p Aid Org

Archive for the ‘General health’ Category

A top Roman Catholic cardinal told CNSNews.com that there is “no way” Catholic members of Congress can support the Senate health care reform bill as long as it includes a provision that allows tax dollars to go to insurance plans that cover abortion.

At the National Press Club on Nov. 20, CNSNews.com asked Cardinal Justin Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia: “The Senate health care bill that Majority Leader Reid released this week permits tax dollars to go to insurance plans which cover abortion.  And my question is: Would it be a mortal sin for a Catholic member of Congress to vote for this bill knowing that this provision is in it?”

“Well, first of all,” Rigali responded, “the Catholic Church and, therefore, individual Catholics, are completely against abortion. So our position is that, first of all, a health care bill can be a great, great blessing to our country. The bishops of the United States have been in favor, for long years, in favor of universal, affordable health care for everyone. So this, this is something that is extremely important.

“But we make a distinction between health care and killing,” Rigali continued. “So abortion is out of the question–as we’ve spoken about the value of human life. And everyone is called upon to do everything possible to see that when we are trying to get laudable health care—and that’s what we hope to get—laudable health care, but certainly abortion will be excluded from that.  So we exhort everyone of good will that this is for the good of our country. This is for the good of individuals. We have to make sure that health care doesn’t end up as killing. So everyone is challenged to make his or her contribution, and we’re counting on legislators to make sure this is not part of what is going to rule the lives of people.”

When asked in a follow-up question whether it would be a mortal or venial sin, or not sinful at all, for a Catholic member of Congress to vote for the health care bill knowing that it would provide tax dollars to health insurance plans that cover abortion, Rigali said that people need to follow a well-formed conscience, and that a well-formed conscience would recognize that abortion is “absolutely wrong” and that there is “no way in the world” a health care bill can be supported if it includes a provision allowing tax dollars to go to abortion coverage.

“People have to follow their conscience, but their conscience has to be well-formed,” said Rigali. “And you have to make sure that when it is a question of doing something that has a provision, if it has a provision in it for abortion, then this is absolutely wrong by every standard and not by the standards of the Catholic Church as you see here today.  It’s the standards of Christian, standards of the natural law.

“Everyone is called. Yes, no, any bill, any bill that has abortion in it is in our opinion to be rejected,” Rigali continued. “But keep in mind that health reform as such is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But a bill that includes it, there’s no way in the world that it can be supported and if it comes down to that.  Once again we have the coming down as we examined in other questions. If it comes down to that, then we would urge, urge, a rejection because health reform is necessary, it has to be reformed, and it can’t be killing.”Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia, is also the chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee for Pro-life Activities.

Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president of the Action Institute, which seeks to promote Judeo-Christian ideas with free market principles, attended the event at the National Press Club where CNSNews.com asked Cardinal Rigali about the sinfulness of a Catholic member of Congress voting for a health care reform bill that funds abortion. Fr. Sirico offered commentary on the cardinal’s answer.

“When you ask if something is a mortal sin or a venial sin, you’re asking a question with regard to the individual act,” said Fr. Sirico.

Fr. Sirico drew a distinction between the objective moral status of an act and the subjective moral culpability of the person who commits it.

]]>

“When we’re talking about the broad morality of the thing, we’re talking about as it exists in natural law,” he said.  Abortion and funding abortion violate the natural law and are gravely immoral. But for a person to commit a mortal sin, Sirico said, three conditions must be met: the act must be gravely wrong, the person must know it is gravely wrong, and the person must deliberately choose to do it.

“So, the reason the cardinal seemed like he wasn’t answering the question directly is because you can’t judge this along every congressperson, because it depends on their individual knowledge and their individual act of free will,” Sirico said.

“And so, it is grave, and if a person knows that it’s grave, and acts upon it freely, they may have committed a mortal sin,” he said.

The Catholic Catechism says: “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: ‘Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother. The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger. Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.”

The USCCB, which speaks for approximately 300 active bishops in the United States and is headed by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, has sent several letters to members of Congress urging lawmakers to bar taxpayer-funding of abortion in health-care reform bills.

On July 17, for example, the USCCB sent a letter to all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, saying, “We have in the past and we must always insist that health care reform exclude abortion coverage or any other provisions that threaten the sanctity of life… No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion.”

The letter was signed by Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, chairman of the Domestic Justice Committee.

On August 11, Rigali sent congressional representatives a letter to underscore the USCCB’s July 17 letter to Congress, writing, “Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an ‘abortion rights’ agenda or reversing longstanding policies against federal funding and mandated coverage of abortion.”

