple of other channels show repeats. What a fantastic show! I saw the episode you mention, Pam, and like that he bends the rules in order to save his patients. The only episode I didn't agree with was the time and money they spent saving a potential suicide's life - just to put him back on death row! That would surely never happen in real life, in fact I imagine no doctor would go to the trouble House goes to in every episode, they simply wouldn't have the time or the resources! The programmes make for some great discussions though!

End of hijack!

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:01 pm

"Denied", absolutely, posivitively NOT, no reason to! Most if not all special cases here in USA pay special hazzard rates to offset any exceedingly excessive unusual medical costs!

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:07 pm

Seems to me that the tax money I pay for my cigarettes goes into the State's medical fund which provides care to the poor. (At least that is what they tell us every time they raise taxes on cigarettes.)

I smoke between 1 and 2 packs a day. I haven't been to the doctor in 2 years and that was NOT for a smoking related illness. In the last 18 months I have missed 0 days of work due to illness.

Sad fact is, I am more likely to be hit and killed by a drunk driver then a smoking related illness.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:56 pm

Smokers pay taxes too! Right now, I am paying almost $3 in tax on every pack of cigarettes I smoke. I don't want to pay my tax money to women on welfare to have babies but I don't get that choice. And if you are going to deny me medical treatment for indulging in a legal addiction then you better start denying medical treatment to all of the drunks out there, too.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:11 am

I am already paying for my own healthcare - can I please have my tax dollars back now?

double helix · Post by **double helix** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:02 am

Only if alcaholics, drug addicts, and sexual peditors are included.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:13 am

Ok how about these, someone has cosmetic surgery.... a tummy tuck for instance or it could be a face lift and they go private (remember i'm talking about the UK here) should they then be allowed to get follow up care from the NHS .

What about unempolyed people, should they be entitled to IVF treatment on the NHS .

Then what about people who suffer the condition where they hate a part of their body and feel the need to have it amputated (can't remember what it's called, saw it on telly the other week ) some actually do DIY amputations ....do any of the above deserve treatment ...makes you think if nothing else

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:34 am

Yet more reason to reject national health "care" in the US!

If someone is willing to spend the exhorbitant prices charged for tobacco here, he should budget for the consequences as well.

However, morbidly obese poor often get that way for reasons associated with why they are poor in the first place. Unless we, the taxpayers, take care of that psychological issue we'll never get them off of assistance (welfare, medicaid, etc.). Simply taking care of their health issues will solve nothing, but that as well as psych counseling and diet monitoring & education may save lives and money in the long run.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:08 am

I haven't wavered from my original opinion but I do see both sides here.

There is a saying that a society is only as good as it treats its sick and its poor. I think this is fairly true. I think it would be terrifying to live in a society that withheld medical care upon unfavorable judgement.

Suppose a smoker for instance (since that's an obvious example) needs treatment for cancer or emphysema. They can't afford it. What do we do with them then? Send them to a sanitarium where they live out their lives in discomfort and possibly pain? Say "too bad you didn't save your tobacco coupons for an iron lung" and toss them out in the street?

When I was in the hospital, I saw lungectomy patients who were still smoking. They are called "non-compliants." They make doctors very angry. But aside from stubbornness, they have an addiction. An addiction the government helps feed by paying tobacco farmers and by allowing tobacco ads. I hate smoking with a passion but I would rather my money pay for their treatment (even if they still smoke) rather than let them suffer as they waste away.

I know I don't want any doctor refusing to treat me because he doesn't "approve" of however I live my life. I don't want doctors to have that kind of authority. I much prefer them in the role of public servant.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:20 am

RedGlitter;760404 wrote: I haven't wavered from my original opinion but I do see both sides here.

There is a saying that a society is only as good as it treats its sick and its poor. I think this is fairly true. I think it would be terrifying to live in a society that withheld medical care upon unfavorable judgement.

