So now I am sitting at my computer, eating Oreos (I twist and dunk - not the biggest fan of the 'lick' part of the trio. I'm getting pretty good at dunking them for the right amount of time) and avoiding starting the utterly bullshit essay I have to compose at some point this weekend for my equally bullshit Irish play class. I challenge anybody to tell me that my life does not contain variety, and not have me completely ignore them because I do not want to accept the fact that it's true.
Anyway, so we were discussing the Pill. She was saying that she believed the Pill should be subsidised by the Australian government. At first I disagreed, saying that subsidising the Pill was effectively subsidising a choice that people are making (ie. the choice to have sex). I obviously have no problem with people making that choice (it is certainly the choice I would be making if I could, because I am the stereotypically randy fat girl :P), but I think it is up to the people who make that choice to take full responsibility for that choice, and pay whatever they need to pay to acquire adequate birth control. If the person is that eager to avoid unwanted pregnancy and can't afford birth control for whatever reason, then don't have sex. Perhaps I'm being an utter bastard for saying that, but hey, pregnancy-avoiding masturbation is 100% free. ;) I still stand by that statement, but she, being much more economically-minded than I am, mentioned the economic benefits to subsidising the Pill, and I have to admit, she made a very fair point. Making the Pill available for people who can't afford it would alleviate a lot of the economic burden unwanted pregnancies create, when it comes to people not wanting or knowing how to raise children, treating them badly, teaching them unhealthy habits, not caring for them, etc. In terms of legal and health costs, that shit adds up.
The other argument for the Pill being subsidised by the government falls back to the health benefits of the Pill. The Pill is good for alleviating a lot of hormone-related problems in many people, and many take it for those reasons rather than reasons of birth control. To that argument, I say hells yeah it should be subsidised, but so should ALL prescription medication. I am not the most socialist person in the world, but I think that health is something that should be available for everybody, not just those who are rich (and therefore better able to lead healthy lifestyles anyway) and healthy (because, you know, healthy people are the ones who need health care the most... *facepalm*). I think the British with their NHS have the right idea. All prescription medication in England costs 7.20 (I'd add a pound sign, but my Australian keyboard doesn't have one, and British keyboards can suck a wang as far as I'm concerned. As if the @ sign should be anywhere other than above the 2). In Wales it is apparently free, but I can appreciate that in larger countries than Wales that is probably unsustainable. So medication isn't subsidised fully by the government, but it's subsidised enough. And health care in England is available for everyone. It's paid for with taxes. And it's good. And the British still like to have a cry about it. Once a pom, always a pom, hey?
This got me thinking about these sorts of public health care systems in general. My friend was talking about subsidising the Pill. But one other thing that I've heard talk on being subsidised by the government is gastric bypass surgery. Of course, many people would assume that the reason for this idea is to improve the health of obese individuals, because having them weigh less will make them healthier. That's bullshit, of course, but one cannot deny that it is the opinion held by society. People would, however, be wrong in thinking that the government cares enough about obese people (or people in general) to want to improve their health. The REAL reason for their considering subsidising gastric bypass surgery is because it is believed that overweight people put an incredible amount of strain on health care.
...hmm. All right. Fine. That's an opinion. And I can understand, considering how 'fat' is considered to automatically mean 'unhealthy', how it is an opinion with many supporters.
But let's have a serious think about this. The livejournal community fatshionista often has posts by some poor blighter looking for a "fat-friendly" doctor near where they live. A "fat-friendly" doctor is somebody who will treat them as a patient just like they would any thin person, without placing negative judgements on them because of their weight. The fact that they have to actively look for such health care professionals is enough to make me want to slap everybody who doesn't fit that mould right in their stupid biased unfair ignorant faces, but I think it raises an interesting point. If fat people are actively trying to find fat-friendly doctors, then that implies that their current doctor is not fat-friendly. Now, if your doctor is the sort that makes you feel uncomfortable, would you actively seek their help and guidance for any occasion that isn't an absolute emergency? I certainly wouldn't. I don't like going to the doctor at the best of times. I find it a pain in the arse, waiting for the doctor is really boring, I don't really like having to talk to people, etc. But if my doctor constantly made me feel uncomfortable as well, I would be even more reluctant than I currently am. And if fat people are having trouble finding doctors that make them feel comfortable, then it stands to reason to assume that they will not go to the doctor very often at all, whether they are healthy or not.
