Tag: Premium

Readers continue the thread:

One of your readers mentioned that he/she is “excellent at losing weight, but terrible at sustaining the loss” and attributes it to being unable to maintain razor sharp focus. I think it’s important to point out that this phenomenon is more physiological than mental. Tara Parker-Pope wrote a fantastic article about this in the New York Times called “The Fat Trap.” It should be read by everyone who wonders why people lose a lot of weight and gain it all back.

To summarize, in order to maintain your newer, thinner body, you have to be far more disciplined than a person of the same size who was never fat. Not only does your resting metabolic rate (the number of calories you burn if you lie in bed all day) decrease, your body becomes more efficient during exercise (formal or informal). As a result, compared to a person who has always been thin, you have to do about 2500 calories worth of extra exercise to maintain your weight. That’s the equivalent of running 5 miles every week day. No wonder 97% of people who lose a significant amount of weight gain it back within five years.

Another:

As a physician I am dismayed by one of your readers quotes “I am healthy despite my weight”.  That’s the equivalent of saying I’m healthy despite my heart disease or I’m healthy despite my colon cancer.

I agree that there is a problem with how this society views fitness/beauty. Six packs and stick figures are not attainable healthy for the most part. The problem is we use the mirror as our tool for judging weight loss. Being overweight or obese lowers our self esteem and weight loss improves it. If you are lucky enough to be one of the few people who doesn’t hitch their self-esteem to their outward appearance, then congratulations. Unfortunately this does not help you or the very real health consequences of being overweight, or worse, obese.  I could list all the things, but it would take forever. There is not a single thing that being overweight/obese does not effect. In my opinion it is the single biggest roadblock to excellent medical care. We certainly don’t all have to be skinny, and we’d do better to try and separate the superficial from our feelings of self worth. But we as a society need to realize that obesity is a disease that will shorten your life.

Another:

I am a 32-year-old male. This past January while lounging around at 285 pounds I decided to make a change. I started to track my eating and doing a lot of cardio activity. Today I am down 65 pounds and everyone is amazed at my weight loss. What I see is different and was illustrated on Saturday morning when my wife commented on all my extra belly skin, I was defensive and told her it’s fat, because in my mind I have not changed in the ways I thought I would change. Losing 65 pounds is great and my doctor really loves it, but in the mirror I still feel like I weigh 285 pounds.

Another:

Those who have written in about the sagging skin resulting from their extreme weight loss should look into and seriously consider surgical removal and reconstruction surgery.  There should not be any shame attached to doing so, but only consideration of the risks and pain involved. Obesity can damage joints and arteries – we all see repairing those as necessary and attach no shame. The skin is another organ. It should not be seen as vanity to seek to repair it if it has been damaged.  If it can be repaired through surgery to give those who have lost the weight better mobility, comfort, and self-image, it is just as legitimate as a hip or knee replacement, in my opinion.

Tim Parks is tired of the traditional structure of the novel, calling it “a way of seeing that is bound to produce states of profound disappointment for those who subscribe to it”:

The variety of stories told in the novel is indeed remarkable, but the tendency to reinforce in the reader the habit of projecting his or her life as a meaningful story, a narrative that will very likely become a trap, leading to inevitable disappointment followed by the much-prized (and I suspect overrated) wisdom of maturity, is nigh on universal. Likewise, and intrinsic to this approach, is the invitation to shift our attention away from the moment, away from any real savoring of present experience, toward the past that brought us to this point and the future that will likely result. The present is allowed to have significance only in so far as it constitutes a position in a story line. Intellect, analysis, and calculation are privileged over sense and immediate perception; the whole mind is pushed toward the unceasing construction of meaning, of narrative intelligibility, of underlying structure, without which life is assumed to be unimaginable or unbearable.

Sam Sacks strikes back:

Parks isn’t talking only about mediocre novels when he invokes the tyranny of tradition. By his way of thinking, anyone who uses elements of conventional forms has done so out of either unthinking habit or unwilling necessity. But this is untrue.