Suppose a smoker for instance (since that's an obvious example) needs treatment for cancer or emphysema. They can't afford it. What do we do with them then? Send them to a sanitarium where they live out their lives in discomfort and possibly pain? Say "too bad you didn't save your tobacco coupons for an iron lung" and toss them out in the street?No, but they certainly shouldn't have free healthcare, and they shouldn't be able to shirk their responsibility by declaring bankruptcy either.

RedGlitter wrote: When I was in the hospital, I saw lungectomy patients who were still smoking. They are called "non-compliants." They make doctors very angry. But aside from stubbornness, they have an addiction. An addiction the government helps feed by paying tobacco farmers and by allowing tobacco ads. I hate smoking with a passion but I would rather my money pay for their treatment (even if they still smoke) rather than let them suffer as they waste away.Yeh, it really chaps my ass that my tax dollar goes to tobacco farm subsidies, but so long as it's a legal activity (which ought to be forever) there should be no reason to ban their advertising. Don't forget the 1st Amendment.RedGlitter wrote: I know I don't want any doctor refusing to treat me because he doesn't "approve" of however I live my life. I don't want doctors to have that kind of authority. I much prefer them in the role of public servant.Doctors aren't allowed to refuse life-saving treatment to anyone, nor should they be.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:42 am

Accountable;760408 wrote: No, but they certainly shouldn't have free healthcare, and they shouldn't be able to shirk their responsibility by declaring bankruptcy either.

Yeh, it really chaps my ass that my tax dollar goes to tobacco farm subsidies, but so long as it's a legal activity (which ought to be forever) there should be no reason to ban their advertising. Don't forget the 1st Amendment.Doctors aren't allowed to refuse life-saving treatment to anyone, nor should they be.

We have a ban on tobacco advertising here in the UK but the government can't realistically want the ban to work because of the huge loss of tax revenue on the sale of tobacco products, if the ban was effective. The figures were discussed on another thread a few months ago, and the loss would far outweigh what is spent on the healthcare of people with smoking related illnesses.

This topic leaves me feeling confused...if the provision of health care is to be based on the lifestyle we choose, then which is the "perfect" lifestyle?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:51 am

Accountable;760408 wrote: No, but they certainly shouldn't have free healthcare, and they shouldn't be able to shirk their responsibility by declaring bankruptcy either.

I agree with that. They should pay as much as they are able, like anyone else.

Yeh, it really chaps my ass that my tax dollar goes to tobacco farm subsidies, but so long as it's a legal activity (which ought to be forever) there should be no reason to ban their advertising. Don't forget the 1st Amendment.Doctors aren't allowed to refuse life-saving treatment to anyone, nor should they be.

Dangit....that !st Amendment. Pesky thing sometimes.

I know you're right on that too.

theia;760411 wrote: We have a ban on tobacco advertising here in the UK but the government can't realistically want the ban to work because of the huge loss of tax revenue on the sale of tobacco products, if the ban was effective. The figures were discussed on another thread a few months ago, and the loss would far outweigh what is spent on the healthcare of people with smoking related illnesses.

This topic leaves me feeling confused...if the provision of health care is to be based on the lifestyle we choose, then which is the "perfect" lifestyle?

Hi Theia. That's just it- it'll be left up to others to judge us. Would we all be required to work out three times a week and give up all our vices according to whatever powers that be? I don't see that it could ever happen- well it might happen but I don't see that people would comply.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:07 am

theia;760411 wrote: We have a ban on tobacco advertising here in the UK but the government can't realistically want the ban to work because of the huge loss of tax revenue on the sale of tobacco products, if the ban was effective. The figures were discussed on another thread a few months ago, and the loss would far outweigh what is spent on the healthcare of people with smoking related illnesses.Seems like kind of an f'd up decision, not to mention hypocritical. Don't mention smoking publicly, but for chrissakes don't stop smoking! We need the money.

theia wrote: This topic leaves me feeling confused...if the provision of health care is to be based on the lifestyle we choose, then which is the "perfect" lifestyle?Good question! How can we possibly call ourselves a society of free citizens if we're not free to have fun? That's why I say everyone should live As they wish, just don't expect their neighbors to pay for it.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:13 am

RedGlitter;760414 wrote:

Dangit....that !st Amendment. Pesky thing sometimes.

