Archive for the ‘Health Care’ Category

Amish families exempt from insurance mandate

January 11, 2010

MARC HELLER
Watertown Daily Times
Monday , January 11th, 2010

Federal health care reform will require most Northern New Yorkers — but not all, it turns out — to carry health insurance or risk a fine.

Hundreds of Amish families in the region are likely to be free from that requirement.

The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a “religious conscience” exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections.

Although the Amish consist of several branches, some more conservative than others, they generally rely upon a community ethic that disdains government assistance. Families rely upon one another, and communities pitch in to help neighbors pay health care expenses.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

View the original article at Watertown Daily Times

Advertisements

Was Maurice Vellacott right about abortion?

January 10, 2010

Gloria Galloway

Globe And Mail

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott issued a release this week to say he had been vindicated by the National Cancer Institute for making the controversial claim that there is a link between induced abortion and breast cancer.

And Mr. Vellacott may be right.

Three years ago, the Saskatchewan MP helped to bring an American doctor and activist to Parliament Hill to tell Canadian women that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. It turned out that the doctor, Angela Lanfranchi, was speaking from a defined religious point of view that had little apparent basis in science.

And, at the time, the link between the procedure and the disease had been discounted by the National Cancer Institute in the United States, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (and their U.S. counterparts), as well as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Breast Cancer Network.

But a study released last fall (available here but only for a fee) by the respected Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute in Seattle by a number of distinguished cancer experts including Louise Brinton, the chief of the Hormonal and Reproductive Epidemiology Branch of the National Cancer Institute lists induced abortion as being “associated with an increased risk for breast cancer.” Background documents further suggest that it increases the risk of the disease by 40 per cent.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

View the original article at Globe And Mail

Barack Obama was Against Health Care Taxes Before he was for Them

January 8, 2010

By Doug Bandow

Former Obama supporter Lee Stranahan points out the president’s egregious flip-flops on health care.  Check out Stranahan’s video:

<

The political battle is not yet over.  Every congressman needs to hear from Americans outraged over what the politicians are threatening to do to our health care.

Doug Bandow

View the original article at Campaign for Liberty

Not So Strange Health-Care Bedfellows

January 7, 2010

Sheldon Richman
Campaign For Liberty
Thursday, January 7th, 2010

One thing can be said in behalf of the health-insurance overhaul currently shaping up in Washington: it has revealed the curious bedfellows that politics creates. Congress almost certainly will pass a bill that compels every American to have medical insurance. If his employer doesn’t offer it, he’ll have to buy it himself or be fined.

This justifiably offends everyone who believes in individual freedom. By what right do politicians order us to buy medical coverage? They say they have a good reason: if everyone were forced to buy health insurance, the premiums would be lower for sick people, who file more claims than healthy people do. I mean no disrespect to sick people, but that’s a lousy reason to force the healthy to buy insurance they don’t want. In a really free society, force would be used only to protect innocent life from aggression. Keeping insurance premiums down falls short of that standard.

It turns out that a lot of other people think so too. In several states there are moves to block the insurance mandate. For example, in Arizona voters will vote on a state constitutional amendment to prohibit forced participation in any health-care plan. And the Los Angeles Times reports that “a group of more than a dozen state attorneys general … are exploring whether the mandate is unconstitutional.” The Times quotes Florida Atty. Gen. Bill McCollum: “It’s a tax on living.” The newspaper adds that McCollum “drew a distinction from the requirement that people buy auto insurance: Drivers make a choice to own a car.” Actually, car insurance is tied to the use of the roads, and even private road owners would have the right to admit only insured drivers to their property. Moreover, drivers are required only to have liability insurance; they are free to forgo coverage for their own cars.

So here’s the odd bedfellows angle: while big-government opponents (and Republican opportunists) are gearing up to fight the insurance mandate, guess who’s all gung-ho for it besides the Democrats: the insurance companies!

