"Honey, They're Killing Free Choice!"
Have you ever watched the show on the The Learning Channel, "Honey, We're Killing the Kids?" I had heard about the show and watched it for the first time yesterday. The gist of the show is that parents are providing their children with such a terrible lifestyle that it will "kill" the children off early if they stay on the same trajectory. Following is a description of the show:
The show I watched showed a fairly happy family of mom, dad, two young boys and a baby boy. The parents ran a deli and the boys--eight and twelve--were over there continuously eating snacks including chips and soda. In comes savior and nutritionist Dr. Lisa Hark on the show to save the day by providing rules for eating, drinking and living. She tells the boys to quit going to the deli where dad works to eat snacks, that meals will consist of only healthy foods, that the boys cannot watch tv or play video games for some time and then only if they earn points to do so by doing chores, that the parents will quit smoking and on and on...
Now, all of this sounds good and healthy, doesn't it? But the family honestly looks miserable. The younger of the two boys, eight year old Collin, looks ready to cry and does cry in some scenes. Mom and Dad look exasperated with trying to quit smoking and they don't try very hard, leaving them feeling guilty when they are hauled before the nutritionist at the end of the show to talk about their shame. Dad hangs his head and mom barely talks when they are quizzed on how they are doing. It's honestly rather pathetic. They are told by the nutritionist that at this rate, their sons will only live to 60. My gut reaction? So what? If they will be living in a state of misery with such a lack of control over what they like to eat, drink, smoke, or do in their daily lives, what's the point? Isn't happiness and free choice worth something too?
Reason Magazine recently had an interesting article entitled, "An Epidemic of Meddling: The totalitarian implications of public health." The article makes an important point:
I realize that "Honey, We're Killing the Kids" is just a TV show and that the families on the show chose to be there. Yet, I can't help but think that the show is a metaphor for the type of public health policy that many nanny staters want to implement--legally enforceable rules that take away our free choice and demand that we adhere to a utopian view of health--whether we want to or not. "A government empowered to maximize health is not a government under which anyone who values liberty would want to live." I certainly don't.
...parents are shown the consequences of poor parenting. The program shows computer-generated images of what their children may look like as adults if they continue with their present life-style, dietary and exercise habits.
First, a family with issues relating to their parenting, dietary and exercise habits is introduced. Then, the children are examined by physicians, and every aspect of their eating habits and physical activity is analyzed by an expert team. Then, the parents are shown what their children may look like by taking present-day photos of them and age-progressing the photos with a computer year by year until age forty. The parents are frequently brought to tears when presented with the likelihood of their childrens' unhappy future appearance and significantly reduced life expectancy.
The show I watched showed a fairly happy family of mom, dad, two young boys and a baby boy. The parents ran a deli and the boys--eight and twelve--were over there continuously eating snacks including chips and soda. In comes savior and nutritionist Dr. Lisa Hark on the show to save the day by providing rules for eating, drinking and living. She tells the boys to quit going to the deli where dad works to eat snacks, that meals will consist of only healthy foods, that the boys cannot watch tv or play video games for some time and then only if they earn points to do so by doing chores, that the parents will quit smoking and on and on...
Now, all of this sounds good and healthy, doesn't it? But the family honestly looks miserable. The younger of the two boys, eight year old Collin, looks ready to cry and does cry in some scenes. Mom and Dad look exasperated with trying to quit smoking and they don't try very hard, leaving them feeling guilty when they are hauled before the nutritionist at the end of the show to talk about their shame. Dad hangs his head and mom barely talks when they are quizzed on how they are doing. It's honestly rather pathetic. They are told by the nutritionist that at this rate, their sons will only live to 60. My gut reaction? So what? If they will be living in a state of misery with such a lack of control over what they like to eat, drink, smoke, or do in their daily lives, what's the point? Isn't happiness and free choice worth something too?
Reason Magazine recently had an interesting article entitled, "An Epidemic of Meddling: The totalitarian implications of public health." The article makes an important point:
The public health mission to minimize morbidity and mortality leaves no room for the possibility that someone might accept a shorter life span in exchange for more pleasure or less discomfort.