On Sept. 30, the USCCB called on senators to bar federal funding of abortion in health care reform, saying, “We urge you to … support a fair and just health care reform bill that excludes mandated coverage for abortion and upholds longstanding laws that restrict abortion funding and protect conscience rights.  No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion.  It is essential to clearly include longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding/mandates and protections for rights of conscience.”

The letter continued, “So far, the health reform bills considered in committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met President Obama’s challenge of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws.  These deficiencies must be corrected.”

The Sept. 30 letter was signed by Murphy, Rigali, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the Committee on Migration.

On Oct. 8, the USCCB sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives, saying, “We continue to urge you to … exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights.  No one should be required to pay for or participate in an abortion.  It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience.”

The bishops added that they “will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously” if safeguards against federal funding of abortion are not realized. The letter was signed by Murphy, Rigali, and Wester.

On Nov. 6, the USCCB sent an urgent message to House members, imploring lawmakers to “support an amendment to keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections and to oppose a closed rule that would prevent the House from voting on

Mr. President:

I know that you are a very busy man so I will try to keep my questions about health care reform and the recently passed legislation as short and simple as possible.

- I could ask you why you think this is a good piece of legislation even though I truly believe that it will be a failure and will come very close to bankrupting the country. The basis for my conclusion has nothing to do with political partisanship (in fact, I have never voted for a Republican for national office in my life.) From my perspective, “Obama Care” never effectively addressed the root causes of our escalating health care costs: Americans eat too much of the wrong kinds of food, they exercise far too little, they are overweight, they smoke too much, and they are getting older. This legislation does not address these causes, it just raises taxes and moves money around within the bureaucracy. I could ask you about this but I will not.

- I could ask you why you have not stepped forward and denounced those in your party that have likened Americans like myself, i.e. those that have legitimate and honest concerns about this health care reform bill, to the racists who fought against the civil rights movement from the 1960s. I thought that we lived in a free country where citizens could freely address their elected representatives without being slurred in the most debasing way possible, just for having a different opinion. Your lack of fortitude to oppose those Democrats who frequently use the term “racist” to malign myself and those Americans expressing their honest opposition, cheapens the bravery and contributions of those from long ago that fought actual racism. I could ask you about this but I will not.

- I could ask you why you felt it necessary to pass this legislation by the back door called reconciliation. This is a major, major issue in the country that will affect every American for decades to come. Sneaking it in the back door, without using the traditional, time honored method of passing laws in his country, belittles the approach and makes it look like it was forced through without the full weight of the democratic process behind it. I could ask you about this but I will not.

Here is what I will ask you about. But first, some background facts:

- Let me reiterate that both my wife and myself have never voted for a Republican for national office in our lives.

- We both spent several decades of our lives working hard for AT&T, retiring several years ago, secure in our thinking that AT&T’s promise of health care benefits and coverage for our long years of service was a good bet.

- We both try to eat well, we exercise at our local YMCA on an almost daily basis, neither of us smoke, and we rarely drink. In other words, we take personal responsibility for our health and our health care.
One reason for our personal responsibility behavior is that we are on a high deductible insurance plan with AT&T. We are each responsible for the first ,200 of our annual health care costs before we get any insurance coverage at all. However, for this personal responsibility, we also pay nothing in annual premiums.

]]>

- During the debate leading up to the passage of health care reform, you reiterated more than once that those of us that currently had health care coverage would be able to keep it. However, in a recent article in Fortune magazine, the CEO of AT&T, Randall Stephenson, was interviewed (several pages of the article are attached). Towards the end of the interview, he was explicitly asked whether AT&T would consider dropping health care insurance coverage for its employees and retirees. His response made it clear that this was a very viable option for two reasons. First, from a business profitability perspective, under the new health care reform law, “you’re better off paying the government a fine and dropping health care coverage for your employees”, improving AT&Ts bottom line. Second, he talks about “economic gravity” which appears to be code words for “if others in his industry do it, AT&T will have no choice but to do it also.”

Thus, a few quick questions for you:

1) Were you just naive when you made the comments that we could all keep our current health care insurance, not realizing the simple fact that companies are in business to make money and if this bill makes it easier for them to make more money by not insuring their workforce, that is what they will do? Or were you being disingenuous, knowing that this would happen and deliberately misinforming the country to help get your health care reform bill passed? Naive or disingenuous, in either case you will be making millions of American voters unhappy in November and in 2012 when we are forced out of our current health care coverage and will blame you for either ignorance or arrogance in this situation.

