CPAPtalk.com

AMK wrote:

MaxINTJ wrote:

49er wrote: HI Max,

There are two issues with the first one being whether insurance companies should cover weight loss surgeries. I will punt on that one.

But I disagree vehemently that gaining weight is a personal choice for everyone who ends up in that condition. Several years ago, after being put on Prozac (an alleged weight neutral drug), 30 pounds appeared without my changing my diet or exercise routine. I was scared to death that the weight gain wouldn't stop.

All of a sudden when I was in my thirties, I started gaining weight suddenly - was just a metabolism change. BUT, I only had to adjust my caloric intake. Same thing happened in my fifties - I noticed my metabolism changed again.

Yes, certain medications can do the same thing, but they cannot create fat from zero calories. If you are always burning more calories than you're eating, you will lose weight - that is a scientific fact.

I so often hear the argument that "I only eat as much as so and so and we work out the same amount, but they're thin and I'm fat, so it must just be something I can't change." That's BS. Maybe that person needs to eat less and work out more than so and so.

That argument is like getting good grades in school. "I studied just as much as the smartest kid in class but they got an A and I failed." Well, maybe that kid needs to study a LOT more than the smartest kid to even get a C. Not everybody is the same in any way.

So yeah, it does come down to a choice. If I hadn't paid attention and changed my behavior, I would weigh 100lbs more than I do today. You continued the same level of eating and the same level of physical activity even though things had changed. Had you eaten less and worked out more, I bet you could have reduced or eliminated the weight gain.

So, why should I pay more for health insurance to help pay for "cosmetic" surgery? I would like to have the option of cosmetic surgery as well. If it isn't available for all, I don't think it should be available to anyone - under insurance.

The OP has not asked for weight loss advice or judgement. You are making it more likely that they will not return to this thread. People have a wide variety of reasons for being whatever weight they are, and I don't believe all the data is in yet regarding such variables as epigenetics. You simply and absolutely do not know why the OP is overweight and all this grandstanding about calories serves no purpose here.

49er wrote:Great post AMK. I find attitudes like Max's very disappointing. And you are so right about the OP most likely not returning. I certainly wouldn't if I read a post like his.

MaxINTJ wrote:

49er wrote:Great post AMK. I find attitudes like Max's very disappointing. And you are so right about the OP most likely not returning. I certainly wouldn't if I read a post like his.

Most people complain about the high cost of health insurance, and the OP was merely an example with what's wrong with 66% of the population.

Obamacare made it illegal to charge people more for their personal choice to be overweight, yet those same companies CAN charge smokers more - even though smokers have less health problems than the obese.

Why should I be happy about MY high insurance costs subsidizing people with tons of health problems because they eat too much or don't exercise enough?

"Healthy" people get enough health problems, but it seems society, the government, and the healthcare professionals will harp on and on about how bad smoking is, but yet we should all accept obesity. I'm fed up with the double standard.

How many people here would like to pay more for health insurance so that smokers can pay less for their personal choice?

49er wrote:Max,

I have been thin for several years and still got lymphoma. So much for your extremely biased theories.

AMK wrote: Let's set that 66% aside and talk about what's wrong with you, since judgement is the order of the day. Being a jerk is a bigger problem than being fat or a smoker. I'm not telling you you have to "accept obesity." I am advising that your first assumption be that each individual is doing the best that they can with their circumstances, even if that looks woefully inadequate to you from your ivory tower of perfection.

LSAT wrote:Once age 65, Obese, unhealthy tobacco users are covered the same as thin, healthy, non-tobacco users.

MaxINTJ wrote:

AMK wrote: Let's set that 66% aside and talk about what's wrong with you, since judgement is the order of the day. Being a jerk is a bigger problem than being fat or a smoker. I'm not telling you you have to "accept obesity." I am advising that your first assumption be that each individual is doing the best that they can with their circumstances, even if that looks woefully inadequate to you from your ivory tower of perfection.

You didn't answer the question. Do you want to pay more for health insurance so that smokers can pay less?

Or, should those with health risks pay more for themselves?

Smoking increases risk for cancer and heart disease.

Obesity increases risk for cancer and heart disease. AND diabetes, AND joint problems, AND circulation problems, AND is associated with more time off from work and a higher disability rate than smokers.

