Friday, February 7, 2014
Republicans Are Giving Fat People A Bad Name
Usually fat men are moral and jolly but Republicans are the exception to the rule. These ugly sacks of walking shit are giving fat men bad name.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Obesity Increases Perils of Childbearing but Increases Medical Profits
Obese Mothers are Good for the Economy.
Porking sows and and knocking them up helps the struggling medical industry. Starving American doctors put clothes pins on their noses and deliver birth defective babies from the toxic wombs of fat girls.
Big buxom Bible Belt bimbos boosting birth defect rate while increasing profits for starving doctors.
Gallery of big and blubbery Southern belle baby factories.
 |
| Both cops are overwhelmed by this fat girl's putrid musk. |
With doctors and hospitals starving to make ends meet in this tough economy the more challenging pregnancies faced by fat women is a ray of sunshine to the starving, underpaid and humanitarian medical industry. It's simple economics. When medical care is more complicated and more specialists need to be brought in on a case costs go up... WAY up and so do profits!
Here is an excerpt from an article that appeared the NY Times that explains the good news for our struggling health care industry and our abjectly impoverished doctors. Click here to read the entire article.
As Americans have grown fatter over the last generation, inviting more heart disease, diabetes and premature
deaths, all that extra weight has also become a burden boon in the
maternity ward, where babies take their first breath of life.
About one in five women are obese when they become pregnant, meaning they have an impressive body mass index of at least 30, as would a 5-foot-5 woman weighing 180 pounds, according to researchers with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And medical evidence suggests that obesity might be contributing to record-high rates of Caesarean sections and leading to more birth defects and deaths for mothers and babies.
Hospitals,
especially in poor neighborhoods, have been forced to adjust. They are
buying longer surgical instruments, (CHA CHING!) more sophisticated fetal testing
machines (CHA CHING) and bigger beds. They are holding sensitivity training for
staff members and counseling women about losing weight, or even having
bariatric surgery, before they become pregnant.
At
Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, where a whopping 38 percent of women
giving birth are obese, Patricia Garcia had to be admitted after she had
a stroke, part of a constellation of revenue increasing illnesses related to her weight, including diabetes and weak kidneys.
Is it possible to be too fat?
If you are an OBGYN the answer is a resounding NO! High risk pregnancies mean higher profits for doctors! (CHA CHING) Here are the impressive numbers on C-sections alone that clearly show that the fatter a pregnant woman is the more revenue the health care industry can make.
Body Mass Index vs Percentage of Caesarian Births
20 - 25 11%
25 - 30 18%
30 - 35 25%
35 - 40 33%
Over 40 43%
Very obese women, or those with a B.M.I. of 35 or higher, are three to four times as likely to deliver their first baby by Caesarean section as first-time mothers of normal weight, according to a study by the Consortium on Safe Labor of the National Institutes of Health
There you have it fellow fatlings; another example of how obesity is good for the economy. I, Fat Bastardo only wish that fat haters Mrs Obama and Ms Me Me Roth would see that. AND once again, GLUTTONY IS GOOD!
 |
| Nurse checking to see if this sexy sow ate her baby! |
The Red states which are the fattest states are truly doing their part in increasing the number of fat girl pregnancies and birth defective babies. Southern sows are squirting out babies at younger and younger ages. There is a saying in the South, "If them girls is old enough to bleed they're old enough to breed" This goes along with the long time Republican philosophy, "If they're old enough to pee they're old enough for the the men of the GOP."
 |
| OINK! |
 |
| Fat girl exercising her thumb. Soon her piglet will be using the TV remote control. |
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Clay Aiken To Run For Congress
We will be contacting Ruben "the sandwich" Studdard for his comments. We suspect that Studdard will also endorse Aiken.
 |
| Lindsey the Gay Graham Cracker |
CVS to Stop Selling Cigarettes
This is a man bites dog article. Most medical corporations are run by criminal scum but CVS pharmacies seems to be the exception to the rule. I Fat Bastardo urge everyone reading this to switch their prescriptions and do other shopping at CVS. I will be buying more items from CVS because they care more about people than profit.