For many, if not most, writers, things like plot, character development, and catharsis are not narrative fallbacks but dynamic tools that give shape to the stories they’re passionate to tell or develop ideas that are uppermost on their minds. The art of storytelling is ancient, but it is a flighty kind of world view that automatically equates oldness with staleness. Missing from Parks’s essay is the recognition that talent transmutes tradition. Gifted writers can make accustomed methods feel as new and vital as a work explicitly devoted to structural innovation. In both cases, the object is the same: form is used in the service of artistic vision.

Andrew Gallix points out that “fiction fatigue” has been around since the realist movement of Balzac and Flaubert:

[T]he realist novel attempted to dissolve whatever smacked of literariness. As Alain Robbe-Grillet pointed out in his nouveau roman heyday, serious writers always “believe they are realists”, and “literary revolutions” are all made “in the name of realism”. Whenever a given mode of writing becomes “a vulgar recipe, an academic mannerism which its followers respect out of routine or laziness, without even questioning its necessity, then it is indeed a return to the real which constitutes the arraignment of the dead formulas and the search for new forms capable of continuing the effort”.

Robbe-Grillet accused the Balzacian novel of propagating an outdated, anthropocentric worldview. Its rounded characters were an expression of triumphant bourgeois individualism; its lifelike plots mirrored readers’ “ready-made idea of reality“. Such works were designed to convey the impression of a stable, “entirely decipherable universe”, and the novelist’s task was, precisely, to do the deciphering; to unearth “the hidden soul of things”. For his part, the nouveau romancier was convinced that the “discovery of reality” through literature would only continue if these “outworn forms” were jettisoned, along with “the old myths of ‘depth'” that supported them. In the new novel he called for, the presence of the world – “neither significant nor absurd” – prevails over any attempt to project meaning on to it. Reality is no longer a given, but a taken; something that each novel must create anew. As a result, the primacy of substance over style is reversed. Style is what “constitutes reality” in such a novel, which ultimately “expresses nothing but itself”.

Philosopher Thomas Nagel reviews Joshua Greene’s new book Moral Tribes, in which he advocates adopting a single “metamorality” based not on divergent philosophies and moral codes but a common ethics discovered through psychology and neurology:

Greene wants to persuade us that moral psychology is more fundamental than moral philosophy. Most moral philosophies, he maintains, are misguided attempts to interpret our moral intuitions in particular cases as apprehensions of the truth about how we ought to live and what we ought to do, with the aim of discovering the underlying principles that determine that truth. In fact, Greene believes, all our intuitions are just manifestations of the operation of our dual-process brains, functioning either instinctively or more reflectively. He endorses one moral position, utilitarianism, not as the truth (he professes to be agnostic on whether there is such a thing as moral truth) but rather as a method of evaluation that we can all understand, and that holds out hope of providing a common currency of value less divisive than the morality of individual rights and communal obligations. “None of us is truly impartial, but everyone feels the pull of impartiality as a moral ideal.”

While we cannot get rid of our automatic settings, Greene says we should try to transcend them—and if we do, we cannot expect the universal principles that we adopt to “feel right.” Utilitarianism has counterintuitive consequences, but we arrive at it by recognizing that happiness matters to everyone, and that objectively no one matters more than anyone else, even though subjectively we are each especially important to ourselves. This is an example of what he calls “kicking away the ladder,” or forming moral values that are opposed to the evolutionary forces that originally gave rise to morality. Yet Greene cannot seem to make up his mind as to whether utilitarianism trumps individual rights in some more objective sense.

Last month, Robert Wright sparred with Greene in this Bloggingheads clip, elaborating on his suggestion that a problem with Greene’s argument is “overestimating the role played by divergent values.”  Bob unpacked one of Greene’s examples:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at its root a conflict between two peoples who think they’re entitled to the same piece of land.

