Perspective Plus discussion

10 views
General > Oh, really?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 57 (57 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited Sep 24, 2012 07:19AM) (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I cannot believe the epic smoke screen that is being used to cover up a medical trend that is sweeping the hospital industry. How many of you have recently read an article about how obesity rates are going to cost your state ______ amount of money by _____ year? Well, DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!

FAT PEOPLE ARE NOT THE REASON HEALTHCARE IS GOING UP!


No, a new trend that hospitals around the country are doing is this: doing away with simple doctor visits and treating those as outpatient procedures at up to 4x's the actual cost of the service because they are billed as hospital procedures! Yes, if you have private insurance, you may end up paying $400 or more for a $12 shot because it's listed as "I.V. therapy" as one woman featured in a Plain Dealer article said yesterday.

This new trend send patients to community clinics owned by the hospital system and then treats the simplest things as if you are in the bloody hospital. This way hospitals can demand stricter contracts with insurance companies and gouge you at the same time. Lord help you if you don't have insurance.

This has been going on for a while now, but you haven't heard of it until now, have you? Well, the Plain Dealer is running a series on it for the next few weeks and I will keep you posted, but I refuse to believe that my fat hind end is the cause for higher health care when this nonsense has already sent costs skyward and there is no end in site if we allow it to continue!


message 2: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited Feb 04, 2013 07:59AM) (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
The Cleveland Clinic is at a new one now,and I royally don't like where this could lead. They have decided to open up bariatric surgery to employees with Type II diabetes as a treatment option and if they are only MILDLY obese. This means lowering the BMI standard as well.(If you are a woman 5'5" and 180 your BMI is 30 the lowest it can be for surgery currently.) Now, this will only be for people NOT responding to medications, diet changes and exercise, but it does open a door that I would rather not see be opened. The idea behind this seems like it is to help,BUT it is really a COST SAVING MEASURE! It is CHEAPER for insurance to pay $20-$25,000 for this procedure because employers can recoup the cost in 4 years or so, vs. paying for medications and doctor visits. (Lap band is cheaper but will not be covered as it does not cause significant loss and has no effect on diabetes.)

OH REALLY?

So, is this going to become a "if you don't do this we won't let you keep your job" kind of thing, or is this really in a patients best interest? Here comes the kicker- ".....We know people can lose weight by diet and exercise, but it WILL CREEP BACK ON." (emphasis mine.)

Say what now? So all of this time we have been told to eat right and get movement is all a lie and the only thing that will save our unredeemable fat behind is a questionable surgery that may not,as we have yet to see, have a long term effect? Really?

Now, I am all for this surgery if you truly have problems that are so life threatening and you really have no other choice and this what YOU feel YOU need to do to help yourself. What I fear is the lowering of the minimum standard will open a flood gate for more vanity surgery and not for those who truly feel that they need it. (I have a friend who did it because she as R.A. and felt that as the R.A. progressed, her size wouldn't help. It did work for her at the time since R.A. treatments did not exist. She still had many complications a year later and did say upon occasion that she mildly regretted having the surgery.)

YOU need to what's right for YOU, but I fear too many doctors are going to push this route on patients and not take the time to find the right treatments. Diabetes medications can and do cause weight gain,so.........vicious circle anyone?


message 3: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
There was yet another article today in the paper touting a recent study about diabetes and the bypass surgery. The Cleveland Clinic is now claiming that diabetes is gone within days after the surgery due to the surgery "resetting" the pancreas and insulin production. What scares me is that this surgery is dangerous to begin with, and now if it is seen as a cure all for Type II, what will happen in the long run when EVERYONE is encouraged to have this surgery? This surgery is still too new to know really long term effects on those who did it due for weight loss,let alone those who will do it for this. The study is still in it's infancy and I do not trust it, as I think this is just a way to legitimize going after fat people.

I am afraid of the "do it or else" school of thought that will arise from this study and insurance companies greedy tendencies along with other big business that will want to save money. I fear the encouragement of these entities forcing people into the surgery without all of the facts,knowing the risks or truly caring if someone dies due to complications because overall they will be saving money.

