Dub, think of the concept. Only have what you can keep in the house you already have.
| |||||
|
Dub, think of the concept. Only have what you can keep in the house you already have.
| |||||
|
AJ thought you would enjoy this article: Retail Clinics Provide Low-Cost, Quality Care - AARP Bulletin Today. This is what they said about it: This sounds like the way to go once I have lost my health insurance.
You are receiving this mail because someone read a page at
High Country News
and thought it might interest you.
"Arizona is actually in the good news."
Bright sunshiny day
Arizona's solar industry is finally picking up steam.
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/bright-sunshiny-day
--
High Country News
At last, some facts.
| |||||
|
By Sabrina Miller
Sabrina Miller is a Young Adult Intern with the Rural Response Committee of the Nebraska United Methodist Conference. Her first in this series of blog posts is here [1].
My primary goal in speaking with people about health care is to create a space of respect, love, and open conversation, and let differing opinions exist while having exhilarating discussion. As I talked with folks in local churches about health care reform, similar topics continued to arise, and fear that reform would leave them without care.
Many were retired and comfortable with their Medicare insurance, and appreciated the personal relationship they were able to have with their health care providers. Some people were disconnected from the realities in their communities. One town in North Central Nebraska receives 70% of its hospital income from Medicaid alone, and many patients with Medicare or no insurance.
I encouraged participants to see a bigger picture: If you are Christian as I am, we must look beyond our personal needs and fear, and see how care can be provided for every person, each a temple of God.
Issue 1: Health Care is working for me, therefore it does not need to be reformed. I talked to people with employer provided insurance that paid well over $10,000 a year, and up to $18,000 including co-pays. While they receive the care they need, they pay very high amounts for it.
This system may be working for those who have good benefits and steady jobs, but the self-employed and individuals who work at small businesses which are the heart and savior of small communities suffer. They often cannot afford insurance, or if they do purchase it, pay higher costs and receive less reimbursement. This leads to medical debt [2], and neglect of preventive care.
And of course, I hope we will consider the needs of the 47 million Americans with no insurance [3]at all, no longer a marginal number, but overwhelming in scope.
Issue 2: Uninsured individuals don’t want insurance, or could afford it if they lived more frugally. This argument is invalid firstly to the Christian who wants to provide care for every person. Secondly, uninsured people are often families with full-time employment, some poor, but more and more frequently people who are simply not offered health care by their employer and feel they can’t afford insurance which itself costs more than the poverty line income.
If you have to choose between health insurance and food or utilities, immediate needs must be met. Other people without insurance do not have it because of pre-existing conditions, like diabetes or a mental health issue. The people that need good health insurance are those least likely to have access to it.
In my next post, I'll explore other issues on this topic.
Public Disclosure | Privacy | Contact Us | Newsletter Sign Up | RSS Feeds | Open Source Powered by Drupal | Admin Login
Center for Rural Affairs | 145 Main St , PO Box 136 | Lyons, NE 68038 | info@cfra.org | (402) 687-2100
Links:
[1] http://www.cfra.org/blog/2009/08/21/faithful-perspective-health-care-part-i-0
[2] http://www.cfra.org/blog/2009/08/25/428-rears-its-head-again
[3] http://www.cfra.org/weeklycolumn/2009/05/11/uninsured-and-underinsured
In my last blog post [1], I said that I'd post some links to summaries on the various health care bills floating in Congressional limbo. It's taken me a week, and while I'm still not satisfied with the results of my searches, here is what I came up with.
First, let's look at bill summaries. These reference various proposals - the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, the House Tri-Committee (a fancy way of combining the Education and Labor, the Ways and Means, and the Energy and Commerce Committees), and President Obama's Principles for Health Reform - but don't actually make you read the legislation. Trust me when I say that is a blessing.
Then the various committees also have their own summaries. They make for very dry reading, but if you can get through them they can also tell you what's in their proposal. I did not find one on the Senate Finance Committee page, probably because they haven't finalized their bill yet.
Finally, if you're a glutton for punishment, the entire House bill (called HR 3200) is online, accurate to July 14, 2009. I found it through this Congress.org link [17], but you can also access a very large PDF of it here [18].
I hope that through these links you can answer for yourself some of the concerns and questions you have about the bill.
