Do you know which company is the world’s largest health care corporation? Care to guess? Aw, go on. You know the answer.

Time’s up. It’s Johnson & Johnson, with a logo that often includes the words, Family of Companies. Oh, doesn’t that make them sound so cozy? Maybe they should ‘incorporate’ a teddy bear with a Band-Aid as a part of their corporate symbol.

Would you be surprised if one of their signature products contained a couple of cancer-causing ingredients? Would you be surprised to learn that they have been the subject of a boycott that has already lasted two and a half years. That boycott is supported by 25 associations of physicians and nurses and cancer and environmental organizations representing over three and a half million people, here and abroad.

Would you believe those ingredients are unnecessary? While it is sold with those ingredients in several countries, including the US, it is available in other countries without them. It seems that regulations can make a difference. They can keep your baby safe.

Just what is this dangerous product? Okay, no more suspense. It’s Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo.

What are these ingredients? They are the potentially cancer-causing chemicals dioxane and something called quaternium-15 that releases formaldehyde. Those don’t sound quite so cuddily. They almost sound scientific.

Johnson & Johnson makes a weak effort at defending their policies by saying that the US and a few other countries don’t proscribe those ingredients. That raises the question, are they implying that babies in the U.S., Canada, China, Australia, and Indonesia apparently are more resistent to cancer than those in other companies? Maybe it’s a case of Congress being less resistent to bribery.

Their weak defense effort is belied by the following announcement – which basically constitutes an admission. The company has announced that it will reduce the levels of dioxane and eventually eliminate the quaternium-15. In the meantime, make certain your health insurance policy covers your children for cancer. They may be phasing in such coverage.

Don’t worry. Johnson & Johnson cares for you. True, they do make other products that contain chemicals but they know how to adjust. While not yet changing their main baby shampoo, they now offer a new baby shampoo without those vile, dastardly, scientific chemicals. It’s call Johnson’s Naturals – and it only costs twice as much. Remember that, for both shampoos, the bottles cost more than the contents.

See? There’s a health care company that loves you just as much as does Goldman Sachs.

To your kids’ health, and Johnson & Johnson’s financial well-being.
.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Being born above my dad’s grocery store and being immersed in the grocery business, Summers and weekends, for many years, I thought I knew a few of its tricks. I’m now finding out how little I knew.

Admittedly, I have not had much recent connection with the industry, as my father retired about 25 years ago. He ended up in charge of a major regional chain’s warehouse.

Why have I had this recent epiphany? Why am I reading every label? I am on a diet.

When you go well past 300 pounds, particularly at my age, you begin to wonder why. I was following the standard diet guidelines and going to the Y 5 days a week. My metabolism was in the proper range and I had no tumor or other obvious reason for all of that weight gain.

I said to hell with the FDA’s guidelines. To hell with the AMA’s and Heart Association’s recommendations.

I did a ton of research and decided to eat the way my grandparents ate, before epidemic heart disease, fructose, soy everything, oleomargarine, processed foods, Cargill and ADM. I have rediscovered taste. Butter, butter everywhere. Real butter. I began eating a quarter or a third more food. I quit taking Crestor.

After 3 months of this heresy, I received the best blood test results ever. After a bit more than 4 months, now, I am approaching a weight loss of 50 pounds.

So, now I read the labels. No vegetable oils, except olive, coconut and flax seed. No bleached flours. No soy products, with one small exception. Reduce all sugars to the extent possible and totally eliminate high fructose corn syrup. No MSG.

However comprehensive that may seem, you could be forgiven for thinking that it was unnecessary to scrutinize every label. The food industry is the nation’s largest industry. That means it has more money to advertise its lies, so it can lie more. So, it does. It takes all of the supermarkets to contain all of the lies the industry produces.

A product may announce in large type that it is MSG-free. Read the label. If it includes natural flavors among the ingredients, those natural flavors are likely enhanced with MSG. So much for government-required labels being honest.

I look for a salad dressing. Soy oil is the first listed ingredient on almost all. There are even some vinegar and oil and vinaigrette dressings that boast of olive oil where soy oil is listed first and olive oil fourth. For any who are unaware, the ingredients are supposed to be listed in the order of the amount.

My favorite dressing was always blue cheese, even when it was still called Roquefort. Roquefort is made in France from sheep’s milk. They became upset when others called their product Roquefort and threatened lawsuits. That was when the others changed the name to blue cheese dressing. Almost all of these blue cheeses are now made from cow’s milk. Gorgonzola, a blue cheese from Italy is made both with cow’s milk or goat’s milk. I found one brand of dressing that listed Gorgonzola. It didn’t specify the animal source. Believe me, there is a difference.  Anyway, that dressing also was mostly soy oil. I can no longer find a store selling Roquefort in this area.

As much as I enjoy blue cheese, I thought I could avoid the soy oil by changing to one of those vinaigrettes. No such luck. Soy oil is everywhere. For the nonce I must also avoid salads, unless I bring my own olive or coconut oil and vinegar.

Meat should be meat, right? No, unless a soy bean has legs. No natural food is good enough for Americans unless it has been augmented with a soy product and blessed by those family farmers at Cargill, ADM, Tyson and their neighbors. I think I could put every thing in a supermarket that contains no soy or fructose into a single buggy and still have room for a couple of my grandkids.

Why are soy and corn products in everything? Is it because they are healthier? No. It’s for two special reasons. They are cheaper and more malleable in the laboratory. They are very productive per acre. They are easy to harvest with a minimal number of human workers. And, corn is subsidized. Why? Because the people with enough money to bribe Congress got what they wanted.

And I bet you thought they are putting all of those processed toxins into your food because they are concerned with your well-being. They eliminate the nutrients from your diet. Your body tries to get more. You consume more. You become obese. You consume more. They get richer.

Avoid low-fat, no-fat, skim and such. Fat, animal fat, is where all of the taste and nutrients are. Removing the animal fats would mean something less than tasty. They have found the solution. Sugar. Processed sugar, missing its few nutrients, replaces the nutrients that were removed. Without the enzymes found in animal fats, much of your food doesn’t get properly processed and ends up as fat or is discarded with its nutrients not having benefited your body.

Every few days, it seems, soy is said to cure another cancer, eliminate obesity, destroy cholesterol, save you from halitosis. Someone has to dream those things up. They have to get paid. They are marketing people, not scientists. Soy has some toxic properties; particularly in the amounts found in the American diet. It will help your body generate estrogen. Unless you are going through menopause, that is probably not a good thing.

