Direct-to-consumer advertisements (DTCA) take up much of the air time for commercials in today's society. These advertisements help promote new drugs to consumers that they would not usually know about. It gives consumers the opportunity to ask their doctors about new drugs that may be helpful to their conditions.

The advertisements also create large amounts of revenue for pharmaceutical companies. Many times in the limited 30 second commercial segment, drug companies don't have time to get in all of the necessary information (especially the risks). Is DTCA really helping society be more informed, or is it hurting?

According to an article by the New York Times, Yaz and Yasmin, the most popular birth control pill has not been following FDA requirements with their DTCA. Yasmin was first released to the public by Bayer as a contraceptive, but it also claimed that it cleared up acne, help with emotional problems caused by premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Although it can effectively be used for these things, the company did not put a large enough emphasis on the risks. Bayer has been served with 74 lawsuits of women who say they have suffered major health problems after taking Yasmin, such as blood clots and stroke. The company will fight against these lawsuits, but they have had to make a $20 million corrective advertising campaign. It may be difficult for the victims to win the cases if they say they were ignorant to the side effects, because they are printed on the prescription. What they may be able to win is that the advertisements were misleading and they enticed the women to take the pills.

It will be hard to say who will win these cases, but this is not the only prescription drug to have misleading information in their DTCA. Some major drugs have been taken off the market because of this very reason. So the question is, is DTCA hurting the American public or helping it?  

www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/health/26contracept.html?pagewanted=2

Internet Addiction to be covered???

Are you addicted to Facebook…Twitter…blogging?  Is it affecting your life and daily activities to the point of no return?  In an article written a few weeks ago in the Baltimore Sun, a new debate was brought to the table: Internet addiction.  The article focuses on a University of Iowa student who flunked out on account of an addiction to Internet gaming.  He is now attending a $14,000 residential treatment center for Internet addiction, the very first in the United States.  Internet addiction is not recognized as a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association here in the United States, but it is a very serious issue is places such as China, South Korea, and Taiwan.  Some say this addiction is comparable to that of an alcohol addiction, leaving people without jobs, marriages, and in life-threatening situations.  Believe it or not, people can die from being on the computer for excessive amounts of time. Blood clots form as a result of being sedentary.

Should this addiction treatment be covered by health insurance? While there does not seem to be enough evidence just yet, we may see Internet addiction listed as a illness in the 2012 edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. If it makes the cut, health insurance will cover this issue.  

Check out the article here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-health-internet-addiction,0,4290154.story 

Sweeping Cuts To State Safety Net Affect Half-Million Low-Income Elderly

A new study done by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research found that thousands of seniors suffering from Alzheimer's would lose their long-term care due to budget cuts from the state of California. The most vulnerable to these cuts are seniors with disabilities and low incomes who rely on state funded Alzheimer's Centers. These seniors have few resources and not much support from family members and have no where else to turn. Starting October 1, 2009, the state of California made cuts that will affect many Alzheimer's long-term care programs. Alzheimer's day care resource centers will lose all state funding from the cuts which will affect about 3,200 seniors. Supplemental Security Income will be cut 8 to 10 percent affecting those seniors with Alzheimer's who are blind or very low income. And finally In-Home Supportive Services Program (IHSS) will cut 30 percent of services to 445,584 individual, 60% of which are elderly. 

The State of California have already made devastating cuts to healthcare regarding Alzheimer's patients. Other states will probably follow suit if they haven't already. One of the main problems with these cuts, besides the obvious effects, is that Alzheimer's is a growing epidemic. Cuts should not be made to care for patients, it should be increasing.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166064.php

Crowley Discusses AIDS Policy at HLS

According to The Harvard Crimson Congress has been debating health care reform for months, and yesterday evening the dialogue came to Harvard when Jeffrey Crowley, the current White House Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy and Senior Advisor on Disability Policy, spoke to an audience of 50 at the Law School. What he discussed with the students was how the new health care plan was going to cover everyone living with HIV/AIDS even those that are living with some type of disability. Crowley feels that this could possibly be the key to solving our health care crisis, along with our economic crisis. Crowley stated that "He noted that the Obama administration is the first to create a specific national AIDS policy. “You have to have not been paying attention to see that the Obama administration has put health care at the forefront of its agenda,” Greenwald said when introducing Crowley. This is a good thing for our society to hear, because a lot of people have begun to lose hope when it comes to the health care policy. They feel that nothing is really being done to help those that are living with HIV/AIDS because people are still dying because they're not able to get the treatment that they need in order to help fight against or maybe even cure their virus. Now that Crowley has made it clear that President Obama is doing everything in his power to change the health care policy that will make it focus a lot on those with the virus, people will now have hope again.