I realize that "Honey, We're Killing the Kids" is just a TV show and that the families on the show chose to be there. Yet, I can't help but think that the show is a metaphor for the type of public health policy that many nanny staters want to implement--legally enforceable rules that take away our free choice and demand that we adhere to a utopian view of health--whether we want to or not. "A government empowered to maximize health is not a government under which anyone who values liberty would want to live." I certainly don't.
Labels: The Nanny State
posted by Helen at 6:28 AM
58 Comments:
There seems to be a class of person who concentrates on lifestyle choice to the exclusion of genetics when looking at all health issues. They ignore the mounting genetic evidence concerning cholesterol, obesity, longevity, and even things like tooth decay. Certainly all these health issues are influeced by choices, and healthy choices should be encouraged, but the body nazis attempt to use shame and guilt as motivators.
Trouble is, neither is very good at motivating behavior change. The show you describe sounds like a kind of Jerry Springer show for peopl who want to look down on other people's health choices rather than their relational choices (a la Springer.)
Maybe it can be viewed as some weird kind of health S&M fetish.
Trey
Trey,
"Maybe it can be viewed as some weird kind of health S&M fetish."
It sure seemed that way when the parents were hauled before the nutritionist who acted like God and told them her estimated life expectancy for the kids was 60. How did she know? Even people with cancer or other terminal illnesses live longer than the medical experts predict at times. We have all heard stories or met people who were in their 90's who talk about how they ate hot dogs and drank heavily. I am not advocating this lifestyle. I don't live this way--maybe I should, it sounds like more fun than the tofu and teetotaling I've been doing--but who is really to say that a healthy lifestyle is the only one that is right for everyone?
The people who really know how lifestyle affects health and lifespan are the insurance company actuaries, after all, they are betting their own money on it.
If you Google up one of the lifespan calculators they have put on the net and answer the questions honestly, you will get a good idea of how healthy your lifestyle really is.
There's also some evidence that there are benefits to smoking for some people. I don't know that they outweigh the benefits of quitting necessarily, and I'm certainly not going to advocate taking it up for its health benefits, but there is a genetic component here just as there is with nutrition.
I wouldn't be surprised if cleaner tobacco had fewer adverse health effects than the chemical laden junk you get in the average pack of cigarettes. Either way, smoking seems to have been demonized to an unjustified extreme.
Eleanor Deakin,
I once read somewhere--can't remember where--that about one third of smokers are damaged by it somewhat, one third are severely damaged and one-third are not affected by it at all. The problem is, you don't know which category you are in.
And people are always going on with the health benefits of fruits and vegetables but they always made me sick. I found out a few years ago that I was highly allergic to many of them so I doubt many are of much benefit to those of us with allergies to certain foods.
Trey hit on a good point concerning genetics. I believe genetics are the primary factor in determining longetivity. I have an uncle who smoked a pack of Pall Malls every day and drank large amounts of beer. Although he never got drunk, he was of German descent. He kept a keg in his refrigerator. He lived to be 79.
I try to stay healthy, not for longetivity but so I can do the things I enjoy now. I like the outdoors, camping, hiking, gardening, general yard work, tossing football with my kids, etc. Being healthy enables me to do more of that.
It's the pleasure factor that keeps me healthier but other people get pleasure in other ways. I can accept that. I don't want everyone to be like me.
But if we only lived our lives like we should no one would have to tell us what to do.
Actuarial tables are fairly good predictors for large groups of people. But their bias is predictable, it will be in favor of the insurance companies that use them.
They are also based on old data, they have to be! The people who currently die did not have access to the same nutritional and medical knowledge and treatments that we do. They could not as they were our age several decades ago. That is another bias in favor of the insurance companies making more money.
This is not to deny that it is smart to use the best in current knowledge concerning healthy living. But it is only honest to admit that the emperor's clothes are skimpy.
Trey
Actually, I am one of those insurance company actuaries. I just can't believe that something that falls into my profession is actually coming up! And, someone even knows about my profession!
