Medicare for All would require 'Fat' laws.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Ha. The same Amy Shumer who had a cow that CancerUK dared point out the links between obesity and cancer? Who had this to say about that campaign?

“Right, is anyone currently working on getting this piece of [snip] CancerResearchUK advert removed from everywhere? Is there something I can sign? How the [effing eff] is this okay?” (profanity removed).

Link to my article about this

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Just as a thought experiment and complete hyperbole....

Let us say you were forced by your community to chip in some of your hard earned money towards vehicles for the needy, 'wheels for the downtrodden'. You get to even put a face to your forced donation. You find out they never change the oil or filters. They never check the tire air pressure. They treat the car like crap. Then you are forced to shell out more and more money toward vehicles for the needy because there are no repercussions for treating their vehicle like junk and their cars fail at a faster and faster rate.

Would that be OK with you? Wouldn't you like some control over how they treat said vehicle that you funded, maybe requiring at least an oil change every 5000 miles or taking in for regular checkups? Am I missing something here?

I fully understand the entire scenario is a very bad idea, but 'what if'?

a reply to: ClovenSky

Many things are like this? We pay taxes for schools we don't use and some get the use of our tax money for things we don't get at all.

a reply to: rickymouse

Tacos are highly processed foods too

I think it depends on what kind of tacos you get. Taco bell sure, those are probably almost not even considered food. But some taco joins sell a solid taco that seems healthy (at least to me)

a reply to: SeaWorthy

I wonder, if people had to fully fund their own children's education, maybe parents would become more involved and active in said education. I never really thought about that before. Maybe our disastrous education is directly related to how it is currently setup. hmmmm

a reply to: neo96

Nice pickup, OP.

Yeah, any kind of universal healthcare system, necessarily a system which takes money from some people to give to others, understanding that the hand that 'gives' is always above the hand that 'receives', means that the people receiving the healthcare services are going to lose some choices.

One of those choices will be the choice to eat badly, another will be the choice to gain weight, and yet another may be the choice to imbibe any substances / foods considered to cause or contribute to increased healthcare expenses.

You can't have universal healthcare, while keeping universal choice.

Just won't happen; so, consider your poisons wisely

a reply to: neo96

Why post once when you can post twice with the same click?

DOH!!@@

Hate that hah

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: crayzeed

And that is another good point. Does our medical establishment actually understand what is healthy for us? What if their theories actually make things worse? Then you add in their benevolent pharmaceuticals they believe will help you. I guess if their motivation were profits and their own bottom line, the advice they give makes complete sense.

You mean like advising type 2 diabetics, who are generally overweight or obese and who, by definition, have a problem with carbohydrate metabolism, to eat a high-carb diet rather than a low-carb one? Then treating the ensuing high blood sugar with anti-diabetic drugs that often cause weight gain? (Not to mention things like pancreatitis, higher rates of some types of cancer, etc. for several of the newer diabetic drugs.)

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: rickymouse

Tacos are highly processed foods too

I think it depends on what kind of tacos you get. Taco bell sure, those are probably almost not even considered food. But some taco joins sell a solid taco that seems healthy (at least to me)

The hot sauce actually has good benefits if you are deficient but messes up people if they consume too much. The spices used in the taco meat could cause many problems, and often the fact that some of the meats are overcooked, shredded, and then refrigerated when cooled while processing means that histamines increase. Adding tomatoes blocks the enzyme that balances the enzyme that breaks down excess and the hot sauce can mess up how our bodies immune system properly works if overconsumed. The result is usually a dumbing down of the mind, a little dumbing down makes life enjoyable, too often can mess up your health because the immune system can be dumbed down. Some people have evolved to need more of the nitrogen compounds but far northern Europeans actually conserve nitrogen compounds and too much nitrates, like those found in leafy greens, or nicotinic acid in hot sauce, can cause problems for Northern Europeans. Now Mexicans and guatamalans usually have genetics where they need more of this because they break it down well, same with the spanish and middle eastern people that have been consuming more green veggies year round and have been using hot for a long time.

I have access to my son in laws genetics and compared it against ours and did a lot of research on the subject. Now if you are working hard and sweating, most europeans skin can take care of this chemistry, they even invented the saunas to help to detox these chemistries. I spent a real lot of hours on researching this. I am 99% Finn. I can eat lettuce in the summer a lot more than in the winter without problems. I actually really like lettuce and veggies, it is a bummer that I cannot eat them very much. Lectins in veggies can also cause problems, but that is another issue that I have discussed already.