I still think people are more important than the all mighty bottom line, but then again, what do I know? I know nothing.


message 4: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
According to the paper this morning, CEO's can earn up to 204% (or more) that their employees. So, insurance for workers, NObama care,lack of tax breaks, and the like are responsible for why you can't have a raise, but these fools get golden parachutes and get to keep their stock options even when they fail.

Hmmmmmmm..........

So fat people are why we have high health care costs and not because their CEO's make so much.....


message 5: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited May 03, 2013 07:00AM) (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
In today's paper, there was a story about how top execs at Metro Health (the third largest hospital in Cleveland, and one that has decided to not hire smokers) made over $700,000+ spread among them. All the while the COUNTY run hospital is LOSING money! Yet, patient care is what is driving up the cost of health care,especially fat people.

Yeah,uh-huh,right.

What really steams me, is all of these fools who have "golden parachutes" and the like who get to collect money even though they run a company into the ground. YOU have to do with less so they can make more? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this whole "employee health care is what costs us" bullsquirt. It is CEO's,coaches,school superintendents who screw up the schools and STILL get paid AFTER being fired, and all the rest who get to collect money on a contract that they don't see the end of even thought they did NOT do the job they were hired for.....

Sorry. But we have to pay more in taxes to help pay for those who can't afford care and these FOOLS get to make coin for screwing up?!

That is what is screwed up!


message 6: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I read this in the paper this morning in the health page. According to the New York Times, a study of obese teens proves that obesity lead to hearing loss.

The teens were from all races and financial backgrounds.

What was no mentioned was how often and LOUDLY they used ear buds or listened to music while driving.

I fail to see how weight affects your hearing.

LOUD noises and continual bombardment of LOUD noises cause hearing loss.

Sheesh! Any excuse....they're really reaching here.


message 7: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
This sounds pretty reasonable on the surface of it, but for me the "Oh really?" part comes from the "what if factor" of this program. According to this mornings paper, the state of Ohio is going to be expanding a program for well-being. Among the programs are ones to target child-obesity from birth to 5 years of age in high risk areas and programs aimed at mothers who smoke while pregnant. There will also be more focus on care based medical vs. treatment after the fact.

Now here comes the "it sounds like a good idea" part. It will be open to interested citizens. O.k., but what happens when there are not enough interested citizens enrolling in these programs? That is where my fear comes into play. I have no problems with the programs existing, especially smoking moms quitting, but the obesity thing has me stuck. I am not saying, nor have I ever said that our kids need to learn healthier habits, but I do wonder about what happens if there are not enough kids (what ever number they deem to be a satisfactory number to be) in the "interested citizen" program. When will it become mandatory? When will it stop? And just what are they planing on doing in this program?

It starts sounding reasonable, but what kind of hydra will this become?


message 8: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
An article in today's paper followed up on this story "One year later" to prove that it works with long term effects. So how soon will be all railroaded into having this surgery or not having health coverage?

I am not saying that if YOU feel this what YOU want that you shouldn't have the surgery. What I am saying is that this may be seen as an end all be all "cure" for obesity and that we WILL have this surgery or not be given medical attention and or pay even higher medical premiums (you watch, obesity will NOT be considered a preexisting condition under the new laws just to they can justify forcing this upon us.) Remember, MILDLY obese people are also being targeted here, so people on the borderline will also be targets,people who truly don't need this kind of intervention will be candidates.

I fear the fall out as this goes on as a study.


message 9: by Paul (new)

Paul (merman1967) | 228 comments I had my stomach stapled some 14 years ago. It changed my life. I went from weighing over 600 pounds and relegated to a wheelchair to 300 pounds and able to hike and camp. I do not regret it and would do it again in a heartbeat.

HOWEVER...

I became depressed when my life and that of my child was threatened. I had a knife held to my throat twice, and had the "person" tell me that he knew where my son lived and could kill him walking out the door before anyone would be able to do anything. I started eating wrong again. Keep in mind I wasn't binging on great amounts of food, and I still don't. I actually never did do that. What I used to do, and what I started doing again, is grazing. Eating comfort foods all day.