I do believe hell is freezing over!
As for issuing some sort of prediction like that for some particular individual, I don't think it is all that meaningful, though. Really all an actuary has to be is right on average, and even at that, the accuracy heads south real fast when you
1) include lots of elaborate details, like if they eat junk food or something
2) make a prediction for a long time out, like telling a child when they might die some decades from now
It's all about the variance.
(I just did a life expectancy deal. LOL. They didn't even ask me how old I was.
That said, I do think that it tells you what happens on average for whatever that is worth. In other words, you get a rough sense of "this is how bad for you X generally is" or something. Which isn't bad information to have.
Personally, I do think it is sad, though, that we measure the value of a life in years like that, as if it's all about the length.
Not only that... but by your description, you have a nutritionist encouraging the children to not spend time with their father.
It sounds like the kids not only eat at the deli, but probably spend some quality bonding time with their dad while he is working hard.
What a great family experience.
We all see people all the time who are really fat and really old. Likewise smokers. The risks have been overexaggerated.
I would point out that the families on this particular show volunteer to participate. It's hardly nannying when it's self-imposed.
Omnibus driver,
If you had read the last paragraph, you would have seen that I made this point.
I also like to make the point that with new medical technologies coming up, I literally have no idea how old my children can live to be. (They're currently 5 and 4.) 90's seems likely, 120 seems possible, and 200 doesn't seem impossible.
A great book related to this subject is "Holy Fire" by Bruce Sterling. It's about a relatively near future where insurance companies dole out life-extension technology only to those who have lived a low-risk healthy lifestyle, and what happens when a new rejuvenation technique provides a woman who's lived her whole life as safely as possible with the body, brain, and hormones of an 18-year-old.
There are faster and cleaner ways to kill your kids than stuffing them with deli food. These people really need to do some research before they start a project.
Helen, I'm surprised you actually saw this on TLC. Every time I go there, they're showing "Little People, Big World." Now I just call it The Dwarf Channel.
Perhaps next they will approach happy couples and give them the option to use imaging technology to see what they each will look like in 30 years or so.
I think Schopenhauer imagined something of the sort, although the technology was obviously not there yet in his time....
one question the actuarary lists, for insurance purposes, do they include the non insured, but no one can predict when they will die, not you or me.
so why should everyone be pigeonholed. i would rather live to age 50 and have my enjoyment out of life, than liver to 70 and be miserable and food paranoid.
almost all of the oldest people on the planet all have smoked and drank, so why are they "immune".
Yes I agree it's awful, the show and the nanny-state programs. Just the Ad Council PSAs on talk radio are bad enough, hectoring us to eat our vegetables, exercise, stop smoking, talk to your kids. What a price to pay just to hear Laura Ingraham or Rush.
But if you watch a show like Big Medicine you see all the different stages relatively young people go through from plump to can't-get-out-of-bed. The damage to knees and hips is insidious, and once past a certain point it's well nigh impossible to climb back out of the quicksand.
Extreme cases, yes, but I am amazed at the number of big, soft and truly huge people around these days. What on earth is going on?
Reminds me of a Bill Cosby routine where he describes running around a track at a park and an old man watches. He takes a break and opens his lunch to a cucumber sandwich. Old man queries and Cosby tells him it's his wife's idea to keep him from dying young. Old man says "Looks to me like you're already dead."
Short version, of course.
The fact that the parents volunteered to be on a Reality TV show militates pretty strongly against any member of the family ever being happy or healthy.
There's no reason the kids can't hang out at the deli WITHOUT pounding down the junk food. If they're going to inherit the business someday, a smart parent would start now teaching them how to run it without eating all the profits.
However, I find it ironic that a member of the mental health industry takes issue with the procrustean tendencies of the public arm of the physical health industry. Seems to me "get your kid off junk food and video games" is far more innocuous and of more proven value than "feed your kid Ritalin or SSRI's."
It's not ok for a parent to let their kids eat what they want and choose idle entertainment whenever they please. You know who should be "nannies"? PARENTS! Parent's should teach their kids what to do, with rules, and modeling of acceptable behaviour.
