Do you have the "shakes"?

Do you or someone you love have problems with "the shakes" – a condition where your/your loved one's hands, head, or even legs shake uncontrollably?

Some might immediately (mis)diagnose it as Parkinson's disease --or perhaps an emotional disorder (since the tremors would worsen if the person is stressed, nervous, fatigued, or anxious). However, in reality it may be a case of essential tremors -- a tremor caused by no apparent underlying factor. Unfortunately, the tremors don't "become apparent until midlife and then worsens with age."

This condition is a result of a genetic mutation for which there is a 50% chance that it would be passed to the person's offspring. This is the reason it is so important to try to discover our genetic information – we don't have a full picture of ourselves and our loved ones until we see the entire panorama.

There are treatments such as "beta blockers like propranolol, marketed as Inderal, used mainly to control high blood pressure; primidone, found in Mysoline; and topiramate, or Topamax, used mainly to treat epilepsy."

For further information, please reference the Wall Street Journal article, Finding Some Calm After Living With 'the Shakes'

Over 70 and still driving? Read this…

According to a recent study by Yale university researchers, drivers over the age of 70 who did 15 minutes of daily calisthenics (ie. exercises to develop muscular tone) "such as neck and shoulder rotations, arm stretches, and simple walking, maintained and even slightly improved their driving skills compared with drivers who didn’t do the exercises." (Wall Street Journal, Calisthenics may help elderly drive better) "Critical errors, such as changing lanes without looking or disobeying traffic signs, occurred 37% less frequently among those who did the physical conditioning than among those who didn't."

So what does this mean?

Basically, by doing simple daily exercises and staying active, you can keep doing in your 70s, 80s, (and maybe even 90s) what you were doing in your 50s, and 60s. If 40 is the new 20, than 70 is the new 50.

Obama’s health care plan unveiled

Like the plans of other candidates, presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama’s health care plan is "aimed at covering the nearly 45 million uninsured Americans and reducing premium costs for everyone else." (New York Times)

The main points of his plan:

• reliance on the "existing employer-based system and a new government program to make health insurance accessible to everyone"
• reduction in the "cost of health insurance by helping with expenditures for catastrophic illnesses. Ie. the "federal government [would] cushion employers from sudden, disastrous spikes in health expenditures, by reimbursing health plans for the cost of catastrophic illnesses among their employees"
• "new scrutiny and new limits on the profits of the biggest insurance companies"
• Elimination of President Bush's tax cuts for those who make $250K+/yr in 2010, when the tax cuts are up for renewal.
• Employers (with the exception of small businesses) would be required to either cover their employees or "pay the government a set percentage of their payroll to provide it."
• Creation of a "public plan for individuals who cannot obtain group coverage through their employers or the existing government programs"
• "Children would be required to have health insurance."
• "Subsidies would be available for those who need help with the cost of coverage."
• Creation of "National Health Insurance Exchange, a regulated marketplace of competing private health plans intended to give individuals other, more affordable options for coverage. The public plan would compete in that Insurance Exchange."

The main issue other candidates are pointing at, is the fact that Senator Obama's plan does not require every American to have insurance and therefore "is not a true universal health plan."

Looking beyond the promises, the primary issue we should all be looking at is: can the plans be carried out and fulfilled?

Promises are great, but actions are better.

To all those who gave their lives for this country...

WE THANK YOU!

Dear Readers,

Join us today in remembering all the brave men and women who have died protecting us. Whatever your political preference (and whether you believe the wars were right or wrong), today is a day to remember our fallen brothers and sisters.

-The CareTALK Gals

Clinton's new health care agenda

Presidential candidate, Hilary Clinton, unveiled an outline of her health care agenda (the full plan will not be disclosed until later this year) which includes:

• a requirement for insurers that cover federal employees to pay for preventative care. Based on past experience, this practice is expected to spread to the private sector.
• "Cutting payments to private manage-care Medicare plans." Mrs. Clinton believes the "government overpays them to participate."
• "changes in the malpractice arena that would give liability protection to doctors who disclose errors and enter into mediation with injured patients."

