Baires

Is there any company that makes a line of blended "meals" with the right nutrients for the "pureed food" weeks after surgery? With the popularity of this procedure, it's difficult to believe nobody is getting into this business, considering the variety of similar baby food that exists. I'm sure there are plenty fellow lazy people out there who would rather not have to cook and blend their own concoctions.

Again, I'm not referring to the thickening powder, but to the pureed foods made by the same brand.

Yes, but they have a line of pureed foods in addition to the thickening powder. I linked to it.

After posting I found these products, what do you guys think? Thick-It pureed Foods What is a magic bullet? Sorry for being a noob, I'm new to this, having my surgery next week. Thanks!

I wanted my surgeon's office to treat the procedure as inpatient, because (a) my coverage would be 100% instead of 70% and (:smile: that forces the insurance company to pre-certify the hospital stay which means they agree to medical necessity prior to the operation, which they don't otherwise do. My doctor's office says that they can only do it as outpatient and insurance companies don't let them do it as inpatient. Is this true? Has anyone done it as inpatient with BCBS in the DC area? If so, who was your doctor? Thanks!

Thanks to both for replying. Did you get a pre-certification letter from BCBS?

Again: someone who says he hates God implies that there is such a person, and therefore that he is a believer. That person should not call himself an Atheist. There are, though, believers that become Atheist, either because they were believers during childhood and what they were told didn't ring true anymore when they developed critical thinking (my case), or because later in life for whatever reason they realized that supernatural beings only exist in the realm of the imagination. Indoctrination that takes place during the more impressionable early years is very difficult to put aside as an adult, it becomes deeply ingrained in our personality. Other people, of course, believe in God as a metaphorical reference to the good in all of us, more a philosophical construct than an actual sentient being that exists in reality. I would say that I believe in the innate goodness (godliness?) in people, but I don't think that makes me any less of an Atheist in practical terms. There must be many believers who come to hate God because they blame him for something terrible that happened to them (either for being responsible for it or for, while being omnipotent, failing to prevent it). Those people don't count as Atheists, but perhaps are mistaken for Atheists because they are another group whose position about God most believers disagree with. Before anyone asks, Satan worshippers are not Atheists either: worshipping Satan requires belief in the supernatural in general, and in the Bible in particular, Satan being a biblical character. An exception to this may be Anton LaVey's Chuch of Satan, who doesn't believe in Satan as a real entity, but as a metaphor for the basic human tendencies that are commonly suppressed by moral and ethical restraint. Some of the things they believe in are indulgence in whatever their heart desires without concern for others, vengeance instead of turning the other cheek, greed instead of responsibility for the less fortunate, etc. Pretty much the entire Republican platform. When they speak of Satan, they refer to those human tendencies that other religions aims to rein in.

Please refer to where I said that people voting for McCain will do it based on him being the candidate that most closely matches their position on the issues, same as those voting for anyone else. I don't know what you are referring to. Is that directed at me?

I think by definition, someone angry at God wouldn't be an Atheist, he would be a person who believes in God and for whatever reason is angry at him. Maybe you mean that you know Atheists who are angered by people's belief in deities, which there certainly are some. I don't see a reason to be angered by what someone else believes. You could, though, be angered by what that belief drives them to do (such as, for example, wage war against those who don't share their beliefs, or discriminate against others based on those beliefs, etc). That does make more sense.

Stating that people choose their candidate based on skin color or genitalia is meant to denigrate their intelligence. People will vote for the candidate who most closely matches their position on the issues. In my case, for example, I intend to vote for Obama over McCain for the same reason I voted for Obama over Clinton: he is the most liberal of the two. If Dennis Kucinich had still been in the race by the time my local primaries came along, I would have voted for him over Obama. Someone of the conservative persuasion would vote for McCain over Obama for the same reason, not because he is a white male.

Let’s behave like adults here. We can do without the aggression (passive and otherwise) and without accusing each other of being “angry” (by which we really mean irrational). One way I’ve found that religious people are able to understand atheism is to think about their position on every other of the hundreds (thousands?) of deities that civilizations have believed in throughout history. Basically, an Atheist agrees with you about all of them, and thinks the same thing about the one you believe in. An Atheist just believes in one less god than you do. Another way to put it is this: civilizations throughout history have developed belief systems to satisfy certain human needs that most of us share: the need to believe that existence continues after death, the need to believe that we will one day reunite with our deceased loved ones, the need to have an explanation for those things that the sum of all human knowledge up to that particular point in time has not yet explained (for example, the need to come up with a God of Thunder before the development of meteorology). Certain of those needs are stronger for some people than for other people, and for some people, none of those are very strong at all. Some people are OK with existence ending with death, they have made peace with never seeing their deceased loved ones again, they can wait for science to continue its Quest to fill the holes in our shared body of knowledge without having to fill those holes with supernatural explanations. Those people are likely to be Atheists. For those sincere about their wish for understanding how an Atheist thinks, this is some good reading: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Beginners-Handbook-wanted-atheism/dp/0595427375]Amazon.com: Atheism: A Beginner's Handbook: All you wanted to know about atheism and why: Philip A Stahl: Books[/ame] There is a place for both science and religion in human life, the key is to narrowly define the areas that each has authority over. Just like you wouldn't look to science to elevate the soul and help you be a better, kinder human being, you shouldn't look to religion to explain the natural world.