CVS, the largest pharmacy chain in the United States, will stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products in all of its 7,600 stores by October 1, its parent company CVS Caremark CVS -1.03% announced this morning. It is the first time any drugstore has ever dropped this deadly cash cow, and it is part of a major shift in direction for the drugstore giant.
“We’ve got 26,000 pharmacists and nurse practitioners who are helping millions of patients each and every day,” said Larry Merlo, the chief executive of CVS Caremark. “They manage conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes — all conditions that are worsened by smoking. We’ve come to the decision that cigarettes have no place in an environment where healthcare is being delivered.”
The decision gained immediate praise from the American Medical Association, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the American Cancer Society . “Over time, we think lives will be saved by this,” says Cancer Society President John Seffrin. But the public-health-mindedness will cost CVS billions – literally. The company says $2 billion in sales will be shaved off its $125 billion top line. That will pressure earnings, too, though Merlo swears incremental cost cuts will keep those pressures from showing up in its profit statements.
Merlo says that continuing to sell cigarettes, which the Surgeon General blames for 480,000 deaths every year from heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke, was anathema to CVS’ long-term plan to become a central player in the U.S. health care system that interacts ever more closely with patients, giving flu shots, reminding them when they are not filling prescriptions, and, through its 800 Minute Clinic in-store nurse practitioner stations, prescribing medicines. “I see my role as insuring that the company is positioned for growth,” says Merlo. “And that is what this decision is about.”
CVS, like rivals Walgreen WAG +2.77% and Rite-Aid Corporation, is seeing a dramatic change to its business as it focuses less on taking marginal revenue out of drug sales and more on larger agreements with hospitals and insurance companies. In fact, CVS is in the midst of an even bigger shift than its competitors. Because of its 2007 merger with Caremark, the company is not only a drug store chain but also a pharmacy benefit manager, meaning it works with insurance companies and employers to control drug costs. The assumption is that by being a rival to both Rite-Aid and benefits manager Express Scripts ESRX -0.31%, CVS can extract better savings and offer better care to patients, saving employers money both by cutting costs and by making people healthier.
Among CVS’ newer offerings: a deal with insurers through which patients who have not filled a needed prescription, like a hypertension drug, are given counseling from a pharmacist if they show up wanting something else, like an antibiotic. This is possible because CVS has records of both in-store and mail-order prescriptions; unfilled prescriptions cost the medical system $300 billion annually, CVS says. Another new product will help patients sign up for expensive drugs for cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and other “specialty” conditions, help them figure out how to pay for them, and allow them to either get them in the mail or pick them up at a CVS story.
These new efforts have led CVS to work more closely with hospitals, doctors’ networks, and what are called Accountable Care Organizations, new types of organizations encouraged by Obamacare in which doctors agree to be paid not for every stitch, prescription, or procedure but based on how well patients do after treatment. If CVS can help save money or keep patients healthier, it might get a piece of the action. But these efforts were leading to cognitive dissonance, says Troyen Brennan, a former professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who is now CVS’ chief medical officer.
“We would always get the question: why do you continue to sell cigarettes?” says Brennan. “Because from the physicians’ and nurses’ point of view, you’re either all in for healthcare or you’re not.” He says he thinks that having been the first pharmacy to drop cigarettes will be a “competitive advantage” against other retail pharmacies because of the credibility it will give CVS when talking to physicians.
It’s certainly getting good buzz from organizations pre-briefed on the announcement. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, MD, the CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, called CVS’ cig ban “a huge and important step forward for moving us as a nation to a place where we can be healthier.” And Robin Koval, the chief executive of Legacy, the foundation formed to stop teen smoking formed when 46 states’ attorneys general settled with tobacco makers, literally said “Wow.”