I know you're right on that too.

Hi Theia. That's just it- it'll be left up to others to judge us. Would we all be required to work out three times a week and give up all our vices according to whatever powers that be? I don't see that it could ever happen- well it might happen but I don't see that people would comply.

It could work on a "points" system, Red (it probably already does

)

For example, I would lose points for being a smoker (-20) but I may well recoup them for not touching alcohol (+ 20, unless of course the "powers that be" decide that a couple of glasses of wine a day are good for my health). I may recoup more (+10) for not being overweight but lose these points for liking and using sugar (-10). But then I don't engage in "dangerous" sports (add 10) but do I exercise enough (-5)? I add salt to my food (-15), but only a little (okay, adjust previous figure to -5)...

and then of course more research is published rubbishing the findings of the ones that were used to compile the points system :-5

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:21 am

theia;760426 wrote: It could work on a "points" system, Red (it probably already does

)

For example, I would lose points for being a smoker (-20) but I may well recoup them for not touching alcohol (+ 20, unless of course the "powers that be" decide that a couple of glasses of wine a day are good for my health). I may recoup more (+10) for not being overweight but lose these points for liking and using sugar (-10). But then I don't engage in "dangerous" sports (add 10) but do I exercise enough (-5)? I add salt to my food (-15), but only a little (okay, adjust previous figure to -5)...

Honor system?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:30 am

theia;760426 wrote: It could work on a "points" system, Red (it probably already does

)

For example, I would lose points for being a smoker (-20) but I may well recoup them for not touching alcohol (+ 20, unless of course the "powers that be" decide that a couple of glasses of wine a day are good for my health). I may recoup more (+10) for not being overweight but lose these points for liking and using sugar (-10). But then I don't engage in "dangerous" sports (add 10) but do I exercise enough (-5)? I add salt to my food (-15), but only a little (okay, adjust previous figure to -5)...

and then of course more research is published rubbishing the findings of the ones that were used to compile the points system :-5

NIGHTMARE!!! :wah:

double helix · Post by **double helix** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:57 am

Accountable;760396 wrote: Yet more reason to reject national health "care" in the US!

If someone is willing to spend the exhorbitant prices charged for tobacco here, he should budget for the consequences as well.

However, morbidly obese poor often get that way for reasons associated with why they are poor in the first place. Unless we, the taxpayers, take care of that psychological issue we'll never get them off of assistance (welfare, medicaid, etc.). Simply taking care of their health issues will solve nothing, but that as well as psych counseling and diet monitoring & education may save lives and money in the long run.
Let me reasure you that the morbidly obese do NOT get grotesqely fat because they can't afford anything but high calorie food! Its because they eat TOO much and EXERCISE too little. It is a choice as much as a lifestyle.

Think about it, if they were really POOR how could they afford to eat so blasted much? If they were so POOR why aren't they burning up calories walking everywhere including the bus stop? They have the same access to the adds on televison we do re: health, exercise, weight loss, free counseling etc. etc. Like smoking, gambling, sex and drinking, changing is not rocket science it is just a decicive effort!

When I was POOR, I was much smaller then I am now.:-3 And I didn't smoke.:-2

And I was much healthier:-6

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:25 am

double helix;760955 wrote: Let me reasure you that the morbidly obese do NOT get grotesqely fat because they can't afford anything but high calorie food! Its because they eat TOO much and EXERCISE too little. It is a choice as much as a lifestyle.

Think about it, if they were really POOR how could they afford to eat so blasted much? If they were so POOR why aren't they burning up calories walking everywhere including the bus stop? They have the same access to the adds on televison we do re: health, exercise, weight loss, free counseling etc. etc. Like smoking, gambling, sex and drinking, changing is not rocket science it is just a decicive effort!

When I was POOR, I was much smaller then I am now.:-3 And I didn't smoke.:-2

And I was much healthier:-6

I think obesity has a lot to do with our changed lifestyle over the years. In Britain in the 50s, the majority of people weren't wealthy and most had the basic three meals a day. These were probably quite high in fat and calories but there was little, if no "snacking" inbetweentimes. Now, with the growth of fast food outlets, people are encouraged to eat all day long, and some do.

