Tea party activists rally at U.S. Capitol

September 13, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The conservative advocacy group Tea Party Express massed at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday to protest health care reform, higher taxes and what they see as out-of-control government spending.
iReporter Justin Hall attended Saturday's rally. "We think things can get a lot worse before they get better," he said.

iReporter Justin Hall attended Saturday's rally. "We think things can get a lot worse before they get better," he said.
Click to view previous image
1 of 3
Click to view next image

Marchers en route to the rally held no feelings in check as they waved signs reading, "Proud member of the angry mob," "I didn't vote for this Obamanation," "Fire the czars" and "You represent us, not rule us."

Nazi imagery and a poster of President Obama as an African witch doctor were popular images.

The march leading to the Capitol stretched for blocks on the final day of the Tea Party Express' cross-country bus tour, which began August 28 in Sacramento, California. En route, the group hosted rallies in about 30 cities. An official crowd estimate was not available, but reporters at the scene described the massive crowd as reaching the tens of thousands.

At each stop, the tour highlighted members of Congress "who have voted for higher spending, higher taxes, and government intervention in the lives of American families and businesses," according to The Tea Party Express Web site.

One woman at Saturday's events summed up her feelings about issues this way: "It's too much too fast."

A major theme of the rally was the push for less government.

"The government should be doing things that are authorized by the Constitution; they should be doing things that the people want, not things that they just decide are nifty. We can't afford these things anymore.

"The government should be concentrating on cutting spending on all the programs, not thinking of new, wonderful ways of spending more .... I've voted my whole life. This is the first time in my life I've gotten off the couch and said, 'I'm sick of this. It's only three hours away, and I'm going to be there.'"

Yet another man said, "We're here to let the government know that we do not want government involvement in our health care nor do we want the higher taxation that comes along with such a proposal." iReport.com: iReporters trade barbs

Several speakers were to speak throughout the afternoon, with events wrapping up about 4 p.m. ET.

The tea party movement gained momentum this year; several parties were held across the country this summer to protest Obama and the Democrats' economic stimulus plans, among other things.

On July 4, nearly 2,000 advocates, toting signs and chanting slogans, rallied outside Congress. Activists said the TEA Party Day -- an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already" -- was in response to runaway government spending. But now, the focus is on health care reform, an issue that has prompted a more encompassing debate.

"What brought everything together was the Obamacare idea, which contains every odiferous objection," Tea Party Express organizer Mark Williams said in August.

Although Tea Party Express tour was funded by Our Country Deserves Better, a conservative political action committee, Williams said his organization is nonpartisan, and that the rallies are not aimed at one politician over another, namely Obama. iReport.com: Images from the rally

"This is not people upset over one particular politician or one particular party," Williams has said. "In fact, if you ask the Republicans in the crowd, you'll find they are just upset at their party as they are at the Democrats." Members from conservative groups such as Freedom Works, run by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Campaign Liberty and the Institute for Liberty also were expected to participate in Saturday's rally.

Does Marijuana Really Kill Brain Cells?

September 13, 2009

“Smoking marijuana kills brain cells.” If you have ever smoked marijuana you’ve probably heard this myth at some point or another. But you might not know the horrible origins of this dreadful lie.

It was Ronald Reagan who said “the most reliable scientific sources say permanent brain damage is one of the inevitable results of the use of marijuana.” What were those reliable scientific sources you ask?

In 1974, Dr. Robert G. Heath, a researcher at Tulane University in New Orleans, reported that he had found proof that marijuana caused brain damage while experimenting on monkeys. Heath reported that rhesus monkeys smoking an equivalent of 30 joints a day began to atrophy and die after just 90 days. Autopsies revealed that the monkeys who had been exposed to the marijuana smoke had more dead brain cells than the control monkeys, who had not been exposed.

How did Heath come up with these results? What were his procedures? For six years, no one knew. It took Playboy and NORML six years of requesting and suing under the Freedom of Information Act to finally receive an accurate accounting of the procedures Heath used.