When they argue about this, they don’t generally posit different ethical principles of land ownership. They posit different versions of history—different views on how many Arabs were living in Palestine before 1948, on who started the fighting that resulted in many Arabs leaving the area, on which side did which horrible things to the other side first, and so on. It’s not clear why these arguments over facts would change if both groups were godless utilitarians.

In fact, Greene’s own book suggests they wouldn’t. Notwithstanding its central argument, it includes lots of evidence that often the source of human conflict isn’t different moral systems but rather a kind of naturally unbalanced perspective. He cites a study in which Israelis and Arabs watched the same media coverage of the 1982 Beirut massacre and both groups concluded that the coverage was biased against their side. Any suspicion that this discrepancy was grounded in distinctive Jewish or Arab or Muslim values is deflated by another finding he cites, from the classic 1954 study in which Princeton and Dartmouth students, after watching a particularly rough Princeton-Dartmouth football game, reached sharply different conclusions about which side had played dirtier.

Was the problem here a yawning gap between the value systems prevailing at Princeton and Dartmouth in the 1950s? Maybe a mint-julep-versus-gin-and-tonic thing? No, the problem was that both groups consisted of human beings. As such, they suffered from a deep bias—a tendency to overestimate their team’s virtue, magnify their grievances, and do the reverse with their rivals. This bias seems to have been built into our species by natural selection—at least, that’s the consensus among evolutionary psychologists.

(Photo from Zach Klein)

A reader writes:

You guys ran a series of personal abortion stories at one point. New York Magazine has done something similar with poignant stories coupled with stark photography. Some of the comments are even more poignant than the articles.

Here’s Dana from Colorado:

After Dr. Tiller was killed, I watched the man I didn’t know would become my doctor talking on the news, rubbed my belly, and wondered how anyone could possibly have a late-term abortion. A month later, I understood. During the 29-week ultrasound, the ventricles in the brain were enlarged. There aren’t adjectives to describe how I felt when we learned a few weeks later her neurological system wasn’t formed. It’s not that I didn’t want an imperfect child; even if we had all the interventions, she’d have seizures 70 percent of the time, never suck or breathe.

And Rachel from West Virginia:

I have schizoaffective disorder.

I’m fine on my meds, but I was scared I might hurt a child like my parents hurt me. When I started understanding my family’s history of mental illness, my husband and I said, “Okay, let’s stop the cycle of abuse and not have kids.” When I found out I was pregnant, I just started sobbing. The doctor slipped me some cards for clinics in different states. She couldn’t be pro-choice publicly—we live in a very religious area in West Virginia—but she knew that I couldn’t keep taking my meds during a pregnancy. …

“Wonderful” is a weird word to use, but inside the clinic was wonderful. There was a sensation of finally being able to breathe.

The ACA enrollment numbers for October were released this afternoon:

A little more than 106,000 people selected insurance plans during the new health-care law’s first month of open enrollment, the Obama administration announced Wednesday. Approximately 27,000 of those sign-ups came from 36 states where the federal government is running the exchange, which has been beset with technical difficulties. The additional 79,000 came through the 15 marketplaces run by states and the District of Columbia.

Josh Marshall puts the Healthcare.gov numbers in context:

I believe roughly a third of the country’s population is in states with exchanges (14 states, including California and New York). Mainly the state sites have been working well, in tech terms. And that gives you a sense of the full impact of the botched launch of healthcare.gov. The functioning websites were able to sign up three times as many people from only one-third of the country’s population.

Robert Laszewski chastises the administration:

The audacity of this administration to continue telling people to keep going back to the website and the call center when they knew full well that only 25 people per day per state were making it thorough the gauntlet that is Healthcare.gov is startling.

On the bright side, Chait notes that almost 400,000 people enrolled in Medicaid:

Why have so many more people enrolled in Medicaid than the exchanges? Because it’s a much easier decision. If you’re below a certain income threshold, and you don’t live in one of the states run by politicians with a sociopathic indifference to the basic human needs of their most vulnerable citizens, then you have one option for subsidized health care: Medicaid. Nobody loves being on Medicaid, but it’s better than nothing, so you enroll.