I am pretty much a libertarian.I personally think people should be able to do whatever they want "so long as it harms no other." So, smoke, drink, eat, I DON'T CARE - just don't make me pay for it.

And sorry, the double standard for smoking and obesity is a peeve of mine. Heck they tax the crap out of tobacco users because of the increased healthcare burden, but they don't make obese people pay for their extra burden on the system? What's the reason for that???

xxyzx wrote: if you let them smoke then we all get sick from it

your statistics are terrible bad

it is the COST of smoke vs fat that makes a difference in insurance
smokers cost us all a lot more

AMK wrote: If you are going to insist that obese people pay for their extra burden on the system, then why hold back? Let's make every disabled person, every person with autoimmune disorders, and every child born with cystic fibrosis pay for their burden on the system. See, your problem is that you do not acknowledge that obesity can be a part of a larger health issue that is not the obese person's choice. Researchers aren't even certain anymore which comes first, the type 2 diabetes or the weight gain; it's a more complicated dynamic involving the pancreas than any superficial dismissal can explain. You live in a black and white world where all fat people are bad and taking your money away from you. I can just picture you in my mind, stabbing the air and carrying on about double standards. It would be funny if it weren't so damaging to shame people in a forum like this. But at least you have xxyzx on your team, which is a ringing endorsement.

Arlene1963 wrote:

AMK wrote: The OP has not asked for weight loss advice or judgement. You are making it more likely that they will not return to this thread. People have a wide variety of reasons for being whatever weight they are, and I don't believe all the data is in yet regarding such variables as epigenetics. You simply and absolutely do not know why the OP is overweight and all this grandstanding about calories serves no purpose here.

+1

lilly747 wrote:

Arlene1963 wrote:

AMK wrote: The OP has not asked for weight loss advice or judgement. You are making it more likely that they will not return to this thread. People have a wide variety of reasons for being whatever weight they are, and I don't believe all the data is in yet regarding such variables as epigenetics. You simply and absolutely do not know why the OP is overweight and all this grandstanding about calories serves no purpose here.

+1

+1

MaxINTJ wrote:

AMK wrote: If you are going to insist that obese people pay for their extra burden on the system, then why hold back? Let's make every disabled person, every person with autoimmune disorders, and every child born with cystic fibrosis pay for their burden on the system. See, your problem is that you do not acknowledge that obesity can be a part of a larger health issue that is not the obese person's choice. Researchers aren't even certain anymore which comes first, the type 2 diabetes or the weight gain; it's a more complicated dynamic involving the pancreas than any superficial dismissal can explain. You live in a black and white world where all fat people are bad and taking your money away from you. I can just picture you in my mind, stabbing the air and carrying on about double standards. It would be funny if it weren't so damaging to shame people in a forum like this. But at least you have xxyzx on your team, which is a ringing endorsement.

At no time have I EVER advocated charging people who need help through no fault of their own.

As for diabetes, type 2 was pretty much unheard of in children before the obesity epidemic - it's now common place. Seems pretty frickin obvious which causes which.

Nice try of putting things in my mouth.

AMK wrote:

MaxINTJ wrote:

AMK wrote: If you are going to insist that obese people pay for their extra burden on the system, then why hold back? Let's make every disabled person, every person with autoimmune disorders, and every child born with cystic fibrosis pay for their burden on the system. See, your problem is that you do not acknowledge that obesity can be a part of a larger health issue that is not the obese person's choice. Researchers aren't even certain anymore which comes first, the type 2 diabetes or the weight gain; it's a more complicated dynamic involving the pancreas than any superficial dismissal can explain. You live in a black and white world where all fat people are bad and taking your money away from you. I can just picture you in my mind, stabbing the air and carrying on about double standards. It would be funny if it weren't so damaging to shame people in a forum like this. But at least you have xxyzx on your team, which is a ringing endorsement.

At no time have I EVER advocated charging people who need help through no fault of their own.

As for diabetes, type 2 was pretty much unheard of in children before the obesity epidemic - it's now common place. Seems pretty frickin obvious which causes which.

Nice try of putting things in my mouth.

Correlation does not prove causation. One could just as easily say that obesity was less common in children before the type 2 epidemic.