Tired_Old_Man

Just Look at these pictures and put youself and your problems into perspective.

The one that I called does not have a doctor; just a nurse on duty. She said to give her my insurance company name and that she would call them. I elected to go online and check my insurance company's "In-Network Providers" list. You are right. They were not on it.

Genesis 1,1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. I guess God did NOT have much material left to work with when he created the Earth.:)

Now that you feel Tiny, you won't need the Lap-Band. Right?:faint:

Here are links to the Cleveland Clinic and for Fill Centers, USA. There are phone numbers on each link. Fill Centers, USA gives their prices on the site. The Cleveland Clinic takes insurance, but I don't know about Fill Centers.

The embarrassment of being overweight is only overshadowed by the embarrassment of needed bariatric surgery to stop being overweight. I have to admit something to the members here. I post at many other forums (not weight related) and I always use the same name. But here, I chose a different name. I am heavy into political debates and I would not want anyone blackmailing me by referring to my postings here. This may sound small of me, but it is being pragmatic. How can I call for a politician to step up and do the right thing when I can't control my hand from putting food in my mouth? I know we have a sickness, but the majority of people look down on us for being fat. No matter what vices they have, we are weak (in their minds). That is why that very few of my acquaintances know of my surgery.

It was suggested to me that I post here regarding my complications with my Lap-Band. I haven't checked to see which LBT member has had a Lap-Band the longest amount of time, but I am sure that I am up there. September, 2002: Weight = 327 Today: weight = 232 But that is the good part. The bad part is: #1. I lost from 327 to about 260 by the end of the year. I then fluctuated between 265 and 245 until April of this year. #2. I started having very bad gastric reflux problems and in a attempt to self-cure myself, I am now down to 232, but having problems which could be life threatening. Let me explain (I will do it in chronological order rather than in order of importance): Everything was going fine until the second band adjustment in November 2002. Then I had my first PB attacks. I was told that it happens sometimes. The frustrating thing about the PB attacks is that I have no way of gauging when they will happen. I can eat x amount of food y one day and get the PB's. Another day, I can eat 4x of y with no problem. PB's can so debilitating, that I spend my concentration on avoiding them rather than losing weight or eating healthy at times. I was told to drink a cup of Water about 30 minutes prior to eating and then no liquids until a minimum of 2 hours after the meal. Whether I drank the water before the meals or not, I found that PB's happened too often. I also found that warm liquid sometimes shortened the PB attack. Eventually, all my meals were soupy type stews. I know I was defeating the Lap-Band's effect by washing food from the upper pouch to the lower stomach, but if it kept the PB's away, I was happy. I would listen to the doctor's advice on PB's, but usually after a month of failure, I would go back to my own methods. Positional changes, liquids, etc were tried. I did what I had to do. I will try the method suggested in the Possible Solution for PB's and restriction pain thread when I get a chance. Hopefully, I'll never need to have to check it out. I had the surgery in Brooklyn, NY. I moved from Brooklyn to Florida about 14 months later. The closest doctor that takes my insurance is 101.64 miles away. I say takes my insurance, but there is a problem there. When I had the surgery performed, I was on COBRA, now I am retired. The insurance paid for the surgery, but the retirement plan claims that I am not covered for Bariatric surgery or complications. It is the same plan, I say, but they disagree. That means for a band adjustment, the insurance will not pay, but they will pay for the endoscopy. I went from February 2003 until January 2005 without seeing a doctor because of the insurance and distance problems. My fill-port is difficult to find, so they do it in radiology which jacks up the price. Since going to the doctor in Florida for the first time in January 2005, I had had two band adjustments and an endoscopy Until this April. Whenever I had a bad PB attack ("bad" defined as over 2 hours before I stop regurgitating), I found that PB attacks were more prevalent in the next few days, so I would use the same eating regiment as if I had a band tightening and then after about 2 weeks, I would start eating normally. Normally for me though is over-eating for a Lap-Band patient, though not eating like I did before getting the Lap-Band. My wife and I usually share one meal in a restaurant (plus we don't eat the bread or desert). Prior to the Lap-Band, I would eat one meal and then finish what would have been my wife's "doggie-bag" from her meal including bread. My big problem weight-wise is that I get the munchies at night. If I am doing things on my PC, I can go for hours (or days) without eating, but once I sit down to watch the TV, I wear a path between my recliner and the kitchen. I started having gastric reflux attacks about 18 months ago. I am now taking two Nexiums per day. But recently the attacks became more prevalent and stronger. It got to the point that last Saturday, I spent the night sitting in my recliner and I was still waking up with my mouth full and sometimes there was Fluid coming out of my nose. Tums and Pepto Bismal were used alternately and continually. I went 4 days without eating. I would drink 8 oz. of soymilk in the morning, 8 oz. of V8 juice around noon and a cup or two of water during the day. And I still had the reflux problem. I called the Bariatric clinic that is 100 miles from my home and they said come in today (Monday, June 5, 2006). They removed all the fluid from my band and I finally had 2 nights without reflux. Tomorrow, they will do an endoscopy on me.