Sarah Kliff and Ezra Klein list nine facts about the numbers. Among them:

It’s not quite right to say 106,856 have actually bought a plan. The White House is also counting people who have placed a plan in their shopping cart but haven’t yet paid.

Another important detail:

Lots of shoppers on HealthCare.gov are turning to paper applications. Thirty-three percent of sign-ups in the federal exchange have been done offline. In states, that number stands at just 3 percent.

Jonathan Cohn thinks it’s too early to draw any firm conclusions about the law:

The October numbers are low, which was to be expected given the website problems and tendency of people not to buy insurance right away. But what matters isn’t the figures for October or even November. It’s December and the months that follow—particulalry into next year, as the prospect of paying fines for uninsurance start to hit people in the face. “It’s too early to say anything useful,” says Jonathan Gruber, professor of economics at MIT. “And, really, I don’t think we can draw any significant conclusions about effectiveness of the law until March, because any firm conclusion requires effects of indivdiual mandate to be felt.”

A futuristic project from Google is in the works: electronic skin tattoos. Last week, Google’s Motorola Mobility applied for a patent that would link the tattoos with mobile devices:

The patent, titled “Coupling an Electronic Skin Tattoo to a Mobile Communication Device,” explains that the device would sit on the user’s neck and serve as a supplemental phone microphone. With its close proximity to a user’s mouth, the tattoo would cut down calls’ background noise and produce clearer audio. Equipped with a transceiver, the device would allow for wireless communication with a paired mobile device; this means voice commands on your phone would get even easier, without the need to press a “talk” button before speaking.

The tattoo can also be used as a lie-detector test. The patent says the device will have a “galvanic skin response detector to detect skin resistance of a user” and explains that a user who is nervous or telling a lie might have a different skin-related response than someone who is confident and telling the truth. … The oddest part of the patent: The word “remove” doesn’t show up at all in the document.

Jim Edwards clarifies: “The tattoo isn’t permanent — it’s applied to a sticky substance on the skin.” Derek Mead surveys reaction to the idea:

At TechCrunch, Chris Velazco writes that “before you start freaking out at the mental visual of a tattoo artist weaving electronic components into your neck flesh, know that Motorola has a history of playing fast and loose with its interpretation of the word ‘tattoo.'” Alexis Madrigal called it Google’s “creepiest patent yet.” Steve Dent at Engadget huffs, “Okay, where to start with this one?”

We’re collectively at a strange point in our relationship with technology: Many of us have come to rely on gadgets so much that we’re simply not the same without them, and yet we also don’t admit we have such a techno-dependence. The integration of man and machine is a central tenet of futurism, and yet as folks like Kevin Warwick have argued, the tight integration of technology into our daily lives means we’re already there.

Jason Bittel is skeptical about the lie detector component:

By detecting skin resistance (read: sweat), Google’s skin tattoo may be able to determine whether its wearer is “nervous or engaging in speaking falsehoods.” Since I can’t imagine why the Sam Hill someone would opt to wear such incriminating technology, I think we have to assume the tattoo would either be applied clandestinely or against the wearer’s will. Let’s not even get into the dubious quality of truth-telling based on “skin resistance” alone. … One thing’s for sure, this is unlikely to help Google’s ongoing issues with privacy and consumer trust.

(Image from Google’s patent application)

Barro analyzes the Obamacare bills moving through Congress:

[Sen. Mary Landrieu’s] bill would obligate insurers to continue offering all the plans they offer today unless they entirely exit the health insurance business in a state. What will Republicans do with this proposal? Do they really want a federal law that says health insurers can’t enter or exit specific lines of business?

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has introduced a bill in the House that would allow insurers to continue offering plans that would have been prohibited under the Affordable Care Act, but his bill is vulnerable to the criticism that it will still lead to a raft of plan cancellations as insurers choose to discontinue plans because the ACA has changed the financial incentives they face.