Mrs. Clinton's overall plan will also include ideas for improving the quality of health care and a plan for universal health insurance. She has also proposed "insurers be required to sell coverage to anyone who wants it and said companies should be barred from charging sicker people higher premiums."

As the Wall Street Journal stated, this is the "first step" toward her health care agenda; however, we would be extremely interested in the details of her plan. Presidential candidate, John Edwards, has already unveiled his plan for universal health care coverage and Presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, is expected to do the same next week.

The great news is...healthcare is at the top of the democratic candidates' agendas. We've been gouged for too long... Americans will finally get better health care.

Long overdue scrutiny of the Long Term Care providers

According to the New York Times, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is conducting an investigation on how long term care insurance companies handle policyholder claims – and they have begun by asking two of the largest sellers of LTC insurance to produce documents for their investigation.

According to what the committee has uncovered in court documents,

Conseco, Penn Treaty [the two largest LTC insurance sellers] and other insurers developed policies that rejected policyholders’ claims because they had failed to submit unimportant paperwork, filled out the wrong forms after receiving them from the insurance companies or because facilities had been deemed inappropriate even though they were licensed by state regulators. In California alone, nearly one in every four long-term care claims was denied in 2005.

We all need long term care insurance. And when we pay our monthly LTC insurance premiums, we expect our claims to be approved. Imagine, nearly 25% of all LTC claims in California were denied in 2005. 25%! That's ridiculous

It’s about time the federal government has begun to step in – in representation of its people and not in representation of the corporations.

Complete control over our personal heath data

How many of you have had problems getting access to your own health records? If insurance companies, employers, and the government can have access to your own records, why is it so difficult for you to gain access to your own records?

Well, Google is planning to put an end to this inefficiency (one of many) in our health care system.

Adam Bosworth, VP of engineering at Google, gave a speech at the 2007 American Medical Association of Informatics (AMIA) Spring Congress on Tuesday regarding a vision of what we all should expect from our health care system over the next decade (and we believe Google will be the key player in helping this vision become reality).

As Adam said:

This vision for the future of health care starts with the premise that consumers
should own their own total personal health and wellness data (I'll call it PHW
for short) and that only consumers, not insurers, not government, not employers,
and not even doctors, but only consumers, should have complete control over how
it is used. As an additional premise, we believe consumers should have the right
to all data that is about their personal health and wellness in electronic form.

And three principles that are core to the future of health care system are:

Discovery - Consumers should be able to discover the most relevant health information possible

Action - Consumers should have direct access to personalized services to help them get the best and most convenient possible health support

Community - Consumers should be able to learn from and educate those in similar health circumstances and from their health practitioners

It's about time consumers and their needs are put on the forefront in our health care system.

If anyone can realize this vision, Google can! We're with them!

I’m a survivor!

This week's New York Magazine issue features cancer survivors – and their stories of how they beat it/ are beating it. As you read the stories, you feel the pathos, but you also feel their will to live. Cancer is not a death sentence anymore. You CAN beat it ... as so many have proven time and time again.

And these survivors are proud to call themselves exactly that -- survivors. The video above is a behind-the-scenes look at a gathering in Central Park to which cancer survivors where invited to attend and share their stories.

143 survivors attended.

143 survivors came together to share their stories and to listen to those of other survivors.

Because no two stories are alike.

Cancer is no longer for "older" people. Over 40% of those who attended the gathering are under the age of 40. No one is immune to cancer. Cancer is indiscriminate – it doesn't matter if you are healthy, or what race/age/sex you are, or your sexual preference. Anyone can be diagnosed with cancer. One of the attendees is a three year old!

But there is hope.

Cancer is no longer a death sentence. And those diagnosed with cancer need to have the will be live and a positive attitude. It can be done! It will be done!

