BF2S Forums 980-Pound Man Needs 'Life-Saving' Operation

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

At what point did this mans weight become life threatening?

I'd say at around 350, now it's honestly a disservice to him and his country by taking the easy way out.. I'd much rather an attempt be made at getting him a physical trainer and nutritionist.. Watch the biggest loser it works on people who are above the 350 mark, why not try the hard way first.. Cause if they go this route he'll be in the same position in 10 years, if he makes it.

He might have a heart attack if he tries physical exercise.

Ok? So he dies are he dies? First off they wouldn't start with physical exercise, it would probably start with Diet.. Then move to exercise, have you seen the Biggest Loser? They make them fatties work out and that one chick is 470lbs.. I'm sure he'd be fine with diet and walking.

Just sayin, he'd probably die if he tried to go running or something.

Just think it would be a better idea to just give him the damn surgery than charge him or the two people taking care of him for it.

FatherTed wrote:

Do you know why this made the news?

Because he is the world's fattest man, he is covered by the NHS, and he put himself in this position?

Is the Movie Wall-E what our future is going to look like?

This is an exteme case that is becoming more common.. I really just started noticing that everyone is over weight, we all have office jobs and skinny people are becoming a minority.. We as "the people" need less corporate hand outs and more insentives for mom and pop shops, but then again mom and pop can't get lobbiest..

Having fast food joints every two blocks doesn't help.. It's destroying everything

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2009-10-20 14:37:05)

He has mutated genes... People get that fat isn't just because "they feel like to," it is because of mutant genes that allows him to get that fat in the first place.

Yeah, that's intense. Doesn't Michael Phelps 'only' eat like 12,000 calories a day during training?

edit: Johngalt, I gotta disagree with your whole 'putting value' thing. Except in circumstances like a murderer or rapist, we should not be placing value on someone. It opens up the potential to a slippery slope. What's next, people who are too short or too tall are not as valuable as the 'average' person? People with mental disorders that are out of their control are not as valuable? People with dark skin are not as valuable? People of a different religion or political view are not as valuable?

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-10-20 16:08:16)

rdx-fx wrote:

"His healthcare costs taxpayers and estimated $165,000 a year"

That's a years tuition to a decent university for 16 people, or average annual healthcare costs for 16-32 people.

Talk about gross misappropriation of resources.

It's something you get with a universal health system. Like it or not, if the governmental health care policy covers him then he shouldn't be denied treatment. It's like our first amendment... we get to say what we want, but so do others. If we don't like it, tough luck.

It's not the value of life argument at all, obviously this gentleman sees no value for his own life..

But he didn't fall asleep one night 250 then wake up at 900 he had help, and I'm willing to bet a nickle it was government help to get that big..

20,000 calories of food, his eating habits are probably running 100 dollars a day.. And where is this income coming from?

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2009-10-20 16:24:22)

Shit like this are rare cases though, you can't use one guy as an example of how an entire national system fails. At the end of the day, this guy is just a drop in the ocean. Ok, maybe an oil tanker. Sure, like any sane person I don't like seeing the tax money being poured down the drain on this guy, but you just have to accept that you get these rare ultra ridiculous cases when you have the systems that we have.

Like with almost everything else in the world, the system is not perfect and it could do with some reform.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

In whatever system you employ, anywhere around the world, you will get people producing a net loss on the system. Anywhere.

Uh, no. There is no net loss or net gain in a system where everyone pays for their own care.

Sure their is, there's always someone somewhere who can't afford their care. Example being, a shelfstacker in tesco who develops something that requires brain surgery. Pretty sure his salary couldn't stretch to that, hence someone somewhere has to pick up the bill.

FatherTed wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

In whatever system you employ, anywhere around the world, you will get people producing a net loss on the system. Anywhere.

Uh, no. There is no net loss or net gain in a system where everyone pays for their own care.

Sure their is, there's always someone somewhere who can't afford their care. Example being, a shelfstacker in tesco who develops something that requires brain surgery. Pretty sure his salary couldn't stretch to that, hence someone somewhere has to pick up the bill.

no surgery, no bill.

Mekstizzle wrote:

For every anti-universal healthcare story about a fat guy who's a bane on the taxpayers there are probably tens of thousands of undocumented cases of the NHS being a valuable asset to those in genuine need.

To give an analogy that some of the more right wing members can understand, it's like how the media always focus on the bad things that happen in places like Iraq and Afghanistan rather than the good, although in the case of media/NHS the bad media stories will outnumber the good on a much more massive scale.

Just because some good is generated of a program doesn't make it successful.     Example? Social Security.

The fact is Britain is a loving, caring society where everyone is treated fairly and equally.

America is a selfish, greedy society where people only have concerns for themselves.

Thats the difference