If Congress really wants to make sure people can take their plans, it will need to use the heavy-handed Landrieu approach; the light-touch Upton approach won’t work.

Ezra Klein is against Landrieu’s bill:

The bill Landrieu is offering could really harm the law. It would mean millions of people who would’ve left the individual insurance market and gone to the exchanges will stay right where they are. Assuming those people skew younger, healthier, and richer — and they do — Obamacare’s premiums will rise. Meanwhile, many people who could’ve gotten better insurance on the exchanges will stay in bad plans that will leave them bankrupt when they get sick.

Erick Erickson sees the Landrieu bill as a trap for Republicans:

Here’s what is going to happen.

The House, with the help of a good number of Democrats, will pass the Upton plan and send it to the Senate. Harry Reid will substitute the Landrieu plan and send it back to the House. The House will be forced to either vote for the Landrieu plan or be characterized as siding with insurance companies against people.

In one fell swoop, the Democrats will have the GOP on record saving Mary Landrieu’s re-election in Louisiana by casting her as the one who saved Americans’ health care plans, and also getting on record as really being in favor of fixing Obamacare with the use of mandates.

Sargent checks in on House Democrats:

A senior Democratic aide tells me opposition to the Upton plan will be increasingly difficult to maintain among House Dems if the administration doesn’t offer a workable fix of its own. The aide adds the need to maintain House Dem opposition has been made more urgent by another problem: Senate Dems (the latest being Dianne Feinstein) supporting their own politically expedient “fixes” that could also undermine the law.

Though he thinks it’s bad policy, Jon Walker doubts the Upton bill would do much damage to Obamacare:

[I]nsurance companies have spent months preparing for the switch over to the exchanges. They have already cancelled many of these plans and tried to move people to new ones. Trying to undo that in only a few weeks it a lot of work for just another year. There is a good chance many insurance companies will simply choose not to offer these plans any more.

This law would probably result in a few hundred thousand healthier and wealthier people not joining the exchanges next year. While that would impact the actuarial models the insurance companies were using to set premiums on the exchanges, I think the impact would be modest and not of great concern. I feel the danger is being greatly overstated.

But Sarah Lueck foresees major problems with the bill:

While the Upton bill would extend the availability of non-ACA-compliant plans only through 2014, there would be pressure next summer and fall to extend their availability through 2015 or (more likely) permanently.  That would permanently raise premiums in marketplace plans, further discouraging healthy people from enrolling and threatening the marketplaces’ long-term viability and, hence, the extension of coverage to millions of uninsured near-poor and middle-income Americans.

A reader writes:

I’m glad you’ve brought to light the resurgence of pertussis (whooping cough). Julia Ioffe’s description of what it’s like to have the disease is right on, but your readers need to know that it’s even worse for babies to get pertussis. It can kill them. Immunity does wane over time, but there’s something you can do to decrease your risk of getting pertussis, as well as helping to protect those around you: make sure you’ve gotten a booster shot called Tdap (which includes a booster for tetanus and diptheria as well) that’s been available for adults since 2005. Please use your large readership to spread the word.

Another:

I teach at Ohio State University, where we’ve had a low-level pertussis pandemic for several years now. I caught it myself in 2007, along with several of my friends. My doctor told me it’s common at the university because small kids get it and pass it on to their college-age siblings (whose vaccinations have worn off) and they bring it back to campus with them. As it turns out, I’ve been afflicted with a chronic cough since then, and it appears this will be with me for the rest of my life (I’m now 64). Pertussis has a side effect called bronchiectasis that is permanent damage to the bronchia. I spend the first hour of every day coughing.

When I complain to my engineering students that we live in a society that no longer believes in science, they always assume I’m talking about the GOP. I quickly remind them that there are as many lunatics on the left as there are on the right.