Better than that, why don't we follow the lead of our Muslim allies in Saudi Arabia and cut off the hand of a thief?

The reason that I brought up the issue of semantics is that the use of semantics clouds the issues. I was going to call a fetus a form of parasite quite a while back in this thread, but decided against it because I didn't want to escalate the rhetoric into an uncivil flaming war. But another member (with the opposite point of view on the abortion issue) corrected me and called the fetus a parasite. I wonder, then, why Ralph Reed and his "Operation Rescue" followers do not march around with signs saying? Save the Parasites Stop the Parasite Killers God Loves Parasites We all know the answer to that question. It is because not many people would be moved beyond reason to defend parasites. I would have more respect for "Operation Rescue" and it's associated ilk if they would have signs like that or even signs saying save the fetuses. But the appeals to emotion, while less legitimate, are the highlight of their campaign. Don't get me wrong. Both sides do it. But neither side will stop and say, "Let's debate and discuss this intelligently." Emotion always seems to over-ride logic in politics. As far as Pro-Life and Pro-choice is concerned, I am pro-choice, but neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. I don't like the idea of abortion, but I like the government in my medical affairs even less and I don't want unwanted babies brought into this world to be abused and neglected. If the so-called Pro-life people were really Pro-Life they would not support congressman who cut Medicare, Medicaid and Food-Stamps, while supporting the death penalty and invasions of countries the size of California. The US public has only recently turned against the Illegal Iraqi Invasion (I3 for short) because of the loss of lives of US servicemen and women, the injuries suffered by the US servicemen and women and the money it is costing us. I was against the I3 before it started. I would have been against it even if we never lost one US servicemen or women. We have no right to kill Iraqis. They are also God's children. George H. W. Bush wrote a book (along with General Brent Scowcroft) called [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679752595/104-9798015-9364763?v=glance&n=283155]A World Transformed[/ame] in which they explain why they did not oust Saddam Hussein in 1991 during the Gulf War to Liberate Kuwait. PaPa Bush predicted everything that has come to pass after the I3. For W. BuSh and his advisors to claim they didn't realized what the results of the Invasion would be, means they didn't read the book, didn't talk to the president's father or they didn't care. I predicted these results back in 2002 when BuSh and his advisors were threatening the I3. It was only logical. The same things happened in the country formally known as Yugoslavia. But the Pro-Life BuSh administration decided that killing Innocent Iraqis would just be acceptable "collateral damage". Governor BuSh (in the year 2000) was asked why he didn't suspend the death penalty in Texas, the execution capital of the world, after the (fellow Republican) governor of Illinois suspended his state's executions when a group of college students found that over half the people on death-row were innocent (during a school project). He answered that he was sure Texas didn't make those mistakes, even though the Texas judicial system was basically the same as the justice system of Illinois. A Pro-Life person would have stopped the executions until after some further investigations could be done. What would have been the harm? A forum member asked me, "Why would you want there to never have to be another abortion if it isn't a bad thing? Clearly you know something's wrong with it if you want there to never have to be another one." Actually although I eat meat, I wouldn't want to work in a slaughter-house. I wouldn't want to be a sewer cleaner, nor an death-row executioner, a surgeon, a doctor that performs autopsies, a homicide detective or many other jobs which have the respect of many in the community. Just because something is not wrong, does not mean that I have to like it. I would hope that a better arrangement could be made instead of abortion, but although some claim that there are unlimited people available to adopt these unwanted children, I would feel better if there were not over a half million children needing adoption in the USA. When will these people step up to the plate? Adopt the half million children first and then worry about banning abortion. Heck, after you adopt the 536,000 children, you can bring them to the abortion clinics to picket. You can then make deals with the pregnant women, agreeing to pay for the medical costs of giving birth and agreeing to adopt the children that you would be saving from abortion. Now, that would be Pro-life. Speaking about Pro-Life. My wife has threatened me, that if I don't get away from this computer and start doing some work around the house, that she is going to perform a retroactive abortion on me.