I was not able to shake that depression easily or quickly, nor did I find a way to stop the bad eating habits to this day. I have regained 150 pounds over a four year period and stayed there for the last 10 years. I have gone from a 38 back to a 64 waist. Am I disappointed? Yes. Am I depressed about it? Heck no. I am STILL 150 pounds less than I was, and have maintained the weight within a 15 pound window. I am not back in a wheelchair. I will always walk with a cane and brace due to an injury, but I CAN walk.

So....no. The surgery's results are NOT permanent. It is not a miracle cure that wipes out obesity. What it IS... is a treatment that CAN help, WILL change your life in a miraculous way. But it is also dangerous, and death can result. It is NOT something to be lightly entered into. I do not know current criteria, but when I had my surgery you had to have a long record of failed attempts and had to have been undergoing psychiatric care/counseling in order to qualify. I will fight against this becoming a forced or go-to treatment, because it should NOT be. It should STILL be a last resort.


message 10: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
See,that is what SHOULD be done, but is being seemingly pushed to the side in the name of a CURE and a way to keep down medical costs for insurers and employers. I fear the the criteria will be lowered, and more and more people will be forced to do this or else they won't have coverage/a job/housing, you name it.

YOU made a choice for YOU with ALL the information YOU needed to make a decision. YOU were NOT being told that "unless you do this, YOU will (fill in consequence)".

I have not, nor will I ever deny that these procedures help some people,but those must be the choice of that individual and NOT the decision of an insurance company or employer.

With nonsense studies like this one,(and I mean the nonsense of NOT reporting the WHOLE story in the press) that many people who truly do not need this surgery are going to have it as a preventative.

As for me, I'll take my chances.


message 11: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
The latest thing that the Cleveland Clinic is imposing on it's workers is an electronic device that MUST be worn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in order to monitor your movement. It will have GPS and will mark how much you move in a day. So office workers will be punished for desk jobs?

This is the latest effort to "keep health care costs down" and to "help you pay less". By 2015 all dependents will have to adhere to the same terms and guidelines as the employee, even any of them have insurance via their own jobs and use the Clinic insurance as a secondary one. This also means any and all children will have to lose weight or be subjected to fee increases.

This is going WAY too far here. If you want to insist that I do this that or the other thing because it saves YOU money, then that is your problem! I am not a science project,I am human being and demand respect! This is getting out of hand really fast and if it takes here, watch for it to spread.


message 12: by Paul (new)

Paul (merman1967) | 228 comments Umm. No. I would NOT do this.... I would see a lawyer immediately and file charges. This goes BEYOND too far.


message 13: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I only shudder to think what's going to happen under NoBama care.....


message 14: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited Nov 13, 2013 07:38AM) (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/new...


New guidelines for heart health of course push for dangerous surgery, which can harm your heart......

And as for the "obesity" numbers, well duh! when you keep lowering the standards of course you're going to have more people designated as such.


message 15: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited Nov 13, 2013 07:38AM) (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
And then there's THIS!


http://news.yahoo.com/company-watchin...


I thought NObamaba care was supposed to help you.....


message 16: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments That's right, let's put everyone on high-powered staten drugs and make them all have life-threatening surgeries. That'll make 'em healthier. Oh, and did we mention, they'll be paying for all that out-of-pocket since the health insurance they can't really afford doesn't cover that anyway.

Blyaaaaargh!!!

The hospital where I work already forbids its employees to smoke, at all, even at home, so it's not a stretch to think they'll start enforcing thinness. The precedent has already been set. Be afraid, be very afraid.


message 17: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
Statin drugs can cause all sorts of side effects that are not no minor to the person who experiences them. I know. I developed and intolerance to mine (after taking it for 3 years) and ended up with severe leg cramps. The push for thinness is really scaring me.