Taxes on Rich May Extend to Middle Class

While the main goal of health care reform has always been to provide insurance for the 47 million people that currently have none, it does not come without a price. It is generally accepted that something needs to be done in order to allocate some finances to pay for this health care reform, but what to do is still a debated issue. In an article entitled "Congress is Split on Effort to Tax Costly Health Plans" written by Herszenhorn and Pear of the New York Times, they discuss the possibility of a tax on the more expensive "Cadillac" health insurance plans. Supporters for this tax include many senators including Max Baucus, the Finance Committee Chairman, and Barack Obama. These supporters state that the tax will only be implemented on the insurance companies most expensive plans and will force them to provide more value for their money. Also, this tax could give an incentive for employers to bargain hunt for the best possible plan for the least amount of money. This will in turn lower the cost of health insurance for everyone. Critics of the tax, which include House Members and labour unions, believe that the new tax will simply make the insurance companies pass along this additional cost to the consumers. They believe that any tax on the Cadillac plans will cause an increase in middle class plans, which they refer to as "minivan plans", and the cost of health insurance for the majority will rise. Also, a tax on the employers health care coverage will cause a decrease in both wage and benefits to the employees, simply so the cost of the increase in health insurance will be beared by the employees, rather than the business. This debate is essential for the effectiveness of health care reform and if the Legislative Branch does not incorporate the most effective decision into the new health care bill, it could cause catastrophe for both Cadillacs, and minivans alike.

To read the full article go to
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/health/policy/13plans.html?scp=6&sq=finance%20health%20care&st=cse

HIV Vaccine: Researchers Spoke Too Soon

In recent news it has come to light that the research data on the new AIDS vaccine that had been presented to the public in September may not be as promising as previously thought. When first presented researchers claimed that the vaccine was 31% effective. When they first announced these findings, they admitted their support was weak. However, recent analysis of the study shows that it is even weaker than originally thought. The announcement of a HIV vaccine was the biggest news since ARV cocktails, which changed HIV from a death sentence into a manageable disease. However, at only a rate of effectiveness of 26%, results are far from conclusive and actually not even significant from a statistical standpoint. Much of the controversy is over the differences in opinion about what data should be included: those who participated in the study or those who finished the entire regiment. Researchers are receiving much criticism for prematurely releasing such fragile findings, and many think they were trying to cover up the failure of the six year trial. However, those involved claim that they were only trying to simplify data for the public, and that if they are guilty of anything, it is only making the announcement too soon.

An Alternative Approach to Health Care Reform

In an October 12th article from Forbes, author John E. Girouard offers a unique solution in the ongoing battle to reform health care. The centerpiece of Girouard's solution--eliminating the profit motive and its consequences by forming nonprofit health centers to deal with primary care concerns. Girouard begins his piece by referencing early 20th century America to show that community based medicine is not unprecedented in the US. He proceeds to outline the three major facets of his reform package. First, these nonprofit companies would charge lower premiums and cover all citizens (by means of a government mandate similar to what is being proposed now). Second, nonprofit insurance companies would purchase insurance. The author proposes "reinsurance", where competition and market forces would be retained by the actual insurers. Finally, the author defines the role of the government in his plan. The government would act as a regulator and ultimate insurer. He draws an analogy to the government's role in insuring bank deposits to clarify the extent of government involvement. The author touts his proposal as appeasing to all parties--particularly liberals disdain for the role of the market in health care and conservatives disdain for large government interference.

Organ Transplant Policies: Moral vs. Economic Standpoints

In a New York Times article titled “Opting In vs. Opting Out”, Richard Thaler highlights an important issue regarding transplant policy. Currently we have a system where there is no market for organs but rather a government regulated list system where organ transplants are given by need. Some argue, as Thaler does, that setting up a market for organs (allowing people to sell and buy organs from each other) would be a more effective way to deal with transplants. It would introduce monetary incentives for people to donate their organs which would likely increase the number of organs being donated, and so less people would die while waiting for an organ on the transplant list. In 2006 alone, it is estimated that 3,916 people died while waiting for an organ (Thaler, New York Times, 2009).
Thaler goes on to discuss why organ donation is government regulated instead of a free market. One main reason is that the richest people would be able to buy organs at the expense of those who are poor. Another main reason is that some people believe it is immoral to provide incentives for poor people to sell their organs when they would not normally do so.
In the second half of the article, Thaler discusses a specific policy that might entice people to donate kidneys and bypass the issue of introducing a market into organ transplants altogether. We currently have an “opt-in” policy in the United States. This means that people must take a specific action (such as stating that they want to be an organ donor when receiving/renewing their license) to become an organ donor. Another way is to have an “opt-out” policy, in which it is presumed that all people are organ donors unless they specifically state that they are not. It seems that countries with an “opt-out” policy have a higher rate of organ donations than those with an “opt-in” policy.
As a psychology major, I personally found the “opt-in” versus “opt-out” phenomenon to be very interesting. It makes perfect sense that an opt-out policy would result in higher donation rates because of group mentality. In general, it’s harder to go against the grain and when the general policy is one that makes organ donors the in-group, you’re going to have less people who want to be a part of the out-group (non-organ-donors). The question to be answered is whether or not an opt-out policy is morally sound.

To read this article go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=transplants&st=cse

Anti-rejection Pills Not Necessary

In the Canada News Broadcast article titled “New technique could spare transplant patients from anti-rejection drugs,” the Associated Press reported on a new technique that may save patients who just received a organ transplant the hassle of needing to take anti-rejection drugs post-operation. Patients currently take these drugs to trick the body to accept the new transplanted organ.