“For the number one retail pharmacy chain to take a very bold step like this and put people and their health in front of profits sends a signal that if you want to talk the talk about being there to serve your customers and their healthcare needs, then you have to walk the walk,” says Koval.
In the shorter term, the cigarette ban may help with one new business: CVS is offering patients’ smoking cessation therapy, which will usually be paid for by insurance but which some patients will need to pay for out of pocket. Patients will be offered several counseling sessions with a nurse practitioner and perhaps, if they need them, nicotine replacement gums, lozenges, or patches or medicines like Chantix and Zyban that can help patients quit. CVS does not sell so-called e-cigarettes, which vaporize nicotine so it can be inhaled.
Will the halo from the public health praise be enough to make up for the hit to earnings? Maybe. The $2 billion in annual sales lost is only 1.6% of total revenue. In turn, CVS says that this will pressure earnings by 17 cents per share, or 40%, on an annual basis. But because the removal won’t have fully happened until October, that will only hit this year’s earnings by 6 to 9 cents per share. And CVS says it can make up those costs, maintaining its guidance, although that earnings coverage has to come from somewhere. The company is making a bold bet on rebranding itself as being not just a store, but a healthcare company. Arguably, it’s not there yet. But Merlo has established a clear sense of direction, and when it comes to a big, often slow-moving company, that is a good thing.
Kicking The Habit: CVS To Stop Selling Tobacco, Sacrificing $2 Billion In Sales For Public Health And Future Growth
77 comments, 24 called-out
Comment Now
Follow Comments
CVS, the largest pharmacy chain in the United States, will stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products in all of its 7,600 stores by October 1, its parent company CVS Caremark CVS -1.03% announced this morning. It is the first time any drugstore has ever dropped this deadly cash cow, and it is part of a major shift in direction for the drugstore giant.
“We’ve got 26,000 pharmacists and nurse practitioners who are helping millions of patients each and every day,” said Larry Merlo, the chief executive of CVS Caremark. “They manage conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes — all conditions that are worsened by smoking. We’ve come to the decision that cigarettes have no place in an environment where healthcare is being delivered.”
The decision gained immediate praise from the American Medical Association, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the American Cancer Society . “Over time, we think lives will be saved by this,” says Cancer Society President John Seffrin. But the public-health-mindedness will cost CVS billions – literally. The company says $2 billion in sales will be shaved off its $125 billion top line. That will pressure earnings, too, though Merlo swears incremental cost cuts will keep those pressures from showing up in its profit statements.
Merlo says that continuing to sell cigarettes, which the Surgeon General blames for 480,000 deaths every year from heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke, was anathema to CVS’ long-term plan to become a central player in the U.S. health care system that interacts ever more closely with patients, giving flu shots, reminding them when they are not filling prescriptions, and, through its 800 Minute Clinic in-store nurse practitioner stations, prescribing medicines. “I see my role as insuring that the company is positioned for growth,” says Merlo. “And that is what this decision is about.”
CVS, like rivals Walgreen WAG +2.77% and Rite-Aid Corporation, is seeing a dramatic change to its business as it focuses less on taking marginal revenue out of drug sales and more on larger agreements with hospitals and insurance companies. In fact, CVS is in the midst of an even bigger shift than its competitors. Because of its 2007 merger with Caremark, the company is not only a drug store chain but also a pharmacy benefit manager, meaning it works with insurance companies and employers to control drug costs. The assumption is that by being a rival to both Rite-Aid and benefits manager Express Scripts ESRX -0.31%, CVS can extract better savings and offer better care to patients, saving employers money both by cutting costs and by making people healthier.
Among CVS’ newer offerings: a deal with insurers through which patients who have not filled a needed prescription, like a hypertension drug, are given counseling from a pharmacist if they show up wanting something else, like an antibiotic. This is possible because CVS has records of both in-store and mail-order prescriptions; unfilled prescriptions cost the medical system $300 billion annually, CVS says. Another new product will help patients sign up for expensive drugs for cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and other “specialty” conditions, help them figure out how to pay for them, and allow them to either get them in the mail or pick them up at a CVS story.