I ran an experiment on my insurance company years ago. I called my insurance provider and asked them if they covered any weight loss programs, surgery, health clubs, diet plans, etc. They said, "Weight is purely cosmetic and falls in the elective category. We do not cover elective surgeries or treatments since they are not medically necessary." I said ok and hung up. Then I called the 800 number for the same provider and told them I wanted to buy a health insurance policy. The guy on the phone was all too happy to sell me one. Until I told him I was 100 pounds overweight. (I'm not...lol) He was silent for a minute then said, "I'm sorry but we can't insure you. Your weight is a huge health risk. I could offer you a policy, but I would have to charge you so much that there is probably no way you could afford it."

I told him that I already had insurance with his company and that I wanted to try some medical interventions for weight loss. He immediately jumped to the other script saying weight loss is cosmetic and not covered. I reminded him that he just finished telling me that my weight was a huge health risk and asked him at what point in the conversation that health risk changed into a cosmetic issue. He answered, "When you said you already have insurance."

I am all for insurance companies making a decision about weight and sticking to it. As long as they are prevented from playing both sides of the fence. If weight is cosmetic then don't try to charge me more because of my looks. If weight is a health issue then cover its treatment. One or the other. No more of this both sides of the fence bullsh1t.

the public would not only have the power but also the moral right to regulate how people live.

I thought soscity did not have a moral right to regulate what people do with their bodies? My body, my choice and all that?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I ran an experiment on my insurance company years ago. I called my insurance provider and asked them if they covered any weight loss programs, surgery, health clubs, diet plans, etc. They said, "Weight is purely cosmetic and falls in the elective category. We do not cover elective surgeries or treatments since they are not medically necessary." I said ok and hung up. Then I called the 800 number for the same provider and told them I wanted to buy a health insurance policy. The guy on the phone was all too happy to sell me one. Until I told him I was 100 pounds overweight. (I'm not...lol) He was silent for a minute then said, "I'm sorry but we can't insure you. Your weight is a huge health risk. I could offer you a policy, but I would have to charge you so much that there is probably no way you could afford it."

I told him that I already had insurance with his company and that I wanted to try some medical interventions for weight loss. He immediately jumped to the other script saying weight loss is cosmetic and not covered. I reminded him that he just finished telling me that my weight was a huge health risk and asked him at what point in the conversation that health risk changed into a cosmetic issue. He answered, "When you said you already have insurance."

I am all for insurance companies making a decision about weight and sticking to it. As long as they are prevented from playing both sides of the fence. If weight is cosmetic then don't try to charge me more because of my looks. If weight is a health issue then cover its treatment. One or the other. No more of this both sides of the fence bullsh1t.

I think from an insurance perspective, weight is largely behavioral. You can lose weight without requiring insurance to pay for it. At the same time, someone who is already obese is a higher risk factor and higher premiums are justified.

Some insurance companies do pay or subsidize gym memberships.

a reply to: Edumakated

Higher premiums are not justified. Skinny people get sick too. And not all obese people become diabetic or have complications secondary to their weight. I just lost a friend who was athletic her entire life, except for the times she was fighting five different kinds of cancer she contracted. She eventually lost that battle, after 17 years of fighting. Her medical bills were astronomical and weight had nothing to do with it. You can't assume just because someone is thin they will be healthy any more than you can assume that someone who is overweight will be sick. Its just another scam from insurance companies.

a reply to: Edumakated

You can make that argument about a lot of diseases, conditions and mental health issues that are currently covered by most insurance.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Edumakated

Higher premiums are not justified. Skinny people get sick too. And not all obese people become diabetic or have complications secondary to their weight. I just lost a friend who was athletic her entire life, except for the times she was fighting five different kinds of cancer she contracted. She eventually lost that battle, after 17 years of fighting. Her medical bills were astronomical and weight had nothing to do with it. You can't assume just because someone is thin they will be healthy any more than you can assume that someone who is overweight will be sick. Its just another scam from insurance companies.

Insurance is about statistics. Fat people are far more likely to have health problems. Yes, skinny people get sick too but there is a higher correlation with weight.

We can all point to exceptions but that does not change the statistical reality.

Fat people should pay higher premiums as they will most likely have higher claims for health issues.

