I admit I have seen what you go though, intimately...it is why it is so easy to spot. For all of your uniqueness, you malady is not unique.
You're just one word away. Merely change the word "seen" to "felt" in your post above, and your deflection could be transformed into an uncharacteristically genuine admission on your part.
Felt in the way you are presenting it would not be genuine. I suppose if you limit "seen" to ocular alone, if that is your only experience or understanding of seeing, then genuine empathy for others would be uncharacteristic to your life experience... Let me ask you, how many times does it take an addict to go through the painful withdrawals before they finally hit a bottom sufficient to genuinely inspire them to seek help from a power greater than themselves? (Hint: The genuine answer for you would seem to be "I don't know yet.")
the very simple solution to obesity is to eat a plant-based diet rich in whole natural veggies, VERY little to no MEAT or processed food stuff. It's really really really hard to overeat on a carrot. It is really really really simple. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gTLpTq1nQk
There are plenty of ways for a person to change their diets, once they have gotten back to reasonable weight. Problem is getting there. Just like a bypass surgery is not the solution to the cause of the problem, as the patients are then educated on how to eat and live in a healthier manner...so to procedure like the lap band surgery stop the process and reverse it. The idea is not a binge and purge solution, but to lower the weight which is dangerous on many levels to the entire body, not to mention the mental aspect of loss of self esteem...but rather to give people a chance to start over with healthy habits... Should the government intervene in someone's life to help them help themselves when that person is so obviously out of control? Yes, yes, yes...
Good points but is the role of the gov here to make this surgical choice or any choice (making everyone eat vegan, for instance) or should the gov's influence be restricted to perhaps incentivizing changes in behaviour?
The question comes down to this: Is a person living their life in a manner that is detrimental to society, and if so, should the government intervene in the best interest of society, not to even mention what is in the best interest of the individual. Someone wants to eat themselves to death? Fine, so be it. Just let them personally pay the price for all of the health care costs. Let them move to fat island and eat themselves to death... Look, this is really no different than saying the government should not pay for health care for illegal aliens who do nothing but take from the system. These illegals consume of our system, they take from out system but do not give back into the system. They are a major reason for the inflated health care costs... The unhealthy people by virtue of their morbid obesity are also increasing health care costs for the average person...so why shouldn't the government step in and help them help themselves? Unless you somehow think it is natural for human beings to destroy their body through food, that it is natural for corporations to produce food fill with chemicals that generate illness, then collectively society has a responsibility to defend itself by measures like forcing people to regain normalcy in their diets... I'm not talking about the average Joe sixpack who is 40 pounds overweight...I'm talking about the morbidly obese. These morbidly obese people are not happy with the way they are, they need our help.
hmmm.. by morbidly obese i assume you are talking about those over 40 BMI? How many people are over 40 BMI, and would forcing this specific sub-group into change make a significant impact on healthcare costs? I don't know the answer, do you? Your argument is all about money, right? because "Someone wants to eat themselves to death? Fine" as long as it doesn't cost you?