Cleo's Mom

I love Celtic Woman, too. They have voices like Angels. I am not a big music fan, so I don't have particular artists but the songs I like are: Silver Bells It's Beginning to look a lot like Christmas Do you hear what I hear Winter Wonderland Chestnust Roasting... Have yourself a Merry Little Christmas Don't like: Silent Night, Twelve Days of Christmas, Grandma got run over by a reindeer, Little Drummer Boy, Chipmunk song So-So: Jingle Bells, Felis Navidad (sp?) And speaking of looking like Christmas - did we not have the picture perfect, Norman Rockwell, Robert Frost Christmas weather/day? Okay, now I'm ready for the snow to be gone.

If eating less is the key and you have little or no restriction then you should have been able to lose all your weight without the band. I guess you just didn't have the willpower. You say you will lose the 32 pounds in the next 10 weeks. Maybe. Maybe not. It's one thing to be confident. It's another to be smug. And the band isn't supposed to require some major mental exercise. If someone was able to overcome their eating with willpower alone, they wouldn't need the band. And to do it without exercise is also not healthy or recommended. The band is supposed to keep you feeling satisfied with small amounts of food thus allowing you to eat less and lose weight. Calories in is important, but some people's calories out is low/slow despite exercising. They just have a slow metabolism. It's just so wonderful that you have been so successful. But I have been on here long enough to know that the honeymoon often comes to an abrupt halt. I sure hope that doesn't happen to you.

If that's all there is to it, then why didn't YOU just do that and skip the surgery? When the band works as it is promoted you should reach the point, with your surgeon's help, of being able to eat a small amount of healthy food that will keep you satisfied (not hungry) for several hours. But there are a lot of dirty little secrets about the band that the seminars, doctors and rah, rah, cheerleaders won't tell you: 1) the band does not work for everyone 2) not everyone can get to their sweet spot 3) you may have permanent left shoulder pain 4) your surgeon might not be very knowledgable about follow up care and how the band works. 5) you might get conflicting advice about what to eat from your surgeon and nutritionist 6) many who lose rely on being so tight they cannot eat and endure reflux, heartburn, vomiting, etc.. to do so (unwilling to get an unfill for fear of gaining weight) You need to discuss all this with your surgeon. And don't allow yourself to be blamed. Too many surgeons blame the victim when it is their job to help you achieve success as long as you: eat healthy foods, exercise, and chew.

Just so he doesn't entrust that $5 to the greedy, private, Wall Street CEO's where he will have to pay capital gains and dividend taxes on it before it loses its value altogether due to their reckless behavior and then reward themselves with bonuses. LOL Merry Christmas & Happy New Year and may Pres. Obama continue to succeed in the new year.

I would say that your routine is probably typical. Being a baby boomer - my generation was raised in a single paycheck, 2 parent family. Stay at home mom, working dad. You can't do that anymore. The middle class has been losing earning power while those at the top accumulate more wealth. In the 50's & 60's you could come out of high school, go to work in the steel mills, make a good living and provide for your family. These people bought homes, appliances, new carpeting, got their homes new siding, put their kids through college, etc..they stimulated the economy because they had good jobs. That all ended when Reagan allowed cheap, imported steel to be dumped here. And no, the CEO of your wife's company does not deserve $4 million. No CEO does. The disparity between the average worker and the CEO's pay has exploded. This $4 million doesn't include bonuses, etc.. I think his initials are JR. Right? He could live very well on 1/4 of that and keep hospitals in poor neighborhoods open. You are typical of so many middle class families - working hard, taking 1 step forward and 2 steps backward. Neither you nor I caused this economic recession or the deficit but the republicans want to cut spending and reduce the deficit on our backs. We can't let them.

Unfortunately the economic growth is not traslating into jobs because employers are working their existing workforce harder and longer and making profits - so they figure why should they hire? To hell with the overworked employee - he/she is made to feel lucky to have a job - so don't complain. And this thinking allows them to pay less with fewer benefits, too. All this while corporate America isn't paying any taxes and CEO's who effed up our economy are getting huge bonuses.