Successful people learn to dole out pleasures to themselves in less than completely unrestrained ways, and to give up or postpone immediate personal gratification in pursuit of long term goals that may bring a more moderate amount of longer- lasting happiness and satisfaction.
Parents should model that behaviour. Yes, it's no fun giving up habits that comfort and please right now, in exchange for a better life in the long term.
I don't get where quitting smoking is going to ruin their enjoyment of life, even if quitting now is a misery. And cheezit, some chantix would take care of that.
If the government gets involved in telling people what they can't have in unlimited supply in unlimited venues, like narcotics or cigarettes, or sex
...yeah, that's tricky business and there needs to be a truly compelling interest in keeping the peace or protecting innocents from others choices.
But I've got no problem with mom's and dad's saying, TV off!, even if the kid cries and whines unfair because they are used to watching on demand.
It's more important for them to be getting exercise than to stop the snacking! The main reason that most people have weight problems when they do is that they never seriously exercise in ways that will burn calories. Let them snack at the deli, provided they are playing outside and being active.
On the other hand, a few years ago I was in a pizza joint and there was this little butterball who couldn't have been more than 9 years old and was probably pushing on a good 140-150lb. The kid was very fat and he had a huge plate of greasy pizza stacked several layers high.
There does come a point where you have to make them miserable. The parents sometimes just allow things that will end up killing their kids. I can't imagine why a parent would take a very obese child to a place where they know they'll eat several thousand calories in one sitting, unless it is a very special occasion.
I think the people who do this are scared of death. They want to think that by not "sinning" in their health, they will be rewarded with longer life.
It's too bad for them that it's not true.
georgeh: If you Google up one of the lifespan calculators they have put on the net and answer the questions honestly, you will get a good idea of how healthy your lifestyle really is.
I just took the Living to 100 test and it gave me an expectancy of 82 years. I think that is a good amount. Three of my grandparents are still alive and the oldest is 73. My other grandpa committed suicide.
This thread has been pleasant, thoughtful, and informative. Great posts.
Why is it threads about politics or gender issues are so nasty and shallow by comparison?
Trey
I couldn't agree more, Katie. I think there is just this general faith in karma regardless of religious affiliation that all people have. Perhaps the one's that didn't all died out millions of years ago for some reason. But, that vague faith comes to bear here: "If I just 'do the right thing', then god/nature/fortune will reward me."
In actuality it is like 50% genetic and the other 50% is just poorly understood anyway. If you were doing a healthy lifestyle back with the low fat diet, you were doing the wrong thing when Adkins came a long. And, now there is even good fat that you are screwed if you don't have it. So, you were probably really screwing up with that old diet. And, before that it was something else that was even more messed up. Even if we could control the other half (even though it is just half), we still have no idea what the hell we're doing.
Just live you're life -- all the important stuff happens by the time your 50, anyway.
Well Trey is overweight by plenty, and helen has already had her first heart attack before 50...
Excuses, excuses, excuses. (Poor genetics, allergic to healthy foods) If we're going with employer insurance, and social medicine plans, I think you two are deadweight. That's why people care how you feed your kids, and if you get up and move your bodies some. Because the rest of us pay for it. And there's a lot of excuse-makers out there taking up extra space and medical resources that could be better allocated.
Make your own choices, but don't come whining to the rest of us when your poor health trips you up.
This thread has been pleasant, thoughtful, and informative. Great posts.
Fatties tend to dislike tough talk, like to hear excuses.
Go for a walk, huh Trey? Won't kill you.
i see the fat bashers are about, being fat is the only "valid", apart from being male of course, discrimination you cant adopt a child because you are fat, you cant get on this airline because you are fat (not to mention they pack people in like sardines in them to make more money for them).
to all those fat haters, why not put them into government run camps, and dont feed them at all, and put them to work till they become economically viable and thin.
and we all know thin is wonderful and no one has died from anorexia, or bullimia, (if you have worked it out thats sarcasm).
why does a person being fat, create so much hostility, if it was because their skin was black, or they were a different religon, then there would be uproar. it is puritanism, the fear that someone somewhere is having fun.
but fat people,well,they deserve all they get dont they, its not as if they are human or are they?