I have a daughter-in-law that was a nurse. She is feeding my grandson a soy milk formula. That’s not good but my wife tells me to keep my mouth shut. Excessive soy in the diet is now the prime suspect in the premature development of 8- and 10-year old girls.

There is only one form of soy that is truly safe. Soy sauce was brewed from time immemorial in a process that takes 5-6 months. Scientists have now developed a method that produces soy sauce in two days. If the label says something to the effect that it is traditionally brewed, it’s safe. If not, save your money and protect your health.

They tell you that cereals are healthy, even the ones that are more than half sugar. Sorry. Not true. Steel cut oats are just about the only breakfast cereal that has any nutrients remaining after all of the processing. Granola? They are cereals without nutrients sugar, fructose, more sugar and honey.

If you don’t read the labels you miss all of the lies. If you do read the labels, the chances are they have tricked you into believing those lies.

Well, you think it might be a good idea to head over to the vitamin counter? Good luck. The pills are processed with large amounts of heat and pressure. In addition to oxygen, those are the prime killers of nutrients. It is estimated that the average vitamin pill or supplement contains from 0 to  5% of the claimed amount of that particular nutrient stated on the label.

It’s better to get those nutrients in your diet. Natural foods have those vitamins and nutrients and their co-factors. It is rare for nature to produce or use any nutrient as a singularity. Glucosamine won’t help your joint much on its own. You can get it and its co-factors from putting a joint bone with its fat and gristle into a crock pot and making a stew and some gravy and some stock. Those labs don’t make and factories don’t produce any co-factors.

Eat well.

.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

You voted for your senator. You voted for your house member. You gave them the most important gift you can – your vote.

They show their appreciation. They screw you.

Food is fairly important to most people. I try to use some of it every day – perhaps even a bit more frequently than that. Okay. Too frequently.

What we are facing here is a government that is giving your money to the ones they really care about. It costs you not only your money but your health.

Look at the cute little graphic. It seems that half of the plate is taken up by fruits and vegetables. That’s nice. What’s wrong with that? Not a thing.

What don’t you see there? While one government agency is stressing the importance of fruits and veggies, another is giving your money to the producers of 99% of the other things.

The meat producers have now stopped complaining. They didn’t like the old pyramid. But, you say, the graphic doesn’t show meat at all. They hid it behind the word protein. That makes the meat producers happy. They hope you are less likely to associate meat with the demonized saturated fats.

Meats are foods. Proteins are not food; they are nutrients. With everyone scrambling to get away from fats and carbohydrates, every product with a single cell of protein will be advertising that they need to be a part of what you put on that protein section. My money is on meat to dominate that section, however.

Just an aside here. Saturated fats are not the problem. Our bodies have, over the millennia, adapted to saturated fats. What confuses our bodies are the unsaturated kind; particularly Polly’s.

Whatever, the meat producers don’t need my money to tell me to eat more meat.

The dairy industry’s complaints have been answered. They get their own special place. Why? I’m sure they paid for it – with our money.

Perhaps the biggest bad boy falls under that grain section. Brazil makes ethanol out of sugar cane. We make it out of corn. Sugar ethanol puts out more energy than it takes to produce. Corn ethanol requires more energy to produce than it puts out. Also, corn ethanol requires your money both at the pump and in the form of a government subsidy.

That isn’t where the story ends with corn. Food manufacturers have fallen in love with high fructose corn syrup. It’s cheaper than sugar. You are supposed to ignore what the scientists and physicians are screaming and watch those commercials that show an average consumer unable to remember all of the bad things about it, while the commercial prostitute assures you that everything is fine. Bottom line: avoid high fructose corn syrup.

Think about it. Ethanol and corn syrup take up a great deal of our corn production. That pushes up the price of corn, both for those purposes and any other. There needs to be a little corn on the buffet table. Some people actually eat corn. Guilty. I also eat cornbread, hush puppies and other things I shouldn’t,

Then there is the heinous crime of substituting corn meal for batter on such sacred things as onion rings, fried fish, even catfish. The courts should show no mercy.

Again the pressure on the price of corn goes up. Remember, you’re paying. Then comes another massive hit. Corn just happens to be the major foodstuff of our domesticated animals. Up goes the price of beef, chicken and the rest. Our entire agricultural commodity pricing system has been distorted. And, of course that requires subsidies. Buddy, can you spare a few billion?

What else can go wrong? How long have you got?

It seems that there’s a little problem or two with the world’s most popular herbicide. Roundup has been known since at least 1980 to cause birth defects. Despite the tons of uncontested evidence, the German equivalent of our FDA assured their people last year that there were no known problems with Round Up. Our FDA simply ignores the question.

We can all be proud of the fact that we will be safe from foreign malefactors while the domestic ones are killing us. Who is going to provide the monies for those subsidies if they don’t slow down a bit. Mmmmmmm. I’m hungry. I wish I could afford some glyphosate.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Medicare is wonderful. Medicare is terrible. Medicare is in trouble. Medicare is wonderful.

Medicare is also complex. People are always suggesting changes. Some wish to extend it. Some wish to eliminate it.

People are running around predicting bankruptcy for Medicare around 2017 or 2019 or whenever. No, it’s not that bad. There would be a shortfall beginning then, not a bankruptcy. It’s not a case of going from 100% immediately to 0%. As much as the politicians wish to avoid biting the bullet, they must address the problem. They faced the same problem a few years back with Social Security. It seems inconceivable that they didn’t deal with Medicare at the same time but we are not speaking of a group of geniuses here.

The most popular suggestion for changing Medicare is intended to salvage it for an extended period. Will it? Yes, but. But? Yes. Medicare is too complex for any changes to be simple.

The suggestion to which I refer is to raise the age for eligibility by two years. Now that was simple. The problem is that strange things will start to happen. Think about it.

Any 66-year old will not necessarily need more health care than any 64-year old but the statisticians will guarantee that the cost of insuring a 66-year old is more expensive than a 64-year old.

Insurance policies that account for expected payouts until Medicare kicks in at age 65 will cost more.

Health care coverage will cost you and/or your employer more. I’m not speaking of just when someone becomes a geezer. Policies will rise for everyone to adjust to the change. Also, remember that state and local governments are employers, so their costs will also be increased.

There is also the consideration of companies with a mandatory retirement at the age of 65. Will you have to go out on the individual policy market (the most expensive) and purchase a policy covering the most expensive age category the private insurance company offers? You don’t want to be ‘bare’ at that age and your income just got reduced.

The estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation is that the increase for some individuals will be above $2,000 per year. The following figures are predicated by the foundation on the implementation of the change in 2014. It also assumes that the Supreme Court will uphold the recent changes made in health care insurance. If it doesn’t, the costs would be even higher.

Predictions are that 75% of those aged 65 and 66 will pay $2,400 more. That may have gotten the attention of some people.

The young people will see an increase of about 8% in the cost of health insurance.

The increased costs to business will be in the neighborhood of $4.5 billion. That either will make US companies less competitive or cause them to eliminate health care benefits for employees.

The government would save a ton of money by not covering those 65- and 66-year olds. So, those on Medicare would benefit from lower costs. Oh, no they wouldn’t. What? Why?

Medicare, as any insurance program, is based on actuarial figures. Eliminating the youngest from the pool eliminates the healthiest from the pool. The increase would be 3%. Medicare benefits but no one else does. Wasn’t the premise to save Medicare money so that it would be sustainable? Well, it does that and that’s the way it is.

I gave a passing mention above to an increase in the costs to states. There would be another. Those 65- and 66-year olds no longer eligible for Medicare but too poor to purchase their own policies would add to the states’ financial burden through MedicAid.

There is a better way. The solution is simple. Medicare-For-All. Eliminating the 30-32% overhead we presently pay private corporations would be a good start. Allowing the CMS to negotiate prices with the drug pushers should reduce the costs by at least 50% – same as the Veterans Administration now pays. Taking advantage of other economies of scale.

You don’t think the government should get involved in health care? Eliminate Medicare? Tell that to seniors. They rate it much higher than private policy holders rate any insurance corporation.

Eliminate MedicAid? So, do we force the hospital emergency rooms to absorb the total costs of indigent care or do we just make sure they don’t obstruct the gutters?

Eliminate SCHIP. Those 7 million children will die some day anyway.

Eliminate the VA. Why should we have to pay the health care costs for veterans?

Eliminate health care benefits for government employees, They are being pampered already by getting paid 78% as much as an equivalent employee in the private sector.

Eliminate the Public Health Service. The CDC is always scaring us with new flus, the return of Smallpox, Polio and such. The PHS has to stick their fingers into such things as sewers, water purity and all of those other things distracting us from American Idol.

Eliminate the subsidy the government provides employers who give their people health care benefits.

Put them all together they may not spell M-O-T-H-E-R but they do add up to the government paying 45% of all health care costs already.

No old people were harmed in the writing of this article.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Have you ever dieted? Have you ever tried?

Age has brought on a decrease in my metabolism. Some of the medications I take have caused a further decrease.

These and other factors have contributed to undesired weight gain. I blame my success at quitting smoking for adding to my problem. I frequently think I might be justified in taking up the habit again – for health reasons. Maybe not.

Returning from Scotland last year, I discovered that I had lost 11 pounds in one week. It finally dawned on me that I had not eaten lunch during the trip. I had simply been too distracted to notice that I had missed those meals. Being less sedentary than is my usual routine may have also factored in.

I suggested to my wife that a few more trips over there would get me down to my fighting weight. She didn’t think that was the most cost-effective way to lose weight.

While not on a diet, I thought I was being careful with my calorie count. There is also those sessions at the Y five days a week. I guess I knew that my weight had increased but I was surprised at what the scales told me. On the one-year anniversary of my return from Scotland to such welcome news, I was informed that I had added 33 pounds.

It was necessary to get help. The tests showed that decrease in metabolism but no tumors, no diabetes, nothing medically serious. I went on a diet. The result after 11 days is 6 pounds in the right direction.

Actually, the diet is so far from the one which we southerners inherit, it will take a bit of time to segue fully. Who knew fried foods were not the basis for a healthy diet?

Anyway, going on the diet naturally led me to direct my curiosity to all things related to food, dieting, etc. The advice is all over the map. Carbs are good. Carbs are bad. Calories count. Forget the math. Who do you believe?

My approach was to look at what our body does with food. Tasting good doesn’t mean that Häagen-Dazs should be a staple of your diet. It quickly became apparent that the mechanisms of our bodies weren’t always straightforward.

Fish oil is good for your health. But, it interferes with some other nutrients and also some medications. Out it goes, at least for me. Then I run into an unexpected source of problems. Soy.

I had heard for decades that beans were among the healthiest food groups. Also, it was a truism that the darker the bean, the healthier it was, with one exception – the soy bean. It turns out that the last bit isn’t necessarily true.

The remainder of this post is an article by Kristin Wartman in Civil Eats. Added to what I have written, it makes for a long post, but it is worthy of your attention.

Thanks to Michael Pollan, many Americans are now aware that when a food boasts a health claim it usually means it’s actually not that healthy after all. But there’s one food that consistently flies below the radar despite its numerous health claims when found in processed and packaged foods: Soy. A long-time staple in the American health food repertoire, it is a prominent example of Pollan’s observation. And the research is mounting that soy foods are not only questionable in terms of their benefits, but in fact, may be hazardous to your health.

Most recently, the Cornucopia Institute conducted research on the processing of soy foods and found that the industry commonly uses hexane—a petroleum-based solvent and known neurotoxin—to process soy ingredients found in many “natural” food products.

Thanks to their research and consumer concern, the Cornucopia Institute announced last week that some companies have voluntarily changed their processing practices and eliminated hexane from their products. Unfortunately, there are still well over two dozen “all-natural” nutrition bars and veggie burgers that still use hexane to process soy.

But hexane processing is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems associated with eating soy—and many of the health problems are unknown to the general public.

In 1999, the FDA approved the health claim that soy is “heart healthy” and reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease. But this wasn’t without controversy. Two researchers for the FDA, Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan stated that they were opposed to the labeling of foods containing soy as heart healthy since there was “abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones found in soy…demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in the thyroid.”

The two researchers refer to numerous studies that show the estrogenic quality of soy isoflavones have harmful effects on many in the population. Isoflavones are a type of phytoestrogen, or plant-based estrogen that mimics human estrogen. It functions similarly to other endocrine disruptors (which I wrote about here on Civil Eats) and binds to our estrogen receptors. Consuming soy elevates estrogen levels, which is correlated with increased risk for breast cancer (and other estrogen-sensitive cancers as well), as 80 percent of U.S. breast cancers are associated with estrogen supplementation. In one study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, women who already had breast tumors were given a soy drink for 14 days and their breast tumor growth increased significantly.