I agree that an unfill is in order. It is not your doctor's decision, it is yours. Also, were you checked for H.Pylori bacteria when you had the endoscopy? Just a thought. I hope you find relief with the unfill. This is no way to live. Good luck.

What Information is Protected (in HIPPA) Protected Health Information. The Privacy Rule protects all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (PHI)."12 “Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to: the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition, the provision of health care to the individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual, and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.13 What your doctor did was an oral breach of your medical condition. The fact that you even had this surgery is protected information, much less how much you lost and this information should not be given to another patient. That patient's HIPPA was violated, too, as you have no right to know about their WLS or how much they lost. What this doctor did was unethical. In my opinion, you should contact someone in the office that handles HIPPA complaints and get some additional information on your options.

You're not the first person posting on here about a doctor who is out of line and when I see them I reply because I left my original surgeon because he was a jerk. Here are my thoughts and suggestions: -You are supposed to lose about 1-2 pounds a week and you seem to be doing that, despite the flu. -Your doctor is wrong to compare you to anyone else and for him to have to talk to someone who lost more than you is a violation of your HIPPA rights, insensitive and embarassing for everyone, -If your nutritionist is telling you one thing and him another you need to discuss this. In fact you need to discuss all of this with him. I don't know if you're an assertive person or how far you want to take this - but you need to tell him he is out of line, that your weight loss if fine, and you will be the judge of whether you feel successful or not. You could also pursue reporting him to the hosptial administrator about violating your HIPPA rights. You should also look for another doctor. I know that is easier said than done as many won't accept other's patients. But your post-op follow ups are very important and your doctor doesn't sound very knowledgeable. He sounds like many that I complain about on here - he jumped on the WLS bandwagon to make $$$, his surgical skills are adequate, but his knowledge of the band, how it works, the expectations, etc.. are inadequate. And these doctors, who I think are often unsure of themselves, base their own success on their patient's weight loss. I am glad I left my original surgeon and found one who is knowledgable. What a difference it made. I hope you can too, If not, then you need to address these issues with this doctor, hard ass or not. Don't allow yourself to be a victim. Good luck.

Twas the eve of elections and all through the land the tea party was stirring for business at hand. We must stop Obama, we must make him fail even though of his programs we usually avail. No to the stimulus, of this we must stop but where do we stand for it's ribbon cutting photo-op? We don't like the bailouts but on this we don't rally just one more in our hypocritical tally. We claim to be main street but it's wall street we love, we're silent on bonuses given above. But for those who are jobless or looking for work, well, they are just lazy and living off pork. While millions are dying for lack of healthcare, we must not support it or do our share. 'Cause we have ours, but of ours we deserve, while others are lazy and expect to be served. The deficit, the spending, it's a real bitcher, except when we have to make the rich richer. Then we can spend so to give them more money. I know it's sounds wrong, but ain't it just funny? They're hypocrites, it's true so let me count the ways, but there's no room - not even on Santa's sleigh. For the number's too many, and it is such a fright, Good bye to the tea party at to all a good night.

The article doesn't say anything about illegal or unethical. It simply explains from where this judge gets some of his funding. And thus where his loyalty is. If it is illegal or unethical I am sure it will be investigated by some judicial review board. I, do, however, think Scalia is unethical. A SCOTUS is not supposed to be involved in politics yet he has been to several high ended republican fundraisers and is meeting behind closed doors with republican members of the house to supposedly discuss the constitution. I bring this up because his vote put bush in the white house in 2000. And if the healthcare goes to the Supreme Court, his vote will be very political and activist - isn't that what the republicans always yap against when a democratic president appoints a judge?

