To Your Health

by Matt DeNoto

I turned 30 over the weekend, and my parents flew out from Long Island to visit me. My mom brought me a very special gift: a cold. Over the last couple of days I’ve dealt with severe post-nasal drip, a very runny nose and a lack of appetite. But I don’t have health insurance, so I will not be heading out to see a doctor. Instead, I self-medicate with over the counter cold medicine that makes my brain feel ever so slightly detached from my body in a way that makes me glad I’m not operating any heavy machinery today.

So I thought this might be a good day to talk about health care. After all, the Green Revolution is all about treating the world better, and naturally that includes our own bodies. I got into a bit of a debate about health care with another family member last week. He held that socialized medicine doesn’t work, an opinion he formed on the basis of testimonies from friends who live abroad. My opinion was that any system must work better than ours. From my standpoint (as one of the many uninsured), government-run health care is better than depending on the emergency room for everything.

The debate ended with us agreeing that Congress couldn’t legislate its way out of a cardboard box and we went on with our meal. But a point came to me later that I wish we could have discussed further.

You see, he doesn’t want government-run health care because he thinks government cannot run anything intelligently on a large scale for a long term. I’m inclined to agree. However, I feel more strongly that health care as an industry should not be in private hands, because those hands will inevitably put profit above all else, including the well being of those insurance companies supposedly serve.

The idea has come into my mind several times over the last decade or so that things might run more smoothly if we built flexibility into the system. What I mean by that is it is not set in stone that the government can run certain things and private companies others. There are many places in the country right now where institutions that had been in government hands for a long time are being rented out to private companies, who are running those institutions better. Municipal services, prisons, even schools are being handed over. And for now, the private companies are doing it better because the government systems they replaced had grown too large, too bureaucratic and too expensive.

But eventually, those private companies will fall into their own trap. They will squeeze services too thin for the sake of profit margins. They will ignore the customer because they are a monopoly.

When that time comes, government will most likely need to take back over.

It’s a cycle that, when looked at objectively, seems fairly natural. One system takes on a task until it loses focus, at which time the task is handed over to a different system. If everyone were to take some perspective on it and accept that this situation is okay, that this is just how things are supposed to go, perhaps the idea of the hand-off wouldn’t be so dramatic.

Of course, nothing is that easy. Especially when it involves large organizations, profit, and the lives of private citizens. Washington is currently attempting to do what the Clinton Administration failed to do (and what other administrations in recent history didn’t even try to do): reform the health care industry. How does the country improve service while lowering costs without making the system completely unprofitable? Should there be a non-profit, government-funded intermediary between doctors and insurance companies to take over the authorization of services? After all, one of the big debates right now is that it is often more profitable for insurance companies to deny coverage, so what if we took that decision out of their hands? Insurance companies would obviously balk at the idea of giving that power to the doctors, so perhaps an independent body not driven by money should take over. On the other hand, would another level of bureaucracy really make the industry more efficient?

While you figure it all out, it’s time for another dose of DayQuil.

india and diabetes, part 2

Just yesterday I posted an article about the prevalence of diabetes in India, HERE.

In another article, published today, some flaws are pointed out, that I felt were worth mentioning.

The author of the article feels that key evidence about pollution’s role in Type 2 diabetes was omitted and needed to be discussed.

No where in BBC’s coverage is there even the slightest hint of a large body of scientific literature on the possible role of contamination. As long as the media and public health officials ignore this, they won’t explore ways that reducing contamination might be used to avoid diabetes in the first place.

Multiple studies now show strong epidemiological links between pollution and type 2 diabetes.

 

For example, research by Lee et al., using data from the US Centers for Disease Control, finds dramatic increases in diabetes risk associated with exposure to a mixture of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) like dioxins and PCBs.

The article is very interesting, and even mentions a possible link to Bisphenol-A and diabetes. You can find it HERE.

at least it seems to be in their adults

I have to tell you that I was extremely surprised to find this article, because I really had no idea.

India Battles Diabeties “Epidemic”, via BBC

And, yes, it is Type 2 Adult Onset Diabetes. And, yes, it is because of the food they eat and a shift to a sedentary lifestyle. But the figures are staggering… 3 million a year die from it and 250 million are affected.

What worries the health professionals is that type 2 diabetes, which is the variety that is spreading so fast, is on a seemingly unstoppable rise in villages and rural areas.

It just reminds me of a conversation I had and article I wrote once, about how the United States only export is our lifestyle and it’s what is killing all of us. We have marketed ourselves so well, that people give up their traditions and change how they live and eat and it turns around and kills them.

This disease used to exist in such small numbers. Now, it is the leading killer of many nations. All because of what people eat. It’s really quite sad.

going off subject

Hey. I need to go a bit off topic right now and write about something pretty important.

I read an article that the HPV Vaccine, Gardasil, is being required for all women seeking green cards.

This action is very discriminatory. And, it will silently be allowed if we don’t speak up.

I wrote a letter to my representative, and I am asking that you do the same. (You can see my letter below). Please go the article and click on the link to find your representative, copy and paste my letter (if you like), adjusting for your information, and send.

There are so many reasons I think this requirement is bad, and would I go as far to say… unconstitutional? Yes, I think I would.

I don’t care what your opinions are about immigration… this is wrong. When our own citizenry is not required to get this vaccination, when the jury is still out about the efficacy of this vaccination, yet we are requiring immigrants to get it, you know it is discriminatory. That is not the American way.

my letter:
Dear Congressman Berman -

I just read an article about how the HPV Vaccine, Gardasil, is being required for women applying for green cards.

I am writing you to urge you to look into this matter as it is an issue of discrimination.

First off, this vaccine is performed at a cost of about $400. Many of the immigrants coming to this country are already underprivileged, but this ensures their position in the lower class. And, by not allowing these women to apply for green cards unless they can afford this, we are making a statement that we only accept a certain socioeconomic class in our country.

Second, this is discriminatory because by requiring this vaccination, we are claiming that these women are sexually promiscuous; which many, if not all of them, are not. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. If the person in question is in a monogamous relationship, there is no justifiable reason for this vaccination.

Lastly, and most importantly, this vaccination is not approved for women over the age of 26. Yet, we are requiring ALL women applying for the green card to get this vaccine. When it may not even be effective on them! That is ridiculous. You can go to the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/std/Hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm#hpvvac1) for more information.

I ask you to use your voice to be against this requirement. It is not the way of this country to knowingly allow discrimination.

Thank you so much for your time.
Best,
Shelley Boyle
Studio City, CA

Farmer in Chief

Oh me, oh my… I do like Michael Pollan.

Yesterday, he wrote a great, albeit long, article for the New York Times about our food crisis. I think it is really, REALLY important that everyone read this. You can find it HERE.

It is a letter to the next President about a major upcoming issue that is NOT being addressed.

“Which brings me to the deeper reason you will need not simply to address food prices but to make the reform of the entire food system one of the highest priorities of your administration: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change. Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on — but as you try to address them you will quickly discover that the way we currently grow, process and eat food in America goes to the heart of all three problems and will have to change if we hope to solve them”