2) I am 57 years old and my wife is 56 years old and if Mr. Stephenson does decide to terminate AT&T’s health care coverage for employees and retirees, where do you suggest that my wife and I get coverage? What insurance company is going to want to pick us up, and millions of other older Americans who lost their coverage, at our ages even though we are both healthy and taking personal responsibility for our continued good health?

3) If we are forced out onto the market for health care insurance coverage, our new coverage is likely going to be much more expensive. Our annual health care costs will go from a maximum of ,200 each to a minimum of several thousand dollars each. Is this how you planned to reduce health care costs for middle class America? Is so, then you need to explain the math to me. Maximum of ,200 to a minimum of several thousand dollars, does not make sense out here in the real world. How does this reduce the escalating health care costs for the 90% of Americans that already had health care insurance prior to the passage of this bill?

Thus, I am not going to ask you about why you and the rest of Congress did not address the root causes of high health care costs in your legislating process. I am not going to ask why you have sat back and been silent while those Americans with legitimate and honest dissent against this bill have been likened to racists by members of your party. I thought you represented all Americans, not just those that agreed with your policies. I will not ask you about why you did not have the courage and guts to pass this legislation the right way, through the front door like every other piece of legislation, but instead snuck it through the back door of reconciliation.

However, I will ask you or your staff to contact me and explain where and how I can get health care coverage at my age if AT&T and the rest of corporate America decides it is a better economic choice to pay a government fine than to cover their employees and retirees with health insurance. I will ask you to explain whether you were naive or disingenuous when explaining that we would be able to keep our current health insurance coverage. And finally, please explain how paying no more than ,200 a year under my current coverage (with many years paying nothing for coverage during healthy years) is a better deal then finding new coverage at my age and paying several thousand dollars a year for the privilege.

Although I have written to the White House many times, I have never received any answer to my questions on a wide variety of topics even though you promised to have the most open and responsive administration of all time. That has not happened yet. However, in this case I do require, in fact I demand specific answers to my three questions above. For your political sake I hope to receive those answers before early November and certainly before 2012.

Thank you for your time,

Walter “Bruno” Korschek

[Follow up note: a month after sending this to the White House, no answers to the questions have been received or even a simple confirmation that this letter was received has been forthcoming from the Obama adminstration.]

Incoming search :

Did you know that even your dog health can suffer from cold? However, he doesn’t get a runny nose like you, but his dog health can get affected by a coughing infection generally known as Kennel cough. Kennel cough (medical term: canine infectious tracheobronchitis) is an infection that causes mild irritation due to the thickening of the trachea lining. Pet health care experts suggest that a dog who suffers from this disease may cough frequently. The frequency of coughing could be every few minutes as well as through the entire day. Pet health care experts have observed that dog cold does affect dog health as it is one of the most common infectious dog diseases, though in most cases the condition doesn’t develop into a serious dog health problem. It’s been observed that Kennel cough goes away on its own with a week or two.

 

Causes of Kennel Cough

Bordatella bronchiseptica is the most common cause of this cough. This bacteria or virus is airborne and usually invades the dog’s body when he inhales infected air. The pet health care experts are of the opinion that dogs that participate in large canine gatherings such as dog or kennel shows tend to contract the Bordatella virus more.

]]>

 

Symptoms of Kennel Cough

Some of the symptoms of Kennel cough affect dog health in the following ways:

 

Dog tries to clears his throat every time it coughs
Dog coughs whenever he is participating in a physical activity such as exercising
Dog develops coughing almost a few weeks after he has been to a dog gathering and taken in virus-infected air
You dog coughs continuously and vomits food or mucus

 

The color of the mucus indicates the seriousness of the dog health infection. White mucus means the infection is not serious, while green mucus means a very serious infection. If your dog is coughing hard and vomiting green mucus, you must take him to a pet health care expert immediately.

 

Diagnosing Kennel Cough

A pet health care expert such as a veterinarian will check the dog health by rubbing his larynx. Sometimes, the vet may also ask you to get some tests done to ensure the extent of damage on the dog health.

 

Home Treatment for Kennel Cough

You can protect the dog health from Kennel cough by ensuring his immune system stays strong. You have a choice of homeopathic as well as allopathic treatments to keep your dog ailment free. A dog cough suppressant can alleviate Kennel cough or dog cold and help your dog and your family sleep well at night.

 

Remember, not to give your dog antibiotics if his appetite stays normal and the coughing is not frequently. In such cases, letting the disease complete its course is the best recourse. If the coughing lasts over 10 days, take the dog to the vet for a thorough check up to ensure best dog health.

 

Making your own health care decisions

Yes, you do.  A health care proxy speaks for you if you can’t speak for yourself.  A health care proxy is a legal paper that lets you pick another person to make health care decisions for you, if and only if you are unable to communicate.