TuneUp Utilities 2010

Savor that for a moment. For a full year President Obama and his congressional allies have bashed those companies as the devil incarnate: They won’t cover people who are already sick; they cancel policies after people get sick; they impose annual and lifetime benefit limits; they resist paying benefits; they charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people — and on and on. No self-respecting health-care “reformer” would be caught dead in the same room with these nefarious profit-driven guys. Right?

Wrong.

The “reformers” have been in locked rooms with them regularly in what can only be called a conspiracy against the public. What unites them enough to overcome their few differences? The insurance mandate. Since the legislative process started a year ago, one element has been unquestioned: compulsory insurance. True, Obama opposed an individual mandate during his campaign for president. He needed to distinguish himself from his pro-mandate opponent, Hillary Clinton. But once Clinton was safely ensconced in the State Department, Obama came around. Dash the campaign promise.

There’s really no need to explain why the insurance industry has been eager to accept every provision demanded by the Democrats (except the “public option”) — including coverage for preexisting conditions, guaranteed renewal, and price uniformity regardless of health — as long as the mandate is in the bill. Under a mandate the industry would have millions of new captive customers, mostly healthy young people who will pay premiums but make few claims. This will mean huge new politically derived profits. In economics, it’s called rent-seeking — a form of privilege.

In fact, the insurance industry has only one complaint. The penalty for not complying with the mandate is too low! “We think there’s more that [the legislation] needs to do,” America’s Health Insurance Plans spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said. “There’s still a strong incentive for people to wait until they are sick to purchase insurance.”

In other words, the insurance industry is willing to cover all comers if everyone is effectively forced to buy its product.

Freedom is trashed whenever “reformers” and the industry they seek to “reform” get behind closed doors.

View the original article at Campaign For Liberty

Obama Repeatedly Promises Open Meetings on Health Care

January 7, 2010

Further proving (as if there was any doubt left) that for all his rhetoric, Obama should have campaigned on “Status Quo with Better Pronunciation” rather than “Change You Can Believe In.”

View the original article at Campaign for Liberty

Just as Predicted: Drug Companies Now Pushing Vaccines for All Kinds of Health Conditions

January 6, 2010

The growing lull in pharmaceutical sales over the past several years has driven the industry to ramp up its efforts in the vaccine department. Once a dying segment of the drug market, vaccines are back in the limelight as drug manufacturers work tirelessly to make new vaccines for everything from urinary tract infections to Alzheimer’s disease. Many of their newest jabs could reach the market in less than five years.

Five years ago there were only two vaccine manufacturers remaining in America after a mass exodus by drug companies from the vaccine business. Today, drug companies are seeing dollar signs as the pendulum swings in favor of shots for all sorts of diseases. The alleged pandemic swine flu threat, among other things, has also given drug companies the green light to begin heavily producing and marketing vaccines thanks to government grants that support such endeavors.

Since prescription drug sales have been steadily declining, Big Pharma has been frantically looking for new avenues to keep raking in massive profits. Vaccines fit the bill as drug companies can work to create one for every type of ailment known to man. Many existing vaccines are being pushed more heavily upon people as well.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

Vaccine sales are expected to double in the next five years, leaping from $19 billion in 2008 to $39 billion in 2013. In 2004, vaccine sales were $8 billion. Part of this growth can be attributed to the government’s ever-increasing list of recommended children’s vaccines. Currently at 17, the list has more than doubled since 1985 and is expected to continue increasing.

Vaccines are also being touted as “preventive medicine,” a rhetorical sleight of hand that makes them sound more appealing to the public. Propaganda campaigns aimed at convincing the public to receive vaccines are also utilized to stir up fear and drive up sales.

Amidst the frenzy to increase the vaccine arsenal, few on the receiving end are questioning whether or not vaccines even work. A 1999 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association admitted that vaccines are not effective at preventing infectious disease deaths in children. On top of this, thousands of people are injured or killed every year from vaccines.

A true preventive approach is one that incorporates well-balanced nutrition with supplemental vitamins and superfoods. This is by far the most effective way to fortify a healthy immune system and protect the body from developing disease.