Four monkeys were strapped into chairs with transparent plastic boxes surrounding their heads. The head chamber was sealed so that the smoke being pumped in wouldn’t be lost. This also meant that the carbon monoxide couldn’t escape either. Instead of the 30-joints-a-day dosage that Heath had reported, the monkeys were given the equivalent of 63 joints in five minutes, every day, for three months.

The poor monkeys were being suffocated for five minutes at a time, on a daily basis, over a period of three months. After which they were killed so that their brains could be autopsied, and the dead brain cells caused by carbon monoxide poisoning were attributed to marijuana. This was Ronald Reagan’s “reliable scientific” source.

Heath’s experiments have since been criticized for insufficient sample size and failure to control other determining factors, such as the carbon monoxide poisoning. Similar experiments, involving more monkeys and better control, have since contradicted Heath’s reported findings. But sadly, the lie based on his research is still used to frighten smokers today. And will most likely continue to be used until enough people know the truth.

It is not always wise to believe everything you read, so do the research yourself. Marijuana doesn’t kill brain cells; lack of oxygen does, so everyone remember to breathe.

- By Brian Breeding

We've seen this healthcare trigger before

September 13, 2009

After a summer of politics marked by esoteric phrases like "co-ops" and "insurance exchanges," the newest kernel of ubiquitous arcana is the term "trigger mechanism." This proposal, which is gaining momentum after President Obama's speech to Congress, would have any national health legislation include provisions only allowing a government-run "public option" if certain future parameters are met. "It's an obscure policy tool that isn't even written," reported the news service TalkingPointsMemo.com, "but somehow, a 'trigger-mechanism' is the talk of Washington right now. How did that happen?"

Such shock is widespread. Pundits, reporters and activists are stunned that an abstruse scheme to halt reform has become a focal point of the healthcare debate. Yet, considering recent history, the only surprise is that Washington waited so long to again force this legislative cyanide down America's throat.

Recall that over the last decade, a maverick group of progressive and conservative lawmakers pushed bills to let Americans purchase cheaper, FDA-approved prescription drugs from other industrialized nations. It was (and is) a common-sense idea -- other countries allow importation, and the practice helps lower health costs by permitting consumers to buy medicines at the lowest world market price, not just at an artificially inflated domestic premium.
Quantcast

Enjoy this story?
Buzz up!
More

* Buzz up!
* Digg
* Facebook
* StumbleUpon
* Reddit

As with today's public option surveys, polls on importation showed strong national support for the concept. So rather than murder the drug legislation outright, congressional leaders joined the Clinton and Bush administrations in backing a "compromise": Importation bills were passed, but only those that gave the secretary of Health and Human Services the power to trigger -- or not trigger -- final implementation. Specifically, the secretary would have to first certify that imported medicines were "safe." (Drug companies promote the lie that Canadian medicine is mortally dangerous -- prompting Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, an importation proponent, to ask, "Where are the dead Canadians?")

This trigger provision, of course, was lobbyists' poison pill -- and it worked as they planned. Importation has never been implemented, as no HHS secretary has pulled the trigger. Hence, Americans are still barred from wholesale importation of lower-priced medicine -- and pharmaceutical industry profiteering continues.

The moral of the story is that triggers are just another version of the old Blue Ribbon Commission trick. They are designed not as good public policy, but as devious political tactics to help dishonest lawmakers look as if they support popular measures -- all while guaranteeing those measures never become reality.

On importation, triggers gave corporatist politicians a way to seem like they were remaining true to their pro-consumer platitudes and "free trade" dogma at the same time they were strengthening an extreme form of anti-consumer protectionism for pharmaceutical companies. On health reform, a trigger will let those same legislators look as if they support a public option that increases insurance competition, reduces costs and therefore delivers on promises to decrease the deficit. But if/when the bill's final language is inevitably designed to make pulling any trigger impossible, it will preclude a public option from ever existing.