Any competent adult over 18 can make a health care proxy.  The health care proxy is written by you, or filled out by you.  The legal documents can be obtained on line, from the hospital, doctor’s office, senior citizen offices, and medical facilities.  The person who speaks for you should have your own interest in mind.  This is used in cases of temporarily unconscious, coma, or any other condition that you can not speak.  A doctor has to put in writing that you lack the ability to make health care decisions at the time.

You pick the person who will speak for you. This person is referred to as a health care agent.  Your agent must be someone you can trust.  A person who knows what you want and will make the correct choice with your interest and only your interest in mind.  The person should convey your wishes, desires and medical treatment when you can not says so for yourself.  You can put specific limits on the authority you give to your agent.

A health care proxy is not a living will.  A living will is not a health care proxy.  They are two very different legal documents.  A living will allows you to leave written instructions that explain your health care wishes, especially about end-of-life care.  A living will is a written statement of your wishes. A health care proxy empowers another person to speak for you.  A living will has no place for you to express your choice of medical treatments.

]]>

Many states have different names for health care proxies.  New York calls the paper Health Care Proxy Law. Florida, California and several states call the paper Health Care Surrogate; Rhode Island calls the paper, Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. A living will is not legally binding in Massachusetts. The following web site lists the states and the papers they accept.  Check out your laws and the laws of other states that you might be an agent for a loved one residing in that state. http://estate.findlaw.com/estate-planning/living-wills/estate-planning-law-state-living-wills.html

You are not mandated to make a health care proxy.  This is your right. You will receive good health care either with or without an agent.  You can change your health care decisions at any time. If you change your mind, or if your health changes, you and your doctor can discuss options and you can change your proxy.  Make sure you relay any changes in your desires to your health care agent.

Some of the decisions about your medical treatments can include; chemotherapy, surgery and life-sustaining treatments.  It is very important that your agent knows exactly what you want.  It is also important that you understand the terms CPR and life-sustaining treatments.  You have the right to decline to be resuscitated or to limit these types of procedures. You may decide to have a do not resuscitate (DNR) order.  A DNR order is not the same as a health care proxy.  In emergency situations, the ambulance workers or EMT’s are required by law to give CPR and treatment while responding to a call.  Once you are treated by a medical doctor at the hospital or facilities your living will and your health care proxy come into play.
A life-sustaining treatment requires the use of a machine to take the place of bodily functions that no longer work. These machines can be used for long periods of time or can be used while healing takes place.  When they are used to prolong the process of dying, the health care proxy can be extremely important.  Examples of these types of machine and medical situations include:  machines used to breathe for the patient and kidney dialysis machines.  Medications, nutrition and hydration procedures that are given through a tube or machine, also are conditions to be consider by you and your health care agent.

health care proxies are not required.  They are the best way to ensure that your health care treatment wishes are followed.

The many ways Americans already pay for a universal health care — but don’t have it.

Number 1 – Your employer:

Health care insurance is primarily provided by the private sector, generally through a group insurance plans negotiated with an employer, of which the employee pays an average of 27%. Then, of course as any accountant can tell you, those costs are expensed by the employer as a cost of doing business and recouped through pricing on goods and services. Therefore, every time you put out your hard earned dollar for anything, you are paying for someone’s health insurance. In fact, you are paying for many people’s health insurance on all the tiers of costs incurred as any product travels on the journey from raw materials to producer, from producer to middleman, from middleman to provider, from provider to the public. At each level, health insurance costs are part of the total cost.

Problems involved with number 1

Pretend you’re the owner of one of those few U.S. industries still operating in the manufacturing sector. The average cost of insuring each employee is ,580 per year. If you have 100 employees, your prices must be high enough to recoup 8,000 annually, and for 1,000 employees ,580,000 annually and so forth. And don’t forget that buried in the cost of any component of whatever it is you’re making, are the health insurance costs of those that produced it. (Assuming it is American made; which it most likely isn’t, because it’s too expensive to make things here, but let’s pretend.) But out there, in the market place, you are in competition on a global basis with foreign manufacturers who are not held responsible for their employees’ health insurance costs. In order to remain competitive, you must cut your expenses. So Mr. or Ms. Business Owner, what will be your first choice of costs to eliminate? Do you think this might have something to do with the choice to manufacture overseas?

Number 2 — You:

You, the employees are paying an average of 27% of your own health insurance, as well as your deductible, as well as your co-pay portion.