In another study the researchers for the FDA refer to, consumption of soy is linked to brain aging, shrinking, and the development of Alzheimer’s disease. In this 35-year Hawaiian study of 8,900 Japanese men and 500 of their wives, tofu intake was the only factor that correlated with an increased occurrence of Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers wrote, “This finding is consistent with the environmental causation suggested from the earlier analysis, and provides evidence that soy (tofu) phytoestrogens causes vascular dementia.”

Perhaps most alarming is the use of soy-based infant formulas. They pose such a risk that the health ministers of the United Kingdom and New Zealand have advised parents not to use soy formula. Studies have found that soy-fed infants have estrogen levels an average of seventeen thousand times higher than infants fed human or cow’s milk.

For men, estrogen-rich soy is also problematic. The Israeli Health Ministry warns men to exercise caution in regards to soy consumption as it has been shown to lower virility—since eating soy reduces testosterone and increases estrogen. In one study presented at the 2007 conference of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, researchers found that in subfertile men, those eating the most soy had forty-one million fewer sperm per milliliter than those who consumed none. The average amount consumed was equivalent to half a tofu patty. In the womb, excess estrogen causes abnormal sexual development and low sperm counts in boys and men.

As is clear from these studies, the phytoestrogens in soy are quite powerful. While other foods (flaxseed, garbanzo beans, and oats, for example) also contain some amount of phytoestrogens, soy contains the highest amount—and since it is often used in such large quantities as a replacement for meat or dairy, it’s more problematic than other foods. Proponents of soy often refer to the long history of its use in Asian cultures but they fail to mention just how much is typically eaten. In Japan the average amount of soy consumed on a daily basis is two tablespoons, in China it’s two teaspoons where it’s eaten as a condiment rather than a replacement for animal products.

In America however, since soy is in thousands of processed foods (usually in the form of soy protein isolate, soy isoflavones, textured vegetable protein, and soy oils) it accounts for a fifth of the calories in the American diet—not to mention the actual soy foods and drinks that some use as a replacement for meat or dairy. Soy isoflavones were actually denied status as “generally regarded as safe,” or GRAS, as a food additive by the FDA due to the many uncertainties surrounding them. A senior scientist for the FDA wrote, “Confidence that soy products are safe is clearly based more on belief than hard data.”

What’s more, unfermented soy (tofu, soymilk, soy cheese, ice cream, yogurt, soy protein shakes, soy protein isolate) contains high amounts of phytic acid which blocks mineral absorption—particularly calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc; and soy is an unusual protein that is difficult to digest. Soy is also a goitrogen, meaning it depresses thyroid function and interferes with the absorption of thyroid hormones as well as the crucial mineral iodine.

Fermented soy (miso, natto, tempeh, and soy sauce), most commonly eaten in Asian cultures, is easier to digest and contains far less phytic acid. In addition to choosing fermented soy products over others, choosing organic soy products means avoiding the 91 percent of soybeans produced in this country that are genetically modified and highly contaminated with pesticides.

Why haven’t you heard many of these facts and figures when it comes to “heart healthy” soy? Soy production is a major player in the industrial food system. According to the USDA, in 2009 the total acreage of soybeans planted in the U.S. was 77.5 million acres, accounting for the largest source of protein feed and the second largest source of vegetable oil in the world. In 2008-09, the farm value of soybean production was $29.6 billion, the second highest among U.S. produced crops.

So let’s remember Pollan’s decree: “a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.” And in fact, this applies to nearly every health claim, even the ones that you might not suspect. It’s good to note, too, that when the food in question is one of the largest players in the industrial food system, you can bet we’re not getting the whole story.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

All of the attention is on the Republican Pledge. Its 21 pages are supposed to tell voters what they promise.

Not really. It’s simply a distraction. They deceived the people with the Contract in 1994. The Pledge is supposed to do the same in 2010.

They will not accomplish any of the things they promise. They can not accomplish any of the things they promise.

Actually, they don’t want to.

How can I say that, after all the trouble they went to, having a lobbyist write 21 pages for them? Seeming to go to all of that trouble is what distraction is all about. You don’t distract with something that is unnoticeable.

So, where should we look? Have you paid any attention to what the candidates are talking about? That could be a hint as to what they consider important to their bases.

I’m a veteran, so I think I’ll begin there. No, I don’t use the Veterans medical benefits. I never have. Others have a greater need for those services. I rely on Medicare.

Despite what you’ve heard, the Republican leadership don’t really like veterans. WHAAAT? Yes. That’s correct. The Republican leadership don’t care for veterans. They are not enamored of Americans in general, to put a point on it.

Veterans rank their satisfaction with VA healthcare higher than any other group in the country ranks their own healthcare. Second comes Medicare. After falling off of a cliff, you come down to how satisfied people are with private healthcare plans.

So, they must really appreciate how the Republicans own the mantle of patriotism. No? How do I know that?

Veterans are not stupid. Four days after the start of the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration made serious cuts in veterans’ healthcare benefits. Yeah. That’s the way to really prove support for the troops.

The military is known to be one of the most conservative sectors of our electorate. During the last presidential campaign Obama received 6 times as much in donations from those serving overseas as did McCain, the war hero wannabe. Surprised? You shouldn’t be.

Veterans’ groups keep close tabs on what the Congress is up to. They have some lines of communication with the active troops.

During his campaign, McCain supported privatizing VA healthcare. That same idea is being pushed in this election by many, many Republicans. Zach Wamp (remember him?) actually said he wants to privatize VA healthcare but not really privatize it, all in the same sentence. He may have remembered that there are a couple of veterans in his district.

Okay, we know that, since we’ve already gotten what we want from them, veterans are disposable. Surely those tireless patriots can find more of their fellow Americans that are disposable.

Enter senior citizens.

Who needs them? Who needs grandparents? All that time wasted visiting grandma’s house could be spent playing Grand Theft Auto on your PlayStation.

We’ve already got about all of the productive, profit-making labor out of them we’re going to get. They are expensive, they are always taking up too many stalls and urinals in the rest room and they drive slowly.

Think how much money could be saved by eliminating Medicare. That pain will go away – eventually. Heart attacks are nature’s way of telling you your time is up. If you are not going to buy a new house or sell your gold teeth, you are just in the way.

Well, as long as you aren’t dead yet, we’ll probably have to continue Social Security. It needs a major overhaul, however.

The Republicans out on the hustings are harping on the privatization of Social Security. They want to put the money in the Wall Street casinos. I’m not certain that the best advice is to use retirement funds to support their gambling habits.

The Dow-Jones recently went below 10,000 and then went back above that number. The dollar has lost between 25 and 30% of its value since the first time it hit 10,000. Did you buy in when it was around 14k and now you’re looking at a realistic 8k? And when was it you wanted to retire?