Democracy works best when we can be presented with the legislation and make up our own minds instead of having someone suggest to us what to think with a clever sound byte.
Public Disclosure | Privacy | Contact Us | Newsletter Sign Up | RSS Feeds | Open Source Powered by Drupal | Admin Login
Center for Rural Affairs | 145 Main St , PO Box 136 | Lyons, NE 68038 | info@cfra.org | (402) 687-2100
Links:
[1] http://www.cfra.org/../../../../../../blog/2009/08/16/more-reasons-health-care-reform
[2] http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/healthreform_sbs_full.pdf
[3] http://www.familiesusa.org/about/
[4] http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/health-reform/coverage-for-america.pdf
[5] http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/health-reform/10-reasons-to-support-reform.pdf
[6] http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/health-reform/medicare-setting-the-record-straight.pdf
[7] http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/health-reform/employer-responsibility.pdf
[8] http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/by-date/publications-by-date-2009.html
[9] http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm
[10] http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/healthreform_tri_full.pdf
[11] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_house_releases_its_health-.html
[12] http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BILLSUMMARY-071409.pdf
[13] http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/07/americas-affordable-health-choices-act.shtml
[14] http://waysandmeans.house.gov/MoreInfo.asp?section=52
[15] http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1723:energy-and-commerce-committee-passes-historic-health-care-reform-legislation&catid=122:media-advisories&Itemid=55
[16] http://help.senate.gov/Maj_press/2009_07_15_b.pdf
[17] http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billtype=H.R.&billnumb=3200&congress=111
[18] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf
| | |
Arguing that the chemical commonly used to give antibacterial soap its bite "poses imminent threats to human health and the environment," two groups are petitioning the Food and Drug Administration to have triclosan banned.
The Daily Green has consistently recommended against using antibacterial soap (yes, even for parents with young children), primarily because it doesn't achieve its stated purpose (sanitizing your hands) any better than a thorough washing with regular-old soap and hot water ... but it does create conditions that allow for the evolution of antibiotic-resistance among bacteria. More recently, evidence has emerged that tricolsan may be an endocrine-disrupting chemical, messing with our hormones. It's found in our blood, and because we dump so much down the drain with each washing, it even contaminates dolphins, according to one recent study.
Though antibacterial products have saturated the market, there are alternatives to antibacterial soap. Triclosan isn't found only in soaps; it's also used in toothpastes, deodorants, laundry detergents, fabric softeners, facial tissues, antiseptics, fabrics, toys and medical devices.
The petition (pdf) filed by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch (with support from dozens of other groups, including the Sierra Club, the American Bird Conservancy and the Breast Cancer Fund), argues that tricolsan should not be approved for use in consumer products.
"Numerous scientific studies and reports clearly indicate that in addition to its human health and environmental dangers, triclosan is not effective for many of its intended benefits and may actually be doing consumers more harm than good," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "Even worse, is that current regulations on triclosan haven't been updated since 1994 and much of the science used by the FDA to regulate the pesticide dates back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. The agency's inconsideration of new scientific research on triclosan represents an egregious failure to properly protect the public against this dangerous pesticide."
The petitioners make six basic claims:
It's useful to remember that triclosan, like other pesticides, is a poison. It's poisonous to bacteria. We may be far removed from bacteria, way up in the evolutionary branches of life, but the common chemistry of living things means that chemicals that affect one form of life often affect others too.
Why is Triclosan used so widely? People buy it. And marketers sell it. The market's worth is estimated at $1 billion, so someone is pocketing some serious cash.
Chloramine + Lead Pipes + Fluoride = Contaminated tap water
By Lisa Frack
By Olga Naidenko, EWG Senior Scientist
The lead pollution crisis of the Washington, D.C. water supply - and the culprit that caused it, the water disinfection chemical chloramine - is a powerful example of how things can go terribly wrong when water quality problems are considered and tackled in isolation.
Earlier this year, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) scientists reported the shockingly high lead levels in the blood of young Washington, D.C. children tested between 2001 and 2004, when the District of Columbia's drinking water was being contaminated with lead from aging pipes.
Unfortunately, this situation is not unique: similar results have been reported in Greenville, North Carolina, according to studies by the Duke University researchers.