The Associated Press reported that the treatment includes weakening the patient’s immune system after receiving the new organ. Then, the donor’s bone marrow is placed in the patient, allowing the patient’s immune system to better adjust to the foreign organ. The bone marrow’s stem cells would help new immune cells grow that do not try to kill the foreign organ. There is a then short time frame where the patient’s body has a “hybrid immune system,” meaning that the donor’s and patient’s immune systems are working together simultaneously. However, within five years, the patient will not need to take anti-rejection pills since the body will accept the new organ. In a preliminary test, four out of five patients were weaned of the anti-rejection pills.

The article cites the specific case of Derek Besenfelder who received a new kidney from his mother after born with a genetic kidney disease. Just eight months after the kidney and bone marrow transplant, Besenfelder did not need to take anti-rejection pills.

There are many currently problems with the current anti-rejection drugs. The Associate Press described how side effects include cancer, bloating, kidney failure, hair growth and tremors.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/01/24/immune2.html

SHOULD YOU SMOKE

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In an article published September 21, 2009 from MSNBC online, Keva Andersen describes the research on how smoking ban in public places will prevent heart attack as well as improve public health. Smoking bans in public places will reduce the number of heart attacks by as much as 36 percent. Over 46,000 non-smokers die every year due to heart disease. Long-term exposure to secondhand smoke raises heart disease rates in nonsmokers by 25 percent to 30 percent. However with the widespread smoking ban in public places, it will decrease heart attack rates within three years. Nevertheless, this will improve public health and create a clean environment for citizens. Will smokers be able to accept this policy? Are they willing to stop smoking in parks or in front of the work place? Many smokers might say NO. With taxes increasing on tobacco products and smoking ban on public places, many smokers will found this to be difficult for them to live their everyday life. However, this policy will help reduce the rate of heart attack as well as other disease relating to secondhand smoking. Regular smokers need to realize that their responsible for the reason that non-smokers health is in danger. We as citizen deserve to live and breathe in a clean environment without worrying about the risk of having health problems due to others negligence’s.

Video by Keva Andersen
To read the full article visit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32957602/ns/health-heart_health/

Teenage Pregancy on the Rise

In a recent The Economist article, “Growing Pains”, the author discusses the rise in teenage pregnancies across the United States. Even though the rate of pregnancies within teenagers declined 34% from 1991 – 2005, the results from past few years show an increase by five percent. Many blame the education system for not providing all the information to young girls. The article states that in many states the students only receive abstinence only education, and receive little information about safe sex or other uses of contraception. In many conservative states, such as Texas, scared tactics are utilized. For example, kids are told sex before marriage leads to divorce, suicide, poverty and a disappointed God. However, teenage pregnancy is still on the rise, especially in Texas. The article continues on to propose that maybe education is not the problem, but simply access to contraceptives posses problem.
I agree with the article that the education is not the main problem and most of the problem arises because many do not have the money/ health insurance to obtain contraceptives. However, I do not believe that the education aspect should be taken so lightly. Education influences the laws enforced in a country. Currently, in many states, if a girl is under the age of 18 and even with a child, she still has to obtain parental consent for prescription contraceptives. Making it difficult for young adults to have access to contraceptives will not discourage sex, but simply make it easier for them to become pregnant. I believe it all starts with education. If only abstinence education is taught, and safe sex is not encouraged, little legislative reform will arise.

If you would like to read the article, please click here!

Surprised?

As the health care debate continues to rage, civil discourse appears to still be lacking. This time, it is the Democrats who are guilty. Just a couple of weeks after Representative Joe Wilson shouted the words, "You lie!" during President Obama's address to Congress, Representative Alan Grayson describes the Republican health care plan as one asking Americans to simply not get sick, and if you do, then die quickly. Grayson, of course, does not see the comparison.

What Grayson fails to recognize is that not only is he on par with Wilson in terms of lack of civility, but he may be far more off base. Yes, Republicans may have exaggerated the provision in H.R. 3200 regarding end of life counseling, which has been coined as death panels. But at the very least this stemmed from a legitimate concern that both the Republican party and many Americans shared. Alan Grayson, however, has nothing to exaggerate here. His comments are baseless, offensive, and worst of all, counterproductive. Coincidentally, whereas Joe Wilson was ordered to apologize both before the House and to President Obama directly, Grayson has been ordered to make no such apology for his antics, or withdraw his statement.

Democrats would be wise to distance themselves from Representative Grayson and turn their attention back to the work that needs to be done to pass health care reform.

More information can be found in this article by Anthony Del Pellegrino.