After some forms of bariatric surgery, this Hybrid Motorcycle may be an efficient way for some of us to get around town.

But I do know the anti-abortion forces too well. Part of my family is Roman Catholic and part Pentecostal. There are some on the Pentecostal side who wear as their badge of courage, their arrest records for protesting and blocking abortion clinics. The say they would never kill an abortion doctor, but they revere the men who made the sacrifice to "save the lives of innocent babies" by shooting up abortion clinics and killing providers. They say that these gunmen are not murderers, but "defenders of life". When I asked them, instead of using your present tactics, would they agree to a contract to adopt a prospective abortion patient's baby (at birth) no matter what the race or physical deformity? They all said, "NO. It was not their responsibilty."

It is because as human beings, our paternal instincts are very emotional. However as human beings, women have a right to control their bodies. This sets up a conflict. To give birth and have certain wonderful aspects of motherhood, but risk other problems which may impact on the ability to raise the child (or the child's siblings) or to have an abortion which has many negative aspects, not the least of which is the anti-abortion forces' spin control and religious sanctions. We only use the word fetus when we are being accurate. Accuracy is a fine trait to employ when trying to debate something logically. Blurring distinctions is a way of avoiding logical outcomes when all else fails.

It is not me who keeps saying things like "murdering babies" or "killing babies". When the anti-abortionists use words like abortion instead of emotionally charged (and inaccurate) words like "baby killing", then there will be no need to focus on the words. They brought about the focus. But in the case of the umbilical cord, there is no separation of mother and fetus. Hence the fetus is still part of the mother. The umbilical cord is as much a part of the mother as it is part of the fetus.

The amount of unadoptable children out there flies in the face of the statement "Wouldn't it just be smart to play it on the safe side, have the baby, and give it to a family that wants a child of their own? There really are plenty of those out there." I don't see anyone on the anti-abortion picket lines offering checks to pay for the medical expenses of delivering a baby. And if anyone thinks it is cruel putting money ahead of life, tell that to a mother who can not afford to feed and cloth her newborn. Cutting welfare was an attack on children under the guise of strengthening morality. Cutting food-stamps was the next attack on children perpetrated by the party in congress who gets their votes from the anti-abortion forces. Too many anti-abortionists love every baby until it is born. Or should I say an anti-abortionist loves all babies, but not as much as he loves saving his tax dollars? I have a right to my interpretation of God's ideas. I have heard religious arguments against abortion for years. None of those people have visited Heaven and come back with God's decision. My idea is as valid as anyone's.

The baby is not the woman's body. Because it is not a baby until it is born. The fetus however is still part of the woman's body. Go in surgically and cut the umbilical cord and see how long the fetus survives.

Sounds very similar to my post in a different thread.

My wife has never had an abortion, is 59 years and will never again get pregnant. I hope that my grandchildren will never have to make that decision that is so emotionally draining. As I said in an earlier reply: "if it were up to me, there would never have to be another abortion." Let me repeat myself about one other issue that keeps coming up. A fetus is not a baby. A fetus is a potential baby. To say "killing a baby", clouds the issue. In fact it hides the issue.

Nothing to do with conscience. At 7 months a fetus can be delivered (though it is better to wait the 9 months) and be kept alive with some help. At 7 months, some fetuses can be delivered and make it on their own. Sometimes even at 5 months, babies can survive through intensive care. However, though allowing the mother to die might seem to some as a poor excuse to allow a fetus to be aborted, it makes sense to many others. And since I am not a woman, I will not tell any woman how valuable her health is. I wonder if the women who complained that male doctors where too quick to remove their breasts (when lumpectomies had the same survival rates) for breast cancer because they were males, will now accept 5 men in Black Robes telling them what to do with their bodies (if President BuSh's judges pass their first litmus test). As a man, I will leave it up to the women to decide their own fate. I will never have an abortion, my wife will never have one and I hope none of my grandchildren will, but if any are raped, or are stupid enough to get pregnant at 14, I will not stand in the way and force a child to raise a child.

