Let's put your fat ass kid in State foster care homes

gimmesometruth27

considering obesity is one of the major health problems in this country i think all options should be considered. it is well documented that obesity directly causes other problems, hardening of arteries, circulation problems, severe risk of stroke and heart disease, and diabetes, which is a terrible disease in itself. diabetes interferes with the healing process and it is called a "co-morbidity". it complicates other problems. it interferes with healing, fracture and soft tissue healing. this is why diabetics are poor surgicall candidates, because they are at higher risk of infection and greater risk of having wounds and abcesses that do not heal. not to mention the financial costs of these issues.

i hate the thought of fostering a kid because of his obesity, but if he is stuck in an environment where he eats fast food 3 times a day 25 times a month, those parents are taking years off of that child's life, and being in medicine, i have a big problem with that. it can be argued that the health problems these parents are causing could be just as bad as mental or physical abuse.

i know counseling and education have helped people tremendously, and i am a big advocate of counseling both for the parents and the obese kids. if the only to educate them is to get them out of that environment of unhealthiness and in to an environment that will teach them how and what to eat i would be in favor of it.

ethically it is a slippery slope, but i feel it is more ethical and potentially causes less harm to the child to foster them rather than put them through an obesity surgery that risks their lives. just my thoughts at the moment...

Prince Of Dorkness

ShimmyMommy wrote:

FiveB247x, I agree, this seems like a band-aid solution. Why not make the price of healthy food less than that of fast foods? It probably does cost more to make fast food, as you have to grow it, process it, preservative it, package it, then ship it.

Sadly, unhealthy, processed and "fast" foods is MUCH cheaper.

Back in the late 60s/ early 70s, Richard Nixon was worried that the issue of expensive food and starvation would hurt him. So he had pushed for cheaper food. Food makers turned to two substances that had been around for a while but not in very common use... High Fructose Corn Syrup and Trans Fats.

HFCS is cheap... very, very cheap. It takes very little to make things sweet, it doesn't go bad and can sit on shelves for years. Sugar was replaced in most snack foods and lots of foods were developed that would use it.

Trans Fats are... odd. They're vegetable oil that has been bombarded with hydrogen atoms. It gave food makers the ability to do things they'd never done before... have "creamy" substances with no milk products.They could make things like the "Cream filling" in Oreos or Twinkies that wouldn't go bad, even if they weren't refrigerated and sat on shelves for years.

It made food very cheap. Problem was that human bodies had no idea WTF that was.. had no idea how to break it down. HFCS makes your insulin spike radically. But it also stops the "I've had enough food" feeling that you get when you've had enough sugar. The two direct results of this were people who could eat a LOT more and people who got fat. The end result was many children whose pancreases gave up and had what we call "Adult Onset Diabetes" at ages seldom seen before.

Trans Fats can't really be digested either. So they just settled in people's colons leading to cancers, arteries leading to hear disease and strokes... they also absorb a lot of the nutrients you can find in food... but being indigestible, it actually takes them AWAY from you.

This is why Americans are so fat and unhealthy.

The economics of having a huge country where shipping food is expensive.

FiveB247x

Access and cost of unhealthy food is one thing ,but where are the parents who actually dictate what their children eat? That is the problem in our nation. We don't have a nation of alcoholics because there's tons of liquor stores. Where's the accountability and responsibility?? Why not just call it what it is... bad parenting.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

This is why Americans are so fat and unhealthy.

Prince Of Dorkness

FiveB247x wrote:

Access and cost of unhealthy food is one thing ,but where are the parents who actually dictate what their children eat? That is the problem in our nation. We don't have a nation of alcoholics because there's tons of liquor stores. Where's the accountability and responsibility?? Why not just call it what it is... bad parenting.

True. But we don't advertise alcohol to kids and serve it to them in "Happy Meals" that come with toys. We don't serve it to them in schools and we don't market it with cartoon characters or place it in movies.

We also don't have the government trying to convince people to drink it and there was never a presidential decree to make it affordable for all.

you're right.. this is bad parenting but when an entire culture is trying to convince your kids to have bad eating habits, it's hard to counteract that message. And those habits stay for a lifetime.

81

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Access and cost of unhealthy food is one thing ,but where are the parents who actually dictate what their children eat? That is the problem in our nation. We don't have a nation of alcoholics because there's tons of liquor stores. Where's the accountability and responsibility?? Why not just call it what it is... bad parenting.