If there is any mystery about the trigger subterfuge, it is how anyone can wonder where the idea came from or why it is suddenly so prominent. After all, the same lawmakers and lobbyists who used it to kill importation are currently working to destroy health reform. As just one example, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff pushing a trigger, was previously one of the key congresspeople who portrayed sham importation bills as real progress. (He was also -- not coincidentally -- a huge recipient of health industry cash.)

"The past is never dead," wrote William Faulkner. "It's not even past." As today's trigger proposal shows, that's particularly true when a "change" election preserves the same corrupt forces, cynical tactics and bedeviled details.
By David Sirota

When Honesty is the Best Health Policy

September 13, 2009

(CBS) When Jennifer Wagner, 34, found a lump in her breast six years ago, she headed straight for her doctor.

"I asked him, I said, should I go for a mammogram and he sort of poo-pooed that idea, really just said it would be nonsense to go unless you're 40," Wagner said.

Ten months later, a second doctor also told her there was nothing to worry about, reports CBS News correspondent Priya David. But a year after that, a second lump appeared. The doctors, both affiliated with the sprawling University of Michigan Health System, had made a terrible misdiagnosis.

"The ultra sound technician said, 'This is breast cancer,' and I was just 'Wow,'" Wagner said. After 21 months of it growing, it went from what could have been stage 0 or 1 to stage 3."

Furious, Wagner called malpractice attorney Tom Blaske and they prepared to sue.

"We would have started the war," Blaske said.

But instead of going to court, the University of Michigan Health System did something astounding. It quickly examined the case, admitted it was wrong, offered Wagner a $400,000 settlement and apologized.

"That validation meant more than a million dollars," Wagner said.

"With the other hospitals, you don't get any of that, you just get deny deny, deny, defer, defer, defer," Blaske said.

The policy of honesty and apology started in 2002, and it's proven to be a shrewd business practice for the 40-member hospital system. Since then, claims against the system have dropped from 262 in 2001 to 83 in 2007. Fewer claims have allowed the system to drop its malpractice insurance cash reserves from 73 million to 13 million.

The policy was initiated at the University of Michigan by Rick Boothman, who spent 30 years defending hospitals in malpractice cases.

"It's important to understand that litigation is not a search for the truth," Boothman said. "It is a game. I could have found experts to diminish the importance of that two-year delay in diagnosis, I could have found oncologist to say she's had cancer for 5 or 6 years and that delay made no difference in her staging, but that wouldn't have been true."

And telling the truth has another positive outcome - decreased fear of lawsuits has boosted reporting of negative incidents six times higher.

"There's a general culture that's come about here of being forthright, taking responsibility and meeting it head on," said Dr. John E. McGillicuddy, a neurosurgeon.

A win for the health system and a win for Wagner. Money for the settlement is in a college trust fund for her boys. Now in remission, she is able to enjoy her healthy body today and has peace of mind for her children's future.
By Priya David

Better Nutrition Can Help Prevent Insulin Resistance (Metabolic Syndrome)

September 13, 2009

According to a national health survey, more than 1 in 5 American adults (47 million) and roughly 1 million adolescents have metabolic syndrome (aka: insulin resistance), and the number is rising. The risk of metabolic syndrome increases with age, affecting more than 40% of people in their 60’s and 70’s. Metabolic Syndrome is a group of health risks that significantly increase your chance of developing heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.

Are you at risk? Metabolic syndrome is diagnosed when any 3 of the 5 following conditions are present: 1. Abdominal fat: waist circumference > than 40 (men) or 35 (women) inches. 2. Elevated fasting triglycerides (> 150mg/dL) 3. Low HDL (<> 130/85 mmHg) or taking antihypertensive medication. 5. Diagnosis of insulin resistance or diabetes (fasting glucose > 110 mg/dL).

There is evidence that sub-clinical deficiencies in certain vitamins, minerals and antioxidants can significantly influence the development of insulin resistance (metabolic syndrome) and its symptoms.