View the original article at Natural News

The Drug Laws Need Rethinking

January 1, 2010

By Dark Politricks

With the recent changing of Marijuana back up to a class B drug in the UK and the sacking of its head drug advisor due to public comments about smoking and drinking being more harmful than most drugs its worth looking at our crazy drug laws and wondering whether any governing party will ever have the balls to actually try and tackle the problem properly.

The fact is that our stupid drug laws in the west have not led to less drug users but more users, more deaths, more addicts and more money for the people at the top who control the trade. I am of the belief that all drugs should be made legal so that they can be controlled correctly and safely.

Certain drugs like Marijuana should be allowed to be home grown for personal consumption anyway and the more problematic drugs like heroin and crack cocaine should be regulated for the good of society as the current legal framework definitely does not lead to anything good for society just lots of people in jail, high crime rates, millions of addicts and deaths due to the lack of quality assurance that comes with an underground illegal trade.

The biggest problem is with Heroin, a drug that if taken in its pure form addicts can lead normal healthy lives but because of its illegality means that people die regularly. Not only is overdose an issue because strength cannot be gauged by sight alone and there is no helpful packaging to let the user know how strong it is but because of impurities added to smack, the latest being Anthrax spores from a type of mud mixed in because it looks like the powder, addicts regularly die of other causes.

If the drug was controlled like it was before the 1973 misuse of drugs Act came into action in the UK then addicts could receive their dose from a doctor and lead normal lives with the offer of help to come off it when they are ready. With a clean, free or cheap supply of the drug then the black market trade would surely decrease if not stop due to their being no money to be made. The only potential customers would be the “new” addict in waiting, the school kid or experimenter as anyone already hooked would be receiving their dose through regulated channels. Why risk banging up brick dust or Anthrax spores when you can get a pure shot from your GP?

As for the crime rate, insurance premiums, prison population size and taxes they would all come down. Heroin and Crack addicts rob to pay the hugely inflated prices for their dose. An acre of poppy field can be bought in India or Afghanistan for less than a hundred pounds but a gram in the UK can cost up to £50. Therefore the markup on this product is immense and considering that a purity percentage of 30-50% is considered pretty good there is ample scope for dealers to cut the product to bump up their profits.

Most burglaries, robberies and theft is committed by addicts looking for money to pay for their fix. Prisons are full of addicts and we all know that there is not enough rehabilitation occurring inside due to the high cost of actually trying to solve a problem as complex as an individuals life. However this is very short sighted as the cost of trying to wean an addict off drugs and help them rebuild their life is far outweighed by the costs of policing, insurance claims, court costs and the cost of holding someone in prison and feeding them.

Someone convicted of a theft related crime related to their drug addiction should not be given a criminal record and sent to prison but instead should be sent to special new detox centers which should be built on mass in this country. Prisons should be kept for those convicted of violent offences or bankers who fraudulently steal billions but an addict who is forced to steal for their habit should be treated not punished. These centers would be locked down unlike open prisons and after detoxing their should be rehabilitation and life training and before leaving the user should be provided with a Naltrexone implant to give them a clean next 6 months.

The cost of such an approach maybe high in the short term but in the long term it would pay huge dividends. The problem is that no governing party in the UK has ever been able to promote such an approach even if they had wanted to due to the moral outrage that such a policy would erupt inside Daily Mail readers who would think that this was “being soft on drugs”.

There were signs that our government was starting to see the light when it moved Cannabis to class C down from Class B. However with the recent re-classification of it back up to a Class B most people do not realise that this shift has actually meant that the punishments for Class C drugs are now more harsh than ever as when Cannabis was moved down the penalties for all Class C drugs which included unprescribed Benzo’s, Barbs and so on went up. So what we are actually left with is actually a more harsher drugs regime than if the Labour government had just kept Weed as Class B in the first place.