Rates to rise under Senate health plan, industry group says

On Monday October 12, 2009 Senator Max Baucus has many people discussing his health care bill. Senator Baucus’ health care plan would last up to 10 years and cost up to eight hundred and twenty-nine million dollars. However, under Senator Max Baucus health care bill most reporters say health insurance rates would rise for patients. “Under the Baucus plan, the costs of private health insurance would rise by 111 percent over the next decade. Under the current system, costs would rise by 79 percent”. Also, premium for American people would rise an extra one thousand five hundred dollars. Finally, according to the senator’s plan, “…individuals who did not buy coverage would face a fine of up to $750,” Tuesday morning the senate finance committee will vote on Senator Baucus’ Plan.
I know the senate finance committee is going to vote on this health care plan but is it worth doing? As you can see, this plan would cost more than the original health care proposal that was presented by President Barrack Obama. I know President Obama is asking for nine hundred billion dollars but people would benefit from Obama’s bill. In Senate Baucus’ bill it states that the individual who does not buy this coverage would be fined seven hundred and fifty dollars. All that is doing is putting more American people in debt. What happen to the public option? I feel the public option is a great idea. We have to realize that health care is supposed to be for people and will better this country as a whole if it helps everyone.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/12/health.care/index.html

Choosing a Health Care Plan

The article I read was titled, “The Annual Task of Choosing an Insurance Plan”. This article discussed information on future health Insurance plans in light of the issues dealing with the Healthcare debate. Particularly, it focused on the pros and cons of future health care plans. Also, many of the health insurance plans have not changed because employers want to wait and see what happens with the healthcare debate. Overall, the article was informative, complicated, and raised concerned.
The article presented pros and cons to future health insurance plans. The topic consisted of rising costs, the status of dependents, fewer health plans, higher deductibles, drug preferences, health concerns, and audits. Costs are constantly rising as a result of the health debate. In addition to employees going for check-ups in all aspects and the questionable future of health care, there have been higher medical costs. The article supports this by writing:
“Fearing layoffs — and the loss of health coverage — employees got check-ups, teeth cleanings and various long-deferred procedures at a higher-than-normal pace. That use-or-lose stampede translated into a spike in medical costs for employers — which they are now passing on to those still fortunate enough to have jobs, according to Joan Smyth, a principal with Mercer, a health and benefits consulting firm(Alderman, 2009).”
Basically, costs are rising because people panicked due to the health care debate, which resulted in insurers raising medical costs. The status of dependents is a concern as well. Companies are raising their premiums or eliminating their coverage. Because of this, some employee spouses and children, between the ages of 19-23, may have a challenge with coverage. Another issue of concern is companies will have fewer health plans. Instead of having a variety of regional plans, many large companies with employees in many places will have one or two national plans. Therefore, there will be fewer plans for people to choose and less variety. In addition to the previous concerns, there is also a worry of drug costs. Employers are encouraging employees to lower their health insurance plans by suggesting them to buy generic drugs instead of name brand drugs. Generic drugs will be less expensive and the cost of name brand drugs will rise, so employers want employees to save their money. Lastly, audits will occur as a strategy to discover the dependents that are eligible for coverage from the dependents that are not eligible for coverage. This strategy will help save money by reducing the number of people who will be covered, but this is not really beneficial for employers who may not be able to cover their spouse or children. It seems like employers are trying to help their employees as best they can. They are warning the employees of future changes that are not in their best interest and they are giving them pointers to come out on the top. I think the points raised are important and highlights the complexity and affects of the Health care Reform. Persons with private insurance are the focus as well as persons without private insurance. Consequently, everyone is experiencing difficulties as a result of the healthcare debate. I feel as if this article with the help of many others I have read does nothing but express an extreme search for an answer. When is that answer going to come?

Website: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/health/10patient.html?ref=health

Hand Washing - Hot or Cold Water?

Washing your hands is an action deemed as common sense when maintaining health. Everyone needs to wash their hands. It kills bacteria and helps control the spread of disease. Ever since we were children our parents always told us to wash our hands before dinner and after using the bathroom. Most of us were also told to always use hot or warm water, never cold. For some reason, it makes sense in our minds to use hot water. The temperature of hot water that a person can withstand on a comfortable level kills bacteria, right? Not exactly.

According to a report in the "Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine," scientists conducted a study whether different temperatures of water had any effect on ridding a person's hands of harmful bacteria. Subjects had their hands dirtied and were told to wash their hands for 25 seconds. People were then instructed to wash their hands in different temperatures ranging from 40 degree Fahrenheit to 120 degrees. Scientists did not find that any temperature of water that a person can withstand at a comfortable level to kill bacteria. In fact, they found that some soaps react badly with hot water and may even cause contact dermatitis (when your skin becomes inflamed due to direct contact with an irritating substance).

But, are there any benefits to washing your hands with warm or hot water? According to the Food and Drug Administration, a comfortable level of hot water can remove oils from the hand that can contain bacteria. However, the temperature of hot water that we can stand is not hot enough to really kill bacteria.

So, what is the best advice for hand washing? Use soap and a temperature of water that is comfortable, for most it is in the "warm" range. The use of hot water has not been proven to be better in killing bacteria than cold water in hand washing.

All my information came from "The Claim: Always Wash Your Hands With Hot Water, Not Cold" written by Anahad O'Connor from the New York Times.

Swine flu closes school.

Francis W. Parker School closed its doors on Friday due to flu symptoms from over 100 students. The school made a statement that it will reopen its doors. Francis W. Parker School, a private school in Chicago made the decision to close its doors for school and for the annual fair for safety reasons. The schools principle claimed it made its decision to be safe rather than sorry. Their decision was most likely made easier with the recent death of a student at Naperville North High School. This idea that they decided to be safe rather than sorry contradicts their plans in early May, when a student had a confirmed case and even with much push from the Federal Government. This particular school has K-12, and they claimed when their younger students started showing signs it would be harder to contain the virus if it started to spread, if any of them had H1N1 at all. With this sudden closing of a school, how many more Chicago schools will also be closing their doors to be safe rather than sorry. I do not believe that these schools should be closing the school doors just because of flu like symptoms. This is flu season, kids are going to get sick, they do every year. If there was a confirmed case at the school it might be different, but do to the fact that none of these kids had one I believe the school was scared by the Naperville student and closed its doors prematurely.