On that note:

A lesser recognized culprit in all of this is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

No matter your politics, the name Kennedy carries a certain intellectual heft that, when combined with Jenny McCarthy’s celebrity, creates a perfect storm of legitimacy given to bunk science. This Slate article sums it up nicely.

Another looks to the right:

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has promised a hearing in the Congressional Oversight and Reform Committee to address “the government’s failure to address the autism epidemic.”  The last time Issa’s committee gave voice to Jenny McCarthy’s angry mob was in November 2012, when witnesses and congressman made inaccurate and unscientific claims about the safety of vaccines. Why again? Maybe because Issa received $40,000 in donations from Jennifer Larson, a Minnesota business owner and member of the anti-vaccine Canary Party.

Issa also appeared at Jenny McCarthy’s annual Autism One conference in Chicago, where a Who’s Who of medical quacks blame autism on vaccines, and aim to cure it with unproven remedies such as bleach enemas, chemical castration drugs, and chelation. Yes, bleach enemas.

The reader follows up:

Somebody just sent this [pdf] to me. It’s the agenda from last week’s congressional briefing, which paved the way for Issa’s anti-vaccine hearing in December.  Issa’s flirtation with anti-vaccine crazies has escaped major media attention so far. I hope you can help bring this travesty to light.

Despite reports to the contrary, the White House still claims that Healthcare.gov will work well by the end of the month. Ezra suspects that “that no one knows for sure whether the Web site will be repaired by the end of the month.” How much damage would missing the deadline do?

The answer depends on two things. First, does the White House’s evident inability to repair the Web site in a timely fashion (or even, at this point, an untimely fashion) lead congressional Democrats to panic and support bills — like a yearlong delay in the individual mandate — that make it harder for the law to succeed even once its digital infrastructure is fixed?

The second question, of course, is how far off-schedule the White House really is. If HealthCare.gov is working smoothly for the majority of users on December 1st but it only works smoothly for the “vast majority” of users on December 15th, that won’t matter much. If the Web site remains more or less unusable into 2014, that’s obviously a much bigger problem for the law.

Cohn outlines contingency plans:

For starters, the marketplaces could rely more heavily on alternative methods of enrollment, particularly “direct enrollment” from insurers and through online brokers like ehealthinsurance.com. From the get-go, Obama Administration officials assumed that at least some people would get insurance this way. And they designed healthcare.gov with that possibility in mind. It is supposed to have a special portal—in effect, a side door into the federal online system for people buying insurance directly from insurer websites. As I understand it, the idea is that you’d apply for insurance at a company website or broker, you’d get sent over to healthcare.gov to figure out whatever financial assistance was available to you, and then you would take that determination back to the insurer or online broker—where you’d be able to enroll and buy a policy, potentially at a discounted price.

Why this hasn’t already been done:

The danger with direct enrollment through insurers is that applicants will check out one company’s options and never realize other companies might have better alternatives. That’s obviously not such a problem with the online brokers, but officials had separate worries about relying too heavily on those sites. For example, could they be counted upon to make sure consumers understood what they were buying?

At this point, however, transforming the existing, opqaue market into a more competitive, transparent one must come second to making sure everybody can get coverage on time. That’s why administration officials have been huddling with insurers about how to make more use of direct enrollment.

More members write in:

We rescued Harry, a harrier hound that closely resembles a beagle, from a road accident when he was one. He stayed with us (and ran “like the wind”) for 15 years. He lacked a right-rear leg but he was the envy of the other male dogs – he could whizz on the fly! Gotta love them tripods!

Another:

As the owner of a three-legged kitty, I thought I’d give you a heads up on a term a friend of mine taught me (she had a speedy three-legged dog). It’s “Tripawd” instead of tripod. It’s a little cutesy – but, well, it’s really cute too!