Obesity is the last frontier in tolerable prejudices. Whereas discrimination based on age, race, religion, sex and other protected characteristics is illegal, federal law (and most state and local laws) does not make it illegal to discriminate against people based on their weight.
This means that if an employer doesn’t want to hire overweight people or a landlord only rents property to the thin-bodied, there is no redress.

More than half of people (61 percent) see no harm in making negative remarks about a person’s weight.

Although overweight andobesity affect two-thirds of Americans, the public is as troubled by obese people

If 2/3rds of Americans are Obeisties, they aret he majority.

All of these manifestations of fat stigma not only hurt emotionally and psychologically—increasing the risk of depression, body dissatisfaction and low self-esteem—but they also contribute to the problem of obesity itself.

Arguing “it’s for their own good,” some people use blame and shame in an attempt to motivate obese individuals to lose weight. We know this doesn’t work. If it did, as stigma increases obesity would decrease. Instead, as obesity rates have risen, weight discrimination has also increased by 66 percent in the past decade.

Interesting article
www.psychologytoday.com...

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

Me too.

I need to drop 30.

No problem if you want fast food you can still get veggie bowls with a choice of kale or green noodles and ginger sauce

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Edumakated

Higher premiums are not justified. Skinny people get sick too. And not all obese people become diabetic or have complications secondary to their weight. I just lost a friend who was athletic her entire life, except for the times she was fighting five different kinds of cancer she contracted. She eventually lost that battle, after 17 years of fighting. Her medical bills were astronomical and weight had nothing to do with it. You can't assume just because someone is thin they will be healthy any more than you can assume that someone who is overweight will be sick. Its just another scam from insurance companies.

Insurance is about statistics. Fat people are far more likely to have health problems. Yes, skinny people get sick too but there is a higher correlation with weight.

We can all point to exceptions but that does not change the statistical reality.

Fat people should pay higher premiums as they will most likely have higher claims for health issues.

Again, that is fine as long as they don't get to play both sides of the game. If weight is a health risk then weight loss should be covered like any other preventive measure. If they insist weight is cosmetic then don't charge people more based on how they look. Its one or the other. The only problem is when insurance companies play both sides to their own advantage. I don't care which side they choose as long as they choose one and stick with it.

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Bluntone22

Ha. The same Amy Shumer who had a cow that CancerUK dared point out the links between obesity and cancer? Who had this to say about that campaign?

“Right, is anyone currently working on getting this piece of [snip] CancerResearchUK advert removed from everywhere? Is there something I can sign? How the [effing eff] is this okay?” (profanity removed).

Link to my article about this

Uh, that article doesn't mention Amy Schumer. You sure it's your article?

But body-positivity activists are up in arms. They say the posters—intended to highlight a very real health risk—are nothing more than fat-shaming and they’re calling for an end to the campaign. One of the most outspoken, comedienne Sofie Hagen, started a social media firestorm when she wrote on Twitter:

“Right, is anyone currently working on getting this piece of [snip] CancerResearchUK advert removed from everywhere? Is there something I can sign? How the [effing eff] is this okay?” (profanity removed).

She continued: “What your campaign is doing is so incredibly damaging, that I can’t even begin to describe it in only 280 characters … there is no excuse for you to have this campaign up.”

originally posted by: Drucifer

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Bluntone22

Ha. The same Amy Shumer who had a cow that CancerUK dared point out the links between obesity and cancer? Who had this to say about that campaign?

“Right, is anyone currently working on getting this piece of [snip] CancerResearchUK advert removed from everywhere? Is there something I can sign? How the [effing eff] is this okay?” (profanity removed).

Link to my article about this

Uh, that article doesn't mention Amy Schumer. You sure it's your article?

But body-positivity activists are up in arms. They say the posters—intended to highlight a very real health risk—are nothing more than fat-shaming and they’re calling for an end to the campaign. One of the most outspoken, comedienne Sofie Hagen, started a social media firestorm when she wrote on Twitter:

“Right, is anyone currently working on getting this piece of [snip] CancerResearchUK advert removed from everywhere? Is there something I can sign? How the [effing eff] is this okay?” (profanity removed).

She continued: “What your campaign is doing is so incredibly damaging, that I can’t even begin to describe it in only 280 characters … there is no excuse for you to have this campaign up.”

Yep I am, I have the original Word doc saved in my computer and can happily put you in touch with the owner of the site to confirm. However, I did get Shumer mixed up with Sofie Hagen--thanks for pointing that out! It's been a while since it was written.