Paula Deen, Diabetes and Duh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Furthermore there should be laws that people like Paula Dean and smokers pay significantly more taxes into the system to support their high likelihood of draining the system.

Nonsense. It is health fascists like you that should pay more - nothing is more expensive than Alzheimer's care that can go on for decades. Smokers and the obese have the decency to die off around the end of their working lives rather than hang around year after year as they become more and more senile, requiring 24 hour care.

Yes, but smokers and the obese are actively doing something, every single day for many years usually, that promotes, enhances and causes their condition. And their dying off process -- even if it occurs at a relatively young age -- still costs millions to the health care system. People develop Alzheimers through no known fault of their own.

Nonsense piled on nonsense. Last I heard the mortality rate was still running at 100 percent. Everyone dies of something. You argued that smokers etc. should pay more because they cost taxpayers more. I pointed out they cost a lot less because they die sooner and quicker. Now you respond with some kind of "moral" argument. You want to tax people you don't like more, because they do things you don't like, even though they cost less. Screw you.

And Alzheimers is as much a lifestyle disease as lung cancer. If you want to reduce your risk, take up skydiving, start smoking and pick up Paula's recipe book asap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

No we don't. Lifetime healthcare costs for the obese are no higher than the non-obese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anthony Bourdain, the smoking former heroin addict whose cooking tips include using lots of butter?

Eating fatty food doesn't give you diabetes.

Being fat doesn't give you diabetes.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-myths/?__utma=1.1338953311.1326489871.1326889664.1326906097.4&__utmb=1.1.10.1326906097&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1326906097.4.4.utmcsr=google|utmccn=%28organic%29|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=american%20diabetes%20organization%20myths&__utmv=-&__utmk=39370659

Last time I checked neither smoking nor a history of heroin use leads to diabetes. Hell, one could argue that high-fat, high-cholesterol diets are worse for you than smoking and snorting heroin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fat acceptance = people have the right to respect regardless of what they weigh. People are under no moral obligation to make choices -- including health choices -- based on what other people want. Health at every size = to the extent we can influence our health, we do so through the process of choosing foods that make us feel good and function well and through finding the type and amount of exercise that does the same. You can be thin and unhealthy or fat and healthy, and focusing on your BMI will distract you from the numbers that have been shown to correlate to good health.

Most people here will probably use them interchangeably, because fat people are icky and should be hated for their own good, but the two philosophies, while they may coexist, are not the same.

Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

And they subsidize schools and other things for you and your kids. This is America and we have given up too damn many rights and if people want to smoke, eat too much, drink, they are free to so do. I do not smoke, drink, and am not overweight but I will fight to the death to defend other people's decision to do so. Who the hell put you in charge of anyone's life other than your own and your poor children who will have to listen to your diatribe and end up as neurotic as you.

Actually, they don't, thank god, because my kids are in private schools, primarily so they will learn to think beyond the shallow right-wing reasoning you describe. You just can't stand the fact that some people really are smarter than others, can you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Paula Deen had let it be known that she has diabetes 3 years ago, I'm sure that fact would have discouraged a number of people from replicating her cooking.

I'm interested to see if this impacts her popularity - it sounds like a lot of folks feel betrayed, especially as it took her 3 years to disclose this and that she's seems to be coming out with this now only because of her drug deal.

Sure, but why would she have fessed up to her health issues? She was making bank! Just awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

No we don't. Lifetime healthcare costs for the obese are no higher than the non-obese.

NP here. Legit statistics to back this up, please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

No we don't. Lifetime healthcare costs for the obese are no higher than the non-obese.

NP here. Legit statistics to back this up, please?

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212858.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

No we don't. Lifetime healthcare costs for the obese are no higher than the non-obese.

And you wonder why people are disgusted by fat people? A bunch of excuses for gluttony.

Fat is a result of our culture of excess and waste. I think your tax rate should be directly proportionate to your waist size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

No we don't. Lifetime healthcare costs for the obese are no higher than the non-obese.

NP here. Legit statistics to back this up, please?

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212858.htm

You didn't look at the study very closely, you are probably lazy, therefore I won't spell it out for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

No we don't. Lifetime healthcare costs for the obese are no higher than the non-obese.

NP here. Legit statistics to back this up, please?

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212858.htm

You didn't look at the study very closely, you are probably lazy, therefore I won't spell it out for you.

Are you an idiot?
Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Paula Deen had let it be known that she has diabetes 3 years ago, I'm sure that fact would have discouraged a number of people from replicating her cooking.

I'm interested to see if this impacts her popularity - it sounds like a lot of folks feel betrayed, especially as it took her 3 years to disclose this and that she's seems to be coming out with this now only because of her drug deal.

Sure, but why would she have fessed up to her health issues? She was making bank! Just awful.

The people who like Paula Deen's cooking are not sophisticated enough to understand how she's taking advantage of them.

[Anonymous]

"Like many people, Deen has genes that predispose to weight gain, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes when physical activity is insufficient and calories are consumed in excess, especially from quick-digesting carbohydrate foods that cause spikes of blood sugar. Type 2 diabetes is a serious condition that greatly increases risks of cardiovascular disease, disability and premature death."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/20/opinion/weil-paula-deen/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Are you an idiot?
Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

Not the previous poster, but saying that the costs are the same based on lifetime cost is apples and oranges when the obese person dies at age 55 and the normal BMI person dies at age 95*. Had the obese person lived to be 95, the healhcare cost would been higher.

*Ages made up to prove a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

If your desire to be thin means you're not getting adequate nutrition, people are subsidizing you. If you're sleep-deprived and causing accidents, people are subsidizing you. If you're overexercising to stay thin and injuring yourself because of it, we're subsidizing you. If you do extreme sports and get hurt, we're subsidizing you. If you stay thin without exercising, so you don't exercise, we're subsidizing you.

People make shitty choices. Somehow people want to focus on the one that results in their being less than aesthetically pleasing to the mainstream, even though the actual cost of those choices is minimal.

I'll add to the list that if you ride a motorcycle helmetless and get into an accident, we're subsidizing you. (Seriously, states that don't require helmets never cease to amaze me!)