It is easier to condemn abortion, make the women have the unwanted children who many times become the convicts that are on deathrow who don't deserve to live. Makes perfect sense to me.:rant:

Two women close to us, one a family member and one who was with my wife and I so much, that we called her our daughter (that we never had), both became crack addicts. Without going into what skeletons were in their respective closets that drove them to the need for the numbing (drugs) to forget, both went through rehab. One learned the lessons of the 12 step program, is clean since 1992 and is raising a beautiful 10 year old daughter (my God-child) that she had a few years after leaving rehab and one is now dead. I bring this up because our battle against overeating and weight is so similar to the battle against drug/alcohol addiction. We must learn to take one day at a time. Maybe "one meal at a time" says it better. We must learn to be grateful each meal and then each day that we succeed in our battle, and maybe most importantly, we must learn to get right back on the wagon anytime we fall off, and without hating ourselves for our momentary failure. Setting far reaching goals is so important, but setting a goal for the day or for the hour or even minute is just as important. I used to argue with the women who is still alive and doing well when she was using that overeating is a harder nut to crack than crack or alcohol addiction. An addict can keep postponing that first drink/usage for one day or one minute until the minutes grow into days, the days grow into weeks, the weeks grow into years, etc. We as foodaholics must eat everyday. We can not postpone eating indefinitely. When a drug addict or alcoholic breaks down and uses, they fall apart, but if they put using off day by day, they can succeed. We must give in and use, but we must not fall apart in order to succeed. I wish all the members here the best. If you have lost 100 pounds or more, congratulations. If you have lost ½ pound so far, well you are on the right path. The man, Tim Montgomery, who recently set the world record for the 100 meter sprint started off about 26 years ago by crawling and then eventually took a halting step. If he can make it from one step, fall, get back up, take another step and then another to running 100 meters in 9.78 seconds, then we can start on the path, fall off, get back on the path and lose our desired amount of weight. Oh, yeah, I used to be 5'11", but now I am 5'9". I used to look and feel good at 180 pounds and even though I am now two inches shorter, my goal is 180.

Au contraire, men with vasectomies still ejaculate, but it is spermless semen. The prostate produces the Fluid.

Just be happy that you feel something poking you in the back of the throat. Not all women are that lucky.:rant::faint:

But, that would be a form of free educartion. I think every person should have to live with a family of a different race for a year (though not be law). In a very short time, the ignorance of racial hatred would dissipate.

If the word fetus was introduced after the abortion debate started, then I would agree with you, however, the word had been around for many years before Roe v Wade. You have it backwards. Calling a fetus an unborn baby does not change a fetus into an baby. It is still not a baby. In most states, abortion is only legal during the first 3 months. It never stops being human, but it does stop being a "human baby" just prior to the point of birth or at the point of being viable (to be able to live on it's own) depending on the courts and legislature of the state you reside in. I am a Christian and I believe that God is a very intelligent entity. I doubt if he would install a precious soul at every mating of a human sperm with a human egg. I think God would wait until he knows that the embryo was actually going to become a baby (by being born). If I am wrong and God does install a soul after every egg/sperm conception, what would become of these souls? Would they suffer the torment of hell because they carried "Original Sin" because they were not baptized? I doubt it. God is not that cruel. Would they be given a free pass into Heaven, because they had no chance to wipe "Original Sin" from their being? If so, then abortion might be seen as a favor. Skip the misery of the soul's Earthly existence and let it go straight to it's Heavenly reward. Since neither of those two choices seem like what an intelligent God would do, I doubt God puts a soul into every embryo and therefor, I will stand back and let women decide what to do with their bodies. If I am wrong, I would imagine that God will punish the women who have abortions and the doctors that perform them. I will let God do both the judging and doling out of the punishment. And by the way, if it were up to me, there would never have to be another abortion. If the people who oppose abortion would sign contracts guaranteeing that they would adopt the babies at birth, no matter what the health, race or other situations that might arise, then maybe many women might go through with the birth. If birth control and the morning after pill were more readily available and sex education was allowed in every school, there might be a decrease in the number of abortion sought. And of course, if people were a little more careful, some abortions might not be required by the pregnant women. If the people who love babies so much (as shown by their sometimes violent attacks on the abortion laws) would petition their federal congressmen and state legislatures to help poor women with assistance (financial, medical, daycare and food stamps, etc), then maybe some women would give birth to and attempt to raise the baby. But many of the same people who oppose abortion, stop caring about the baby as soon as it actually becomes a baby, which is as soon as it is born. If the people who oppose abortion are successful and abortion becomes illegal in the USA, the "well to do" will either travel out of the country for abortions or pay off doctors. The poor will either have to have back-alley procedures or have to raise the child in "hell on earth" circumstances without assistance from the government or the people who succeeded in making abortion illegal.

Fetus Baby Two words. There is a reason that there are two words. Fetus does not equal baby.