People don't mind if you're fat if you can carry your own weight.
It's when you spill over the airline seat, when you cost the insurance policy more because of your medical-related needs the rest of us avoid, when you make your health a burden on your children and others so society has to pick up the bill...
Stop feeling sorry for the "discrimination" and see that when you are bigger, you should pay more for your bigness. If you already pay your own way, munch away!
oh you mean these airline seats that tall people cant sit on properly, but who's fault is it packing 300 seats into a space for 250, them for being "fat"
you can be fat and fit, i am healthier than most people, went to the doctors after losing my voice, and they took bp, replaced the machine twice because they ASSumed my bp would be high, did a cholesterol test, i was well within the limits, heart rate at rest 70 beats a minute, oh but i must be deadly ill because i am fat.
how about this anon 3.41
**Stop feeling sorry for the "discrimination" and see that when you are black, you should pay more for your blackness. If you already pay your own way, munch away! ** is this ok, or isnt it? some people do see fat people as freaks, and i have had people grunting like a pig when i order food. if you think no one cares about being fat then you are living in a fantasy world. being fat is the only legally acceptable discrimination.
Helen, I think you may want to watch the program a few more times. My mom and I have been watching the show since it first started airing, and what she and I get out of it is that the nutritionist is helping the family change their life for the better. They see that they have a problem, they don't know how to fix it, and then they go get help (through the show). Sure, you're probably right that it looks like a nanny-state (I haven't seen this particular episode yet), but on the whole, the families that DO go on this show DO change, they DO lose weight, and they are MUCH happier (from just looking at their faces, especially their eyes). To me, the concept and execution is capitalistic, and lives are changed. Yes, there are the exceptions (the majority of the shows have the families unite and be a family, give mom and dad "parent time", allow personal space, and bring parenting back to parents and out of the kids' hands), and it seems that you watched one of such shows. I know from past shows, the ones where mom and/or dad have to quit smoking, the end result isn't very good.
So please, give the show a bit more of a chance. I think that if you watched last week's show, you'd have a different outlook.
Other than that, thank you for your insight and your blog.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/07/26/hill.adoption.denied.cnn
a CNN video about Gary Stocklaufer, a Missouri man who was denied adoption rights for his nephew. The judge's reason? He's "too fat".
Per the video:
A court appointed guardian said that there was concern that this man... may develop diabetes or sleep apnea because of his size.
May develop. Stocklaufer does not have diabetes nor sleep apnea and, in his words, just wants to give this child a "loving home". But the judge says no. Curious: should we deny all men adoption rights because they tend to die younger than women?
***** so thats not discrimination is it???
Hey, my secret despiser is back! I guess I spoke too soon about the thoughfulness and civility of the posts, cause as soon as I did, the turd in the punchbowl showed up!
Fat Trey
if you think no one cares about being fat then you are living in a fantasy world. being fat is the only legally acceptable discrimination.
No. Being gay is.
Your fat/black example is not the same. If a fat person, even a fit fat person, is spilling over the airplane seat, that's not discrimination to charge for two seats. It's not that we don't want to sit next to a black person, it's that we want to use one armrest too, or not have to sit to one side of our seat because you need two.
It's too bad if you don't like the design. I'm tall, and yes, I have to pull in my legs. If you're obese (a better term than fat) and can't pull in your mass, then it's not discrimination because others are affected.
Same with the time off for health problems, the insurance costs for bearing your ongoing health problems, etc.
If you have a heart condition and want to make excuses, fine. But if other people are subsidizing your poor health, then they absolutely have a right to judge your health choices. Whether you like it or not. And in a democracy, they can organize and "shame" or charge more or talk about the problems caused by the obese. Or the welfare moms. Or teh gays. Or the druggies or drunks. You may not like it, but what better incentive to change?
Stop making special excuses for your personal characteristic.
Lol. Name calling, Trey? In such a nice discussion about obesity and the rational reasons for charging people more for the resources they consume?