Sorry the CBO score didn't support the unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy. Kill the messenger and all that. There is not one study that shows that tax cuts for the wealthy creates jobs, increases revenue or stimulates the economy. Trickle down doesn't work. The unemployed spend their unemployment check and the employed middle class spend money too. It''s the wealthy who already have everything they need who don't need to spend any money. People pay into unemployment. The wealthy are taxed too low and have not been paying their fair share. We need to tax them at the Clinton rate when 22 million jobs were created thus blowing a hole in the argument that taxing the wealthy will kill jobs. Corporate America is sitting on 2 trillion in assets. Sounds like they've really been given a bum deal by this so-called anti-business president. LOL The corporate bonuses this year are expected to exceed last year. But, as my mother used to say, they're crying with a loaf of bread under each arm. We don't know what to expect about taxes. Boo hoo. We don't know what to expect about healthcare. Boo hoo. Why should they hire when they are making record profits by making fewer american workers work more hours and longer weeks and shipping jobs overseas? We need to penalize corporate america for sending jobs overseas and make corporations like Exxon, who paid no taxes last year and got millions back from the government, pay their fair share. We also need to raise the social security tax on 100% of a person's income. Bill Gates only pays SS on his first $106,000. How ridiculous is that? These things will increase revenue and create jobs. Investing in the middle class will create jobs too. We have to quit talking about spending and start talking about investing. Investing in the 21st century and stop trying to take us back to the early 20th century. Investing in infrastructure, clean energy, education, research & development, technology, healthcare, etc.. if we don't want to become a third world country behind China, India, Brazil, etc..

Gasp! One bush appointee who hates Obama and the Affordable Patient & Protection Act. Who said anything about illegal and unethical? You're the one who brought it up. Know something the rest of us don't?

Pres. Obama had to give in to the blackmail of the republicans and extend the unnecessary tax cuts to the rich that the republicans wanted. He knew that if he let them expire, then on Jan. 5th when the republican congress takes over, it would be a much worse deal for the middle class. Every senate republican signed a letter stating that they would vote for NOTHING until the tax cut for the rich was passed. Not START, not DADT, not the military appropriation bill, not unemployement extentions, NOTHING. So, while Pres. Obama is supporting this so-called compromise, he is smart enought to know that the job creation comes more from the extention of the unemployement benefits than from tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. The CBO scored this and it shows that for every dollar in unemployment the economy receives almost $2 in stimulus. For every tax dollar to the rich, we get about 30 cents. So, when Pres. Obama said that this "tax package" would help create jobs, he was referring to the things in the package that actually do: unemployment extention, middle class tax cuts in the form of lower SS contributions and other tax incentives, not the tax cuts to the wealthy. He never says tax cuts (for the wealthy) will create jobs - he only refers to the tax package which included a lot of things.