Chloramines and lead pipes: Not so good together
American water utilities are increasingly switching to chloramines, a mixture of chlorine and ammonia, for final disinfection of drinking water. Chloramine was supposed to be a "safer" water disinfectant than chlorine because it reduces formation of toxic chlorination byproducts. A 2005 survey by the American Water Works Association found that approximately a third of all utilities now use chloramines.
Water disinfection byproducts are associated with increased risk of cancer and possibly adverse effects on the development of the fetus, so minimizing their levels in drinking water is a good thing. Yet, chloramines drastically increase the leaching of lead from pipes. And here is a real challenge: there are tens of thousands of lead service lines in the water system administered by the DC Water and Sewer Authority. Add to these lines the lead based solder used to join copper pipe, brass and chrome plated faucets, and water fixtures, and the opportunities for lead to leach into the drinking water multiply.
What's key, of course, is that chloramine is not unacceptable in and of itself - after all, water disinfection is a public health necessity. But we need to thoroughly consider the full impact of any chemical added to drinking water given the current water distribution infrastructure in place, not in some theoretical vacuum.
And now add some fluoride to the mix
In addition to disinfection chemicals, other additives are commonly mixed with the finished drinking water before it leaves the water treatment plant. Of them, fluoride is possibly the most known. Two thirds of the U.S. municipal water supply is artificially fluoridated in an effort to prevent tooth decay. But fluoridation additives in tap water are not the same form of fluoride as found in toothpaste. Typically, water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid (FSA) or its salt, sodium fluosilicate, collectively referred to as fluorosilicates.
Here comes a second unpleasant "surprise" for those in lead-piped locations: fluorosilicates have a unique affinity for lead. In fact, lead fluorosilicate is one of the most water-soluble forms of lead. In fact, fluorosilicic acid has been used as a solvent for lead and other heavy metals in metallurgy. In industrial applications, chemical engineers rely on this acid to remove surface lead from leaded-brass machine parts.
Research shows what happens when we mix it all up
What happens when fluorosilicates in water pass through lead-containing pipes and metal fixtures? Not surprisingly, the fluorosilicates extract high levels of soluble lead from leaded-brass metal parts (researchers from the Environmental Quality Institute of the University of North Carolina-Asheville performed this actual experiment).
In research published in the scientific journal Neurotoxicology, researchers found that the mixture of the two chemicals: disinfectant (whether chlorine or chloramine) with fluorosilicic acid has a drastically increased potency, leaching amazingly high quantities of lead.
Where does this lead go? Into our drinking water and right on into our bodies, where they wreak havoc by poisoning poison our heart, kidneys and blood, causing irreversible neurological damage and impairing reproductive function.
North Carolina researchers concluded that the supposedly innocuous - and purportedly beneficial - quantities of fluoride added to drinking water may, in fact, precipitate a cascade of serious health problems, especially when chloramines and lead pipes are added into the mix.
Do we even need fluoride in tap water?
The mixture of chloramine and fluorosilicates in drinking water causes extensive leaching of lead. We cannot dispense with water disinfection - everybody acknowledges this. Thus, chlorine and chloramine are probably here to stay for some time. On the other hand, fluoride, or, specifically, water fluoridation with fluorosilicates, is quite dispensable.
But wait - isn't fluoride the miracle chemical that improves dental health?
Well, yes and no. Much of what is publicized today in caries prevention programs worldwide is derived from the theories generated in the 1950s and '60s, when water fluoridation was actively promoted. As we now know, the main benefits of fluoride for dental health are derived from surface application on the teeth, not from ingestion.
In fact, ingestion of fluoride causes dental fluorosis, a range of adverse health effects that includes mottling, pitting, and weakening of the teeth. These risks are especially significant for infants and young children. In the U.S. and worldwide, about 30 percent of children who drink fluoridated water experience dental fluorosis. In 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) issued an "Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children." ADA recommended that in areas where fluoride is added to tap water, parents should consider using fluoride-free bottled water to reconstitute concentrated or powdered infant formula to avoid excess fluoride.