Article can be found on the Chicago Tribune website

Current Health Care Legislation Will Not Control Medical Costs, Experts Warn

In a recent article in the New York Times, David Herszenhorn discusses how the current health care legislation will not control medical cost. Experts are saying that although Democratic officials are trying to pass major health care legislation this year that doesn't mean that medical cost will decrease immediately. Considering this is the biggest concern many Americans are dealing with; high medical cost for those with and without insurance, I think it's important for us to know this information and also realize that this is reality. These experts; which consist of health executives, policy analysts and other health officials urge Congress to adjust the legislation and focus more on reshaping the health system from one that rewards quantity of care to a system that promotes high quality of care that will be cost efficient and also save lives.

Lawmakers have said they don't want to force changes to quickly, but the experts are warning us that in the meantime health care cost will continue to soar for everyone. I personally agree with the experts in this article, although legislation will be passed and bills will be put into effect, I know that health care cost will not automatically decrease. This is something that will take time, because you can't change situations like this overnight. If it were that easy we wouldn't be in the health care situation we are in now, medical cost will be affordable for all and everyone would be insured. Nevertheless, this isn't the case and won't be for awhile.

Here is the link to this article: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/current-health-care-legislation-will-not-control-medical-costs-experts-warn/

Obesity - A Reason to Deny Babies?

Alex Lange is a four month old baby who weighs seventeen pounds; he has been denied health care by his insurance company. His parents' health insurance do not want to cover him because he is a "high risk" due to being obese. As ridiculous as this sounds, it is true, and his father sums it up very well. Alex's father says "There is just something absurd about denying an infant." It makes no sense not to cover an infant, and citing "obesity" as the reason. A baby cannot control what it eats; babies cannot control how much they exercise; babies cannot control their genes. To deny a child on the basis of "obesity" seems ludicrous because this baby could turn out to be an extremely healthy person. 4 months is far too early to decide a patient's risk. Thus, I disagree with the insurance company because it seems immoral to deny this child for being large.

Here is the link, but let me know what you think.

States Complain about Unfair Privileges with Possible Health Care Plan

An article from the Wall Street Journal online, “States of Personal Privilege”, talks about what the states have been doing in order to avoid the addition “$37 billion in costs” if Senator Max Baucus’s (pictured to the left) health care reform bill is passed. The extra money that would be a complete burden for all the states is mainly due to the part of Baucus’s bill that wants to expand Medicaid eligibility. By expanding Medicaid eligibility, more uninsured people can be covered by this government funded insurance program but the taxpayers and the states budgets will be the ones suffering. However, Nevada, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Michigan (so far) worked out a way that the additional Medicaid expenses will be completely paid for by the federal government. Reason being for why these four states will receive special privilege is because these states “are suffering more than most” in this economy. Governors, Senators, and other political figures are speaking out against this. The article talk about how other states are suffering as well and that it’s not fair that some states will be able to avoid the increase in taxes that will stem from this new health care plan. Senators from ‘unprivileged’ states are threatening that they soon will step up and ask for special privileges in order to avoid these extra costs. Each state is unarguably suffering in these tough times, and no state wants to see their finances and their people have to suffer while other states will have the opportunity to have it easy. But if each state is whining about how they deserve special privileges, I see dark clouds in the future for this health care reform. If the government won’t be able to work past these issues and make the senators and governors happy, then there is no way they will be able to begin making the people happy.

To see this full article, go to The Wall Street Journal online.

Abortion: Is it worth the battle?

This article in the New York Times speaks about the issue regarding abortion. There has been an ongoing dispute regarding whether or not taxpayers should be responsible to pay for elective abortions. Those who are against abortion have been fighting vigorously to block lower-income people from receiving insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using that money on plans that cover abortion. Those who are against it do not believe we as taxpayers have enough money to be casually throwing it towards abortions and therefore are on Obama's back about it. President Obama has still not given a clear answer as to whether not this will be forced upon taxpayers but has shown an abortion-right attitude in the past. Though Democratic Congressional leaders say, "the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit and the current ban on federal abortion financing." Thus, to pay for abortions insurers could only use money from private sources. With that on their side, there have been numerous phone calls and letters written to the House in hopes to prevent this from changing. Many democrats have insisted on blocking the health care bill unless they have a chance to include the restrictions. One major complaint on the abortion-right side is that the women who already have the coverage we are fighting, would completely lose it. For many of them, this would mean giving up on insurance at all. Although that is most likely true, and unfair for those it affects, many more people would be affected by the taxpayer money spent on abortions. In an economy like the one we live in today, it is irrational to expect a bill asking for more money, to pass. That is one of the main arguments found in this article. The fact that no extra money exists anywhere today in the United States. Although Obama is an advocate of this pro-abortion healthcare plan, he needs to also encompass the bigger picture and how that extra money would affect those who don't have money to spend.
Abortion