Yes, I do. Plus I am sure he drinks the right wing, anti-Obama kool-aid. Health reform for everyoneLegal challenges to the new law are almost certain to fail, and rightly soThursday, December 16, 2010By Eric H. Holder Jr. and Kathleen SebeliusIn March, New Hampshire preschool teacher Gail O'Brien, who was unable to obtain health insurance through her employer, was diagnosed with an aggressive lymphoma. Her subsequent applications for health insurance were rejected because of her condition. With each round of chemotherapy costing $16,000, she delayed treatment because she knew her savings wouldn't last. Then President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to this law, Ms. O'Brien is getting treatment through a temporary program that provides affordable coverage to people who've been shut out of the insurance market because of a preexisting condition. Even better, she knows that in 2014 insurers will be banned from discriminating against her or any American with preexisting conditions. That's what makes the lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act so troubling. Roughly 20 cases question the new law's individual responsibility provision, which says that Americans who can afford to must maintain basic health coverage. Federal courts in Michigan and Virginia have upheld the law as constitutional, but Monday, a federal court in Virginia reached the opposite result. These and other cases will continue through our courts as opponents try to block the law. But these attacks are wrong on the law, and if allowed to succeed, they would have devastating consequences for everyone with health insurance. The majority of Americans who have health insurance pay a higher price because of our broken system. Every insured family pays an average of $1,000 more a year in premiums to cover the care of those who have no insurance. Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014. If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it's essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market. The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn't work. The legal arguments made against the law gloss over this problem even as opponents have sought to invent new constitutional theories and dig up ones that were rejected 80 years ago. Opponents claim the individual responsibility provision is unlawful because it "regulates inactivity." But none of us is a bystander when it comes to health care. All of us need health care eventually. Do we pay in advance, by getting insurance, or do we try to pay later, when we need medical care? The individual responsibility provision says that as participants in the health-care market, Americans should pay for insurance if they can afford it. That's important because when people who don't have insurance show up at emergency rooms, we don't deny them care. The costs of this uncompensated care -- $43 billion in 2008 -- are then passed on to doctors, hospitals, small businesses and Americans who have insurance. As two federal courts have held, this unfair cost-shifting harms the marketplace. For decades, Supreme Court decisions have made clear that the Constitution allows Congress to adopt rules to deal with such harmful effects, which is what the law does -- it regulates how we pay for health care by ensuring that those who have insurance don't continue to pay for those who don't. Because of the long-held legal precedent of upholding such provisions, even President Ronald Reagan's solicitor general, Charles Fried, called legal objections to the law "far-fetched." As these lawsuits continue, Americans should be clear about what the opponents of reform are asking the courts to do. Striking down the individual responsibility provision means slamming the door on millions of Americans like Gail O'Brien who've been locked out of our health insurance markets and shifting more costs onto families who've acted responsibly. It's not surprising that opponents, having lost in Congress, have taken to the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established civil rights protections. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one. Rather than fighting to undo the progress we've made, and returning to the days when one out of seven Americans was denied insurance due to their medical histories, supporters of repeal should work with us to implement this law effectively. The initial decisions about the Affordable Care Act will be reviewed on appeal. We are confident the law will be upheld. Eric H. Holder Jr. is attorney general of the United States. Kathleen Sebelius is secretary of health and human services. They wrote this for The Washington Post

I am very sorry that you have been given this diagnosis. I, too, have breast cancer. We belong to a sorority that no woman wants to belong to. I was diagnosed in 2002 with stage 1 BC. It was T1 N0 M0. I went on tamoxifen and then after my hysterectomy 9 months later, I went on Femara and have been on it since. I know you are having the surgery this Friday, but you need to ask your surgeon about having your tumor tested for BRC1 or BRC2 gene and if they can also do testing to see if your tumor type would respond to chemo. They used to give chemo to 100% of the women in the hopes of catching those who needed it. There is much more precise testing that is done now to show exactly what kind of tumor you have. Plus, they usually don't know if you need chemo until they check the lymph nodes during surgery. I assume you will be getting a sentinel node biopsy - this vastly reduces the risk of lymphodema. If your BC is like 80%, then your is probably ER+/PR+ which would make you a candidate for tamoxifen. You cannot take femara or arimidex until your post-menopausal. It is a very good drug that has a good record for preventing recurrence. As to the radiation - it is my understanding that many centers have moved away from the 5X/week for 7 week schedule and instead implant radioactive rods or something in the breast. You should ask about this. The longer radiation is not without risks because the area that they do the radiation increases your risk of another type of cancer in that area. I am not saying that to scare you, just to inform you so that you can make informed decisions. I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor. I am not one of those "cancer is the best thing that ever happened to me" or "cancer is a blessing" group. Eleven months after I was diagnosed with BC, my husband was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and died from it 2 years later. So my opinion of cancer is that it is a horror. I hope that you find the support you need. Ask for it from those you know. And from your oncologist. There are many groups out there.

Sounds like you go to my FORMER surgeon who was an idiot. You should have a good relationship with your doctor and he shouldn't be in your face about anything. While others have posted about your calories in vs calories out, I want to focus on your relationship with your doctor. You should not have an adversarial relationship with him and should not have to even consider an altercation happening. He should be there to help you. It is his job to get the band filled to the point that you are at your sweet spot and small amounts of healthy foods satisfy you for several hours. If I were you I would look for a new doctor. If you aren't willing to do that, then ask to meet with the nutritionist and discuss this with him/her. These people should be supportive. And if you're having trouble losing, it is their job to figure out why and offer constructive help. I would not put up with a surgeon like this and indeed I didn't - which is why I switched doctors 7 months after my surgery, which was over 2 years ago. Best move I ever made - and I discovered how a supportive doctor is supposed to deal with patients. You will now probably dread going to your appointments and that is never good. I hope you are able to find a satisfactory solution to this problem. Good luck.