We congratulate New York Magazine for this cover story and presenting it in a savvy, urbane, and positive manner. But most of all, we congratulate the survivors for surviving their cancer.

Diet Soda is okay... isn't it?

We can all agree that soda in general is not a "healthy" drink – though, in moderation, it's not too bad -- especially if we drink diet soda. But what about the consequences of those who are addicted to diet soda (such as Bill Clinton, Elton John) -- like many people are addicted to coffee? Are there side effects (if not now, then later down the road) from drinking too much diet soda?

According to some nutritionist experts, "There is some evidence that the acid load of soda, regular or diet, has an adverse affect on bone health." This is not to say we can't drink a can or two per day – but there are reports where people drink up to 12 cans or multiple 2 liter bottles during the day.

Now think about it. As we age, we tend to lose bone density - especially women which is why there is a higher number of osteoporosis in women than in men. Why would we aid in the aging process? Why drink in such excess? After all, overindulgence in any one particular item is not healthy.

Sicko

The much anticipated (and for many, much dreaded) new documentary by Michael Moore premiered on Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival. And from the reviews that have been written, Sicko promises to cause much debate.

We all know Mr. Moore is very politically opinionated and is not a fan (to put it mildly) of the Bush administration and the corporations/pharmaceuticals that support (monetarily) those in Washington. However, as Mr. Moore says himself, the problems with the US healthcare system transcend all party lines -- after all, we all have health care problems. And let's face it, how many of us are happy with our health insurance or with the way the US health care system is? As mentioned in yesterday's posting, the US has a higher infant death rate than most other developed nations and ranks 45th in average life expectancy. How about the fact that about 47 million Americans are without health insurance – and those who do have it, are sometimes denied coverage for certain treatments/medications despite the fact they pay outrageous premiums?

In the film, two healthcare whistle-blowers say "The point of the system is to treat as few people as possible as cheaply as possible, and those who get ahead in the healthcare industry are those who find ever more devious ways to deny coverage. (For example, you can now be denied for certain preexisting conditions you didn't know about, on the premise that you should have known about them.)" (Salon.com)

Should have known about preexisting conditions? How would you even know unless you went to the doctor and had a series of tests performed (which you would think are covered under the health insurance you are paying high monthly premiums for)? It is these cases that Mr. Moore focuses on -- "the horror stories of middle-class working folks who believed they were adequately covered."

So what is Mr. Moore hoping to accomplish with this film?

"Moore is trying to rouse Americans to action on an issue most of us agree about, at least superficially." (Salon.com)

It is time we demand an end to the inefficiencies of our health care system. Let's make a statement by watching this film which opens in the US on June 29th!

Links to Sicko reviews:
"Sicko" (Salon.com)

Michael Moore Gets Ready to Rumble (Time.com)

Sicko is Socko (Time.com)

"Best health care system in the world today"

Many politicians – past and current, from both parties- have used this phrase when describing the health care system in the United States.

How can anyone suggest the US health care system is the best in the world? How many articles have there been to the contrary? How many millions of Americans are there with no health insurance while other countries are able to provide universal health care to their people? According to a prominent ethicist at the National Institutes of Health, "Americans' average life expectancy of 78 ranks 45th in the world, behind Bosnia and Jordan. And the U.S. infant death rate is 6.37 per 1,000 live births, higher than that of most developed nations."

Our politicians need to stop ignoring the facts and saying everything is peachy. We need a plan to action -- not just rosy words. The United States has the resources to have the best health care system in the world -- however, we need to use these resources efficiently (and stop giving the pharmaceuticals a windfall). It is time the politicians take care of its people -- and not just the corporations and pharmas.

The dysfunction on the health care system in this country is the topic of Michael Moore's new film, Sicko. (Check back tomorrow for more on this film).

Tagging Alzheimer's Patients?

A very serious debate is occurring down in Florida (yes, again). The issue now: embedding Alzheimer's patients at an adult-care facility with an identity chip that contains the patient's medical records which can be scanned should they be taken to the emergency room.