Health Care and the Homeless

This article in the Washington Post focuses on health care reform's effect on one of the most overlooked populations in the United States, the homeless. What is amazing is that with all the debate about the cost of illegal immigrants on our health care system, the cost of the homeless went unnoticed. According to advocates, the homeless, who are much more likely to be uninsured than the general population, are the most frequent users of the emergency room and inpatient hospital care. Hospitals must provide care to anyone claiming to be suicidal and this requirement is often exploited by people who are looking for a warm, safe place to sleep. This creates a burden on the hospitals and taxpayers who are paying to fund such a system. In order for any reform to be responsible and truly effective, there must be some kind of funding to facilitate social services.We as a country must address the social issues of poverty, unemployment, and homelessness while assessing the costs of united health care.The Obama administration is trying to make health care a right while basic needs such as shelter and food are still privileges for many.

Full article can be found at The Washington Post online

The Catholic Church and Healthcare Reform

The Catholic Church has been an advocate for health care reform extending health coverage to all Americans. This press release from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), however, voices the disappointment of their organization towards the government for failing to act upon the three main goals of the USCCB in current health care reform proposals. Of those three goals, one concerning abortion has been a hot issue with respect to another legislative proposal offered by the current Congress--the Freedom of Choice Act. The USCCB has voiced its opposition to forcing any person to pay for or participate in an abortion, as the Catholic faith is pro-life. The Freedom of Choice Act, which has stalled in Congress, would provide for government funding of abortions. The USCCB, as well as the Catholic Church as a whole, went as far as to threaten the closure of all catholic hospitals in the United States should the bill be passed into law. This would be a significant loss of health services, as Catholic hospitals handle over 15% of all U.S. hospital admissions.

The fact that Congress' current health reform legislation fails to address this controversial issue has done little to assuage the fears of the USCCB and the Catholic Church. Should the final version of Congress' health care reform bill omit a provision barring the use of federal money for abortions or one that allows health care providers to deny abortion procedures to patients on personal grounds, it will be interesting to see how the Catholic Church and the USCCB reacts to the potential passage of the bill.

Smoking a Factor in Infant Death Disparities

New research reported by Reuters shows that poor women are more likely to smoke while pregnant and this increases their risk of having a stillborn infant. The research, conducted by the University of Oxford, also found that socioeconomic class does play a role in whether or not a woman smokes during her pregnancy. Deprivation and poverty already have a clear connection to stillbirths and infant deaths, but now there is also an established connection between smoking during pregnancy and infant mortality.

Researchers conducted a study of the records of babies born in Scottish hospitals between 1994 and 2003 and found that 38% of the women living in the most deprived neighborhoods admitted to smoking while they were pregnant. This, in comparison to 13% of the women living in the least deprived neighborhoods who admitted to smoking, is a major factor and difference maker in a baby’s well-being because stillbirths were 56% more common among the most deprived and smoking group of women. This group of women also had a 72% greater change of their babies dying before the age of 1.

Dr. Ron Gray of the University of Oxford, the study's lead author, told Reuters Health that "nicotine is a very addictive substance and it's very difficult to stop smoking at any time, especially during pregnancy. Clearly people need a lot of help to do this. There needs to be more investment in these kinds of services."

Read the full story as published in ABC News here.

Chronic Fatigue Related to AIDS!?

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome affects 17 million people worldwide, and 1 million of those are Americans. Recent studies have shown that 67% of people with this are also infected with xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus, which is “a member of the same family of viruses as the AIDS virus;” This type of virus will stick around for life. Doctors and scientists are not sure that the virus causes syndromes of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, but they are trying to determine the connection. One step that is being taking is prescribing these patients with drugs for HIV to see if they counteract any of the symptoms; but many doctors are excited because this will allow them to possibly find a solution for something that puzzled them for so long.
I found this article compelling because there has been a lot of buzz about HIV/AIDS treatment in the news lately, and the fact that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome could be related is interesting to me. I would like to know more about why and how they started to test patients with the disease for this virus, and what implications it has for the possibility of finding a cure.

To find out more information, check out the article at the New York Times webpage.

Alzheimer's Cases Expected to Double by 2050

In a recent article from MSNBC on Alzheimer's, the number of people living with dementia has grown to 35 million around the world. The World Alzheimer Report projects that the number of people living with dementia will double every 20 years, and that by the year 2050, 115.4 million people around the world will be living with it.

Alzheimer's used to be a disease mostly found in developing countries, but underdeveloped countries have to be aware of the disease now too. It isn't the case that people in poorer countries are unable to get Alzheimer's disease, it is more that they didn't know what the symptoms were. They assumed that a "weak brain" or "tired brain" was just something that happened with old age. These countries are now realizing that dementia is a very serious and fatal disease, not just the aging process. They are also realizing that things they never dealt with previously, such as obesity, high cholesterol, and diabetes can be high risk factors for Alzheimer's.