does it therefore not stand to reason that fat people would actually NOT be draining health care resources? Let's for argument's sake say that a fat person and a thin person both have mild forms of asthma. Asthma's pretty nasty, and even people with mild cases of it should have an inhaler handy at all times. For the thin person, this is no problem. She goes to the doctor, they have a lovely chat, etc. For the fat person, however... I'd be prepared to wager a fair amount of imaginary money that many would go to their (incredibly non-fat-friendly) doctor, who would look them up and down and say "can i weigh you?" The fat person, who is kind of confused because asthma has nothing to do with a person's weight, agrees, is weighed, and told to sit down. The doctor spends a few moments saying OK to the inhaler prescription, then spends the rest of the visit talking to the fat person about effective methods of weight loss. The fat person, who, as a modern fat person, has heard of these methods time and time again, sits there and nods and pretends to be interested, and leaves the office feeling utterly humiliated and also somewhat frustrated, because she wanted to spend some time talking to the doctor about other ways to fend off asthma attacks (cleaning the house, breathing exercises, etc). The consultation was supposed to be about asthma, a condition that has nothing to do with a person's weight, and the doctor has turned it into a full-blown weight-loss lecture.
Now, which one of those two people is more likely to stay as far away from doctors as humanly possible, to avoid that sort of discomfort from happening?
I can certainly understand people thinking that we drain more health resources because we're obviously more unhealthy. But even if fat people WERE more unhealthy than thin people, it takes some pretty serious balls to be a fat person and go to a doctor to ask for help, and a lot of us don't have those sorts of balls. We put up with enough shit from the rest of the world. Why would we put up with that sort of humiliation from medical professionals who are supposed to be helping us, not make us feel ashamed. And to the medical professionals who think that making fat people feel ashamed will motivate them to lose weight? ...no, it won't. Sorry.
So, before I leave this issue, let's talk about the types of people who DO eat up health-care resources unnecessarily. Smokers, heavy drinkers, people who frequently use massive amounts of recreational drugs, people who engage in demanding sports, people who engage in self-mutilating activities for fun... I could go on. Now, every single one of these activities is a choice that a person is making. We can argue about alcohol and drug addiction being an addiction and therefore not entirely the person's fault, but I don't think that's fair. You can't get addicted to something without choosing to consume it first. There is an element of choice there. And it is the person's responsibility to get help for their addiction, if they have one. Anyway, these are the people that, had they not chosen to engage in that unhealthy behaviour, would not be using health resources they are otherwise using. Being fat, however, is not a choice. Even people who lead unhealthy lifestyles and are fat, do not choose to be fat (generally. there are some exceptions). To say that medical resources are being wasted unnecessarily on a group of people who fit a mould that is very often beyond their control, is unfair. And subsidising gastric bypass surgery is a waste of time, because if those fat people are unhealthy, they will continue to be unhealthy after the surgery. What should really be subsidised is education on how to be healthier, for the fat and thin people of this world.
In other, much happier news, I have a new outfit!
And another pose:
Yeah, I need better lighting. And a better, or at least cleaner, mirror.
Anyway, so this outfit came about because I saw these leg covers at a store near by place of habitation, and decided that they were great and that I would get them. I then considered what I could wear them with. The long shirt and pullover shrug thing both came from YoursClothing.com, and the stockings are generic, have holes in them, and are too small for me. I liked the idea of showing off more of the shape, at least, of my upper legs. I'm quite fond of my legs, shape-wise. I think they're nice. So I think this outfit is good for that. I also quite liked how it's a bit different. It needs more colour, certainly, but I like how it's different to the standard shirt/trousers combo. It's a definite keeper, I think.