According to the latest research, the anti-caries activity of fluoride is due to topical effects, which supports the value of fluoride-containing toothpaste to dental health. There is clear evidence that fluoride dental products significantly reduce the incidence of cavities. In contrast, a substantial and growing body of peer-reviewed science suggests that ingesting fluoride in tap water does not provide any additional dental benefits other than those offered by fluoride toothpaste and may present serious health risks.
To learn more about fluoride health effects, read the recent report by EWG.
The message: Don't assess chemicals in isolation
The lesson here is straightforward: it is completely unscientific to simply toss any chemical into the drinking water on the premises that this chemical might provide some benefits. The real question is: what would be the effect of this chemical given what else is going on with the water system? In case of fluoridation and chloramines, what emerges comes at the end of the pipe (your faucets!) is a potentially highly hazardous mixture of fluorosilicates, lead, and residual levels of disinfectants.
To protect the health of my family today, I can buy a water filter to remove heavy metals and disinfection byproducts from my drinking water both with a simple pitcher filter. But to protect the health of the entire nation, we really need to consider if our current methods of water treatment can withstand scientific scrutiny, or whether they should be re-assessed so as to provide safe, healthy tap water to all Americans.
By Jon Bailey
Some of the policymakers determining health care reform need to get their priorities straight.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has apparently decided his perceived view of the non-competitive nature of college football is the most egregious violation of the nation’s antitrust laws and deserves the immediate attention of both Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice. At a Senate hearing on July 7 convened to investigate college football’s Bowl Championship Series (BCS), an article from Fox Sports had this to say:
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch urged the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate college football's Bowl Championship Series for what he views as violations of antitrust laws. Hatch made the comment after conducting a standing-room-only hearing in the Senate subcommittee with antitrust oversight, where he serves as the top Republican. "Frankly, there's an arrogance about the BCS that just drives me nuts," he told reporters. "Hopefully this hearing will open the door to have some people reconsider their positions. And if nothing else, the Justice Department ought to be looking at this." He said that it's clear to him that the BCS is in violation of antitrust laws. The Justice Department had no immediate comment Tuesday. Hatch said that the BCS is exploiting a position of power, "and it's just not right."
Hatch is still upset that an undefeated University of Utah team was denied an opportunity to play in the 2009 BCS national championship game because they do not happen to fortunate enough to belong to one of the six BCS football conferences.
A little perspective here - my wife and children will tell you that I’m as big a college football fan as there is, always have been, always will. But really, is college football deserving of this Congressional attention and antitrust prosecution threats when there are so many important issues that affect the nation and its residents?
Like, for example, health care.
According to the report Premiums Soaring in Consolidated Health Insurance Market, 94 percent of statewide health insurance markets are deemed “highly concentrated” under Department of Justice guidelines. The DOJ considers a market highly concentrated if one company holds more than a 42 percent share of the market. Thirty-two states in the nation meet this threshold. The result of a concentrated health insurance market is less affordable insurance, more uninsured and less choice for everyone – precisely the issues that Congress must address in health care reform legislation.
Utah is one of the 32 states with a highly concentrated health insurance market – 68 percent of the market is controlled by the top two insurers (with Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield controlling 47 percent of the market). The result has been that health insurance premiums in Utah rose 87 percent between 2000 and 2007, while individual income increased only 17 percent during the same period.
Since Hatch happens to a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, one of the Congressional committees now working on health care reform legislation, just for fun let’s substitute some of Senator Hatch’s criticism about the BCS with hypothetical criticism for health insurance companies:
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch urged the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate the nation’s health insurance companies for what he views as violations of antitrust laws. Hatch made the comment after conducting a standing-room-only hearing in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, where he serves as a former chairman and a top Republican. "Frankly, there's an arrogance about the health insurance companies that just drives me nuts," he told reporters. "Hopefully this hearing will open the door to have some people reconsider their positions. And if nothing else, the Justice Department ought to be looking at this." He said that it's clear to him that health insurance companies are in violation of antitrust laws. The Justice Department had no immediate comment Tuesday. Hatch said that health insurance companies are exploiting a position of power, "and it’s just not right."
Sound like something that should be said? Yes.
Sound like something that will be said? I'm not holding my breath.