Unfortunately the government is very two faced when it comes to drugs as one side says “Just say no” whilst the other darker side actively supports drug smuggling and uses the money for “off the book” operations that they don’t want to have to pass through Government for approval. Governments have always been involved in drugs even before they were made illegal and the UK even went to war with China over their refusal to allow us to sell Opium to their citizens.

The CIA has been a well known drug smuggler since the days of their predecessor the OSS, Air America during Vietnam, the original Russian Afghanistan war, The Iran Contra scandal and now the new rise in Afghan poppy production that Blair and co promised to eradicate. In fact the biggest drug dealer of the 80’s, a Burmese war lord named Khun Sa claimed that the CIA were one of his best customers.

by 1986 he was refining 80 percent of the opium harvest in the Golden Triangle. The king of opium trade, Khun Sa had risen to become the world’s largest single heroin trafficker by controlling 60 percent of the world’s illicit opium supply.

In 1986, Bo Gritz went to Burma with White House approval to meet with Khun Sa who supposedly had information on American MIAs. Khun Sa said that he wanted to end the opium and heroin traffic in his territory and to expose American officials involved in the drug smuggling. Gritz claimed that he took this message to the United States government and was told by Tom Harvey of the National Security Council that “there is no interest here” in the Khun Sa overture. Gritz had in his possession 40 hours of video tape of Khun Sa who “charged American officials, both past and present, with being the chief buyers of drugs produced in that part of the world.” He also claimed that he wanted to stop drug trafficking, but that the United States government would not let him. Khun Sa said that the CIA were some of his best customers. He offered support to the DEA to alert them of drug movements, but this was rejected at the headquarters level.

For more information about the CIA’s involvement in drug smuggling please read the following articles:

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/cia-involvement-in-drug-smuggling-part-1

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/cia-involvement-in-drug-smuggling-part-2

And for a more recent look at how the war in Afghanistan is intrinsically linked to the rise in Opium production which the Taliban banned in 2001 and how the Karzai regime we are propping up is a corrupt group of drug dealing warlords including the presidents two brothers and the head of the Afghan armed forces you should read this article of mine which also includes an article by the UK’s ex ambassador to Uzbekistan.

With all these powerful vested interests that are involved in the continuing black economy of illegal drug smuggling it is no wonder that there is no serious move by any western government to come up with a sensible drug policy. Just by being illegal, the price of drugs is pushed up beyond any other commodity and the drug industry is worth billions of pounds a year which is a pretty powerful incentive by those making money out of it to carry on with the status quo.

People worry about drugs being legal thinking that this would drive demand up but many studies have shown this not to be the case and in fact there is a certain kudos involved with the substance being illegal which actually stimulates demand especially in young people. We all know the types of children that if you told them they couldn’t do something they would go out and do the opposite purely because its a “forbidden fruit”. We already have a huge demand for illicit drugs in this country as well as the rest of the world so any increase would surely be negligible and by legalising or even de-crimilizing and regulating the market we would save billions of pounds and hundreds of lives a year.

Maybe the new year will bring along a politician with the cajones to create a proper public debate about this matter and not be scared by the “moral majority” on the right which like to shout loud about other peoples indiscretions whilst keeping their own kinky fetishes, perversions and misdeeds locked behind closed doors.

If the good of the country matters anything to anybody then the hypocrisy must stop. Talking tough on drugs and sacking advisers who give rational scientific advice whilst allowing the sale of  cigarettes and alcohol to continue even though they kill hundreds of thousands a year makes no sense. If the government wants to pay off our national debt quickly then maybe the legalisation of drugs could be the answer. Just imagine all that tax revenue that would be brought in by the millions who smoke weed every day and pop E’s each weekend.

I have never understood the hypocrisy that says that if a doctor prescribes me a Valium for anxiety its perfectly fine but if I take an unprescribed one for pleasure or to help with a plane flight its considered morally wrong. This dubious moral line is one which is illogical and should be scrapped straight away. Millions of people every day and night in clubs, pubs and homes across the country are sticking two fingers up and saying “Fuck You” to the stupid drug laws. We just need someone to listen.

