First, Ray is accused to shilling donuts for terrorists, here, now her show is accused for harassing staff with eating disorders. Former accountant Aaron Ferguson has sued for his treatment by Ray’s show as he battled anorexia. He is seeking $1 million in damages. It is not the only interesting recent case involving anorexia. The parents of Janell Smith are suing after their daughter was denied insurance for her anorexia and was sent home — where she committed suicide.
At first glance, it might seem a poor choice to work on a food show when you have an eating disorder. However, Ferguson says that his supervisor continually displayed hostile behavior toward people fighting anorexia, allegedly saying “Anorexics are sick in the head,” and “Anorexics should not be able to work.”
He says that after he complained about his treatment, he says, he was forced out in October 2007.
For the Ray story, click here.
In the case of Janell Smith, a teacher’s assistant, she developed anorexia at 23. The disease had reduced her to 63 pounds — she was 5-foot-3. After she was hospitalized in January 2003 at Laguna Beach’s South Coast Medical Center — she went from the psychiatric ward to the hospital. However, her insurance carrier Magellan Health Services, told her family that they would not support the care and said that she would have to be discharged without three days or the bill was on therm. She was compelled to return to her condo in San Diego where she committed suicide — dying on March 12, 2003.
Once again, these frightful abuses by insurance companies are only coming to light due to the media. Heavily lobbied legislators continue to fail to properly monitor and regulate the industry to prevent such abuses. The lawsuit is a welcomed effort to try to hold these companies responsible but such lawsuit are often hard to maintain in the face of contractual defenses.
For the Smith story, click here.
5 thoughts on “Rachael Ray Show Sued for Being Anti-Anorexic”
Can i know how Rachael Ray harassed the staff? I want a brief explanation please.
Find the latest Bulimia news and discuss the latest topics with members of the Bulimia and Eating Disorders Community.
Bulimia News and Discussion Forum
I have tried to avoid any censuring of comments, though I must admit the off-subject comments are making me re-think that policy. It is a difficult problem. One of the points of emphasis of this site is free speech, which demands a high degree of tolerance. It has also supported the right of anonymity — giving added protection to faux identities. I share your frustration, but (for now) we will have to attribute the off topic material as part of a free and robust forum.
Is it possible to delete the off topic rantings in the comments for your posts? You can start with mine right here and continue with niblet and Martha; or are they the same person?
OURCH! NYT’s FED UP WITH OBAMA!
July 4, 2008
New York Times Editorial
New and Not Improved
Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.
Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.
Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.
The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.
Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.
The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.
On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.
Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”
We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.
Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
There now appears to be few vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.
OH OH, the left is disintegrating over the flip flopper say-anything-to-win Obama!
Obama: “”My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.”
So if a President unilaterally decides it is in the “security interests of the American people” to defy the Constitution, the Law, and Congress, (s)he can do whatever (s)he wants?
We are launching our Obama Progressive Escrow Fund. We’re asking you to put some of the money you plan to give Obama “in escrow” until he demonstrates progressive leadership on the issues we care about, like warrantless wiretapping and stops his hunt for big dollar donors.
Comments are closed.