Putting most or all of Social Security funds into the market would cause the market to rise. It would easily go past 20,000 within 3-4 years. It likely would go past 25k in that time frame. Why? Because there would be so much extra money chasing essentially the same amount of product.

I remember when little old ladies held blue chip stocks forever, in order to feel they had a secure retirement. Price/Earnings ratios were a good index of security. Eight-to-one or ten-to-one were considered solid. Fifteen-to-one was getting up into the risky realm.

Then the market favored 20-to-1. We began to see lots of 50-to-ones. Before the Internet bubble even 500-to-1 was not unheard of. Infinity-to-one was the result when stock prices went through the roof for companies that had never experienced a profit and showed little likelihood of ever doing so.

If Social Security money goes into the market, it doesn’t take a genius such as me to forecast another bubble. The price goes up but the profit and the underlying value doesn’t. Don’t plan on retirement.

We have already seen a great deal of retirement money added to the market. It comes mostly in the form of 401ks. Why do you think that the market is presently overvalued? A realistic Dow number right now should be no higher than 4,500, at best. The rest is hot air.

With all of that extra money, we will have a situation similar to what brought on the global economic crisis. Banks used to be able to loan $5 for every $1 they had available. Recently it has been up to $40. That means more money available for investment, doesn’t it? It isn’t real money until the taxpayer has to bail out the banks.

That money had to go somewhere and there were not sufficient places to place it. So, they sold mortgages that shouldn’t have been sold. Sub-prime. You may have heard of that.

Anyone who suggests privatizing Social Security is either intent upon robbing you of your retirement or a blithering idiot who is too easily fooled by the criminals.

So, you aren’t a veteran and you’re not a senior citizen and you don’t pay Social Security. You’re not disposable, right? Well, your job might be headed to Lower Slobovia, unless you are willing to take a pay cut. How long would you have to work to buy that new flat screen television at 12 cents per hour?

Pay no attention to the Pledge. It is a diversion. They have no intent of implementing it. If they really did try, it would have to be called the War on Arithmetic.

They say they want to reduce the deficit. They want to repeal healthcare reform. Healthcare reform reduces the deficit. They want to extend the tax cuts. There’s another $3.7 trillion of debt. They want to create jobs by not aiding small business or investing in infrastructure. See? It’s a War on Arithmetic, a War on Veterans, a War on Senior Citizens, a War on Reality, a War on the Middle Class, a War on Reason, a War on America.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Here is an article that you really need to read. I could have done a better job of writing it but I thought I shouldn’t hog the spotlight.

I cover some of this ground in my book but only as it relates to medicines prescribed for mental illness. As shown in this article, the problem is much wider in scope. It isn’t just Thalidomide or Vioxx or Phen-phen. It could be simply an aspirin.

Leo Galland is a practicing physician in New York City, a winner of the Linus Pauling Award. The title of his article is,

Why Medicine Can Be Dangerous To Your Health.

August 7, 2010

Did you know that the majority of FDA approved drugs have serious potential side effects that were not detected before marketing approval? ⁽¹⁾

That about three quarters of a million people a year are rushed to emergency rooms in the U.S. because of adverse drug reactions, according to the CDC? ⁽²⁾

That the number of medication-related deaths in the U.S. is estimated at over 200,000 a year, making medications the third or fourth leading cause of death in this country? ⁽³⁾

That even common pain relievers called NSAIDs, examples of which include Advil, Motrin, Aleve and aspirin, account for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the U. S. every year? ⁽⁴⁾

It sounds like the cure could be worse than the disease in far too many cases.

Thankfully, there is an option, an innovative approach to healing that seeks to restore balance and healthy function, instead of simply treating symptoms with drugs and suffering the side effects. I call it integrated medicine, and it is a powerful and effective way to address chronic illness . . . more on that in a moment.

Inhibiting Vital Functions

But first, let me explain in brief why the everyday medications Americans rely upon can be hazardous to your health.

The reason is simple and based upon the basic nature of modern drug therapy.

Most drugs used today are intended to act like biochemical strait jackets. They suppress cellular functions that appear to be overactive.

You can see this by looking at the names given to categories or classes of drugs. Almost all include “blocker,” “inhibitor,” or “anti-” in the description: beta-blockers, calcium blockers, ACE inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors, anti-histamines and anti-inflammatory drugs. These drugs are developed to treat disease by interfering with the biochemical processes involved in illness.

But they also interfere with the natural and healthy functions of the body.

It’s like throwing a wrench into a sophisticated machine in an effort to fix it.

ed: This is an example of the simple-minded approach that that is endemic in the pharmaceutical industry.

Furthermore, the biochemical processes they inhibit are rarely the cause of the illness. They are just part of the many changes in the body that accompany disease. Outside the setting of disease these biochemical processes all play important roles in normal cellular function.

It’s no wonder that many of these drugs have side effects that are a direct extension of their therapeutic actions. ⁽⁵⁾ They are not restoring normal cellular function; they are merely inhibiting cellular hyperactivity.

Pitfalls of Pain Relief

NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) are an excellent example and include common over the counter drugs such as aspirin (Bayer, Bufferin and Excedrin), ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin and Nuprin), and naproxen (Aleve). They relieve pain and inflammation by blocking an enzyme called cyclo-oxygenase (COX).

Although COX activity contributes to pain and inflammation, this enzyme also performs important functions such as:

• protecting the stomach from the corrosive effects of its own acid,
• regulating circulation of blood to the kidneys,
• modulating the activity of the immune system.

It naturally follows that NSAID use can have severe side effects, which are a direct result of COX enzyme inhibition. The side effects of chronic NSAID use have been well documented in the scientific literature, for example in the American Medical Association’s journal Archives of Internal Medicine.

Side effects of chronic NSAID use include:

• stomach ulcers, ⁽⁶⁾
• intestinal bleeding, ⁽⁷⁾
• kidney failure, ⁽⁸⁾
• high blood pressure, ⁽⁹⁾
• aggravation of immune system disorders like asthma, ⁽¹⁰⁾ psoriasis, ⁽¹¹⁾ and colitis. ⁽¹²⁾

So if you take an NSAID, let’s say for a headache, you could just be trading one problem for another.

The search for a safer type of NSAID led to the development of drugs called selective COX inhibitors. As their name suggests, they’re selective in their effect, designed to inhibit only the so-called “bad” COX enzyme, without inhibiting the so-called “good” COX enzyme.

ed: This epitomizes their problem. They are trying to grasp a greater complexity but they fail to realize that going further when headed in the wrong direction means you are still headed in the wrong direction, but just further away from where you need to be.

This approach created one of the most highly anticipated drug releases in the history of medicine: Vioxx.

ed: This is just one of the results.

Vioxx was a disaster; it increased the death rate from heart attacks and strokes and was withdrawn from the market.

What the scientists behind Vioxx failed to recognize is that all forms of the COX enzyme are important for health. ⁽¹³⁾

So instead of giving us a safer drug therapy, it was like tossing a different type of wrench into the machine.

The idea that there are “bad” enzymes and “good” enzymes or “bad” hormones and “good” hormones is a total misrepresentation of how the body works.

But the pharmacology underlying conventional medical treatments is based upon that misrepresentation.

Working in Harmony with the Body is the Solution

Fortunately there is another way of looking at health and healthcare that addresses the underlying causes of illness: integrated medicine

The great value of integrated medicine is that it provides alternative strategies for healing, based upon enhancing normal physiological balance instead of merely attempting to suppress the hyperactive biochemistry involved in disease.

A powerful strategy in integrated medicine is the therapeutic use of nutrition. Nutritional therapy, when properly used, can achieve results that drugs cannot, because nutrients are essential components of the cellular information network. An excellent example is omega-3 fatty acids.

Omega-3 fatty acids are found in fish, flax seed, walnuts, sea vegetables and leafy greens. The most potent omega-3′s, EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) are used by the cells of your body to make powerful chemicals that help to maintain normal cell function under conditions of stress. ⁽¹⁴⁾ The so-called “bad” COX enzyme, in fact, converts DHA to substances called resolvins and neuroprotectins, which play a vital role in controlling inflammation ⁽¹⁵⁾ and helping brain cells survive injury. ⁽¹⁶⁾ This is one reason the inhibition of any of the COX enzymes can be bad for your health.

A Natural Approach to Reducing Inflammation

Knowledge of the benefits of omega-3 fats provides an alternative strategy for controlling inflammation that is both natural and potent. The basic idea is to increase your body’s levels of DHA, the omega-3 fatty acid your body uses to make these beneficial chemicals.

Remarkable results in reducing inflammation can be accomplished by dietary changes and nutritional supplementation. Increase consumption of foods that contain omega-3 fats (mentioned above) and decrease consumption of foods that interfere with the anti-inflammatory effects of omega-3 fats, such meat, and oils, spreads and dressings made from corn, sunflower, soybean, safflower or cottonseed oil, substituting olive oil and flax oil instead. This simple approach had allowed people in research studies with severe rheumatoid arthritis to decrease their use of anti-inflammatory drugs. ^(17,18) For more information about fighting inflammation with nutrition, and free recipes, visit my website fatresistancediet.com

A vast amount of scientific research has been published in prestigious medical journals on the therapeutic use of nutrition. Now it is time to put all of that essential knowledge to work.

Making nutrition a cornerstone of everyone’s healthcare has been my longstanding goal and is the first step in real healthcare reform. Moving from a system based on treating symptoms to a system for achieving optimal health will enable healthcare to achieve its true potential.

The solution is integrated medicine–the future of healthcare, today.

Now, I’d like to hear from you:

Have you experienced medication side effects?

What was done about them?

How does your doctor feel about nutritional supplements, either as alternatives to drugs or as a way to decrease drug side effects?

Best Health,

Leo Galland, MD

Leo Galland, M.D. is the Director of the Foundation for Integrated Medicine and founder of pilladvised.com, an online resource for learning about medications, supplements and food.

References:

1) Manag Care Interface. 2005 Oct;18(10):49-52 “Preventing adverse drug reactions in the general population” Pezalla E.

2) JAMA. 2006 Oct 18;296(15):1858-66. “National surveillance of emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events.” Budnitz DS, Pollock DA, Weidenbach KN, Mendelsohn AB, Schroeder TJ, Annest JL

3) Pezzalla E., Manag Care Interface. 2005 Oct;18(10):49-52

4) Annals of Internal Medicine, 1997, 127:429-438. “Unnecessary Prescribing of NSAIDs and the Management of NSAID-Related Gastropathy in Medical Practice.” R Tamblyn, L Berkson, WD Jauphinee, D Gayton, R Grad, A Huang, L Isaac, P McLeod, L Snell

5) JAMA 1991; volume 266: pp 2847-2851 “Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients.” Lassen DC, Pestotnick SL, Evans RS, Burke JP.

6) Annals of Internal Medicine. 1988; pp 359-363.. “Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and death from peptic ulcer in elderly persons.” Griffin MR, Ray WA, Schaffner W

7) Gastroenterology. 1987; 93: 480-489. “NSAID induced intestinal inflammation in humans.” Bjarnasson I, Zanelli G, Smith T, et al.

Archives of Internal Medicine. 1992; 986-990. “Acute renal failure and glomerulopathy caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.” Shankel SW, Johnson DC, Clark PS, Shankel TL, O’Neill WM.

9) Archives of Internal Medicine. 1993; 153: 477-484. “A meta-analysis of the effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on blood pressure.” Pope JE, Anderson JJ, Felson DT

10) Clin Chest Med. 1990; 11:163-175. “Drug-induced bronchospasm.” Meeker DP, Wiedemann HP.

11) J Dermatol. 1981; 8: 323-337. “Exacerbation of psoriasis induced by indomethacin.” Katayama H, Kawada A.

12) Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 107: 513-516. “Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs activate quiescent inflammatory bowel disease.” Kaufmann HJ, Taubin HL.

13) Cardiovascular & Haematological Disorders-Drug Targets, 2006, 6, 83-98. “Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: A Painful Lesson.” S Sanghi, EJ MacLaughlin, CW Jewell, S Chaffer, PJ Naus, LE Watson, DE Dosta.

14) Curr Mol Med. 2009;9:565-79. “Role of lipoxins and resolvins as anti-inflammatory and proresolving mediators in colon cancer.” Janakiram NB, Rao CV.

15) Proc Nutr Soc. 2010, 28:1-8 “Fish oil and rheumatoid arthritis: past, present and future.” James M, Proudman S, Cleland L.

16) J Lipid Res. 2009: 50 Suppl:S400-405. “Neuroprotectin D1-mediated anti-inflammatory and survival signaling in stroke, retinal degenerations, and Alzheimer’s disease.” Bazan NG.

17) Drugs 2003; 63: 845-53. “The role of fish oils in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.” Cleland et al.