True. But we don't advertise alcohol to kids and serve it to them in "Happy Meals" that come with toys. We don't serve it to them in schools and we don't market it with cartoon characters or place it in movies.

We also don't have the government trying to convince people to drink it and there was never a presidential decree to make it affordable for all.

you're right.. this is bad parenting but when an entire culture is trying to convince your kids to have bad eating habits, it's hard to counteract that message. And those habits stay for a lifetime.

i do beleive you missed the poinot

we do advertise alcohol to adults, just as we advertise fast foods to kids
we use toys for both...alcohol just views hot women as toys, and plenty of booze is drunk in the movies

Jason P

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Access and cost of unhealthy food is one thing ,but where are the parents who actually dictate what their children eat? That is the problem in our nation. We don't have a nation of alcoholics because there's tons of liquor stores. Where's the accountability and responsibility?? Why not just call it what it is... bad parenting.

True. But we don't advertise alcohol to kids and serve it to them in "Happy Meals" that come with toys. We don't serve it to them in schools and we don't market it with cartoon characters or place it in movies.

We also don't have the government trying to convince people to drink it and there was never a presidential decree to make it affordable for all.

you're right.. this is bad parenting but when an entire culture is trying to convince your kids to have bad eating habits, it's hard to counteract that message. And those habits stay for a lifetime.

Why not blame it on the obvious .... the shit tastes great. A Doritos tastes better to a kid (and a majority of adults including me) then any vegetable or fruit known to man. When I come out of a seven day backpack trip, it's the first thing I want along with a cold beer.

Now it's up to me to regulate my intake. Too much and I get fat.

JonnyPistachio

FiveB247x wrote:

We don't have a nation of alcoholics because there's tons of liquor stores.

We would if they were on the super-value menu for $1.

know1

I agree with the intent of this in principle - because I do believe that parents of fat kids are really abusing them - but I can in no way support more government involvement and further restrictions of our lives.

Prince Of Dorkness

81 wrote:

i do beleive you missed the poinot

we do advertise alcohol to adults, just as we advertise fast foods to kids
we use toys for both...alcohol just views hot women as toys, and plenty of booze is drunk in the movies

Uh... yeah...

But we don't have Television commercials with dancing girls shoving Vokda in our faces and you don't actually GET the girl if you buy the vodka.

AND.. you're an adult. You can sort out advertising from a trusted cartoon character saying "this is what you want."

AND there is no $1 menu for vodka at McDonald's.

It's just not the same thing.

Drowned Out

Can any of the supporters of this begin to fathom what would happen if they tried to implement such a program? Are you kidding me? It would be a legal disaster.

As has been stated, this does nothing to get to the root of the problem....roots that reach to the very heart of capitalism, western culture....and yes, personal responsibility.

I can't really think of a more destructive band-aid solution than taking innocent kids from their families, "for their own good". Can none of you see the irony here? Creating laws against laziness is the fucking laziest possible solution to this problem. Don't deal with the real problems at all, just make a law and take their kids.

Godfather.

Drowned Out wrote:

Can any of the supporters of this begin to fathom what would happen if they tried to implement such a program? Are you kidding me? It would be a legal disaster.

As has been stated, this does nothing to get to the root of the problem....roots that reach to the very heart of capitalism, western culture....and yes, personal responsibility.

I can't really think of a more destructive band-aid solution than taking innocent kids from their families, "for their own good". Can none of you see the irony here? Creating laws against laziness is the fucking laziest possible solution to this problem. Don't deal with the real problems at all, just make a law and take their kids.

we agree ?......quick go buy a lottery ticket


Godfather.

Godfather.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

81 wrote:

i do beleive you missed the poinot

we do advertise alcohol to adults, just as we advertise fast foods to kids
we use toys for both...alcohol just views hot women as toys, and plenty of booze is drunk in the movies

Uh... yeah...

But we don't have Television commercials with dancing girls shoving Vokda in our faces and you don't actually GET the girl if you buy the vodka.

AND.. you're an adult. You can sort out advertising from a trusted cartoon character saying "this is what you want."

AND there is no $1 menu for vodka at McDonald's.

It's just not the same thing.

dollar vodka shooters at Micky D's...you're on to something there.
can you imagine what the line at the counter would be like...forget about it..and the drive thru..

Godfather.

JonnyPistachio

Drowned Out wrote:

Can any of the supporters of this begin to fathom what would happen if they tried to implement such a program? Are you kidding me? It would be a legal disaster.

As has been stated, this does nothing to get to the root of the problem....roots that reach to the very heart of capitalism, western culture....and yes, personal responsibility.

I can't really think of a more destructive band-aid solution than taking innocent kids from their families, "for their own good". Can none of you see the irony here? Creating laws against laziness is the fucking laziest possible solution to this problem. Don't deal with the real problems at all, just make a law and take their kids.

Those "innocent kids" though, are being killed from the inside out. The article says there are 2 million EXTREMELY obese kids. Thats what scares me. Like Prince of Dorkness said -- he saw a family leaving the supermarket with gallons of Mt Dew and shit food.. I saw a kid walking down the street with his mother the other day.. both of them were barely able to walk, and the kids was like 6 years old. What better does he know? He HAS to trust the choices of 1 or 2 people in the world to keep him alive and likely kill him off very early.

I do think plucking kids out of a home is terrible. I think counselling for parents should come first, but that lazy mentality is not likely easy to shake off considering the McD's attitude of many Americans. Is it not child abuse to feed your kid poison? should we just let these innocent kids suffer because of the choices of 1-2 uninformed lazy parents? I'm only talking about the very few that are morbidly obese, of course. I just dont know whats more destructive, plucking them out of their home as an absolute last choice chance to save their lives, or letting them die at 30 because of health repercussions.

FiveB247x

But here's were our culture and indoctrination in society comes in. Not everything needs a commercial to be "popular" or "wanted" by people (kids or adults). Look at our movies, tv, music, and media's in general.. we emphasize drinking, drugs, violence and similar. And then, even if unspoken, adults and citizens in our nation carry out these things.. so guess what, kids see these things and pick up on it. It's not always simply advertising or ads, but simply actions and stigma that goes along with these items.

Also, the heart and crux of this idea, putting fat kids in foster care for abuse, boils down to bad parenting due to not doing the right thing.. in this case, food. Why not do the same with schooling or homework or many of the other areas which emphasize accountability and responsibility by parents?

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Access and cost of unhealthy food is one thing ,but where are the parents who actually dictate what their children eat? That is the problem in our nation. We don't have a nation of alcoholics because there's tons of liquor stores. Where's the accountability and responsibility?? Why not just call it what it is... bad parenting.

True. But we don't advertise alcohol to kids and serve it to them in "Happy Meals" that come with toys. We don't serve it to them in schools and we don't market it with cartoon characters or place it in movies.

We also don't have the government trying to convince people to drink it and there was never a presidential decree to make it affordable for all.

you're right.. this is bad parenting but when an entire culture is trying to convince your kids to have bad eating habits, it's hard to counteract that message. And those habits stay for a lifetime.

Prince Of Dorkness

FiveB247x wrote:

But here's were our culture and indoctrination in society comes in. Not everything needs a commercial to be "popular" or "wanted" by people (kids or adults). Look at our movies, tv, music, and media's in general.. we emphasize drinking, drugs, violence and similar. And then, even if unspoken, adults and citizens in our nation carry out these things.. so guess what, kids see these things and pick up on it. It's not always simply advertising or ads, but simply actions and stigma that goes along with these items.

Of course. I agree. But it's still, I think, a parent's responsibility to ensure their child has good nutrition. An adult is responsible for their alcohol intake and yes.. in extreme cases, they're sent to rehab or jail.

Although as someone who works in marketing (Yes, I market porn but the principals still apply), movies are advertising.. that's why companies spend tens of millions of dollars per quarter to get their products placed in movies. You don't see generic "Beer" being consumed in movies anymore.. you see "Budweiser."

Even rock videos.. Take a look at the last Britney spears video, if you can stomach it... it's got about 150 products placed in it. A friend of mine works for an agency whose ONLY function is putting products in movies.

You hardly ever see smoking in movies because cigarette companies aren't allowed to buy product placement.

But you know how much money was forked over my Nestle to have ET eating M&Ms?

You know how much Apple forked over to have every single computer on Buffy the Vampire slayer be a Macbook?

Prince Of Dorkness

Drowned Out wrote:

Can any of the supporters of this begin to fathom what would happen if they tried to implement such a program? Are you kidding me? It would be a legal disaster.

Oh I think we all know that it's unlikely except in VERY extreme conditions. Mothers with babies that are GROSSLY over-weight and refuse to do anything about it. That sort of thing.