If you were on trial for rape just for publishing a pamphlet, they probably would, yes. It may be a difficult concept to grasp, but they were defending people who advocate child molestation accused of a murder they didn't commit. You can find religious websites out there that advocate the murder of abortion providers, they call it "justifiable homicide". Should they be tried for murder every time a terrorist blows up an abortion clinic, or should the actual terrorists be the ones on trial? You'll also find people advocating shooting undocumented immigrants on sight, carpet-bombing civilians in countries that don't agree with our foreign policy, lynching black people, and every other sort of lunacy most of us disagree with. I, for one, am proud of living in a country where even that kind of speech is protected. Otherwise, the slippery slope is unavoidable. For example, the anti-Muslim rethoric that abounds in American right-wing blogs would be illegal in some Western European countries we consider part of the free world. It all boils down to "I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to my death your right to say it."

I agree, I would probably want to kill him with my bare hands. I also believe that justice in a free country should be more evenhanded and reflexive than I would be in that situation. If we allow the justice system to act in the same irrational manner we would if we were grieving victims of those accused, it all goes downhill from there, and we end up with public stonings in football fields every Sunday. Also, in the hypothetical case you mention, the person on trial would be the one who did the deed, not those talking about it, which is the whole point the ACLU was making.

Thanks, Trinity. I did notice Inova Fair Oaks and Johns Hopkins in Baltimore listed as Centers of Excellence or something of the sort, so I'm going to look into both. Did BCBS require you to show records of a supervised weight-loss plan that didn't work before aproving the surgical alternative? Thanks again!

Hi, I would appreciate hearing from people who had banding surgery in the DC area, who are BCBS Federal Plan Standard Option members. Any and all information you can give me will be useful. Stuff like: what was your BMI before surgery, did you have any comorbidities, what was the approval process like, did they require the 6-month supervised weight loss program, who did you choose for your surgery, was it in-network, how much did you end up paying out of pocket, would you recommend your doctor, etc. I have a BMI of 35-36, have several comorbidities including sleep apnea, high cholesterol, depression, etc, and I'm looking into the surgery. I went to a seminar but it turned out the doctor was out-of-network, so I can probably do better going in-network. Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

This is what the ACLU had to say about the NAMBLA case: ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today. And this is after the resolution of the case a few weeks ago: ACLU of Massachusetts Secures Victory for Freedom of Speech and Association Case Against NAMBLA Members Dismissed With Prejudice April 23, 2008 BOSTON -- In a victory for freedom of speech and association, the long-running suit for damages against members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has been dismissed with prejudice. The ACLU of Massachusetts had represented the defendants in the suit, asserting that the organization’s views were protected by the First Amendment. The case, filed eight years ago, sought to hold the defendants responsible for the murder of Jeffrey Curley, a 10-year-old Cambridge boy who had been abducted and murdered by two men who lured him into a car. Copies of NAMBLA publications were later found in the apartment of Charles Jaynes, one of the killers, but nothing in these materials was about abduction or murder. “This was a misguided effort to spread the blame for the horrific murder of Jeffrey Curley, to shift responsibility away from those who actually committed the crime,” said John Reinstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The principle is as simple as it is central to freedom of speech. Those who do wrong should be held accountable for their crimes. Those who write about ideas, no matter what we think of those ideas, have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech under the American system of liberty.” The case was sponsored by the Traditional Values Coalition and the Thomas More Center. After the suit was filed, Thomas More Center lawyers attempted to claim that Jaynes had met with NAMBLA members and had been trained to abduct and rape children. There was no evidence of any contact between Jaynes and NAMBLA other than his brief membership and his receipt of the organization’s publications. He did not attend their meetings and never met any NAMBLA members. When the court ordered the Curleys’ lawyers to come forward with an offer of proof of their claims, they instead agreed to dismiss the case. “It was a meritless case from the start,” said ACLUM Executive Director Carol Rose. “It was dragged out for years by groups who shamelessly preyed on a grieving family in order to raise money for their own causes by attacking a group whose ideas they found offensive.” “Our position was straightforward: the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment does not allow anyone to be sued simply for what they have written or said. That principle holds true no matter what a reader may later do,” said Rose. “This victory ensures that those who commit crimes be held accountable for those crimes and not be permitted to blame their actions on things they have read or seen.”

The ACLU? Are you serious? Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights, which is what the ACLU is all about. Here's a list of lots of cases in which the ACLU acted on behalf of religious (most often Christian) individuals or groups: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/religion/rf_cases_20071115.pdf If you see yourself as being persecuted for your religious beliefs, the ACLU is your best friend. People who want to impose their religious beliefs upon others, or those who try to prevent people from worshipping whatever deity they believe in, are justified in disliking the ACLU (and the Constitution, for that matter). There are many countries out there where those people would feel much more comfortable than here, and they should seriously consider moving if state-sponsored religion is a priority for them, just like many people come here looking for exactly the opposite. As an American by deliberate choice, I really appreciate the freedoms we have here, and we have the ACLU to thank for many of them which would be long gone were they not so vigilant about them.