Also I think the food was far less processed than it is nowadays and, to a large extent, we knew what we were eating. Vegetables, for example, actually "looked" as it they had been grown in a field because they were covered in soil, milk soured quite quickly and naturally, and fruit, on the rare occasions that it wasn't eaten, merely dried up in the fruit bowl, whereas now it rapidly develops a very strange mould and almost disintegrates before one's eyes

We all had more exercise, whether or not we were "exercise" types...most children walked to school, or rode bikes, they played games like hopscotch or skipping or tag. Car travel was more of a special treat.

But all this said, our lifestyle has changed, in some ways for the better and in some ways creating different problems. I doubt that we can go back to the way we were.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:49 am

double helix;760955 wrote: Let me reasure you that the morbidly obese do NOT get grotesqely fat because they can't afford anything but high calorie food! Its because they eat TOO much and EXERCISE too little. It is a choice as much as a lifestyle.

Think about it, if they were really POOR how could they afford to eat so blasted much? If they were so POOR why aren't they burning up calories walking everywhere including the bus stop? They have the same access to the adds on televison we do re: health, exercise, weight loss, free counseling etc. etc. Like smoking, gambling, sex and drinking, changing is not rocket science it is just a decicive effort!

When I was POOR, I was much smaller then I am now.:-3 And I didn't smoke.:-2

And I was much healthier:-6
Dude, you've gotta get out more, if you think that no poor people are fat.

I wrote specifically about the morbidly obese poor, a specific small part of our society. Those are the people already poor that become obese, morbidly obese like Jaba Hut, not just overweight. Ya have to wonder how that happens, what with them being poor and all.

Anyway, some of these people (some, DH. Take a breath and read) have psychological issues that keep them from trying to get out of poverty -- Low self-esteem for myriad reasons. They get on welfare because they don't see a better way. They eat to self-medicate to forget the bad situation they're in, even passing up paying other bills to get more food. The resulting obesity gives them health problems paid for by medicaid. We don't throw sick people out and make them homeless like we would a healthier person, so these people stay in the system until death.

Paying to take care of the root problem -- the reason they remain poor and self-medicate with food -- Is an investment to avoid paying the inevitable medical bills and associated costs. It will spur them to make that "decisive effort" you wrote about.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:26 am

fuzzy butt;761036 wrote: do we really want to go down this road folks?
No! That's why I'm against national healthcare, because these kinds of rules will come up sooner or later to prevent abuse of the system.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:34 am

fuzzy butt;761041 wrote: Sorry acc I'm not catching your meaning
If the people that can afford to live independently (meaning not on the dole) are responsible for their own healthcare, they can abuse it all they want. They will be able to make their own rules because they will have to pay for the consequences themselves.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:48 am

double helix;760955 wrote: Let me reasure you that the morbidly obese do NOT get grotesqely fat because they can't afford anything but high calorie food! Its because they eat TOO much and EXERCISE too little. It is a choice as much as a lifestyle.

Think about it, if they were really POOR how could they afford to eat so blasted much? If they were so POOR why aren't they burning up calories walking everywhere including the bus stop? They have the same access to the adds on televison we do re: health, exercise, weight loss, free counseling etc. etc. Like smoking, gambling, sex and drinking, changing is not rocket science it is just a decicive effort!

When I was POOR, I was much smaller then I am now.:-3 And I didn't smoke.:-2

And I was much healthier:-6

Sounds like somebody's got a little bias against heavy people.

Just as an aside, I was at Walmart this week and because i'm pinching my pennies until Liincoln screams, I bought some Walmart brand Cup O Noodles. One cup was 28 cents. It contained 300 calories and 1060 mg. of sodium. But it was only 28 cents! I bought four.

That's part of the reason poor people are often overweight. They buy what they can afford and fruits and vegetables are not as affordable as cheap processed non-nutritional crap like ramen noodles.