Problems involved with Number 2

This 27% is a major reduction of your take home pay, an amount that doesn’t go very far in this day and age. So, you decide to visit the doctor only when you’re truly ill, and forgo those screening and preventative care visits even though you’re insured because those co-pays add up, and have to come out of your grocery budget, or you’ll have to sacrifice cable TV and the kids will drive you crazy then. So it seems like an intelligent decision at the time. Until you require major critical care for a condition that could have been detected and treated had it been caught earlier, and you’re suddenly responsible for 20% of some staggering costs, plus that deductible. And find yourself uninsurable afterward.

But even if you’re lucky, and stay in good health, the premium costs are continually climbing. Why? Because the cost of health services is continually increasing. Why? Because more and more Americans can no longer afford the premiums, but still get sick and show up at the hospitals, which are morally bound to treat them. After all, we can’t have people dying in the street like abandoned dogs, can we? A civilized society doesn’t do that.

Oh, by the way, the common myth that operating deficits in hospitals are due largely to the illegal aliens showing up for free care can be debunked right here. In the states with highest concentrations of illegal immigrants – Texas and California, non-documented aliens account for no more than 14% of those receiving non-insured care.

Naturally, the hospital has to recoup those costs – the ones they can’t squeeze out of the sick you, or your working wife/husband, or the equity in your home, or all of your savings, or your 401K. And they do that by spreading the cost of treating those who can’t pay but don’t qualify for public assistance, to those that can pay and their insurance carriers.

Then, naturally enough, the insurance carriers charge more for the premiums to cover that increased cost, which means that more Americans can no longer afford to pay for health care insurance. This, I believe is called a vicious circle.

]]>

Of course, they must. They are in business to make a profit, not to pay for medical care and making a profit is a tough thing to do. Isn’t it?

Here is a list of the CEO’s of some of the major health insurance corporations and how much they earn:

* Ron Williams – Aetna – Total Compensation: ,300,112.
* H. Edward Hanway – CIGNA – Total Compensation: ,236,740.
* Angela Braly – WellPoint – Total Compensation: ,844,212.
* Dale Wolf – Coventry Health Care – Total Compensation: ,047,469.
* Michael Neidorff – Centene – Total Compensation: ,774,483.
* James Carlson – AMERIGROUP – Total Compensation: ,292,546.
* Michael McCallister – Humana – Total Compensation: ,764,309.
* Jay Gellert – Health Net – Total Compensation: ,425,355.
* Richard Barasch – Universal American – Total Compensation: ,503,702.
* Stephen Hemsley – UnitedHealth Group – Total Compensation: ,241,042.

Yep, it sure must be hard to make those profits. The trick to these profits? Get rid of any sick people on your list, and get rid of the ones who are at risk for being sick.

Number 3 – The Public Paid Programs

Those 65 or older get Medicare, paid for by taxes. The poor and medically needy, get Medicaid, paid for by taxes. Those at highest risk, the military, get Veteran’s Administration, paid for by taxes. Children of low income families get CHIP, paid for by taxes. Those above the means test for Medicaid but below whatever each state (and sometimes county) elects as a limit, usually 150% of the poverty level, get Country paid discounts for health care, paid for by taxes. And then, those employed by the Governments – Federal, State, County, and City or Town all get health insurance paid for by taxes, (but upon research this writer found those tax dollars go to the private insurance companies.) If you add up all the health care already paid by taxes, research shows that between 50-60% of the population is already covered.

Now add to this COBRA, that vehicle that was supposed to assist the newly unemployed maintain their insurance. Not only did these newly unemployed suddenly find their premiums escalating, the government chose to pay 67% of Cobra fees rather than put these people on Medicare. Now, as most of these people were in the lower risk categories, the cost to the tax payer might have been next to nothing, relatively speaking, but instead the insurance companies are getting hundreds and hundreds of dollars each month, per person out of what can only be called a publicly funded subsidy.

The Inefficiencies that are creating further costs – to you the lowly insured taxpayer

Most of the insurance carriers are publicly own corporations, and one can, if one wishes, call them up and request a copy of their year-end financial statements. Do so, and look for their overhead accounts, in particular, accounting, clerical (all those people busy denying claims), office space, wages and benefits, computers and so forth – millions (many millions) and then multiply it by the number of companies in the health insurance business. (And for all my research skills, I’ve been unable to get an accurate number, and lost count after 155.)

Now add to that 50 states, each administering Medicaid, Medicare, Chip, SSI, SSP, County programs, City programs, none of them managed concurrently and all requiring their private fiefdoms.

Next, add the cost of accounting for all the veterans receiving medical benefits from Veterans Affairs.

All this duplication of administration — this waste — does nothing to assist in anyone’s health care yet, is included in the calculated cost of keeping the American public 42nd in the world for health care and longevity (just behind Chile 35th and Cuba 37th, and 72nd in overall health.