Aside from the risk (the chips need to be embedded into the person's skin and one risk would be the body's adverse reaction to it), many are questioning whether it is ethically correct.

According to the article "Do Chip Implants Protect or Violate Privacy?," the facility seeks the permission of family members or the patients themselves, if they are deemed competent, before they embed the chip. However, many are concerned that the patients will be enrolled in a "potentially risky study without their consent". And that may be the problem at the heart of it - embedding this particular chip is still an experiment - one that has not been reviewed by a review board yet.

As one person pointed out, there are other less invasive methods of taking your medical records with you.

Face-lift in a jar?

We all know there are dozens (if not hundreds) of creams promising to turn back the hands of time and reduce those unwanted wrinkles - basically, a face-lift in a jar. Can there be a cream that delivers what it promises (or is it just hype)?

According to some British dermatologists, a new product developed by chemist Steve Barton, Boots No.7, visibly reduces fine lines. (Don't all creams state they reduce fine lines?) And now, it has recently been made available in the United States (the product is carried by Target under the name: No. 7 Restore and Renew). However the question is still whether this is all just hype.

"The BBC's science program 'Horizon' investigated claims by various cosmetic companies to work magic... and concluded that most slimming gels, hair tonics and anti-aging creams are completely ineffective. But she[the reporter] supported the research on Boots No. 7 Protect and Perfect serum."

Of course, some people swear by it --- but don't fool yourselves. According to a dermatologist, the cream "won't decrease worry lines caused by too much facial activity. No cream is going to help those. For deep lines you need Botox or laser rejuvenation. And sun cream must also be used."

But at $19.99 at Target (or £16.75 a bottle at Boots), this isn't such a bad investment – at least to try it out. If it works and wrinkles are reduced, great! If not, then at least you'll have baby soft skin!

90-day warranty for your surgery

Well, it has come to this: a hospital system that is selling a 90-day warranty for the surgeries they perform (at the moment, just heart bypass surgery).

Under the typical system, missing an antibiotic or giving poor instructions when a patient is released from the hospital results in a perverse reward: the chance to bill the patient again if more treatment is necessary. As a result, doctors and hospitals have little incentive to ensure they consistently provide the treatments that medical research has shown to produce the best results.

Researchers estimate that roughly half of American patients never get
the most basic recommended treatments — like an aspirin after a heart attack,
for example, or antibiotics before hip surgery. (New York Times)

Under the program/ warranty called ProvenCare which began last year, doctors under the Geisinger Health System have to follow 40 essential steps prior to any bypass surgery. The results of the first year were released last month at a meeting at the American Surgical Association. The results were overall very positive: in-hospital mortality decreased to 0% from 1.5%, readmissions to ICU decreased from 2.9% to .9%, etc.

While we commend the fact that the Geisinger Health System is trying to "get it right" the first time they perform a surgery so as to reduce health care costs, our question is: why not do this to begin with without having to charge insurers and employers an extra charge for this warranty? The warranty sounds great, but the costs will eventually trickle down to those insured (via higher premium health insurance rates). Why should the insured carry the burden of this warranty? Shouldn't hospitals want to give the best pre- and post- treatment to their patients?

Techno-doping?

The New York Times has a very thought provoking article, "Debate on Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled?" regarding an ongoing debate in the world's Track and Field arena. A double amputee is seeking to become the first amputee runner to compete in the Olympics. Using a pair of "j-shaped blades" as his "feet," Oscar Pistorius has already won the 100 and 200 meters events in the Paralympic World Cup and is on pace to qualify for the 4X400 meter relay representing South Africa in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

However the debate is:
"Do prosthetic legs simply level the playing field for Pistorius, compensating for his disability, or do they give him an inequitable edge via what some call techno-doping? "

Who would have thought that being a double amputee could be considered an advantage? Due to modern technology, this is now the case.

The world governing body for track and field argues that they cannot accept "something that provides advantages" (ie. Mr. Pistorius’s prosthetic limbs) and have urged him to focus on the Paralympics because "it affects the purity of sport. Next will be another device where people can fly with something on their back."

With all due respect, how can prosthetic limbs be compared to, what the governing body is in essence describing as, a rocket backpack? We would understand the governing body's concern if the prosthetic feet had, perhaps, a rocket or propeller attached to them. But this is not the case. Even with the prosthetic feet, Mr. Pistorius needs to train hard - like other athletes - if not more.

An associate professor who has studies amputee runners asks, "Are they looking at not having an unfair advantage? Or are they discriminating because of the purity of the Olympics, because they don't want to see a disabled man line up against an able-bodied man for fear that if the person who doesn't have the perfect body wins, what does that say about the image of man?"

This is a very interesting point. And one that the International Olympic committee should consider, should they decide to intervene.

Why shouldn't Mr. Pistorius be given a chance to compete in the Olympics? As he says, "There's nothing I can't do that able-bodied athletes can do." With hard work and dedication, you can accomplish anything you set you mind to -- Isn't this what alway preach, especially to our children?

Even if he doesn't win a medal, the fact that he competed and was in a group with the best in the world will be extremely motivational to others who are disabled. It will send out the message: YOU CAN DO IT!

Hope for family caregiver in NY State

Did you know that no one - not spouses, children, parents - can make decisions about life sustaining treatment (or even look at medical records) for incapacitated patients – unless the patients has a living will, or health care proxy? Even worse, they aren't even allowed to move the patient to a hospice.

According to the New York Times, The Family Health Care Decisions Act, if passed, will allow family members (or close surrogates), after a "decent" process, to make choices regarding life sustaining treatment. "Those decisions must reflect as nearly as possible the patient's wishes, taking into account moral and religious beliefs. Where those wishes are unknown, decisions would be made in the patient's best interests." With this measure, NY will follow in the footsteps of most other states who already allow family members to make healthcare decisions for their incapacitated loved ones.

This is desperately needed because, unfortunately, the majority of the population does not have living wills or health care proxies – especially the younger population. CareTALK tries to educate and encourage you to get a living will or a health proxy so that there is no question as to what your end-of-life wishes are. In addition, your loved ones are grieving enough if you become incapacitated – don't put additional stress on them by having them guess what you would have wanted. Get a living will.

We sincerely hope Gov. Spitzer can help break this 15-year-old stalemate so as to allow family members in NY to act as decision makers for patients unable to direct their own care.

Sometimes nagging is a good thing

Ladies how many of you have had to push your husbands to go visit the doctor? Men, how many of you would do anything else BUT go to the doctor?

One might laugh at the age old difference between men and women – but this can be a serious matter. "Because men put off going to the doctor, they typically are diagnosed with diseases at a later stage when they are more serious and difficult to treat. And that has major implications for a woman's long-term well-being. Seven out of 10 female baby boomers will outlive their husbands and can expect to be widows for 15 to 20 years. More than half of the elderly widows living in poverty today weren't poor before the death of their husbands, according to the U.S. Administration on Aging." (Wall Street Journal, Health Matters).

According to the Wall Street Journal, when men finally do go to the doctor, it's as if they feel they need to hide behind "their wife made them make an appointment."

Why is this? Do men think going to the doctor is not manly? Do they not care about their health? Even if they didn't, they should at least care enough about their families to care for their own health. Perhaps this is the reason why typically it is the woman caring for her husband – and rarely the husband caring for his wife.

The fashion and healthcare worlds collide

Aren't you tired of wearing those hospital gowns that leaves your backside all exposed? One would have thought that by now, those gowns would have changed... maybe gotten a redesign so that they are less intimidating?

How about changing the way hospitals treat patients? Wouldn't patients heal faster when alternative medicine is combined with traditional medicine? Perhaps prescribing some "nutritious meals, yoga lesson[s], and alternative therapies" in addition to the prescription pills and bed rest?