Sadly, there aren't enough foster parents out there to remove the 20% of obese kids from their homes.

FiveB247x

Those are all great points, but it just emphasizes the hypocrisy we have in our society. We can punish and ostracize some people and items as taboo or bad, but others we can't discuss or acknowledge. It's ok to ban smoking ads in movies as you state, but not ok to limit the quantity of unhealthy items a child or adult can have or have access too. Which boils down to the notion that we're free to kill ourselves, but we can designate the legitimate or acceptable ways to do so. Drugs are bad, but eating fast food or drinking which could be just as harmful is ok. There's no real way to designate this idea other than saying it's hypocritical and illogical. But people are free to buy 30 kinds of sugary cereal, but only have 1-2 choices for president. But we're "free"... these are the choices we have in our nation and we pretend otherwise. The more we dissect such topics and areas, we see how much full of bs our nation really is...and it's pretty sad. Hypocritical, false sense of justice and morality.. that's us.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

But here's were our culture and indoctrination in society comes in. Not everything needs a commercial to be "popular" or "wanted" by people (kids or adults). Look at our movies, tv, music, and media's in general.. we emphasize drinking, drugs, violence and similar. And then, even if unspoken, adults and citizens in our nation carry out these things.. so guess what, kids see these things and pick up on it. It's not always simply advertising or ads, but simply actions and stigma that goes along with these items.

Of course. I agree. But it's still, I think, a parent's responsibility to ensure their child has good nutrition. An adult is responsible for their alcohol intake and yes.. in extreme cases, they're sent to rehab or jail.

Although as someone who works in marketing (Yes, I market porn but the principals still apply), movies are advertising.. that's why companies spend tens of millions of dollars per quarter to get their products placed in movies. You don't see generic "Beer" being consumed in movies anymore.. you see "Budweiser."

Even rock videos.. Take a look at the last Britney spears video, if you can stomach it... it's got about 150 products placed in it. A friend of mine works for an agency whose ONLY function is putting products in movies.

You hardly ever see smoking in movies because cigarette companies aren't allowed to buy product placement.

But you know how much money was forked over my Nestle to have ET eating M&Ms?

You know how much Apple forked over to have every single computer on Buffy the Vampire slayer be a Macbook?

Jeanwah

puremagic wrote:

An opinion piece in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association says putting overweight children into foster care is more ethical than obesity surgery.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obese-ki ... are-2011-7

I don't know what a good solution to the epidemic would be but this is DEFINITELY NOT the way to go. Wow. And to say it's ethical? Really? I really have not much respect for the AMA anyway.

And it's not just parents that's to blame for the problems, it's the media, growing portion sizes through the roof (I'm continually appalled by the constantly growing size of fast food sodas as well as large coffees), and school lunches.

Prince Of Dorkness

FiveB247x wrote:

Those are all great points, but it just emphasizes the hypocrisy we have in our society. We can punish and ostracize some people and items as taboo or bad, but others we can't discuss or acknowledge. It's ok to ban smoking ads in movies as you state, but not ok to limit the quantity of unhealthy items a child or adult can have or have access too.

To be fair, Cigarettes are the only legal product that, when used in it's intended purpose, cause death.

I agree...I wish it was illegal to advertise junk food to kids. But saying "stop having a cute animated puppy selling "Sugar Apple Pops" and people start to whine about the "Nanny State."

FiveB247x

I for one think we should have it at one extreme or the other.. control everything because people are either irresponsible or unwilling to regulate themselves properly (whether directly or indirectly via ads, etc) or control nothing and let people kill themselves in any manner they please. As for "intended purpose", I gotta disagree. Just about most things in life, if abused and not done in moderation or handled with care, can have very harmful effects on a person..whether it's cigarettes, alcohol, cars, food, etc.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Those are all great points, but it just emphasizes the hypocrisy we have in our society. We can punish and ostracize some people and items as taboo or bad, but others we can't discuss or acknowledge. It's ok to ban smoking ads in movies as you state, but not ok to limit the quantity of unhealthy items a child or adult can have or have access too.

To be fair, Cigarettes are the only legal product that, when used in it's intended purpose, cause death.

I agree...I wish it was illegal to advertise junk food to kids. But saying "stop having a cute animated puppy selling "Sugar Apple Pops" and people start to whine about the "Nanny State."