Another:

I am totally beside myself to have my favorite blogger now join the three-leg club!  Ruby was found living behind a dumpster with an injured leg back in 2008.  We took her in, hoping to find her owner or a new home. After two surgeries the vet said Ruby would be better off if we just amputated the injured leg. By this time, finding a new owner for her was out of the picture and if I was at all uncertain, seeing her post-surgery in the vet’s office made it clear that I would throw myself in front of a bus for this dog.

It took about a year of very short walks around the block to build up her strength but she was soon running, jumping, chasing, etc. all over the neighborhood.  We moved to Minneapolis several years ago and Ruby and I (well, really just Ruby; I just became the guy with the 3-legged dog) became minor celebrities around the hood.

I can’t tell you how many wonderful experiences this has given me.

Children are totally in awe of Ruby and often run right up to her and crush her with affection.  There was a public housing project down the street that had a number of older guys who had clearly lived hard lives and who hung out on the building’s patio every day.  When we’d walk by they’d call out “Ruby!” and we’d hustle over where they would crowd around her and love on her and I would spend hours chatting and hearing their life stories.  With these guys, it was hard not to notice the quick bond they had with Ruby and equate this with the fact that they had various internal and external wounds of their own.  I got to know all of these people through their interest in Ruby and cherish that I got to interact with people I otherwise wouldn’t have.

Ruby and I recently moved to a new city and I cried my eyes out when leaving because of all the relationships we had to leave behind that we had built up through these chance encounters.  Mostly because they were not people that I will likely keep in touch with or probably ever see again … just neighborhood folks, some quite old and not with much time left, but no less meaningful than lots of other relationships.

But as with anything, the curiosity factor continues here in Portland as people are constantly stopping and asking what happened to Ruby or wondering if they can pet her.  I’ve already met dozens of people whom I’m now friendly with this way. As for your life with a 3-legger, you will soon notice that peoples’ inquiries are so standard it’s comical.  Basically, I can almost guarantee that strangers will come up to you and say one of the following:

1.  “Oh, they do so well, don’t they?”
2.  “It’s like they don’t even know”
3.  “Was she hit by a car?”
4.  (child to parent) “That dog only has one leg!”  – something cognitively deceptive going on with kids

So get used to your stock response to these …

Another:

Welcome to the 3-legged dog club!  We got ours a couple summers ago:

She is awesome and her story is pretty incredible. A lot of people came together to rescue her.

Another:

When I was growing up, my family inherited Missy, a young yellow pup, from my uncle when we moved into his old house. Missy had lost one of her rear legs due to two separate accidents in the span of a year or so. Aside from the initial recovery, you would have never known that Missy was down a limb, as she was as quick and as active as any four-legged farm dog. Missy’s remaining rear leg grew quite powerful and she learned how to use it well as she was particularly adept at helping us wrangle hogs at full speed. I have vivid memories of watching Missy traverse our farm on her three legs, finding her way across creeks, under fences, generally wherever she needed to be.

While I don’t remember exactly how old she was when she passed, Missy lived a good fifteen years or more after her accident, outliving countless cats and at least one pup who was a good ten years her junior. Best of luck to you and Bowie and may you have many many years with each other.

Another flags an amazing video we’ve posted before:

Three legs? Pshaw, try two:

Another reader:

Yet another niche Dish community!  My dog, Miss Jack, isn’t a tripod, but she is terribly gimpy due to abuse when she was two months old. We were living in Sierra Leone at the time where I was working on a maternal and child health project. After I had taken her into my home and while she was still using only three of her legs, I invited a fellow dog-lover and colleague over to meet her. My colleague took one look Jack, turned to me and said, “Blech! How could you love a dog like that?” Ironic, considering she worked on poverty alleviation in a post-conflict country known for its amputee soccer teams! Needless to say, Jack never seems to notice her limp and attracts far more love on the streets because of it.

Another shifts focus:

I went out with a few friends this past weekend and one of the couples told us about the dog they had just adopted, Flo. When Flo was younger (I think a few weeks old) her owners neglected her, which resulted in her eyes getting extremely infected and eventually removed.  Look at this awesome pup: