Entries Tagged as 'Health'

Drug Drop Off

This weekend the Office of Diversion Control, part of the US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has organized a free way to dispose of pharmaceuticals that you might have around your home that have expired or that you no longer need.

In cooperation with a number of local law enforcement agencies, drop off locations will be available for the proper disposal of pharmaceuticals.

The drop off locations will not accept injectable drugs, IV medications, or anything involving needles — plus the DEA has stated that “illicit substances such as marijuana or methamphetamine” are not included in it’s collection program.

I really don’t understand why the program did not include illicit substances (seems like a good thing to get off the street), and certainly (like most any pharmaceutical) you don’t want people flushing illicit substances down the toilet or throwing them in the trash.

I can understand the limitation on needles and such — but would it have been so hard for them to have collection containers and remove all the limitations.

Office of Diversion Control

Originally posted 2010-09-26 02:00:04.

Michele Bachmann – an ideological loony tune

Rep Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) made a statement on CNN’s “The Situation Room” (hosted by Wolf Blitzer) that’s being reported by virtually every news outlet today.

She’s saying she lost her health care coverage (because of Obamacare — but she didn’t provide any hard reason) and refuses to use the exchange because it’s glitchy — but here’s the interesting thing: she states in her argument that it’s the DC exchange (that’s not the same thing as HealthCare.gov — the national exchange for states that didn’t want to invest in their own exchange — DC actually operates it’s own exchange).

If you watch the video (linked below), you’ll also notice she’s obviously reading from a teleprompter — her eyes are fixed on something other than the hosts she’s talking to.

The best quote:

I’m not gonna waste an hour on that thing.
· Michelle Bachmann

That’s fine with me; she can just pay the IRS fines for not complying with the new law (the law that the Supreme Court has already ruled is constitutional) and continue to be a burden on society (something she appears to be very good at).

While I’ll be one of the first to rant on how botched the roll out of the national health care exchange has been; I’ll also quickly point out that states had the option of coming up with their own exchanges, and the ones that did aren’t having anywhere near the number of issues.  I personally didn’t care for the health care reform, my feeling was that we needed to implement a single payer system much more like what Canada has (but that didn’t happen because health care dollars line the pockets of too many senators and representatives).

I’ll be honest, I think Michele Bachmann is crazy (and probably should be in a padded room), but this is just absolutely ridiculous — get over it, and vent on your insurance company, they’re the real villains in all this.

Bachmann: I lost health insurance

Originally posted 2013-11-15 13:00:25.

When American big business is behind something…

I’ve been around the block a few times, and I tend to pay attention.

One thing that’s almost an invariant in the world is that if American big business is behind legislation it’s because it serves their own interest and greed — not the public interest.

The only thing American big business cares about the public for is finding new ways to milk money from them and insure that the public pay more than their share of taxes.

With very few exceptions American business (and the ultra-rich American’s that run those businesses) are self-serving, and only looking out for their interests and profits.  They are motivated by greed.

So when the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, large hospitals, and health care industry get behind a plan that doesn’t seem to improve anything for the American public it should be clear to everyone who they’re looking to improve things for.

The real problem in America is that special interest groups run the country; and almost all politicians who’ve been in office more than two terms (and most presidents) cater to their interests and don’t want to really change the status quo.

Those who are elected to serve the public interest actually serve no interests but their own!

– Caveat civis –

Originally posted 2010-03-13 02:00:48.

5 Tips To Help You Get A Closer Shave

5 TIPS TO HELP YOU GET A CLOSER SHAVE

by Mike Markel, June 19, 2013

5 Tips To Help You Get A Closer Shave

Most guys learned how to shave in their late teens and never had the opportunity to pick up proper shaving techniques, leading to the development of bad habits early on. If you’re a victim of razor burn, ingrown hairs, or nicks and cuts, we’re here to tell you that a proper shave is only a few steps away. In fact, it’s easier and less expensive than you may think. Throw out your notions of costly gels, eight-blade razors, and overpowering aftershave. Just follow the steps below for the closest, most comfortable shave you’ve had in years. Our tips will save you time and money so you can get on with your day and concentrate on the things that matter.

Step 1: The Pre-Wash

One of the most important steps for a close shave is the pre-wash. While you’re in the shower, be sure to wash your face thoroughly with a deep-cleaning product to remove oil and dirt from your pores. The deep clean helps to prepare your face for the shave and also softens the whiskers, reducing irritation.

Step 2: Choosing the Right Shaving Cream

The proper shaving cream is essential for a smooth routine. These days, you can find everything from the basic $2 foam-based creams your grandfather used to $50 luxury products infused with expensive oils and ingredients. Get rid of the idea that you need an expensive cream to get the most from your shave. Pick up a mid-range cream and it will work just fine. If you’re spending any more than $10, you’re paying too much. Work the cream into a lather and apply liberally to your face.

Step 3: The Razor

Say goodbye to razors with eight blades, batteries, and expensive replacement cartridges; all you need is a good old-fashioned two-blade razor with a gel comfort strip. The reason? While multiple blades may seem like a better option, the combo can actually lead to irritated skin and rob your wallet. We use the standard two-blade razor and sharpen it using an old pair of blue jeans to keep the blade straight and free of imperfections. A pack of two-bladed razors has an average cost of $6 to $8 and will last you for months if you take care of them properly, whereas a pack of multi-blade cartridges will cost you an average of $25 to $30.

Start with your cheeks and work your way toward your chin with short, even downward strokes. The key is to let the razor do the majority of the work. If you press too hard, you’ll either nick your skin or cause irritation. For the closest shave, carefully run the razor against the grain in areas that have remaining stubble. Be sure to clean your razor properly after each use. Run it under hot water until all the extra whiskers and debris are removed.

Step 4: The Post-Shave Face Steam

Once you’ve finished shaving, it’s time to clean those pores again. By now the pores have probably closed due to the temperature of the water or air in your bathroom, and a gentle reopening will ensure that any remaining dirt or oil is eliminated. Fill your sink with hot water and drop a washcloth in. Swirl the washcloth around until it’s soaked through and wring it out. Apply the washcloth to your face by either dabbing your skin or covering your face completely. Your face should feel refreshed and free of dirt and oil.

Step 5: Moisturizing

Last but not least, we need to protect all our handiwork. Choosing a moisturizer may seem like a complicated task, but many brands offer all-in-one solutions for men. Pick a moisturizer that has several features including SPF protection and mattifying technology. The SPF protection will ensure that your skin doesn’t suffer any further sun damage, and the mattifying formula will absorb oil from your forehead and nose.

All in all, this entire routine costs less than $2 a day if you’re the type of guy who shaves daily—not even that much if you shave every other day. Follow the routine for a week and we guarantee that you’ll have a closer, more enjoyable shave than you’ve had in years.

Originally posted 2013-10-12 12:00:00.

Comparison of Canadian and American health care systems

There are a number of comparisons between the Canadian and US health care systems; and like with any complex issue you can make the comparison show almost anything you want depending on the metrics chosen for the comparison and the facts included (or omitted).

Often the Canadian and American systems are compared since until the 1960s they were extremely similar, and Canadian and Americans share a large common history and to some extent culture.

This comparison on Wikipedia appears to be an honest attempt to compare and contrast the two systems, it includes a number of citations.  I recommend reading it, and considering what it has to say in light of the the current state health care in the US.

Comparison of Canadian and American health care systems

Originally posted 2010-03-16 13:03:11.

Deep Throat

I watched a documentary called Inside Deep Throat — and I found it far more interesting than I think I ever found the movie.

The documentary talks about the changes occurring on the sexual landscape of America… while the sixties might have been referred to as the sexual revolution, it was really the early seventies where the battle of sexual expression was waged.

The movie was a landmark in many respects — but it’s success really had little to do with the quality of the movie, but rather the legal battles it caused — even though a presidential (appointed by Richard M Nixon) commission had already recommended that laws controlling pornography be repealed since they were largely unenforceable and that pornography caused no real risk to adults.

Watergate was only one of Nixon’s lies.

Sure the movie broke a great deal of new ground in film in general and porno specifically… but what it really broke was political and social stigma.

The trial in New York City (Judge Tyler ruled the file “obscene”) and an article in The New York Times catapulted the movie to the most profitable movie ever — $600 million US for a movie that originally cost only $25,000 to make.

The movie was eventually outlawed in 23 states; and the FBI harassed the director, producer, financiers, and theater owners.

Nixon’s four appointed Supreme Court Justices gave censorship a leg up; initially the feminist movement and the “protect our children” radicals supported the ban on expressive file; but steadily community standards changed possibly because of the VCR (and later DVD) and individuals began to demand their freedom of expression.

In most part of the country today individuals are free to choose; but believe me, there are still backward places that attempt to legislate morality — oppression controlled by the radical Christian right.


Below is a summary of court cases revolving around obscenity.

1957 Roth v. US – the Supreme Court defined obscene material is that which lacks any “redeeming social importance.”  The Supreme court combined the cases wof Roth v. US and Alberts v. California.

1964 Jacobellis v. Ohio – the Supreme Court reverses a state obscenity ruling, but issues four separate opinions laying the ground work for confusions.

1966 Memoirs v. Massachusetts – the Supreme Court attempts to better define the ruling in Roth v. US.  A work had to be proved by censors to: 1) appeal to prurient interest, 2) be patently offensive, and 3) have no redeeming social value.

1973 Miller v. California – the Supreme Court reinforces that obscenity was not protect by the First Amendment and established the Miller test but acknowledged “the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression,” and said that “State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited.” 1) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and 3) “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

1973 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton – the Supreme Court upheld a state court’s injunction against the showing of obscene films in a movie theatre restricted to consenting adults; however, the Court differentiated the case from 1969 Stanley v. Georgia.

1990 FW/PBS v. City of Dallas – the Supreme Court ruled the city ordinance attempting to regulate “expressive businesses” as unconstitutional.

1999 Free Speech Coalition v. Reno – the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against section 2556(8) of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)  stating 1) the statue is not content-neutral and aims to curb specific expression; 2) the statute was not in line with Supreme Court decisions which have held that states can only criminalize child pornography when the laws “limit the offense to works that visually depict explicit sexual conduct by children below a specified age” – something the CPPA failed to do; 3) no demonstrated link to harm to real children has been demonstrated; and 4) the language is too vague and over-broad, allowing for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Originally posted 2010-09-21 02:00:41.

Improving Oral Health For Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease Or Related Disorders (ADRD)

This information is copied from Our Dental Care BLOG (please see the note at the end of this post for additional information, please visit their site to read the entire post — complete with additional reference links):

In their 2016 report, the Alzheimer’s Association found that a staggering 5.4 million Americans are currently suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or related disorders (ADRD). This number is projected to skyrocket to 16 million by 2050, the most pressing epidemic for our aging population.
While it’s alarming that someone develops Alzheimer’s every minute in the United States today, this rate has the potential to double by 2050. The rapidly increasing presence of such a debilitating disease raises serious concerns regarding healthcare costs and the availability of effective treatment options. As a result, we are already seeing inadequacies in dental care for patients with Alzheimer’s.
Poor training and strained communication are among the most prominent reasons dental pain among nursery home residents with Alzheimer’s goes undetected, and therefore untreated.
But the problem is a multi-faceted dilemma, one that will require the awareness and cooperation of patients, caregivers and dental professionals to overcome.

I’ve added this post by request to assist in helping individuals locate resources.  You should see the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy on the site before making any decision on whether or not to use it’s services.

Originally posted 2017-02-22 14:19:20.

Alzheimer’s and cell phones

This article appears on the Reuters news service (similar articles on the topic are available from a number of other media source)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A study in mice suggests using cellphones may help prevent some of the brain-wasting effects of Alzheimer’s disease, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.

After long-term exposure to electromagnetic waves such as those used in cell phones, mice genetically altered to develop Alzheimer’s performed as well on memory and thinking skill tests as healthy mice, the researchers wrote in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.

The results were a major surprise and open the possibility of developing a noninvasive, drug-free treatment for Alzheimer’s, said lead author Gary Arendash of the University of South Florida.