What does the government not want us to pay attention to now?


message 18: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments That's not a short list...


message 19: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
Too true.


message 20: by Paul (new)

Paul (merman1967) | 228 comments This is getting to be WAY beyond scary. But until the population says enough, until we take a stand, it WILL keep getting worse. Its like I keep telling a certain mutual friend... what the employer is doing with her health care crosses into invasion of privacy. Get a lawyer. But she keeps responding they are too big, no one will cross them. They stopped the uber-invasiveness at Penn State because of the backlash, even if they are still hiking prices.


message 21: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
It takes all the villages to rise up and say *ENOUGH IS ENOUGH* but until that happens, and let's face it,we are so trained by big business and our government to bend over and take another, that this will take a long time to happen, if ever. As long as the public is brainwashed into believing that if it's a "health issue" it's o.k. to do this, then this will continue to happen.

We need to unmask the "health issue" arguments for what they really are, a way to sell drugs and grow bottom line profits.


message 22: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited Dec 05, 2013 08:33AM) (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I call bullcookies. This appeared in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer.


[Studies cast doubt on 'fat but fit'

McClatchy-Tribune

Your body mass index says you're obese, but you don't have ''pre-diabetes'' — a mix of factors such as hypertension, high cholesterol and high glucose levels that indicates you're on the road to metabolic illness. And you're thinking you've beaten the odds, right?

Wait 10 years, a new study says. Odds are, you'll be proven wrong.

New research finds that even when a person is ''metabolically healthy,'' being obese raises his or her risk for cardiovascular disease and premature death. It just takes a study that tracks subjects for 10 years or more to pick it up, says the study, published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The meta-analysis — a study that aggregates the findings of many well-designed studies in an effort to distill larger truths — appears to dash hopes that for some, obesity can be a perfectly healthy state. In recent years, a welter of research has suggested that the illnesses long linked to obesity — cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers — might stem not from obesity itself but from metabolic dysfunction, a condition more common in the obese but by no means universal among those with BMIs over 30.

Those findings had fueled resistance to the nationwide assault on obesity from those who argued they were ''fat but fit.''

The latest study does less damage to the growing suspicion that it's OK to be overweight — with a body mass index between 25 and 30 — if you're metabolically healthy. On average, cardiovascular disease and death from any cause was not higher among the overweight- but- metabolicallyhealthy than it was for those of normal weight who were metabolically healthy.

But even those findings left the question open: There was a trend in that direction. But it was not so robust that the researchers could be confident it wasn't a statistical fluke.

In the end, that trend may be the most significant finding of all. When researchers used BMI to line up all of the 61,386 subjects who participated in the eight studies they pooled, they found that, as BMI rose, so did blood pressure, waist circumference and insulin resistance. As BMI increased, levels of HDL cholesterol, thought to protect against heart attack and stroke, decreased. Though overweight and obese subjects may not yet have reached the points that define metabolic illness, they appeared to be on that road as their weight rose.

''Increased BMI is not a benign condition, even in the absence of metabolic abnormalities,'' the authors said in a study released Monday.

The newest study does not give 'normal weight' people a pass if they are metabolically unhealthy. In this aggregation of subjects from many different studies, the authors found that this group is just as likely as those who are obese and metabolically unhealthy to have a stroke or heart attack or die of any cause — a surprise, as it has long been assumed that the combination of obesity and metabolic dysfunction confers the greatest risk.]

I still say that they make most of this stuff up as away to scare all of us "thin." There is plenty fo long-term studies that support fat and fit.


message 23: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments My personal take on the whole fat => cardiovascular disease is a bit different. I think that people with a tendency toward cardiovascular difficulties (like myself) also tend to be more sedentary; since exercise hurts, why do it? That, in turn, can lead to weight gain. I realize that this would only account for a relative handful of cases, but it's enough to be statistically significant, and they don't take anything like that into consideration.

My tuppence worth.


message 24: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
That is an excellent point. Those of us who are larger framed to start, typically have more trouble with movement as it takes more for us get where we are going, or to move what we have,that many of us find exercise tiresome,painful,embarrassing, or any combination there of. I know from my own personal trials that if I move, the fat moves too, sometimes keeps moving after I've stopped or even moves the opposite direction I would like, therefore giving me balance issues and other issues. Gravity also works against me, so doing cardio-friendly workouts were not easy for me (until the pool, but that is another story).