These new efforts have led CVS to work more closely with hospitals, doctors’ networks, and what are called Accountable Care Organizations, new types of organizations encouraged by Obamacare in which doctors agree to be paid not for every stitch, prescription, or procedure but based on how well patients do after treatment. If CVS can help save money or keep patients healthier, it might get a piece of the action. But these efforts were leading to cognitive dissonance, says Troyen Brennan, a former professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who is now CVS’ chief medical officer.
“We would always get the question: why do you continue to sell cigarettes?” says Brennan. “Because from the physicians’ and nurses’ point of view, you’re either all in for healthcare or you’re not.” He says he thinks that having been the first pharmacy to drop cigarettes will be a “competitive advantage” against other retail pharmacies because of the credibility it will give CVS when talking to physicians.
It’s certainly getting good buzz from organizations pre-briefed on the announcement. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, MD, the CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, called CVS’ cig ban “a huge and important step forward for moving us as a nation to a place where we can be healthier.” And Robin Koval, the chief executive of Legacy, the foundation formed to stop teen smoking formed when 46 states’ attorneys general settled with tobacco makers, literally said “Wow.”
“For the number one retail pharmacy chain to take a very bold step like this and put people and their health in front of profits sends a signal that if you want to talk the talk about being there to serve your customers and their healthcare needs, then you have to walk the walk,” says Koval.
In the shorter term, the cigarette ban may help with one new business: CVS is offering patients’ smoking cessation therapy, which will usually be paid for by insurance but which some patients will need to pay for out of pocket. Patients will be offered several counseling sessions with a nurse practitioner and perhaps, if they need them, nicotine replacement gums, lozenges, or patches or medicines like Chantix and Zyban that can help patients quit. CVS does not sell so-called e-cigarettes, which vaporize nicotine so it can be inhaled.
Will the halo from the public health praise be enough to make up for the hit to earnings? Maybe. The $2 billion in annual sales lost is only 1.6% of total revenue. In turn, CVS says that this will pressure earnings by 17 cents per share, or 40%, on an annual basis. But because the removal won’t have fully happened until October, that will only hit this year’s earnings by 6 to 9 cents per share. And CVS says it can make up those costs, maintaining its guidance, although that earnings coverage has to come from somewhere. The company is making a bold bet on rebranding itself as being not just a store, but a healthcare company. Arguably, it’s not there yet. But Merlo has established a clear sense of direction, and when it comes to a big, often slow-moving company, that is a good thing.
Friday, January 31, 2014
The Minimum Wage Debate
Here is the factual truth about a minimum wage increase.
If you are a teabagger or a Republican you probably are too fucking evil to watch these videos. I hope you die of rectal cancer.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
The Fat Tax Debate
The Fat Tax Debate: Point Counter Point with CG Brady and Fat Bastard
Is a fat tax a good idea?
CG Brady: I would support a fat tax and possibly a junk food tax. With deaths from obesity reaching nearly 500,000 per year combined with the staggering costs of obesity something clearly needs to happen.
Fat Bastard: I oppose a fat and junk food tax. Fatlings love junk food and there is no reason to tax people based on their body weight. In fact fat people are an economic stimulus and good for the economy. We consume more food, gas and medical treatment and that is good for the economy. Gluttony is good.
CG Brady: Unfortunately most of the massive consumerism does little to stimulate small businesses which are the backbone of a strong economy. The restaurants frequented by fat people for example are owned by huge corporations and they pay their employees low wages. The oil companies who benefit from the gass guzzlers that fat people drive are not good corporate citizens and seek to squash small enterprenurial energy firms. The medical industry is a mostly owned by big corporations whose way of paying taxes is to simply pass it on to the consumer. Hospital workers are poorly paid which in part accounts for the poor medical care in the US that ends up costing the consumer nearly 3 times what medical consumers pay in Europe.