The estimated cost for all this administration of health care coverage in the U.S. is estimated, according to one Harvard study as 9 billion per year, and by another source as 0 billion dollars per year. (It’s probably safe to assume the truth as somewhere in between.)

In order to cope with all this myriad of administrations, doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs and systems to deal with this amazing, mind boggling bureaucracy.

Combine these two, and all this needless administration consumes one-third of America’s health dollars.

Other costs impacting American society and the costs of their health care

Influence peddling

This past year, with the proposed (but failing) overhaul to the American health care industry, the insurers and drug makers have increased their lobbying efforts in order to protect their bottomless rice bowls. The lobbyists flocked to Washington bearing their gifts. Here are some interesting numbers. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association upped its lobbying expenditures to .8 million dollars; GlaxoSmithKline proffered .3 million; Novartis’ largess was .8 million; MetlifeGroup not to be outdone spread .7 million around the capitol, and Allstate .5 million. Johnson & Johnson had .6 million in their bag of goodies; America’s Health Insurance threw million at your representatives, and Bayer wasn’t far behind. PhRMA spent .6 million in the first half of 2008, and report spending less this year by 0,000.

And the doctors, who one would normally

Although it may feel as though we’ve had the internet forever, it’s only been a real force from about 1999 onwards. Now, it’s hard to imagine life without it. When you add in all the hand-held technology that allows us to talk to each other, tweet and sms while we are on the move, the full extent of the revolution becomes obvious. With GPS technology also built into the mobile devices, advertisers can see exactly where we are. If we want to know a good place to eat, it’s easy to ask for guidance. As by magic, a list of eateries comes back, usually accompanied by customer reviews so we have a better idea of which are the most reliable. Through an analysis of our searches, Google and the other companies also have a detailed profile of our interests. As and when they want, these companies will be able to sell targeted lists to marketers. With Google also buying into the hardware side and able to sell Android across all interfaces, it may not be long before we can expect a continuous series of suggestions on where to eat or shop as we drive or walk through a town or city.

Except not all this technology is considered appropriate by some of the regulators. Take Twitter as an example. It’s possible to collect large numbers of followers. Suppose a pharmaceutical company buys into a big list of followers and tweets the launch of a new drug. Wait, a company did this recently with one of the erectile dysfunction drugs. The European regulators were outraged. There’s an absolute ban on the direct promotion of medication to the public. It’s only legal to send marketing messages to healthcare professionals. Worse, the tweet was made in the UK and the local regulator has a rule only messages that are “factual and balanced” can be sent out to the healthcare professionals. A message hyping a launch is not balanced. So on both counts, the manufacturer was named and shamed.

It would be the same result in the US. The FDA has detailed regulations requiring drug manufacturers not only to describe the benefits of the drug, but also to list the adverse side effects. In most cases, this list will exceed the message length on Twitter. A new dilemma on the use of Facebook has also just emerged. Until recently, a drug company has been able to run an informational page with the wall closed to comments. Facebook has now changed the rules and these pages must now allow unedited comments on the wall. If the manufacturer refuses, the pages must close. This creates a big dilemma. Does a manufacturer run the risk of angry patients detailing all their bad experiences when using the drug? It makes control of the brand image very difficult.

So far Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Cialis, has managed to do everything right. There have been no short messages or tweets making unbalanced marketing statements about the drug. Their brand management of Cialis and of their general reputation has been perfect. It will be interesting to see how it reacts to the change at Facebook. At the time of writing, Eli Lilly still has its wikipedia page up on Facebook with the wall closed.

Before starting my article I will like to say a few words about health.

“Every human being is the author of his own health or disease.”
“He, who has health, has hope. And he, who has hope, has everything.”
“It is health that is real wealth and not pieces of gold and silver.”

HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA

Health care in America is the subject of much debate. On one side are folks who favor socialized health care because they see major problems with the current system of health care in the United States.

On the other side are people who want to repeal Obamacare because they are wary of socialized health care. They have legitimate reasons beyond the invectives hurled their way by social liberals such as “You don’t care about poor people!”

Health care in America does have shortcomings. We will take a look at the symptoms, the causes, and the prescriptions.
See all 7 photos
BUREAUCRACY

SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE

Socialized health care is in essence redistribution of wealth. Under this scheme everyone, rich or poor, will have the same level of health care in the United States. If anyone can afford to go to Mayo Clinic, everybody should be able to with socialized health care. For this to be available to all people in the United States will require redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation. In other words, the fifty percent of our citizens who pay income tax must foot the health care bill for everybody.