I say that you can be fit and fat as our bodies are created to carry different weights that are normal for us and not others.


message 25: by Sophia (new)

Sophia Martin | 45 comments Kim wrote: "I call bullcookies. This appeared in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer.


[Studies cast doubt on 'fat but fit'


Is it just me or does this article have some weird phrasing? I found it hard to follow in several spots. That makes me suspicious of the source.

I wonder, as well, whether they made any allowance for whether the people they studied were dieting, gaining and losing weight... I remember reading something a while back that said that putting your body through that process is really what causes health problems, more than maintaining a heavier weight. That has always made sense to me.

I have tried in the past to work really hard, diet, and lose weight. I did get down to a size 14 (I was and am now a 20W). It didn't last. I refuse to put myself through that process over and over again. I am certain it would be very unhealthy to do so. So, instead, I accept that I am a size 20W.

I also realized about ten years ago, after having one of many nasty interactions with my step-father, that my weight, my size, makes me feel stronger. If I lost it, I would feel insecure. I would feel like I might "blow away" and not be able to stand my ground. I know this is a matter of perspective, but what it ultimately means for me is that being my size is very much a part of who I am. No study suddenly revealing that in ten years I may have medical problems (I have my father's body, he's doing fine, and he's 30 years older than me, btw) is going to change who I am.

And who funded this study? Who stands to gain from this shocking revelation? Pul-lease.


message 26: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I wondered about the funding myself later on after my post of yesterday. All I know is that if my body wasn't designed to handle the weight I carry, my bone structure would have imploded years ago. I think that we are going to see more and more of these "studies" as ACA and CPT-10 kick in the coming year. (CPT-10 is medical coding rules from Europe and are supposed to be more precise....). All of this means doctors will make less and will be not accepting insurance, more nurse practitioners will be used to treat patients due to garbage payments.

So, buy making these so called studies "fact" they can justify not treating fat people.


message 27: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I found this in Tuesday's "Dear Abby". It appears as printed:

"DEAR ABBY: I have been married to "Sean" for five years. I am 27, stand 5 feet 7 inches tall and weigh 120 pounds. Sean is constantly pushing me to exercise more, and he comments on my thighs and stomach a lot. He tells me it's not a weight issue, but I need to "work off some fat and gain more muscle." He wasn't like this when we got married.

I love my body, and I know I'm not fat or overweight. I walk 4 miles round trip to work. My entire workday is spent on my feet, walking or running. I get plenty of exercise, and I'm healthy and active.

This is really hurting my confidence. It bothers me to hear that someone I love thinks my normal body is unattractive because of barely there "fat." I don't know what gave Sean this idea. How do I deal with it? -- JUST RIGHT IN ARIZONA

DEAR JUST RIGHT: The kind of body your husband would like you to have seems more descriptive of a skinny teenager than a healthy young woman. Is he a body builder or a gym rat? You deal with it by asking your husband why he thinks your normal body is unattractive, listen carefully to his response and, if necessary, run it by your doctor."


I think she needs a new husband.


message 28: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments Yeah, she can lose a couple hundred pounds of stupid very quickly by getting a divorce. This guy... just needs smacked. I can't even conceive of what's messed up in his head, but he's clearly not interacting with reality as the rest of us know it.


message 29: by Sophia (new)

Sophia Martin | 45 comments This is a weird one. My husband (who used to be a body builder) and I were just talking about anorexia and body dysmorphia (sp?) and trying to understand how anorexic people see themselves. My husband's theory was that someone may get a kind of tunnel vision, where they look closely at one part of their body without "zooming out." He talked about how as a competitive body builder, he used to do that, but he would also zoom out. He thinks that the zooming out process would allow someone underweight to see themselves more clearly. Anyway, in the case of this husband, it sounds like he has body dysmorphia, only he has it for his wife! I've never heard of that before. Do you think maybe this is a case of some sort of fetish? Maybe he really wants a pubescent girl...?


message 30: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments I think it's more likely that he's just a jack***. But I could be giving him too much credit.


message 31: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
It could be that his "tastes" have changed,perhaps if he is a "gym rat" he may have seen what he feel is attractive and this woman is thinner than his wife. Who knows? I agree with the assessment that he's an idiot, but keeping in mind we are only hearing one half of the story...


message 32: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited Feb 04, 2014 07:14AM) (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
On another front,I found this this morning on Yahoo!