The politicians need to realise that any war on drugs just like any war on terror cannot be won as its an illogical concept in the first place. There will always be drugs and always people willing to take them. Maybe if the country wasn’t such a shit and depressing place where people could see a future that they could control and take a part in forming then taking drugs wouldn’t be such a good escape. So maybe if the government wants to continue with its current policy and avoid legalisation like the plague it should concentrate on making the country a better place to live. Just a thought for the New Year.

NBC local news report on Aspartame

December 21, 2009

Do you like drinking Diet Coke, use sweeteners instead of sugar in your tea or coffee, or eat or drink other “Sugar Free” products? Well then you should most definitely watch this news report from NBC about the dangers of Aspartame or its better known brand name NutraSweet.

Its found in over 5000 products and although it was denied approval by the FDA in the seventies it was finally approved by the Reagan administration and is very controversial and many doctors claim it leads to brain disease and cancer as well as other symptoms such as headaches, sickness and severe body pains.

This was taken from www.asparta.me.uk a site dedicated to the dangers of Aspartame.

Dennis Kucinich on CSPAN

October 25, 2009

I have just watched CSPAN’s Washington Journal on the Parliament channel and the last guest of the morning was Dennis Kucinich. Listening to him speak about the current state of government corruption, the need for health care that covers everybody, the need to remove private funding and therefore private control of government, why we should end the wars, and a whole range of other issues was just a breath of fresh air from the usual BS that politicians spout.

I have a link to the video from the show below so you can watch for yourselves. I don’t think one caller rang in to disagree with anything he said and I cannot think of anything that he said that I disagreed with.

Watch Dennis Kucinich on CSPAN Washington Journal Sunday 25-Oct-09

He is definitely one of the good guys that looks out for the little guy in the game of dark politricks being played by those that control us all. I thought I would start a list of the good guys and would appreciate comments from everyone who have their own names to add to the list.

Please click the following link to view the current list of good guys.

Forced medication of the masses

August 31, 2009

I have just read the following article which details how a man suffering severe arthritic pain in his bones had his symptoms reversed after he stopped brushing his teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride.

http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/fluoride-linked-arthritis-study-shows/1312/22219

Now whether you agree that fluoride is good for your teeth or not it cannot be denied that fluoride as a base compound is a poison. If you swallow toothpaste containing it you are advised to go to hospital. Fluoride is also a very common ingredient in anti pyhscotic drugs and anti-depressants. If you don’t know your history about who came up with the idea of adding it to your water supply then you should investigate Farben and the Nazis.

“The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)”

The communists also took interest in this method to control the populaces they had power over and many in the 50’s saw the fluoridation of their water supply as a communist plot. In fact the CIA was also very interested in this tactic and a recent book from a retired CIA officer claimed on a mission in South America they added fluoride to the water supply of a camp before attacking it to dumb down and mentally incapacitate the occupants.

Whether you think that the amount in our water supply is so minute as to be harmless it is still forced medication of the populace. With all the talk off forced flu shot vaccinations we should remember that the government does not care whether you disagree with their health policy or not. If they want to force you to take medication against your will they will do so and the fluoridation of our water supply is a case in point.

I have no problem with people choosing to brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste or ingesting the compound by the bucket loads but it should be kept away from our water supply. Our modern society is already suffering from a large amount of people suffering from Alzheimer’s and doctors have found large amounts of aluminium in their brains. How does this aluminium get into their brains? Well apart from the fluoride in our waters did you know that most deodorants contain this compound? Our bodies are being attacked from all sides by metals, poisons and compounds that we would not normally choose to ingest. Small trace amounts of these poisons maybe harmless in small doses but over time it seems quite clear that they can build up inside your body. So the argument that its good for your teeth holds no ground with someone who wishes to drink water from the tap free of added metals and poisons.

If you are concerned about fluoride being added to your water supply you can check whether your local health authority is one of those that engages in this practise at the following link: http://www.bfsweb.org/One%20in%20a%20million/7%20extent.pdf