Obesity - maybe it isn't your fault

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by Wade8813, Oct 12, 2009.

  1. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member


  2. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    The fact that a baby ever had trouble getting insurance in the first place just screams to me every single point I've ever made in favour of socialized healthcare.

    Pre-existing conditions, indeed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2009
    Jeanie likes this.
  3. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    This title is misleading though. The article itself says:

    A lot of babies are fat. It's pretty normal to see fat babies that are still healthy.

    A 17 pound 4 month year old baby is definitely not "obese". I wouldn't say this is an argument for being born obese.
     
  4. Millz

    Millz LGB Staff Member V.I.P.

    My cousins' kid was heavier then 99% of babies at 6 months old...he was a chubster

    Doesnt mean he's not healthy though...I'm sure once he starts walking he'll lose some of that baby fat...
     
  5. Shwa

    Shwa Gay As Fuck V.I.P. Lifetime

    Every baby when developing will grow because of their intake and store lots of unneeded fat in their bodies. Like Millz said, they will burn it once they have more motor control and functions available for them to use.

    ~Shwa
     
  6. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    To be fair, it sounds like this could just be an instance where the insurers just went by the regulation without considering if this might be an exception. This means the regulation should be altered to account for exceptions; not necessarily that health care should be socialized.

    Does the 'healthy' mean that he's not really obese? Or does it mean that he's healthy in spite of being obese?
     
  7. Shwa

    Shwa Gay As Fuck V.I.P. Lifetime

    You have to understand it's kind of like a "Catch 22", there can be a obese person who is formed "body wise" to be considered "obese", but medically he can be sound and clean as a whistle and go about life happy or whatever. Then there are those who have the same body type of worse, and are experiencing the negitive sides of being over weight with the bad backs, shin splints, heart complications and what not.

    ~Shwa
     
  8. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    So what if this baby had less baby fat, and more "pre-existing condition"?

    As I said, the appalling feature here isn't the question of obesity; it's the question of Why was there ever a question about the coverage of a new-born in the first place?
     
  9. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    This is a tad ridiculous. Are we honestly calling obesity as young as four fucking months now? Not to mention, has it occurred to anyone that "obese" does not mean "unhealthy"? My grandmother has been heavy her whole life.

    She's 81.

    And she still drives, still feeds herself, still manages quite well on her own. Being forgetful, as most elderly tend to be, has been her only problem. Yet, with these lame brained new insurance exemptions popping up every day, she would be denied any coverage because she's "obese". Like I've said dozens of times before, it still blows my mind that people want insurance companies to have such great power by forcing coverage on all Americans.
     
  10. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    I think part of the issue is that I (and I believe many others) have always been told the term 'obese' meant being overweight to the extent that it's unhealthy.

    Of course, maybe it does mean that - insurance companies often come up with their own terminology (flooding means water damage that's an overflow from a river or lake or other body of water - not rain damage).
     

Share This Page