I heard you ate the turd floating in the sugarbowl anyway...
anon 4.40, its only a short step from charging more to putting them into work camps.. to pay back society..
A court appointed guardian said that there was concern that this man... may develop diabetes or sleep apnea because of his size.
May develop. Stocklaufer does not have diabetes nor sleep apnea and, in his words, just wants to give this child a "loving home". But the judge says no. Curious: should we deny all men adoption rights because they tend to die younger than women?
***** so thats not discrimination is it???
It's called:
"Acting in the best interests of the Child" You might disagree, but it's a standard plenty of courts are asked to apply.
The sad thing is... Trey's snowflake boys and girl DO suffer as a result of having an obese parent, whether or not he dies earlier than if he would have taken better care of himself or not.
Then there's the costs of lesser health that both his children, and society, will bear. The sooner will face up to these facts, and stop denying that obese people have poorer health, the sooner these people will be motivated to help themselves.
Nobody can do the work for them. And make no mistake -- good health is work. Can't be bought or wished into existence. That judge was helping the child long-term, and hopefully the man denied custody won't make excuses for the reason he is not seen as a fit parent.
anon 4.40, its only a short step from charging more to putting them into work camps.. to pay back society
Well, I'd be more inclined to just deny them a boarding pass if they can't pay for the additional space they would consume.
But in this fear-mongering society, sure what the hell? The Food Nazis are coming for YOU!!! But first, they have to come for our weapons. I'm still waiting for that threat to materialize here in America. Heh!
Once someone tried to sell me on the benefits of a near starvation diet. Supposedly if you eat just barely enough to survive you can live much, much longer. The obvious question is, of course, who the hell would want to? The opposite is pretty inane too, indulging in so many gustatory delights that you are unable or ill disposed to life's other pleasures, i.e. sex, athletics, being able to see your own toes and sometimes, when needed, even touch them. Epicurus was right.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/cat-and-email-even-scientists-can-be.html
a lot of this fat hysteria and fat hatred is because of this argument post-hoc ergo propter hoc (meaning after this therefore because of this).
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
check this out, every word of it is true. do you want to ban it?
The tricky thing about taking advice from nutritionists and other health consultants is that they're encouraged to lie.
Health promotion is the one area of medical ethics where it's accepted that deception is routinely necessary and should be promoted.
They have all sorts of data that purportedly supports this principle, dealing with the necessity to motivate people for their own good. This principle was apparently first accepted in epidemiology but has be since been taken up by other professions.
But the end result is that there's a good chance that a nutritionist is lying to you. Oddly they may not even realize that they're lying to you as they have probably been lied to.
For instance, there's no way that the nutritionist on the show can accurate project the mortality of those children with the information she gathered. But she did so anyway - that's highly unethical. It's like a physician disingenuously telling you that you have terminal cancer because he wants you to go to the doctor more often. It may be a good idea to visit the doctor more often, but this doesn't warrant deceiving someone and ruining their life.
Remember Grandma who fed you good?
Who spent time in the kitchen, who had a garden, who didn't have factory-produced "food" available to serve her family?
Do you trust Grandma? Did she raise em healthier than they do today? How did we manage to be healthier back then as kids with no pills being pushed down our kids's throats?
No, Grandma wasn't perfect. She wasn't pushing products for her own profit though. And her family was generally healthy, not overweight not allergic to fruits and vegetables and godknows, no heart attacks under 50.
Speak of the wolf (or troll), and he comes running, so don't do that.
Every group solipsistically imagines itself to be the only safe target for discrimination. Reality check: every group gets crap, and lots of it, because people are largely intolerant shits. You'll get more done if you don't play Martyr.
You'll get more done if you don't play Martyr.
Some people build their schtick around being victimized though.
First it was the women, now dr.helen is attempting to make victims of all the boys/males in the country.
Sadly for her though, most American men are refusing to go along with her agenda. And they're starting to push back too against making little boys the newest members of America's victim class... thank God!
Anon, I am sorry about the turd comment. Not very nice on my part.