18) Rheumatol Int. 2003; 23: 27-36. “Anti-inflammatory effects of a low arachidonic acid diet and fish oil in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.” Adam et al,

ed: A major change in our approach to treatment would be the real healthcare reform.

To your good health,

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Pew Research has come out with a new poll. I know it’s difficult to believe but people complain of big government.

Only 22% feel that big government is acceptable. Would you like to be in that elite group? Would you care to guess where my sympathies lie?

I would appreciate you reading this post and letting me know not just where you stand but whether this caused you to reassess the issue to any extent.

First allow me to confess. I have been audited three times. Once they discovered it was a clerical error and that they owed me more than what they had claimed I owed them. Another time I went to tax court sans attorney and my bill was reduced by a little more than half. The last time they wanted to avoid tax court and negotiated an amount that was almost reasonable.

You really get to experience the power of the government through the auspices of the IRS. I know that, had our resources and power been comparable, I would have not had to pay any extra those last two times. As the song goes, you have to know when to fold them.

I also had the opportunity to experience the power of the government as meted out by sergeants in general and one captain in particular. The captain denied me the right to marry. He ignored the evidence of the Korean ceremony we had as an option after his denial. His actions meant that the only time I saw my wife in the following three years was when I paid for a trip as a civilian to marry again in the American Consulate.

My wife was pregnant when I was shipped home ahead of schedule and my son died without me ever having seen him. I don’t imagine too many members of the Tea Party have more reason than I to be concerned about the power of big government.

After fifty years my perspective on the subject is somewhat less the prisoner of passion than formerly. I am aware that there are dangers. I am aware that there are abuses. But, I am also aware that the issue is not as simple as one person’s subjective experience.

You have probably heard of the SEC bringing fraud charges against Goldman Sachs this past week. Although Senator Dodd says the financial reform bill he is putting together would have kept that fraud from occurring, many say that the government has all along had the tools to remedy that problem. If that is the case, one might think that the problem to this point is not that the government was not sufficiently large but that there was at least one part of the government that was not doing its job.

I imagine that I would find many agreeing that if the government already has the size and the tools to accomplish its obligations we might be well-advised not to be precipitous in enlarging it. That really isn’t a tough call.

If as they say, the government has the tools to protect us from Wall Street, do they really have the size? One case against the financial industry may require reading hundreds of thousands of emails and a host of other documents. It requires battalions of forensic accountants. It requires specialized legal teams. With the scope of the problem, one case at a time would be analogous to trying to empty an ocean one thimble full at a time. The SEC must be greatly enlarged.

It would help to give the SEC as much authority as the FDA. The FDA fails to use its authority on behalf of consumers but that is due to the relationship its staff and executives have with the industry. That needs to be rectified. Just making the SEC larger and giving it greater authority is insufficient. We have to demand they protect the right segment of our society.

What authority should we give the SEC? One way to cut down on the need for unlimited staff would be to re-engineer the front end of the system. We should prohibit the financial industry from offering any new products without permission. This is at least the supposed policy of the FDA. Such a policy could have prevented Credit Default Swaps and other forms of derivatives. Or, it could have insured that the government knew they were coming, what they were, understood the dangers and imposed real regulations and rules.

The issue of enhancing our protection from the Wall Street mafia seems to find that rare commodity, bipartisan support. We expect to find substantial agreement that a large military comes in handy, when it is not being used as a police force. There are obviously other areas that require a government with sufficient resources to serve and protect us. Think mine safety inspectors, food inspectors, port inspectors, et al.

There admittedly are areas that could be run with fewer people. At least 60% of our prison population is due to nonviolent drug offenses. You don’t always get to see or recognize the money and other resources being spent on this. It clogs our courts. It consumes law enforcement resources and manpower. One of every four prisoners in the world are in U.S. prisons. Are we that bad as a people? Or, do we always vote for whoever is ‘toughest on crime?’

I am certain that you know of other areas of need for big government and other areas where it could be reduced.

Some government services actually bring us social and financial benefits. The state parks system in Tennessee has been voted the best in the nation. A recent study found that for every dollar the state spent on this system it saw a return of $16. So, what do we do? Do we listen to Blue Dog Democrats and Republican fiscal conservatives and cut the parks budget? We shouldn’t but to them such a government service is considered low-hanging fruit. Cut. Cut. Cut.

It isn’t as simple as ‘the government is too big.’ Nor is it a simple ‘the government needs more resources.’ It’s both. It’s neither. Government is complex. And, it is not going away; nor should it. We have the responsibility to decide where government can serve us and where we need it to butt out. We can’t do this to our best advantage with ideologies, slogans and shouting at each other.

With well over 300 million souls to be responsible for, one shouldn’t expect a small government. With a society as complex as ours is, we need services. With all of the dangers we face, in our local and national security, mad cow disease, botulism, Wall Street, internet and other fraud, medicines that kill, increasing stress that affects and endangers us, Toyotas and all of the rest, we will frequently find a place for government.

As I’ve stated in previous posts, the present economy doesn’t inspire us as individuals to go on a spending spree. Neither does it have that effect on businesses. Local and state governments are cutting back, adjusting to greatly reduced revenues. The economy needs stimulation. People need jobs. The federal government is the only entity with the resources to do that.

It would have been nice if we hadn’t partied so hardy on credit when the economy was in better shape. We would have less of a problem accepting temporary but necessary deficits to help us ride out the hangover. We could have a 10-year recession as Japan did or we can bite the bullet and pay for our economic sins.

Much of the Tea Party thrust is for small government. They are puppets. Most all of the behind-the-scenes organization for this phenomenon is being paid for by big money interests. They want distraction from actually dealing with our problems. They want a government that has not the resources to police their activities. I wish these people in their tri-corner hats and parading around with misspelled signs would take a break – take time to think. They don’t have any solutions. They have slogans and cant.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Thirteen states have filed a lawsuit claiming that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional.

Will they win or are they just wasting taxpayers money in an attempt to look good to their political bases? If you guessed the later, you didn’t require anyone to read this to you.

Given that we have five Supremes who can’t differentiate between human beings and things that human beings create, anything is possible. By the way, since voting is the most important form of free speech, why have corporations never voted? Sorry, I didn’t mean to give them any ideas.

Even if the courts were to rule in the favor of these thirteen grandstanding attorneys general, they can’t win.

They claim that it is unconstitutional to require people to purchase private health insurance. If someone doesn’t have health insurance, others must pay for it out of their taxes. The requirement is a protection measure for the rest of us.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to see people forced to give these private monsters more money. This law, as presently configured, gives these corporations an additional 31 or so million customers. That is estimated to increase their bank accounts by some $70 billion annually. No. I definitely am not pleased with that.