Well, these are some of the dreams of one of today's most influential top designers...

Donna Karan.

Ms. Karan, an unexpected caregiver to her husband, Mr. Stephan Weiss, has started the Urban Zen Initiative out of her frustration by the treatment even the best medical facilities gave her late husband. (Mr. Weiss fought a brave battle with lung cancer -- a surprise diagnosis considering he was a nonsmoker.) As a result of her experience, she wants to revolutionize alternative medicine by having it play a more prominent role in helping treat patients in hospitals. Her mission:

...to create a working environment where the worlds of conventional and alternative medical practices unite to invent new ways of healing, health and well-being for all of us. We must treat the patient with the same passion with which we fight the disease.

To that end, next week Ms. Karan will be hosting "Urban Zen Initiative's Well-Being Forum, a gathering of some of the nation's leading physicians and practitioners of alternative medicine." Also on her "to do" list, redesigning the hospital gowns.

You go, girl! We wish Ms. Karan the best of luck!

More conflicts…

We had previously written how a study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicated that “94 percent of more than 3,000 physicians surveyed reported some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry" which could be something as simple as receiving free pens to "receiving payments for consulting, giving lectures and even enrolling their patients in trials."

It turns out that payments to doctors is estimated to total hundreds of millions of dollars per year - and these payments have risen due to competition between drug makers - especially Amgen and Johnson & Johnson. In fact, The New York Times has uncovered (from documents given to the paper) that Amgen paid a group of six doctors in a medical practice $2.7 million for prescribing $9M worth of its drug for anemia patients last year. Imagine... the doctors were basically receiving almost 30% commission for the anemia drug they prescribed. As if this wasn't bad enough, the FDA released a report yesterday stating there was "no evidence indicated that the medicines either improved quality of life in patients or extended their survival, while several studies suggested that the drugs can shorten patients’ lives when used at high doses." To add further conflict, not only do these doctors gets payments from the pharma companies, but then they also receive reimbursements from Medicare – often at a price over what the doctor paid.

According to Amgen, these payments "were a normal commercial practice." Even though it's a "common" practice, does that mean this shouldn't be changed?

NO!

These payments should be deemed illegal – for the good of everyone in this country --- especially considering that doctors receive even higher payments if they agree to exclusively use the company's drug.

This needs to stop.

Cries for help from small business owners and those self-employed

We all know health insurance premiums are absurdly high--- and they keep getting higher each year. For some large corporations who employ hundreds, if not thousands, of employees, this is a major expense in their books. If large corporations have problems with the high cost of insurance premiums, what are small businesses and those self-employed to do?

The article in the New York Times, "Small Businesses’ Premiums Soar After Illness" addresses this issue. An added challenge is that many states allow "insurers to raise health premiums substantially for small employers when one worker incurs significant medical bills." So basically, either you (as a business owner) don't offer health insurance to your employees or you hope that your employees don't get seriously sick/injured (Ironically, you pay premiums so that your employees are protected should they become seriously sick/injured—that's what health insurance is for to begin with.).

According to federal census data, "small-business employees are one of the fastest-growing segments of the nation's 44 million uninsured; they now represent at least 20 percent of the total."

This is an issue that needs to be addressed in the presidential campaigns. The media focuses on the low income and children, and young adults who are uninsured -- however, the attention should also be focused on the small businesses who can’t afford to offer health insurance to their employees.

Taking a stand on overpriced pharmaceuticals

We already know how ridiculously high some brand name drugs are in the United States. Now countries that import these drugs are taking a stand - specifically, Brazil is taking a stand against Merck's anti-retroviral AIDS drug. Brazil's president signed a compulsory license allowing Brazil to break the patent Merck hold for this specific drug. (According to rules established under the Word Trade Organization, these licenses allow a country to "manufacture or buy generic versions of patented drugs while paying the patent holder only a small royalty" in cases of a health emergency or abusive pricing by pharmaceutical companies.)