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:06 am

The place i work offers employees and their families free membership at the local YMCA. Not any old YMCA mind you, we have an aquatic park with an 8 lane pool for the swim team, an indoor water-park for the younger kids, aerobic programs, tumbling programs, free babysitting, a weight room as big as my house and an aerobic and weight equipment room as big as my block.

The only requirement for this company paid for perk? The employee(not family member) must sign in 6 times a month.

Less then a third of the adults take advantage of this, go figure:wah:

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:38 am

rjwould;761094 wrote: I lost wight 5 time via exercise. I paid so much money to health clubs that I decided to invest more than $10,000.00 on top quality exercise equipment. The problem is when you have a propensity to gain weight because your body is sensitive to certain foods and additives, it is only a matter of time before you burn out from exercise or become too old for it to be effective.

The food industry is keenly aware that a very large portion of our society is carbohydrate sensitive, so what do they do?, they add sugar and sugar substitutes to everything. Why? To increase sales. Look at the milk in your refrigerator, it has sugar or some other form of sugar substitute in it. You cannot buy bacon anymore unless it is cured with something sweet.

Many people are fat because they are a targeted consumer.

Bull

The problem with buying the equipment and putting it in your home is that it goes unused. Or, as in my case with my gazelle, it becomes a coat rack...

:D

I am fat because I brought a granola bar to work with me this morning and it sits here next to me on my desk. The donut I snagged out of the editorial department and the 2 c-chip cookies I snagged out of the accounting department however, are LONG GONE!:wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:39 am

My milk has no direct additives other than vitamin D3, but it mentions that the cows have growth hormones. I know that what the cow eats affects the flavor of the milk, and I guess they can feed them anything without telling us.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:49 am

Be careful not to cross that line putting your own responsibility off onto someone else.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:05 am

rjwould;761126 wrote: I can cross any line I choose.
:wah: Okaaaay, but don't blame me.

double helix · Post by **double helix** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:27 am

RedGlitter;761054 wrote: Sounds like somebody's got a little bias against heavy people.

Just as an aside, I was at Walmart this week and because i'm pinching my pennies until Liincoln screams, I bought some Walmart brand Cup O Noodles. One cup was 28 cents. It contained 300 calories and 1060 mg. of sodium. But it was only 28 cents! I bought four.

That's part of the reason poor people are often overweight. They buy what they can afford and fruits and vegetables are not as affordable as cheap processed non-nutritional crap like ramen noodles.
What the heck are you doing eating 1060 mg of sodium, Red? I hope you didn't eat all three!! That would be over 4000 mg of sodium.

Yeah, yeah look, its a choice. When I was a poor single mom I got my food for free from the local food banks. Canned vegetables and fruits, rice and macaroni, canned meats and cheese were offered as well as donuts, sweat rolls, cookies, muffins and yes, a variety of top ramin type soups, as well as lard, cornmeal and all kinds of beans.

If you wanted you could have spent your dollar on a very big apple and got better nutrition, filled up with fiber and had the energy to look for a better job or ask for more hours at your current one. The Ramin was handy, cheap and didn't even fill you up for an hour.

Sorry, just stating my opinion. I gained a hundred-fifty pounds in the first eight or ten years I made over twenty-thousand. I lost a hundred pounds by changing my choices in nutrition, serving size and concentrated exercise. I lost the last seventy with bariatric surgery. I just decided to make better choices and quit dicking around with my life.

Santanico · Post by **Santanico** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:49 am

fuzzy butt;762968 wrote: Plant an apple tree ..................what you do is take a pip from an apple and dry it out then plant it in a container .DDDAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! It's free!!!!!!!

And vegetables. A pack of seeds will cost you less than a buck, and I speak frm experience when I say you will be giving them away coz you'll have too many.