If the World Health Report is correct in it's projections of the number of people living with Alzheimer's doubling every year, then we have a problem on our hands. Alzheimer's has no cure and no treatments that can reverse the affects of the disease. Research is being done, but no clinical trials have proven successful. Funding needs to be doubled if they want to make any progress in the upcoming years, but this may be impossible due to the new health care reforms going through legislation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32937442/ns/health-alzheimers_disease/#storyContinued

New AIDS Vaccine

The new AIDS Vaccine is supposed to be a new break through according to AOL news. Researchers came up with the vaccine by trying out two unsuccessful vaccines, and the new vaccine is suppose to cut the risk of being infected with HIV by 31 percent in the world's largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand.
According to AOL News the institute's director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, warned that this is "not the end of the road," but he said he was surprised and very pleased by the outcome. The study used strains of HIV common in Thailand. Also according to AOL News Whether such a vaccine would work against other strains in the U.S., Africa or elsewhere in the world is unknown, scientists stressed, even a marginally helpful vaccine could have a big impact. Every day, 7,500 people worldwide are newly infected with HIV; 2 million died of AIDS in 2007, UNAIDS estimates, the study tested the two-vaccine combination in a "prime-boost" approach, in which the first one primes the immune system to attack HIV and the second one strengthens the response. With this new AIDS vaccine a lot of people may now start to get home, because before when there wasn't a cure for AIDS at all many people just became hopeless and really gave in because they felt as if they had nothing to live for. Now with this type of news they can have hope again. This is really giving people a second chance on life.














http://news.aol.com/health/article/new-aids-vaccine/684837

Healthcare really a right?

Rather than search for yet another article scrutinizing the ins and outs of Obama’s attempt at a healthcare plan, I looked for something closer to home. The Daily Illini produced an article yesterday titled “Freedom of press, speech, religion and… healthcare?” This article discusses healthcare as a right and whether or not it is accurately placed in that category as both President Obama and deceased Senator Kennedy have referred to it.  The author makes some good points, such as, “just because we need something doesn’t entitle us to it.” He goes on to question whether seeing the best doctor would then be in someone’s rights, if patients would then consider cosmetic surgeries, Lasik, and quit-smoking counseling a right, and if healthcare as a right would mean free healthcare?

            While I do not completely agree with the author that health care should be a “commodity that can be bought and sold,” I am also not convinced that healthcare should be a right. In a perfect world, I wish it could be a right…along with food and housing and equal opportunity, etc. Unfortunately, that is not that way it works. Giving someone the right to press, speech or religion does not cost billions of dollars.

If you'd like to read this article ---> http://www.dailyillini.com/blogs/different-perspectives/2009/09/28/freedom-of-press-speech-religion-and-health-care

 

Today's article in the New York Times, "Abortion Fight Adds to Debate on Health Care", illustrates how complicated and out-of-control the health care debate is beginning to appear. As if the issues with public option, cost, quality, subsidies, and drug companies did not take enough discussion and negotiating time in Washington, the issue of abortion has been added to the list. This is only going to delay an issuance of strong health care bill.
Abortion opponents argue that for the past 30 years there has been a ban on using federal funded money or taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions. They feel that the public can use government subsidies to buy insurance that cover abortion. However, the Obama administration says that is not the case. According to the Democratic leaders, the bill still upholds the ban. Under the bill, the insurance companies will be required to separate the funding in individual accounts; the funding from public subsidies will be separated from individual payments. Insurers would only be allowed to extract money from individual payments account to pay for abortions.
Nevertheless, the efforts of abortion opponents have been strong as they gain support of moderate Democrats. It has caught the attention of Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Both have tried to personally meet or contact the opponents.
This saga is a perfect demonstration of health care opponents trying to further complicate and delay the bill. The administration’s plan on segregating the funding is the same plan used today for Medicaid programs, where it seems to work without few flaws. This should not be the critical issue in the health care debate as we have an already-tested solution currently placed in the market. We know the plan of segregating funding will work and continuing to debate about such issues is only a strategy to complicate the debate, create confusion, and develop negative perception about universal health care.

To read today's article please click on the following link - abortion fight adds to debate on health care.

Health Care Reform Comes with a Price

President Obama's recent national address on healthcare seems to have done little to calm the debate on health care that has been going strong since before the presidential election. Since the unveiling of the new health care proposal, the reform has gained even more opposition. Where as before the biggest opponents of Obama's attempt at reform were Republican, the newest plan endorsed by Obama and devised by Democratic senator, Max Baucus, has been meet with disapproval from members of both parties. Liberal Democrats argue that the health care bill would be a new financial burden for the middle class. Requiring all families to have insurance and penalizing as much as $3,800 if the don't, seems unfair to those families having to spend more than seven percent of their income on insurance. Obama urged demaocrats to stick together in order to make progress in the efforts to put a plan in place. The current system does not work and as long as we continue to debate and forgo change people and families continue to suffer as they have been. Obama explains on "CBS" that, "... If we don't do anything a lot of Americans are going to be much worse off". So eventhough I don't agree with every detail of the policy, I do believe that it is time to inact a new plan and I am willing to accept my rights and responsibilities under the new policy. President Obama said, "We've got to get past some of theses ideological arguments to actually make something happen", and he is right.