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/barbi...

I don't completely disagree with this, nor do I completely agree with it either. I played with Barbie as a kid,most us women did and I do not feel that for me Barbie gave me a distorted body image. Frankly, I always wondered about why her feel were the way they were. That bothered me when I would put tennis shoes on her and she would still look like she was in heels.

I do not wear heels myself, mostly due to balance issues and a sprained ankle at 13 while wearing training heels, but I do not feel like less because my Barbie made me feel that way. To me, a more disturbing thing was a not so long ago study that showed children of color feeling that dolls of color were "bad" dolls and only the "white" dolls were pretty or "good".

I feel that body image issues come from a lot of fronts, not just from Barbie. Yes. she is of an unrealistic body type and yes, many women and men have massive amounts of surgery to look like dolls, or something like it, because that is what they identify with. Yet, Barbie was really a good role model, she was a doctor, an astronaut, a lawyer and other really cool things, at a time when girls were NOT encouraged to be those things. She was president for crying out loud!

Do some girls end up with body image issues based on the toys they play with, most assuredly. Is our society geared to promote that image, of course. Is that going to change anytime soon, no. We can trace the whole "ideal woman" back the Victorian Gibson Girl, that drawing of the "perfectly groomed and attired woman" that to this day we are still pursuing in more modern setting.


We have gone from the well defined female hourglass figure to Twiggy,then Kate Moss and finally the "heroin chic" look, of the near dead, pre-adolescent boy look in our models. Here's the deal, Barbie is not the end all be all to self worth or images. She is one of many things that young girls are exposed to that MAY have an effect. The most direct effect on them is YOU and how YOU see YOURSELF, how YOU talk about YOU and how YOU treat YOU.

Little girls learn from what they hear and see from family, friends and the like. If you walk around making a big deal about calories and "how fat am I?" when you are not, then what do you expect?

If you don't want your child to play with Barbie, don't. If you do, make sure they know that she is just a doll and that she is not real. Teach your sons and daughters that models in magazines are airbrushed, that real women and men come in all shapes, sizes and are wonderful just how they are.

A doll does not make you feel bad about you, you do that, so aren't you better than a bunch of plastic?


YES! YOU are!


message 33: by Paul (new)

Paul (merman1967) | 228 comments It not the dolls. Sure, they might play into it, but every where that you look, you are bombarded with the thin-to-anorexic look. Models. Actresses. Singers. They are in commercials, print ads, internet ads, billboards, music videos, movies, television shows.... the list is virtually endless. And now the move to demonize childhood obesity.... yet not once do you hear them address the chemicals fed to animals to make the gain weight and become fertile sooner than nature intended. Those chemicals stay in the meat and then go into our bodies. THAT is a big part of why children are much bigger than they used to be. That and the fact they sit in their keisters playing video games rather than going out and being active combine to make the problem worse.


message 34: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
And then we have this story that I saw on CNN yesterday. Keep in mind the woman they are talking to is the "mommy blogger" who has spoken out against the pro-body image movement.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vid...

This is funny?


message 35: by Paul (new)

Paul (merman1967) | 228 comments GRRRRRR. This is disgusting.


message 36: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments I have no words. And I wish they didn't either...


message 37: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
People like her are why shows like "Biggest Loser" keep finding an audience.


message 38: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments The train-wreck factor?


message 39: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
That and those who like to see fat people not be fat anymore.


message 40: by Narzain (last edited Feb 11, 2014 04:35PM) (new)

Narzain | 194 comments Perverts.