One of the chief ideas of Obamacare is to use medicine to achieve “social justice.” To do this, doctors will need to consider more than the needs of the patient in front of them. They will need to consider if the value of their time, these tests, this medicine, and that procedure, would be better spent on someone else—someone else in a “protected group” let’s say, that deserves affirmative action medical care to make up for past medical discrimination. Or someone who is simply younger and in better overall health.

]]>

One of the architects of Obamacare, Dr. David Blumenthal said: “government controls on health care spending are associated with longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availiability of new and expensive treatments and devices.”

Another of the chief architects of Obamacare (Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel) complains that health care in America is more expensive than in countries with socialized health care because “Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy. . . . [and] physician’s offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms.”

The best health care in America is very expensive. There is probably not enough of it to go around for all people to have it even under socialized health care. The only way to “level” health care so that it is the same experience for everyone is to eliminate the top tiers.

Some health care in America is decidedly limited. For instance, there are only so many livers available for those people in need of transplants. This, and other problems—such as who gets the limited number of beds at Mayo Clinic—is currently solved primarily by who has been the most successful at living their life—who has amassed the most wealth. This is part of what is so upsetting to the “social justice” crowd; they do not believe a successful person should receive better health care in America than a bum. It’s not “fair.”
BUREAUCRATIC PAPERWORK
REPEAL OBAMACARE

The effort to repeal Obamacare is supported by those who believe that to grant government control over health care in America is to accept a huge loss of individual liberty—the freedom to make our own decisions about our health care. Socialized health care gives government the power to decide who lives and who dies.

The fear is that this power may one day be wielded to reward or punish citizens according to their political views, as it has been historically in every Socialist country. We catch a glimpse of this when we see the health care advisor to President Obama, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, explain in 2008 how support was to be drummed up for Obamacare: “every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health care reform.”

The only way the government can control health care costs is to ration care. It can try to reduce salaries for doctors and nurses, but this leads to the loss of talented people, who may choose other lines of work instead of medicine. Government can slash what it will pay for medicine and procedures, but this will reduce capital investment in research and development—the one area of health care in America where we unquestionably lead the world today—because we still have a semblance of a free market system that rewards innovation.

Socialized health care will mean that 100 million Americans will be forced to give up their health insurance—which they are overwhelmingly satisfied with—and lose the relationships they have established with their current doctors.

The most precious asset your family has is its health. Do you want to make informed decisions about your health care or do you want a bureaucrat to do it for you? Government control has sinister implications, such as in regard to euthanasia. Suppose the government decides every American is required to have a certain vaccination that you disagree with; or a certain mind-numbing pill? Or that every male child should be on Ritalin?

I saw on the news some time ago a story about an arrest warrant issued for parents who did not want chemotherapy for their son—a chilling violation of American freedom. Some doctors do not believe in chemotherapy—it can kill you. Do you want a bureaucrat to decide that you, or your children, must have government mandated chemo or radiation or surgery—or that you may not have it?

Before starting my article I will like to say a few words about health.

“Every human being is the author of his own health or disease.”
“He, who has health, has hope. And he, who has hope, has everything.”
“It is health that is real wealth and not pieces of gold and silver.”

The health insurance reform in the United States has long been the subject of political debate since the early part 1900s. It continues as a active dilemma. Different reform plans were offered by both major presidential candidates during the 2008 presidential election. Presently, the seating Congress introduced reform measures this Congressional session. Health reform in the United States has a long history.

According to The history of health care as a campaign issue , health care became an imposing major political issue in the mid-1940s. One growing concern was that citizens in the middle-income bracket were struggling to access adequate health care after World War II came to an end. The article stated that President Harry S. Truman recommended a national health care program during a special address to the United States Congress on November 19, 1945. President Truman’s message marked the first time a sitting president publicly endorsed a national health care program. The long history of health care reform in the United States is marked by ongoing health care debates generally formed around the question of whether government should subsidize health care for its citizens.

]]>

Thomas Paine wrote about his concern for health care. “Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.” Health care first substantively came on political agendas in 1854 when President Franklin Pierce vetoed a national mental health bill. His opinion was based on the conclusion that it would be unconstitutional to regard health as other than a private matter in which government should not be involved. At the time, most Americans agreed. Health care of the uninsured and underinsured have been left to the private charities, community authorities, and religious institutions to provide what health services they could to the ill, elderly, and poor whose health requirements could not be handled by their families. Theodore Roosevelt attempted to provide universal health care coverage. U.S. efforts to achieve universal coverage was supported by the progressive health care reformers in the 1912 election but was defeated. It’s nearly 100 years later and the issue is still being debated, BUT there is no universal health care.