He said he had expected cell phone exposure to increase the effects of dementia.

“Quite to the contrary, those mice were protected if the cell phone exposure was stared in early adulthood. Or if the cellphone exposure was started after they were already memory- impaired, it reversed that impairment,” Arendash said in a telephone interview.

Arendash’s team exposed the mice to electromagnetic waves equivalent to those emitted by a cellphone pressed against a human head for two hours daily over seven to nine months.

At the end of that time, they found cellphone exposure erased a build-up of beta amyloid, a protein that serves as a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.

The Alzheimer’s mice showed improvement and had reversal of their brain pathology, he said.

“It (the electromagnetic wave) prevents the aggregation of that bad protein of the brain,” Arendash said. “The findings are intriguing to us because they open up a whole new field in neuroscience, we believe, which is the long-term effects of electromagnetic fields on memory.”

Arendash said his team was modifying the experiment to see if they could produce faster results and begin testing humans.

Despite decades of research, there are few effective treatments and no cure for Alzheimer’s, the most common form of dementia. Many treatments that have shown promise in mice have had little effect on humans.

More than 35 million people globally will suffer from Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia in 2010, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.

There has been recent controversy about whether electromagnetic waves from cellphones cause brain cancer.

Co-author Chuanhai Cao said the mice study is more evidence that long-term cellphone use is not harmful to the brain.

Groups such as the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, and the National Institutes of Health, have all concluded that scientific evidence to date does not support any adverse health effects associated with the use of cellphones.

By JoAnne Allen Joanne Allen – Thu Jan 7, 7:39 am ET; Editing by Alan Elsner

I will point out that this is a just study (done on mice), and you need to consider that there may be effects from cell phones that aren’t beneficial.  In addition, one would have to conclude that if you use a headset the radiation effect from the cell phone on your brain would be greatly diminished.

This is not the first time Gary Arendash has had theories on Alzheimer’s published by the news media.

Originally posted 2010-01-13 02:00:32.

Off Shore Drilling

For years the oil and gas companies have been telling us (the American public) how safe off shore drilling is, and they’ve been trying to convince us that they have contingencies for anything that might happen, and that there’s no substantial risk to our environment.

Well, take a look at the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the relatively tame Gulf of Mexico and the inability of the world’s largest oil company to stop (or even really slow) a huge oil leak and consider who ill prepared the oil companies would be to handle a spill anything like this is the Gulf of Alaska (or any place near the Artic) in the middle of the Winter — or what could happen in the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic seaboard during hurricane season.

Yes, I think it’s a travesty that the Federal Government didn’t have any contingency plans for oil spills of this magnitude — but don’t point a finger at the current administration; you’ll find that’s been years and years in the making (and least you forget, we just had an “oil and gas man” in the Whitehouse for eight years), but in the end, it is the industry itself that is ultimately responsible for the impact of their decisions to use such a small amount of their profits to insure the safety of their endeavors — and it is the companies that should be made to pay for the damages they’ve caused.

Damages to the coastal ecosystem of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida are increasing hourly as BP does little to stem the disaster — except possibly try and contain the public relations damage.  While BP stock is down 40%, first quarter 2010 saw record profits — and in the end, I suspect BP will find a way to pass all the costs and loses onto consumers and reward their investors.  BP CEO Tony Hayward has already assured investors that the company has “considerable firepower” to cope wit the severe costs… but missing are statements to the world that they’ll commit the “firepower” it’ll take resolve this disaster.

Bottom line, perhaps rather than increasing the leases for off-shore drilling it’s time to pull back all the currently unused leases and start heavily fining the oil and gas industry for any and all violations.

NASA Satellites’ View of Gulf Oil Spill

Originally posted 2010-06-07 02:00:25.

Debunking Canadian health care myths

The following is an except from a Denver Post opinion article by Rhonda Hackett (a clinical psychologist born in Canada, living in the US)

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada’s taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada’s health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada’s GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada’s. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada’s government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don’t get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists’ care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not “socialized medicine” but “social insurance” systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren’t enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

Originally posted 2010-03-10 02:00:43.