Some may argue this is against rules and regulations, others may same it is against the spirit of capitalism. However, Brazil is not the first country to have done this. Thailand had previously "moved to override patents on three anti-AIDS drugs, including those made by Abbott Laboratories and Merck."

Isn't this a wakeup call to the pharmaceutical companies that their days of high prices are over? Just because they can charge high prices in the US due to a president who is biased in their favor, it does not mean they can do it internationally – especially with countries who WANT to help their low income people. As the president of Brazil said, "Between our trade and our health [interests], we chose to protect our health."

After numerous meetings with Merck and Merck's refusal to lower the cost per pill further (Merck was offering to lower the anti-retroviral AIDS pill to $1.10 per pill), Brazil decided on signing the compulsory license because "the price is unjust considering it can acquire the drug for $0.45 from generic manufacturers." Just imagine ... Brazil can acquire it for $.45 yet Merck wants to sell it to them for $1.10 -- almost 2.5 times the price they would pay if they acquired it from generic manufacturers!

Perhaps more countries – and us in the US – should take a stand against the high prices of pharmaceuticals.

A change in course?

More specifically, a change in course of the State Children's Health Insurance program?

According to the Wall Street Journal article, "Republicans Hit Health-Care Rift," President Bush’s 2008 budget will not "cover the cost of S-chip's current enrollment, and program coverage for adults would be rolled back in about a dozen states." Originally, the program had allowed states to enroll the parents of children of working families just above the poverty line in order to encourage uninsured children to join the program. Of course, this allowance was implemented by President Bush after being criticized during the 2000 election for the slowness in helping the uninsured children in his home state get affordable health care coverage. In addition, Democrats want to increase the funds allocated to this program this coming October when the program is due for an extension --but President Bush wants to cut back and promote private- sector insurance alternatives.

Granted, as with everything in healthcare, the program costs keep increasing every year. However, the solution is not to take these funds away from the uninsured children. Perhaps the individual states could contribute some more (say 50%?) to help pay for these programs (perhaps with more state taxes??)--states such as Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, California, Mississippi which are the top 10 states with a high percentage of uninsured children.

Whichever the solution, the bottom line is that the children should not be the ones to suffer.

Tired of taking pills for osteoporosis? No problem…

Soon, there may be an option to replace those weekly or monthly pills with a once-a year- injection of zoledronic acid--which according to a study has been proven to reduce "spine fractures by 70 percent and hip fractures by 41 percent over a three-year period. ... results [that] are similar to those obtained from current osteoporosis drugs."

Is this the new miracle drug for osteoporosis? Perhaps. But be warned, like all drugs, this too has side effects – most notably, a higher risk of atrial fibrillation, a type of abnormal heart rhythm. However, experts also state that this side effect may "be common to all bisphosphonates [ie. pills such as Boniva that are used to treat osteoporosis], but it's too early to tell."

Why the focus on osteoporosis?

"According to the 2004 Report of the Surgeon General on Bone Health and Osteoporosis, half of women over 50 years old will break a bone due to osteoporosis in their lifetimes." In addition, it is estimated that 44 million American women and men aged 50 or older are affected by osteoporosis and low bone mass.

Therefore, make sure you ask your doctor about this treatment if you suffer from osteoporosis. Be sure to also ask whether this treatment is covered by health insurance and/or Medicare.

Humanity in medicine

Doctors are not all bad--- and it's not all about the money. For some , it's the feeling of satisfaction that comes from helping people.

The New York Times has a wonderful, heartfelt article, "A Meal, a Smile, a Word: Thanks in a Thousand Ways" written by a doctor describing the feeling of satisfaction he received after helping those in medical need --- and how he valued the Thank You's he would receive from his patients and family members, whether it was a smile, a hug, or fortune cookies with special messages of gratitude.

Perhaps more doctors should read this and take a close look as to the real reason they became a doctor.