It is just that we big men are tired, so tired! Almost every day, we have to deal with the sexual curiosity and desires of the thin women. You know the ones, anorectic, anorgasmic, and they just want the big man.
Oh, they hide it, or try to. They deny it, or obscure it behind thinly (sorry) veiled insults and put downs. But deep, deep inside, you ladies want, crave, and are obsessed with the big love. A man big enough to hold you, big enough to scold you, big enough to reach that spot deep inside, big enough to be your master.
But that will not be me anon. Sorry. I am taken.
There may be others for you. I suggest you quit your job at the women's center and get a job at a big and tall men's shop. Lots of possibilities there, but they are busy. You may have to wait 6 months, maybe three years, but if you are patient and learn to be kind, you will find what you crave: big love.
As for me, you need to get me out of your system. To help, you should insult me, discredit me, deny your desires, say you are concerned for my health, log on as different people to insult me even.
And every night, before you go to sleep, repeat 10 times.
I cannot have Trey.
I cannot have Trey.
I cannot have Trey.
And cry yourself to sleep.
Trey
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What??
I signed my name and was responding to somebody who called me out?
Really helen, this special protection for the boys and fat man has got to stop. Look around at what you're doing to the country turning them all into fat wimps. Cmon... it's words helen. Bounce right off him.
And I really am curious now about obesity and fertility issues, and whether he thinks it's important to be physically around and able to play with the 3 little snowflakes when they turn into teens.
Might inspire him to take a walk around the block... or two. Do you want trey to have a heart attack so young too? Because that's what couch coddling and excuse making lead to (Im allergic to fruits and vegetables and I can prepare all my family meals in under 10 minutes. No, but of course that has nothing to do with my health.)
The whole thing goes way beyond weight or lifestyle issues. There have been several reports of employers and insurers charging people more if their BMI is too high, if their blood sugar is high or if their LDL is above 130 (no mention of HDL, by the way, it could be 90, but the person will still be penalized).
The last three items are essentially forcing many people to go on drugs whether they want to or not, even if it is not indicated. For example, my weight is at the lower side of normal range, I exercise, my 10-year heart desease risk according to Framighan calculator is under 1%, and my HDL is 80. But because of my family history my LDL is over 130. But according to these rules I would have to go on drugs to reduce my LDL (there is not much weight I can loose without becoming anorexic and there is not much I can do to my already healthy diet) even though a) there is not much evidence for statins for primary prevention in women and b) even if there is some benefit, it would be so little in absolute numbers that the cost of treating people in my risk group would cost a lot more money than it would save.
What happens with our right to refuse treatment? Is charging us for making a medical choice we have every right to make goes in line with the principle of informed consent?
Incidentally, I have my doubts in this program would save money even if we only talk about life style choices. Some people really cannot loose weight. Some post-menopausal women for example have a lot of difficulties in maintaining normal weight. But even if it is an issue of choice, there certainly will be some people who as a result of such a program will go on unhealthy crash diets just to loose weight before the next "measurement" or engage in exercise that is too strenuous and have injuries. The cost of treating these injuries may well be above whatever savings such a program will have.
Oh, and if they are truly serious of making money, shouldn't they be fair and penalize people for being underweight, for engaging in activities with high risk of injuries like gymnastic or running, etc. They should truly watch us every hour of every day to make sure all of our choices are "healthy" at least by today's definition. Of course this definition may change tomorrow (HRT comes to mind), but who cares...
Underweight people don't cost the same in social costs. No overspillage in airplane seats. No extra health costs like those related to the obesity illnesses (cardiovascular, diabetes, infertility, etc)
It's not blind prejudice. It's putting the costs of poor health on those whose obesity is related to it.
Fit people who take care of themselves and inherit good genes should not have to insure the extra costs of those who are not. If the obese truly were paying their own way in society, I suspect you'd see less resentment of their over-consumption. It's when you're asking me to pay more when your health suddenly goes down, or when you take up extra space ... no thanks.