No matter how necessary health care reform is, no matter the situation many American individuals, families, and businesses (especially those in rural America) find themselves due to the lack of affordable, quality health insurance, no matter the importance of creating a high-quality system that takes up 18 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, let’s by all means spend more time on developing a fair and competitive college football system that makes fans, boosters, college administrators and U.S. Senators proud. (insert heavy amounts of sarcasm here)
For a real request for antitrust examination of health insurance companies see this report.
A week into the 2010 fiscal year in Arizona, the state's budget is $2.1 billion in the red, worrying Tucson officials and others about committing money and jobs. In the past six months since Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer stepped up to fill former Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano’s post, the state has been embroiled in what the LA Times calls the “nastiest fiscal fight in Arizona history.”
It has been a surprisingly vicious conflict, given that the state legislature is predominately Republican. After years of going head-to-head with Napolitano, lawmakers were anticipating an easier relationship with Brewer, who took over after Napolitano was called to head Obama's Department of Homeland Security. Yet Brewer hasn’t toed the party line —instead, she’s supported tax increases and defended spending on health care and public safety. And she has refused to budge, resulting in months of battling over education allocations, spending cuts to rein in the rampant state deficit and Brewer’s big issue: increasing the state sales tax (to be voted on in a November election) which would raise around $1 billion to offset cuts to social programs.
Recent highlights include Brewer suing the Legislature for allegedly violating the state constitution, Senate President Bob Burns walking out on a meeting and later harshly criticizing the governor, and Brewer vetoing every budget proposal that cut money for state services.
Last Wednesday lawmakers ended the fourth-longest legislative session in modern times by approving a budget in the early hours of the 2010 fiscal year that included $600 million in cuts but not Brewer’s proposed sales-tax hike.
Brewer line-vetoed major parts of the budget, particularly education spending which she viewed as insufficient, and called the legislature back for a special session this week. On Monday state lawmakers finally approved the education funding, restoring $220 million in cuts.
You are receiving this mail because someone read a page at
High Country News
and thought it might interest you.
It is sent by _ with the following comment:
"A nice essay, brings back memories."
Blue horses: riding on moonlight
A dimly lit moment throws a bright light on the past.
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/blue-horses-riding-on-moonlight
--
High Country News
New Doubts About Roundup
http://www.enviroblog.org/2009/07/new-doubts-about-roundup.html
The sender also included this note:
Poison is poison
--
Sent via a FeedFlare link from a FeedBurner feed.
http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/publishers/feedflare
Daily Green: Some Dog Foods May Deliver Toxic Doses of Fluoride
Study raises questions about use of bone meal, animal by-products and other
cheap ingredients Daily Green » Read more... | Published June 30, 2009
1 envelope Fleischmann’s® Active Dry Yeast
1-1/4 cups warm water (100° to 110°F)
2 tablespoons sugar
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon Spice Islands® Leaf Oregano
1 tablespoon butter OR margarine, melted
2-3/4 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 cup finely chopped pepperoni
1/2 cup shredded provolone cheese
Dissolve yeast in warm water in a large bowl. Let stand 5 minutes. Add sugar, salt, oregano, butter and 2 cups flour. Beat 2 minutes on medium speed.
Stir in remaining 3/4 cup flour, pepperoni and cheese to make a stiff batter. Spoon into greased 1-1/2 to 2-quart round casserole. Cover and let rise 45 to 60 minutes or until doubled.
Bake at 375°F for 35 to 40 minutes or until done. Remove from casserole and cool on wire rack.
Recipe Note: Cut into cubes and serve with marinara sauce for dipping.
luvkuku thought you would enjoy this article: Insured but Unprotected, and Driven Bankrupt by Health Crises. This is what they said about it: I have a limited benefit policy from Aetna too.
---------------------------------------------
I tried to publish all the comments but managed to lose several of them. =
Who has thyroid? I think I am going to seek out a new doctor, maybe =
somebody closer to where I work so I can make it to appointments before =
or after work easier.
Life is just a little weird right now. I was passed over for a lateral =
move at work because I am unwilling to work an entire shift without any =
breaks and then lie about it on my time sheet and that has been =
bothering me. I don't even want the job under those conditions, but it =
is scary that they didn't even bother to make up a legal reason why I =
didn't get the job. It keeps me awake at night, and probably will until =
I at least get up the nerve to talk to the manager about it.
Later.
--