If you're nauseated after surgery they should be able to give you something for that. Immediately after surgery I was asked to drink a clear yellow liquid (not the thick barium stuff) but it tasted a lot worse than the barium stuff. Just giving you a heads up. You won't have to drink much, though. Just hold your nose. That helps. You'll be fine.

I have been unfilled for a year and have maintained my weight loss. I count calories. Basically I eat the same Breakfast and lunch and vary dinners a bit. I exercise everyday and vary that, too. The band never worked for me like it does for others. I was hungry when I was at every fill level including being overfilled. The only difference was that I had a few stuck episodes, the last one taking me to the ER and an overnight stay in the hospital. The pain was beyond belief. I will never allow that to happen again. EVER. That is when I got unfilled and that's where I'll stay. You can do it to. Just accept that you will have to get the most food for the least calories and plan accordingly with healthy foods. Good luck.

Of course I was being facetious when I said two months, but the American people aren't going to be patient with the republicans who put getting this tax cut for the wealthy as their number one priority - constantly perpetuating the big lie that it was needed to create jobs. So, that is what the American people are going to expect. Obama wanted to get the deal he thought he could get before they take over in January and then come up with a worse deal. Of course he could veto everything they present him with that includes a tax cut for the wealthy, but in the meantime the middle class will be paying more taxes, and the unemployed without extended benefits, which he said he wouldn't allow. The republicans were holding the middle class tax cuts and unemployment extentions hostage so they could get billions more for those don't need it. So, let's recap: -the republicans and their tea party candidates claim to be against increasing spending and the deficit but their #1 priority did just that -( tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires who don't need or deserve it.) to the tune of $70 billion a year -they voted against the tax cuts for just the middle class -they voted against unemployment benefit extentions. So for the people who are struggling they said: Go F yourself and to their wealthy millionaire and billionaire donors they said we will hold everything up until we get you an EXTRA tax cut. The hypocrisy and arrogance of these republicans is staggering. Great guys y'all voted for.

Is there anyone out there still stupid enough to believe that tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaries produce jobs? Really? Then why didn't they produce jobs during the disastrous bush era? The unemployment rate rose from 4% to 8.1% then. limbaugh, hannity, beck and palin will get a combined $5 million in tax cuts. How many jobs do you think they will create? For every dollar spent on unemployment you get almost $2 in return to stimulate the economy but for every tax dollar given to millionaires and billionaries you get a 30 cent return (this from the CBO). So, yeah. I want to see the jobs pouring in starting in January. I will give them two month - until March to produce 8 million jobs.

I agree that bariatric surgeons are all over the place with this. Why isn't there some standard requirements? I think most do it to shrink you liver, thus making it easier for them to place the band. I don't know if it has any benefit to you. I do agree that those who don't have to lose all this weight prior to surgery will surely lose more after.

Another thing: When this new site was up - all my prior PM's were lost. Then yesterday, after I logged in it said I had 232 private messages but the latest was November 29th, even though I had made PM's through Dec. 2nd. I have no idea what is going on with all of this. Very confusing.

Who does the shopping in your house? If it's you then don't buy the ingredients for baking these items. I mean unless you're going to bake you don't need flour, sugar, butter or crisco. So, don't buy them. And like others said, tell your husband that you need his support to get healthy and that if he wants baked good to go out to a restaurant and get cake or pie. I doubt it is a lack of understanding on your husband's part - I mean he knows what you are allowed to eat and not. So, tell him you don't want him to bake anymore. And if he does, then you will know it's deliberate.