Fat Bastard: This is about more than economics. Food is what America is all about. It is part of our culture. I am proud that the USA is the fattest nation on earth. A tax on what you call junk food and what I call comfort food could devistate the fragile psyches of the great American glutton. When asked about a fast food tax look what happened to this SSBBW.
The very thought of eating salads turned this SSBBW's stomach!
Gluttony is a choice and taxing comfort food or body weight limits choice and it is clearly unconstitutional.
CG Brady: Are you serious Fat Bastard about a fat tax being unconstitutional?
Fat Bastard: Gluttony is like a religion and being fat and malodorous is a form of expression. The musk of fat people says, "I'm fat and fuck you" Also we gluttons have certain dietary customs and taxing the food we customarily eat is a clear infringement on fat rights, the promotion and normalization of gluttony and obesity. A fat tax is un-American.
Fat Bastard went on to quote the following article from Slate Magazine to illustrate the economic benefits of hyper gluttony. http://www.slate.com/id/2123213/
The United States clearly has a head start in fatonomics. Obesity is a byproduct of many complex factors, ranging from genetics to psychology. But fast-food restaurants, sugar-laden drinks, and the availability of massive quantities of cheap food have all played important roles in making Americans heavier. So with any luck, the rest of the world will be porking up soon. After all, which American companies have been forging ahead aggressively in foreign markets? McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Wal-Mart. Their expansion should not only fatten the pockets of U.S. investors, they should also help fatten the local populations. It's only a matter of decades before China and India start to lose their battles with the bulge. And where will they look for quack potions and expensive surgeries?
CG Brady: Come now Fat Bastard. You wrote an article on Bigger Fatter Blog called Save the Thinlings. In that article you explained how and why by 2020 the US will be too fat bound to function. You pointed out how out military and public safety is compromised. You are worried about who's going to service all the fatlings. Your fantasy girlfriend MeMe Roth rightly pointed out that by 2020 the US will be so fat bound that we will be too fat to function. Former US Surgeon General Dr Richard Carmona sees obesity as a greater threat to the national security of the US than Islamic terrorism.
Would you want some fat cop like this guy protecting you?
Fat Bastard: Fatlings make great cops. So what they can't run? That's why they have police dogs. More importantly fat cops are more intimidating.
Who would strike more fear in the mind of a criminal? The cop in the left or the one on the right?
Moderator: If they do pass a fat tax of weight how do you think it will work?
CG Brady: I suppose it will be based on BMI and start at a 25 BMI or higher. I don't think that would go far enough because millions fat people are disabled due to their weight so I think a junk food tax would create revenue and maybe keep the morbidly obese a bit healthier. I think a dollar per pound on the federal tax would generate revenue and I think that it should extend to the children of fatlings. Let's say we have a family whose combined weight is 300 pounds over the limit then their tax bill should be three hundred dollars but perhaps a better way would be to provide a tax cut to thinlings who keep their BMI under 25.
Fat Bastard: If Dr Brady's proposals were ever instituted there would be riots in cyberspace. The fatosphere would be ablaze with outrage.
Moderator: Would a junk food tax promote healthy eating?
CG Brady: It might but I suspect in the long run fatlings would breakdown and pay a little extra for their usual kibble. A better solution would be to restrict that foods can be purchased with food stamps to non junk food foods.
Gratuitous images of SSBBWs for Proud FA.
Fat Bastard: Leave it to a socialist like CG Brady to allow the government to dictate what people can or cannot eat. Eliminating comfort food purchases with food stamps is another step towards socialism. It could tear at the very fabric of our society. Keep government's hands off my social security disability and my food stamps.
Fat people soon will be joining the tea party movement.
For another hot debate on Bigger Fatter Blog with hot BBW's click HERE!
Fat Bastard and Proud FA debate who's better in bed, fat girls or skinny bitches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)