:)


message 41: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
So, the government is finally realizing that so called nutrition labels are not realistic. It took them 20 years to realize this and now they are proposing new labels in the next 3-4 years that will be clearer, have larger serving sizes (read: realistic), more info about total servings in a package, and how many total calories there are if you consume the entire thing at one time. This will cost manufacturers several million dollars to comply, which you so know means that we as consumers are going pay for this somehow.

What I want to know is how may of us truly pay attention to the label anyway? Restaurants now are putting calorie counts on the menu,like at Panera and McDonald's, so you can make a better choice. H-m-m-m, I'm in a fast food restaurant, the better choice has flown the coop on that one. People are going to eat what they want to anyway, so putting the info out there is most likely a way to publicly shame you into being thin,excuse me, healthy.


On the flip side of this, efforts to make school lunches healthier have resulted in more kids not eating (heaven's the little dears are starving!, despite claims that 1 in 3 kids are obese....), the portion sizes are smaller, the meals cost more, and the waste of the food is higher than before. One nutritionist I heard on the news stated that these kids are not used to eating healthy. You think? Why eat healthy food at school when you can picky-eat bully your parents into fixing you processed foods at home or even force them to buy you fast food?

She stated that if her kids don't want what she makes,she send them to bed hungry. Oh, wait, isn't that child abuse when you act like a parent? Too many of our kids in this country rule their households because parents don't parent their children. So, this push to make our kids healthier in school just gets shot to heck at home.

You want healthier kids, encourage parents to parent and stop making parenting seem like child abuse. Telling a child no, sending them to bed with out a meal or two is not going to make them become Ted Bundy!

Sorry, pet peeve.

So, with all of this legislate you healthy suddenly back in the news, you think that we're being distracted again from the yet again looming fiscal cliff?


message 42: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
There was one in the news lately that had me scratching my head. A person was on trial for taking pictures of women,without their knowledge or permission,with a cell phone. The photos,were of their "lady areas" while clothed. This is known as "up-skirting" and the same thing can happen if a person is on a higher floor looking down at your chest. Based on an antiquated law, the person was found not guilty because the women were clothed. The governor signed a bill the next day that makes this practice against the law,effective immediately.

I guess this is the modern equivalent of mirrors on shoes, highly polished patent leather shoes, and dropping change. I fail to see why the person was not held accountable sine the pictures were not taken with permission. That right there was and should have been a conviction. Are we that complacent about our lack of privacy that this is becoming a permitted act? Really?


message 43: by Sophia (new)

Sophia Martin | 45 comments I read somewhere just like last week that some state supreme court had ruled up-skirting legal. I'll try to find the article.


message 44: by Sophia (last edited Mar 12, 2014 07:40AM) (new)

Sophia Martin | 45 comments Got it. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/0... Apparently it's in Massachusetts.


message 45: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
It should never have been tossed. It was an invasion of personal space.


message 46: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)


message 47: by Paul (new)

Paul (merman1967) | 228 comments This is so disgusting. That's like saying all black people are going to cost x dollars due to sickle cell. Or every Irish person will cost x dollars for their alcohol abuse. Stereotyping all based on the health concerns of a few.


message 48: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited Apr 09, 2014 06:55AM) (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
Or kids with asthma,kids with cerebral palsy, dwarfism.....just one more way to justify why fat people need to be legislated thin....


message 49: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments Yet another cobbled-together "statistic" to ghettoize a group of people, the better to single us out for whatever the powers that be want to do for their latest distraction.

I especially call bull plop on the idea that fat people are more likely to go to the doctor. How many of us AVOID going to the doctor, just so we don't hear "lose some weight" instead of a useful diagnostic?


message 50: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited Apr 09, 2014 06:56AM) (new)

Kim (mrsnesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
How true. How many of us avoid the doctors office because we DON'T get help when we do go? I am so tired of them saying that just because I'm fat I cost more. They did it to smokers for years and now they are looking for the next money maker.


« previous 1
back to top