The American Medical Association attacked health care reform attempts made by Franklin D. Roosevelt as compulsory health insurance. Roosevelt wanted to include publicly funded health care programs to the pending Social Security legislation. The doctors and their lobbyist won. Roosevelt removed the health care provisions from the bill in 1935. Before 1920 the American Medical Association was in favor of compulsory health insurance, but changed their position. It was the 1933 Depression when people were penniless, homeless and jobless, much like 2009. PinarAkal1, “Always put yourself in the other’s shoes. If you feel that it hurts you, it probably hurts the person too.”

Aloe vera

by Alexandru Brad

 

Everybody heard about aloe vera benefits in home remedies or in alternative medicine. Maybe some people try aloe vera and got benefits. Many people can’t follow drugs prescriptions, and how them have to cure the diseases they fight with ? Just follow some alternative treatments, even aloe vera treatments… But how, where, what, how much time, what cost?

Are this alternative cures (like benefits of vegetables, vinegar, aloe vera …, medicine plants like tilia, mentha piperita, matricaria chamomilia, etc.), proved with scientific results?

What we have to know basically about aloe vera, I discovered in very good two sources. In Wikipedia “Aloe” page, I found that the benefits of aloe vera are deep in history, from Ancient Egipt – Cleopatra has used aloe for her beauty, Greeks or Romans  used aloe for treat wounds, or in Middle Ages people  used the yellowish liquid of aloe leaves as a purgative. Aloe is a genus with 400 species, but only three of them till now have great benefits by used in alternative medicine. Most valuable species of aloe are: aloe vera , aloe perryi and aloe ferox. Aloe vera type is in the top used in alternative medicines and in home first aid (many people today use at home aloe vera lives liquid especially for skin lesions).

]]>

The second source about aloe vera I found in the presentation of e-book: “Aloe – Your Miracle Doctor” written by Yulia Berry – the author and health researcher. In this presentation I found that the modern research proved that aloe vera has many medicinal effects. Taken externally aloe vera helps with many diseases like: acne, sunburns, thermal and radiation burns, gum sores, dermatitis, edemas, hemorrhoids, wounds, eyes inflamations, skin disorders, ecc. Taken internally aloe vera helps for: gastritis, arthritis, cancer, tumors, ulcerative colitis, diabetic diseases, arteriosclerosis, heart disorders, etc.

Aloe vera is used also for beauty remedies as anti-wrinkle masks for skin, hair loss, acne, etc.

When I discovered all this benefits of aloe vera,  I just wondering if it is a good decision to have my own aloe vera plant. Isn’t a great idea?.. I advise other to achieve this miracle plant for homemade remedies. And why not, let’s change the name of our planet in Aloe Vera Terra. For the moment I have a great wish to study more about Aloe Vera and start develop a huge culture of aloe vera in my backyard…

I hope this article open your interes about aloe vera benefits.

 

You can find products, ebooks, free stuff, benefits about health, home and cooking on my web store: http://www.4int4future.com

You can also join and participate or just read discusions about health in my blog:

http://4int4future.blogspot.com

 

Thanks for your time reading this article.

Best regards, Alexandru Brad

Yeast infection can be caused due to many reasons. However, this is something what you will never want. But due to our life style and food behavior or due to some medicine reaction yeast infection may happen. Yeast infection remedy can be found throughout the Internet but choosing the right one is a real challenge. The best way to cure yeast infection is the natural medication system.

However, there are some home remedies for yeast infection present that can bring you abundant good result for your health. Home remedy for yeast infection is becoming really popular among people from all over the world. Everywhere you will move, you can find different sorts of home remedy for yeast infection and people from that part of the world believes it as the best one to have for health problems like yeast infection.  For so many years people have believe in normal medication system or the drugs available at drug store for curing of yeast infection. But now the whole scenario seems to change, as many persons are opting for home remedy for yeast infection. Now people try to understand the real fact behind artificial medication system for yeast infection. These drugs can make things worse and it wont perform good on a long use.

Home remedy for yeast infection is the one that will suit to everyone and can offer good result on the constant use. There are many people that have experienced enough relax from yeast infection when they have applied certain home remedy for yeast infection at the first sing of the disease. Moreover, some of the home remedy for yeast infection has got a holistic approach. These remedies can affect the yeast infection and can treat with the whole health problem. These are not just made to mask the symptom rather they can cure the problem from root. However, this sort of general approach can offer the sufferers two types of result. One is that the sufferer of yeast infection will get immediate relief without the use of any drugs. No need to expense a lot for doctors prescription. And the second one is that it can affect the yeast infection from the root and can offer your protection on a long run.