The Cost to our Generation

In the recent Wall Street Journal article entitled "Health 'Reform' Is Income Distribution," the authors critique the Congressional health care bill for the burden it puts on the younger generation. They explain how three facets of the bill would produce a costly burden. First, the mandate for insurers to not discriminate based off pre-existing conditions or prior health. Second, the mandate dictating every citizen purchase health insurance. Finally, the idea behind community rating, where insurers are forced to relatively equalize how much they charge individuals for health insurance. The authors argue that these forces will cause younger citizens to finance the large expansion of the health care system by essentially transferring their income to the older generation by means of higher premiums.

While this article has a distinct opposition to such a redistribution, it raises many theoretical questions regarding the proper role of each generation. Should the younger generation be expected to "pick up" the bill in order to insure an aging population? Is putting the cost burden on the healthiest Americans consistent with capitalistic principles? How effect are current systems that utilize similar funding methods, namely Social Security?

I find this article interesting at a time when many younger Americans are in favor of the proposed health overhaul, while many older Americans are against it.

Who Pays For it All?

The article entitled "Why Health Care Will Never Be Equal", written by N. Gregory Mankiw, started off talking mostly about philosophy which is a very intriguing topic when trying to discuss health care. And then the article made a switch and took a very interesting position about how, with the increasing prescription technology and also price, will many Americans be able to afford new drug treatment to get the best quality health care. Mankiw begins to talk about this magic pill that if you take it, you will never get sick, age, or die, the only downfall is that is costs $150,000 a year, which brings up the question "who pays for it all." Should the government be responsible for providing this unbelievable service, the insurance agencies, or should the price be bared solely by the individual? This is where the problem arises, with medical care becoming more and more advanced, it is also getting more and more expensive, leaving the millions of Americans no access to these expensive, but possibly life saving, procedures simply because of their lack of funds.
The reason why people are so drawn to universal health care is because they think that it will be able to provide the best treatment to everyone. That, unfortunately, will not be the case. At some point the universal health care system will be exasperated off its funds and be forced to not pay for certain, more likely expensive uncommon, procedures and medication. And that is where the question is brought up again. Who gets the magical pill that makes you live forever and how will it be paid for?

This article was posted in the New York Times on September 19, 2009 and can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/health/policy/20view.html?scp=10&sq=health%20care%20economics&st=cse

Should health care reform cover abortion?

As plans for reforming health care are discussed, politicians on Capitol Hill will vote this week to amend the bill to restrict the use of federal subsidies for abortion-related surgeries. In David Kirkpatrick’s article, “Abortion Fight Complicates Debate on Health Care,” he lays out both the affirmative and negative sides toward approving this amendment.

Those who support the amendment for the health care bill said that without this amendment, the procedure would be eliminated from the women’s plans that currently support it. This is because if the public plan did not cover abortion, then private plans cannot either. This is problematic since this would eliminate coverage from half of women who have health care insurance now. Supporters of the amendment also cite how 17 current Medicaid programs are able to fund this procedure by separating federal from state funds. By separating funds, the option for private and public insurers to pay for abortion is not taken off the table.

Those who oppose the amendment believe that Congress should follow its 30-year statute that allows insurers to cover abortion-related surgeries through private sources. This group also cites how President Barack Obama promised in his campaign to prohibit federal dollars to be spent toward abortion procedures.

As of Monday, 31 letters from Democratic Congressmen and 125 letters from Republican Congressmen urged legislators to restrict funds for abortion-related surgeries. Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan said that 40 politicians agreed that they would not sign the health care reform bill if abortion-related surgeries was included in the plan. This threat caught President Obama’s eye, causing him to ask House speaker Nancy Pelosi to speak to legislators about the issue this week.

A link the full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/policy/29abortion.html?_r=1&hp

Can Obama, Democrats, get it done?

As an exceptionally grumpy American summer grinds to a conclusion, it is apparent that only a bipartisan solution will enable Congress and the Obama Administration to complete health reform. No, we’re not talking about co-operating with the Republicans. Other than a handful of contrarian Republican moderates on the Senate Finance Committee, at least one of whose votes might be needed for eventual passage, the Republicans are irrelevant to the final outcome.

Despite the fantasy that the last election represented a fundamental re-alignment of voters toward traditional Democratic liberalism, America remains a nation of skeptical political moderates who keep their politicians on a very short leash. When political leaders attempt something as complex as health reform, voters are handicapped by limited attention spans, shocking gaps in knowledge and, most seriously, a profound lack of trust in their government.

President Obama entered office just seven months ago with high hopes of reforming the health system. In this regard, the President arrived with two strikes against him: the economic crisis and his partnership an increasingly discredited and out of touch Congress. He had ample opportunities to postpone health reform due to the economic crisis. In retrospect, this was the sensible choice.

Rather than wait, however, the President linked the two and plunged ahead. He has clung grimly to this formulation as political and economic conditions worsened through the first seven months of his term, as his own approval ratings have wilted.

The President should focus on covering as many of the uninsured as he can - the original impulse for health reform. It’s surprising how much good could be done on this front if one postpones, at least temporarily, the politically and fiscally unachievable goal of universal coverage in 2009. It is certainly within reason to cover at least 30 million of those presently uninsured, with the balance to be covered by Congressional action when the economy recovers. This would be a huge victory and it is within reach.