Funny, I've never had an underweight person cost me more like that.
you missed you the words as far as you know in your last statement.
why not chop the legs off tall people in flights they are taking up your space.. why not charge the disabled more, they take up more space, why not charge parents with young children, they take up more space as sone airlines dont even charge then for seats..
check out these links, but then again i bet you wont as they contradict your closed mind.
everything is blamed on the fat people, so why not charge them till they become in debt.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/071403A.html
A 10-year epidemiological follow-up study in the International Journal of Obesity in 1993 examining National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-I) data from the 1970s to 1980s, found no relationship between baseline physical activity level and later weight gain among either men or women. According to Jack Wilmore, Ph.D., of Texas A&M
The diet advocates have continuously claimed that by eating less, and less fatty foods, we could all be slim. Americans listened. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, total caloric intake, as well as total fat intake, steadily decreased from 1965 to 1990. During this period, obesity increased dramatically, Steven Blair, P.E.D., president of the Cooper Institute noted in a February 2002 Mayo Clinic Proceedings. "The prevalence of obesity," he concluded, "is unlikely to be due to increases in daily energy intake."
Trey,
"Maybe it can be viewed as some weird kind of health S&M fetish."
Thankfully, I have lots of other, much more fun fetishes. But let's stay on topic.
I'm too fat. I work too much at a sedentary job.
And that's the difference between me, my dad (now 94), and my grandfather (who lived to be 94).
They ate like horses. Or maybe pigs. And there is nothing cardio-conscious about a farmer's diet (shudder!).
But I'm convinced they burned the cholesterol away.
Which I need to do more often.
Excuse me while I hit the Nordic-Track.
why not chop the legs off tall people in flights they are taking up your space.. why not charge the disabled more, they take up more space, why not charge parents with young children, they take up more space as sone airlines dont even charge then for seats..
Well, I'm tall.
I'm perfectly capable of pulling in my legs out of the aisle, or standing and letting someone get in to the window seat.
So there's an easy "fix".
No need to chop off legs (heh!) or charge me more for inconveniencing others.
If you can't suck in your flab to keep it from inconveniencing other passengers who have paid for a full seat that you are taking up the space of, then buy another seat so you don't inconvenience others.
Sorry. I have no prejudices against fat people who aren't inconveniencing me. Also, if your bulk causes you to move slowly, don't inconvenience others. Walk to the side and allow passing room.
In short, don't let your personal problems caused by your weight affect everyone else. Most big people don't do that.
It's just the victims and the whiners who have this "picked on" mentality, like everyone wants to chop them up or something. No. But I do with you'd walk more and eat less so that you and your children could experience a healthier and more active lifestyle. Plus you wouldn't cost the country so much in weight-related health care costs.
Good luck!
why not charge parents with young children, they take up more space as sone airlines dont even charge then for seats..
If the child is under 2, they are considered lap sitters. If the flight is full, the child sits on the lap, not taking up extra space.
If not, yes they ride free.
If you can gather up your flab and keep it on your lap on a full flight, I agree. Charge only for one ticket. If you're sittng next to an empty seat, let your flab flow freely!
I've watched it, often catch it just to see how over the top it is, and be amazed at how stupid Dr. Hark is.
The "bad" age progression, amazingly enough always requires glasses, a bad haircut, and poor-fitting clothes, and often teeth are lost.
The "good" age progression has smiles, all the teeth, apparently LASIK is included, and a better choice of hairstylists.
I almost wish I had kids, so I could go on the show and explode with the age progression... "No! My son will NEVER WEAR GLASSES! OR HAVE A MULLET! You LIE! LIE!"
The methods chosen by the HBIC are also designed to cause strife (And good TV viewing), leading me to believe that she's more worried about ratings than results.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
080苗栗人聊天室女同志聊天室sex女優王國080中部人聊天室ut視訊聊天聊天室ut尋夢園聊天聯盟聊天同志聊天室a片卡通ut影音視訊聊天室13077ut女同聊天室免費視訊聊天上班族聊天室免費線上成人影片新浪辣妹視訊情人視訊網ut 聊天室聊天室找一夜中部人聊天室
Post a Comment
<< Home