As for the topic, I think it really depends on the medical attention they need and the reasons for being fat. My weight has gone up & down for the last few years, down when I've been eating well & excercising, up when I've eaten crap and not done anything. I take full responsibility for that. A girl I worked with was very overweight, so went on a waiting list for lap-band surgery. She had it done probably 8 months ago, and if anything, she's bigger now because she made no changes to her lifestyle. She still eats crap and doesn't excercise. The taxpayers paid for that (about $10,000 I think)

But, if we start denying people medical attention for any reason, where do we stop? Everyone should have medical care available to them except in the case of elective surgery. The system here in Aus is that if you don' want to/can't afford to pay for elective surgery, you go on a waiting list. If you want it done now, you pay for it yourself. I think that's fair (except for the fact that dental care is considered elective, I know people who's teeth are rotting out of their heads because they can't afford to go to a dentist and waiting lists can be up to 5 years long!)

cars · Post by **cars** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:03 pm

Here's opening another can of worms.

Smokers, & Obese people, are being cited here for causing a potential extra burden on so called normal perfect weight people & non smokers insurance tax dollars being spent on the Smokers, Obese medical treatments.

So far, no one has touched on this subject yet. My friend works at the Emergengy Room (ER) at our local hospital.

And she says you would not believe the high number of Illegal Immigrants that come into the ER daily, (they have no regular doctors, so they use the ER as their doctor's office) & by our own laws here she can not deney them medical assistance, & has to admit them for treatment. (Sometimes even for hospital stays of several days) They have no health care insurance, & or can't pay for the service rendered to them by the hospital & the "doctors". So guess you know who pays for their treatment, WE DO, the "legal" & even sometimes poverty stricken tax paying citizens!!! A least most of the Smokers & Obese have insurance, & can also pay for their doctor's visits.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:32 pm

They're citing in Florida?

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:48 am

cars;763479 wrote: Here's opening another can of worms.

Smokers, & Obese people, are being cited here for causing a potential extra burden on so called normal perfect weight people & non smokers insurance tax dollars being spent on the Smokers, Obese medical treatments.

So far, no one has touched on this subject yet. My friend works at the Emergengy Room (ER) at our local hospital.

And she says you would not believe the high number of Illegal Immigrants that come into the ER daily, (they have no regular doctors, so they use the ER as their doctor's office) & by our own laws here she can not deney them medical assistance, & has to admit them for treatment.(Sometimes even for hospital stays of several days) They have no health care insurance, & or can't pay for the service rendered to them by the hospital & the "doctors". So guess you know who pays for their treatment, WE DO, the "legal" & even sometimes poverty stricken tax paying citizens!!! A least most of the Smokers & Obese have insurance, & can also pay for their doctor's visits.

Hey Cars, i did, but i was talking about our NHS here in the Uk being swamped with migrants . I hate to think of the number of HIV and TB cases coming in monthly.... infact i read somewhere that said the number has gone up dramatically here in the UK because of migrants in the last couple of years ....it does seem very unfair when they've paid nothing into the system .

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:29 am

rjwould;761116 wrote: The question is; What made you choose the cookie and donut over the granola bar? Not that a granola bar is any better for you. Have you read the ingredients?

Heck - I can answer that. A donut and cookies taste way better then a yucky granola bar.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:12 am

double helix;762964 wrote: What the heck are you doing eating 1060 mg of sodium, Red?

I could have bought two apples that would not have stayed with me or been satisfying or I could have bought the four ramens that I did and had four hot meals. That was why I ate the sodium.

double helix · Post by **double helix** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:18 am

RedGlitter;763937 wrote: I could have bought two apples that would not have stayed with me or been satisfying or I could have bought the four ramens that I did and had four hot meals. That was why I ate the sodium.:wah: I never did like apples. When I hit my forties I quit eating all sodium. Started reading lables on all my foods, cut out sugars, you know all that stuff. Suddenly, I wanted to live just a little longer AND be able to enjoy it! Still , I got high blood pressure like my grandma. Go figure.