Peace out, y'all.
Hey!! Look at me commenting on your blog like I said I would back over on Facebook!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it's pretty hard to see your outfit (maybe I just have pretty bad eyesight) but from what I can see, I think your long top is pretty cool! Will you post a close-up of it? Or maybe take the photo outdoors, to achieve the better lighting (lol I'm getting pretty demanding!)
Do you do lots of shopping online? Would you recommend it? I've never bought clothes online because feel a bit insecure buying clothes when I can't try them on beforehand, you can't fully rely on sizing charts and things like that. Post more outfit photos! I like bright colours too, but monochrome can look pretty classy as well!
Anyway on to the main point of the post: "And subsidising gastric bypass surgery is a waste of time, because if those fat people are unhealthy, they will continue to be unhealthy after the surgery. What should really be subsidised is education on how to be healthier, for the fat and thin people of this world." <-- I completely agree, and gastric bypass surgery is generally seen as a last-resort type thing when nothing else is available. But as I mentioned on Facebook, fat people who are otherwise healthy would probably not be approved for gastric bypass in the first place, so on the whole, the concept is sound, I believe.
It makes me very sad to hear that there are such things as "fat-unfriendly" doctors though I suppose it's not so much the fault of the individual doctor as it is the fault of the wider society which educated them. I believe that the whole "fat acceptance movement" has the power to effect as much change as the women's right movement or the anti-racist movements have, you can see it already with the number of plus-size models being featured in top magazines and things like runway models being ineligible for certain jobs if they are severely underweight.But people certainly need to be educated more, it saddens me when my own family make false assumptions about people's health based on their weight. Sure I have weight-related problems (hypertension and tachycardia) but not all people are in that situation.
In other news I have just been informed that the Australian Government does indeed subsidise some forms of contraceptive Pill but not the newer brands that I've been using. So there it is, the government is recognising the economic costs of unprepared mothers and unwanted births.
Yay! Kitty is posting!
ReplyDeleteClick on the photo and you can see it in close-up. I would take it outdoors if I could find an outdoors mirror. maybe if I went to a department store?
I've done some lately. It's easier for me, because I'm a weird size. Also there is more variety available, which is exciting. One thing though is that, yeah, unless you're really sure of your size, it can be a bit tricky. Some of the stuff I got, including the long top, is a bit big for me. Fortunately, however, I'm quite adept with a sewing machine. I'll post pictures of those adventures later!
Yeah, you hear what I'm saying. The other thing is that for the fatties out there who ARE fat because of drastic overeating and doing absolutely no exercise (such people do exist. I don't think I'm one of them myself, but they do exist), the surgery isn't going to do anything anyway. They're still going to engage in their unhealthy behaviours. Education, Kitty! Education!
It is sad, isn't it? I've not really been exposed to it that much, and something tells me it's one of those things that is way bigger in America than anywhere else, but yeah. It's an issue. It's unfair of doctors to refuse to treat a patient like a human being because of their weight. I've heard some truly horrific stories. As for your family, well... yeah, I hear you. My family are the same. And that bothers me. My brother reported yesterday that Dad whines a lot of the time about being fat. I have to assume that it is just the aesthetics of it he finds displeasing, combined with his belief that he could do something about it if he tried (unlike, for example, his baldness. No amount of effort is going to help him there). I suppose it's up to me to make him see that losing weight is not as easy or as NECESSARY as the world makes it out to be. It's kind of interesting, actually, that he doesn't see that already. He's a very smart person. He's been overweight for most of the time I've known him, and apart from slightly high blood pressure (a hereditary thing that many thin people have issues with too) he's fantastically healthy. He eats well, he walks a lot, he hardly ever gets sick, I could go on. Surely that would indicate that his being overweight is really not that big a deal. Ahh well, we'll have to see what I can do.
How much do you know about the fat acceptance movement? Academically it's pretty interesting stuff, if you're interested. :)