Vitamin E affects several symptoms of metabolic syndrome. It inhibits LDL oxidation, slows atherosclerosis, reduces insulin resistance, reduces inflammation and blindness.

There is evidence that Vitamin D3 deficiency may contribute to insulin resistance, which is the precursor to clinical diabetes.

Thiamine (Vitamin B1) is essential for glucose metabolism and insulin production by pancreatic beta-cells.

Niacin (Vitamin B3) lowers total cholesterol, lowers blood triglycerides, increases HDL cholesterol and inhibits the oxidation of LDL cholesterol.

Pyroxidine (Vitamin B6) deficiencies of Vitamin B6 can induce abnormal glucose intolerance. Vitamin B6 has also been shown to reduce blood pressure.

Co-enzyme Q10 is a powerful antioxidant that reduces blood pressure, protects arteries from oxidation of LDL cholesterol and decrease atherosclerotic plaques.

Alpha Lipoic Acid is a powerful antioxidant that improves insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance. It also reduces blood pressure and inhibits vascular inflammatory responses and reduces oxidative stress.

Calcium helps reduce blood pressure and may decrease the risk of obesity by helping to modulate energy metabolism.

Chromium deficiency my lead to impaired glucose tolerance. It plays a critical role in glucose, lipid and protein metabolism. It facilitates the binding of insulin to cells, thus alleviating insulin resistance.

Magnesium is an important co-factor in hundreds of enzymatic reactions in the body including lowering blood pressure and preventing diabetes.

Selenium is an important mineral that is a powerful antioxidant, lowering glucose levels, and blood pressure.

Antioxidants prevent the production of free radicals which can lead to increased oxidation of LDL cholesterol.

There are simple blood tests available that can identify if you are at risk for nutritional deficiencies that can lead to Metabolic Syndrome or other chronic disease conditions.

By: Pamela Egan

Malpractice reform can help build a better health system

September 13, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA was on target in his speech to Congress Wednesday when he called for pilot projects to reform medical malpractice. The medical malpractice system is not the eight-cylinder driver of health costs that its most full-throated critics claim it to be, but it is dysfunctional. The overwhelming majority of patients who suffer from physician errors never get any compensation, and the much-publicized cases with million-dollar judgments do not lead to safer, higher-quality care. The Institute of Medicine has estimated that medical errors of all kinds, not just by physicians, cause 98,000 deaths a year.

But simply capping malpractice awards is not a panacea in reducing health costs. For proof, look at Texas. That state has caps, but the city of McAllen, Texas, has the second-highest per-capita Medicare costs in the nation.

One of the worst features of the current system is that it discourages admission of mistakes by physicians, a surefire way to ensure that hospitals, medical regulatory boards, and doctors themselves never address the underlying conditions behind errors. The fear of being sued also fosters costly defensive medicine, although health analysts find it difficult to distinguish between a test ordered by a doctor for purely defensive reasons and one done out of justified caution.

The Obama administration should give priority to malpractice reform pilot programs that make dispute resolution part of the health delivery system. Even in cases with bad outcomes, patients are much less likely to sue doctors who are part of a coordinated team in which members are striving for - and reminding each other of - the best ways to treat patients.

The most direct way to reduce the cost of malpractice would be health care reform that includes universal insurance. In the absence of such coverage, families dealing with a brain-injured newborn face lifetime care costs in the millions of dollars. Even if the injury is not likely to have been caused by physician error, such families sue in hopes of getting a fat settlement. It’s their only hope for solvency. The United States is an outlier in the extent of its malpractice liability cases because it is the only industrialized country without universal coverage.

Obama had a tactical motive in advocating malpractice-reform projects. Doing so will win him points among doctors and moderate Democrats and Republicans in Congress. But well-designed pilot projects that get at the root causes of medical errors would yield far more than political benefits
By Globe Newspaper Company.