As for the illigal aliens flooding the ER, they been doing that since, forever in Washington state, Oregon, California, Idaho and all points east! This is just one of the issues involved when dealing with illigal aliens. They work here and pay no taxes. They send their money home instead of spending it here. They cross over the border to get free dental care and glasses, have babies, get heart transplants, smuggle dope, rape, steal and then go home. Not all are bad people but, all are raping the American people everytime they sneak into this country.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:59 am

rjwould;764795 wrote: What seems to be a weak sticking point for you is the fact that before people can take personal responsibility for anything, they must know and understand what they are dealing with and what the terms of the issue is. I get the impression that you think that every person is innately aware of everything and just simply needs to make a decision....This logic simply amazes me to no end. A little nuance and I think you'll understand me better. Children should be taught and held accountable for taking responsibility incrementally based on their development level. Adults should and can take personal responsibility for their actions, their behavior. A typical adult is fully capable to be aware if he/she (I'll use she this time) is overweight. I think it's necessary to point out that overweight doesn't necessarily mean unfit or unhealthy, but it's a sign we use, right or wrong. Our society freely provides education on what is necessary to repair/avoid such a situation.

Every typical adult is, or should be, responsible for what nutrition and calories she puts into her body, and for the behavior necessary to balance the nutrition and calories to ensure fitness.

And yes, they simply have to make a decision, and act on that decision. It is simple. Hard as hell, but simple.

rjwould wrote: I understand you are completely unaware of rooms in marketing firms called war or strategy rooms and that research and development is used to understand how to maximize sales and therefore profits...It's what I did for quite a while, so I am familiar with the process.You tend to jump to conclusions, but I'm getting used to that. Are you implying that such r&d is inherently wrong?

rjwould wrote: You seem to suggest that with nearly half the population overweight it's because half the population are irresponsible decision makers...That is simply naive....Do you agree that the tobacco industry knew nicotine was physically addictive and just needed to make it attractive enough to entice people to engage in smoking?You've never made irresponsible decisions? We're all irresponsible decision makers. The tobacco industry has been exposed. We all know tobacco is dangerous. We also know junk food is dangerous. Continuing to use either is irresponsible. Fun, refreshing, feel-good, cool-looking irresponsibility.

rjwould wrote: That's why the school system didn't get my kids... I can personally attest that most educators are well meaning and thoughtful, but obviously not all..Question for a different thread: If you can't depend on government to educate your kids, why in hell do you insist that government should be responsible for our healthcare?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:39 am

rjwould;764861 wrote: Do you think every ones bodies react the same under most circumstances?No

R&D is as dangerous as the people "responsible" with the acquired knowledge it produces... So we agree that it's not the r&d, but the people who are dangerous and bear watching.

Are you familiar with any of the medical science I alluded to? Generally, yes. Manufacturers like nothing better than manipulating addictions, whether physical or emotional.

We didn't know tobacco was as dangerous as it was until far too late because the industry kept their knowledge to themselves..FYI---The tobacco industry is not the only industry guilty of that...It's what happens when we believe what we are told from those whom have a vested interest in ignorance... We've known about the dangers of tobacco for generations. We teach and preach against it to our kids from infancy (regardless of our hypocritical behavior). The responsibility now lies with the individual.

Lay off the government, it is made of the same people that make up any other sector in society. They are doing their best....Why not hold true to your own values and leave your government employer? How am I violating my values, in your opinion?I'm really interested in that last, as I'm a student of Johari's window.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:22 am

rjwould;764935 wrote: You've mentioned often that government is the problem and you stated that public education is government education and I understand you are a public school teacher. So my question is; why then do you work for the government?I never said government is 'the' problem. I often rale against federal gov't over-reaching it's constitutional boundaries. I probably don't specify federal government often enough but I try without being too redundant.

When I worked for the federal gov't it was in a branch specifically created under constitutional mandate: the military. I now work for the state of Texas in a capacity reserved for state government by our Constitution.

Education is an investment in society's future. With it we help ensure future prosperity; without it we virtually assure our downfall. Healthcare holds no such equivalency to education, imo.

*man, that last phrasing sucks.

I hope I got my point across*

[quote=rjwouldAs to another part of the post....When one such as me refers to a company or corporation, I mean the people who run it and make the decisions within it..I was distinguishing between research itself and what is done with it. We're on the same page here.