Having the public option is less rational than Medicare-For-All but it would at least provide an alternative for many of this 31 million and others. Most of that $70 billion would not go to the leeches. We have been promised that the Congress will amend the law to include the public option.

So, there is a possibility that the courts could rule in their favor. What happens? This law, as with most others of any complexity, includes a separability clause. That means, if the courts rule against any part of it, the entire law is not scrapped. The remainder remains.

Interestingly, the suit cites no case law or precedent. Why? Because there is none. Federal law overrules state law.

Under the commerce clause of the Constitution the government has broad, unchallenged power to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce has historically been interpreted very broadly. Also, the right of the government to tax has been firmly established.

Even given the present makeup of the Court, there is almost no likelihood that the attorneys general can prevail with this suit. A few may prevail in their races for the governor’s seat in their state based on the publicity they will garner.

The solution, should the courts rule in their favor, is to offer the public option, or make a public program mandatory. All the former would do is offer a better deal at less cost by eliminating about 30% of the costs that unnecessary overhead represents. Making it mandatory simply means reducing the amount one pays for coverage and calling it a tax rather than a premium. The courts have already ruled that Social Security, Medicare, et al., are constitutional.

So, if they win, and their win brings a public option or Medicare-For-All, what have they won?

America’s Favorite Loon, Michelle Bachmann, or as she calls herself on her web site, Amaricas Congress Woman, has introduced a bill which calls the healthcare bill unconstitutional. If she can’t spell America’s correctly or punctuate it correctly or doesn’t know that Congresswoman is one word, her bill may need the services of an editor.

Were it anyone else, save Sarah, we would consider her to be doing this only for its symbolic effect. She, however, seems convinced that the bill will succeed. How she will attain majorities in either house no one can explain. Then, either the President must sign it or his veto must be overridden by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress. I would be hesitant to put too much money on any of those possibilities.

Then we have the Republican leadership saying that the passage of this bill is the death knell of the Democratic Party. Before passage they were exhibiting great concern for the welfare of the Democrats (pun intended). Their solicitude was impressive and heartwarming. Despite their concern for the wellbeing of their compatriots they intend to take advantage of this misstep by the Democrats by running on the position of repealing the healthcare bill.

I can see their logic. The people will swarm to their standard in order to reinstate the bar by the insurance companies of preexisting conditions. Their support will be overwhelming for reimposition of annual and total limitations of coverage.

Kids up to the age of 26 want to be independent. They will flock to the sides of the Republicans freeing them from sharing their parents coverage. Geezers like me will truly appreciate their efforts if we don’t have to worry about what to do with all of our money. We can just luxuriate in the do-nut hole and let the drug companies do all of that worrying.

I think those cagey Republicans have discovered the magic talisman of electoral politics.

Silly suit? Of course. But look to the source. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Silly is as silly does.”

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

If you stay to the end of this post, you will see an offer you can’t refuse – no strings attached.

My last post was about a health issue, not healthcare reform. Writing so frequently on healthcare reform and the economy has built up a tremendous reserve of frustration.

I wanted to take a psychic break by expounding on other subjects but it seems not to be possible to get away from these matters. Storming once more into the breech they come again to the subject of reform.

Just now I feel more inclined to address the method than the substance. Could it be that there is so little substance to speak to?

I can’t help but wonder if anyone in Washington actually knows the definition of the word reconciliation. The dictionary says it is the reestablishing of cordial relations. All I see is animosity and hostility. How could a spirit of reconciliation engender such enmity and division? So, with the understanding that the term itself is inappropriate, let’s get on to the real problem.

That problem is the disdain so many Senators have for democracy. They seem to think that their prerogatives are more important than representing the needs and opinions of the people.

While the people have been confused, frustrated and angered at the shenanigans taking place in Congress, the majority still support the need for reform and, specifically, the public option. Many of those opposed do so out of a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the problems and possible solutions.

Throwing around such accusations as this being an attempt to take over healthcare or mischaracterizing it as socialism come from ignorance or deliberate lies. The government has Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, medical care for the active military and veterans, coverage for civilian employees and other programs which it operates or for which it pays. It also subsidizes, through tax breaks, most private policies. The government already pays for 45% of healthcare costs, not including the subsidies.

The private insurance industry is permitted to skim off the cream. It is allowed to reject anyone they wish. They reserve the right to not pay the costs for whatever they wish to avoid. They skim the money to provide their executives multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses, private jets, lavish parties and such. Can you guess who bears the brunt of their exercise of these privileges?

At this time, several companies are attempting to increase premiums in a range from 22% to 59%. This while they are reducing the actual total amount they are paying out for your health care. Last year our health costs amounted to 17.3% of our entire economy. My untutored guess is that the above-cited increases might make the economic burden even greater. You get another guess as to who will get screwed.

Takeover? No. This is an attempt to provide almost everyone with health care and save our economy. As a nation, we cannot afford to rank 37^th in the world in health care. Nor can we afford an ever greater percentage of our total resources being designated as profits for the industry that has put at such a lowly ranking.

We shouldn’t forget the millions they spend on bribes. Is it possible this is a consideration when these “public servants” refuse to permit democracy to exist in the chambers of the Senate?

This talk of reconciliation may actually result in a vote. Even more important than the outcome of that vote is the fact that it will provide us undeniable evidence of who hates democracy and has no concern for their constituents. Every one of those opposing reconciliation needs to be thrown out of office. If your Senator opposes it, you have an obligation to yourself, your family, your country and the Constitution to oppose them. Yes, it is that simple.

My apologies for the preachy tone but it comes from frustration with our elected officials.

Now for the free offer. As mentioned earlier, my last post was on a health issue. It was one that is mired in misinformation. My book, Why Are You Mad?, is on the subject of mental illness. While this subject is not of interest to everyone, it does contain some nutrition information that is of universal concern. It speaks to another area drowning in misinformation: fats, saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, the whole panoply.

So, to anyone interested, I am offering a free copy of my book. Just send me an email and I will attach a copy of the book to the return. It will be in the form of a PDF file. If anyone prefers an actual dead tree version, I will send you one for $10 – $8 off of the retail price.

Why am I doing this? I did not spend 14 years of research and almost 3 years writing it because I wanted it to make money. I wrote it to provide as many as possible with an understanding of the subject. For those not interested in the overall subject, I feel that the dietary information is likewise of importance, but to everyone.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites