This is just like everything else happening in North American society; have a noble goal and a "good reason" to let that toe into the waters of private information and control then BAMM you aren't allowed to do that why not go for the real goal(total control) in the start? Afterall state congress just allowed all the wiretapping (any the gov't wants) (1) to increase. Great to see that everyone loses rights. Unless the people start to realize that no matter what the reason for loss of rights it is still wrong to lose them.
I guess all Or most (ok so maybe not Dr Siegel) "health prevention professionals" will continue to jump up and down based on links to the problems (without actually finding out what the real reason for the problem). Where is the outrage, to the reality slap that makes people realize that soon the former USSR is at our doorstep, and that socialism isn't as great as communism? Even if there is only one step between the socialism and communism, losing the rights that "western societies" once held a army to protect, thats a step that shouldn't be seen in North America.
The ability to make mistakes, but still be responsible for your own life (not the gov't being responsible) and stopping the "link" (notice the cause is never mentioned) of chronic disease, is a free society. Strange that that we don't ever want a cause, but just the "link" is good enough, to allow people to think its for their own "good". Allowing gov't control (socialism), and not hold the people who do the actions be responsible, is never a benefit to society. No matter how many times they say there's benefits to more gov't control over the people.
(1) http://www.cdt.org/headlines/1035
This just proves our point further....your cause Doc was NEVER about health (regardless of what you claim), but about demonizing, discriminating and punishing those who have the audacity to enjoy or do something you don't like.
In other words, persecution and discrimination are now sanctioned under the guise of "health" by the medical community AND governments. All of which results in a loss of freedom for those groups and that will eventually expand to all people as they continually add to the list.
And to think, all this just because you felt the need to push for outright bans over reasonable restrictions. All the sarcastic remarks you made in this blog entry can be, and have been, made regarding your "science" and bans.
You've done the same thing and gotten away with it, so why shouldn't they? Nice job there. You must be so proud of yourself.
Lynda D,
Notice how that wiretapping issue comes up at the same time as the SCHIP program and new Fed tax on tobacco products?
THAT is the clincher to making sure the president can't stand by his "I'll veto the SCHIP bill".
They are giving him what he wants to get what they want. And in the middle, being flushed down the toilet, is the American citizen.
It is obvious that the health insurance companies are behind all this. Bet that they are now telling employers that they will cancel their deal with them or raise insurance rates if they can not nor do they try to bring their employees under their view of control. Rather than dictate to their employees, they feel that this policy would be more effective as no one wants to see a decrease in their paychecks. Even for the employees, it ends up being all about money. I think we have all mentioned this from time to time.
I don't for the life of me see where an over weight person, one with high blood pressure or blood levels would have a problem doing their job. Have you been to a hospital lately? Obese, smoking employees are the least of their problems. Personnally, I am more concerned with the 98,000 deaths per year due to Doctor's errors. I presume that many others thinks the same too or else the Doctor's wouln't have coined the phrase cyberchondriac's. That would be people who are going online and googling their aches and pains and trying to self diganosis themselves. If I was a Chief of Staff at a hospital or an employer of any kind, I would be more concerned about having patients/customers, rather than obese employees. Someone has to pay their bills!
This a privacy issue. The problem is that we all believed that we had privacy in America. We believed that what we do on our own time is our own business. Well wrong,we don't and never had it! Companies hire "at will" (other than union employees), this means they can hire or fire you for any reason other than of a protected class (sex, race, etc).Privacy or personnal issues were something that people respected and tolerated. Today there is perception that if may cost extra then it's the companies business.
Where does it stop, water sking, skydiving? Laws must be changed to protect personal behavior that is legal. No one should be able to dictate lifestyle. The question will always be which lifestyle is the correct one for today.
Again Michael -- you seem to make the argument that policies that seek to dictate the lifestyles and personal habits of others are wrong because they are inconsistent. Nooo... they are wrong because they are...wrong. (see: oppressive, immoral, counter to liberty...)
Lynda F
Wow I didn't connect the two, but it does make sense in the typical Politician negotiations system of "give and take". Its just too bad that people don't realize that the rights of their life styles, and personal responsibilities are being lost (without them realizing it).
All this in an effort to "protect" the stupid people that they think the people of the world are made of. Well I am not stupid, I know that there's risk but unlike some people I know how to put that risk into the whole world perspective. Tripling the risk of almost zero isn't going to kill me tomorrow, and isn't that scary; but saying that the risk is 300% more (without any references) is just fear mongering to help make the policy possible.
Media and health professionals should never be lulled into thinking that fear mongering will benefit society, no matter what the potential perceived benefits, yet here we have these situations occurring more and more. Wonder what will happen when people no longer listen to anything that the media or "experts" keep preaching about; just like the boy who cried wolf.
ALL----
In case any of you missed this at the end of the last thread:
Hi all, I follow this blog nearly daily. Please all, including our gracious host Dr. Segiel, watch this simple animation. A child can understand this when a thousand words fail.
http://isil.org/resources/ introd...ntroduction.swf
Karen | 08.08.07 - 8:38 am |
This is so simple even the overley educated, sophisticated, high-minded will get this.
enjoy
.
OK, now the ACLU HAS to be all over this one...They are charging the Obese $10 and Smokers $5 - Now isn't that discrimination??????????/sarc
Also, where does the extra money go - the article didn't say specifically that I could see.
I have an idea; they can dock the paychecks and put the proceeds in separate employee savings plans [with interest]and if the employee doesn't 'drop-dead' that year they can get a Holiday Bonus (PC)....
If they don't overly use any medical services, they will get it back - proportionally to use.
And those that aren't docked weekly will get a pay cut if they over-used their health plan the previous year.
Think of how many employees who won't use Medical services anymore!!!!
It'll be a win-win.
Hypochondriacs will go broke.
For my above post try this link, I don't know why the other didn't work---well worth the time.
http://isil.org/resources/
introd...ntroduction.swf
Gilster---'Hypochondriacs will go broke.'
Oh darn, I was planning on becoming one of those just to get my hands on all the gimmies. Guess I'll have to come up with another scam to get by in life.
.
Again, it is legal to for any company to dicriminate as long as it is not one of the protected categotries.
If you are fat, ugly, skinny, brown headed or blue eyed, you could be excluded. I used to believe there was some kind of law but there isn't.
We need privacy legislation. What we do on our own time should be our own business as long as it is legal. This is not true today. It is clear by the recent happenings at Clarion and the Cleveland Clinic.
Karen.
Thanks for sending that. I really enjoyed it and it is a must read by everyone. Especially the Politically correct friends. Welcome to the group and I hope to hear more from you as time allows for a visit.
The absurdity of this requires no additional comment from me to point that out.
BUT!,...
IF this invasion of privacy was not specifically spelled out as an existing requirement or condition of employment, or as a possibility of being implemented as a condition of continued employment at some point in the future within the rules and policy manual provided to me at the onset of my employment, I would refuse to provide samples of anything other than my sheer contempt for such obvious financially driven biggotry and discrimination.
I'll see you in court.
My motto: Life should not be a journey to the grave with the attenion of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body. Instead, I'd rather skid in sideways, with my favorite sandwich in one hand and a cold beer & cigar in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming: What a ride!
~Grandpa's wisdom~
This is outright theft, and I'm surprised no one else has brought it up. This is money they have earned, it is THEIR money. It may be $10 or $15 now, but as they feel more comfortable stealing this amount, they will increase it. Especially if it's not effective, which it doubtless won't be.
Quite frankly, if these companies want cheaper health care, they can abandon the insurance companies and push for hospitals to stop their price gouging, instead of stealing money from employees. One shouldn't be pointing out their inconsistencies, but how wrong it is to steal for any reason except starving to death. And since Clarion is a hospital, well, I think they are far from starving. Except for maybe their employees.
It is THEFT, STEALING. I'm glad we're making it clear it's ok to steal as long as it's socially approved theft.
Dr, Siegel wrote:
"Unfortunately, diabetics do not fare well at all under the plan. By requiring them to keep their fasting blood sugar levels below 120, the plan forces them to go up on their evening insulin doses, putting them at great risk of developing hypoglycemia at night."
They have that sort of thing covered. They can bring a note from their doctor (every quarter).
Personally, I see this article as a positive for smokers. The average person who watches the news has probably been dulled into thinking only smokers cost them money. Now the fat dumbasses will find out that they they are costing smokers and themselves money. And more money.
Smokers at Clarian can now walk up to the fat asses at work and say, "You've been costing me 5 bucks (after $5 smoker deduction) a paycheck, lard ass. No more free ride for you, scumbag parasite.
Well, you just can't win for losing it seems. Check out the newest study about how exercise causes global warming:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2195538.ece
Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.
Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.
The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. “Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.
-- There's lots more at the link. Whoever it was that said smokers were only the first (but definitely not the last) to be targeted by social engineering programs surely was correct.
apparently the terminally ill don't have any rights either. i call this appalling.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
exper...erimental_drugs
Let's see. In defense of protecting a grand total of 5 bucks, your employer forces you to take, say, statins that you didn't want to take. Result: you kill your liver or get muscle necrosis. Both drive your employer's medical costs up (wheras elevated cholesterol wasn't costing you or him, might never have caused you harm, or might never have caused you harm till you were long gone and retired.)
This clearly is lose/lose.. Except for the 70 milliion $ you sue him for.
Anything with Effects also has Side Effects. Even quitting smoking. Obesity. Parkinson's. Anxiety. Depression. To specify only four.
:
Oh no Walt, you're employer can't FORCE you to take statins, I mean, if you don't like the way your employer runs his business you can quit and get another job...that is, unless he allows smoking.
Walt,
I like your points. Excellent.
what if the co-pay on the meds is higher than the penalty fee?
Walt,
I agree, IMO, if a company chooses to dictate legal social behavior by policy or by volunteering to help, liability attaches. If I were a shareholder in such a company, I’m not so sure I would be willing to take this type of unnecessary risk.
Moreover, if a person was say exercising for *work related* proposes, and was injured in the process, it would seem such injuries would fall under workmen compensation, if not the injured can or may be entitled to damages possibly charging the company for any lost wages and other losses. Not sure. But if I were an employee at this company I would be demanding to see just where such things are spelled out clearly in company policy as well as State Law. If I had to attain an attorney, I would demand the company pay for the same… possibly because the policy was ambiguously written to serve the company’s interest while circumventing workers rights to be compensated under the circumstances. I haven’t read the policy, but it seems fishy enough to warrant professional advise at a min. Again, I would.
Anyway I really think you hit the mark with “Anything with Effects also has Side Effects. Even quitting smoking. Obesity. Parkinson's. Anxiety. Depression. To specify only four.”
Very interesting.
So Dr Siegel,a ban on smoking in bars is perfectly acceptable,even when bar staff may not require this enforced safety plan,after all we wouldn't want them to take a job elsewhere would we ?However when an Employer DICTATES a package deal of measures which seem highly unlikely to provide any benefit to anyone,after all you could drink alcohol until your liver has rotted,stress can easily increase your blood pressure above the accepted limit for two quick responses,we are left with an Employer ruling the roost,with no laws being broken unlike the smoking ban in bars.It becomes perfectly understandable why the US HAS BECOME A COUNTRY OF PROZAC USERS.Is the US Government trying to close the gap on Islamic fundamentalism by making itself as whacky as them ? I don't know why terrorists seek to damage the US economy,it seems to be doing the job all by itself.Yesterday higher education seemed to turn its back on smokers,potentially reducing the well educated workforce of the future,today it extends that reduction even further.Who is being this driving force ? It certainly seems to be doing a damned good job of sabotaging the country's world credibility.
I'm pulling my hair out here,anon was myself.
I always have to wonder if we forced everyone to quit smoking what will be the real effect.
Smoking is well known to relive stress meaning a lot more people will have increased stress levels which would result in a lot more heart attacks. Depression population percentages certainly will increase immensely, as a large portion of those who smoke will be afforded higher stress levels with no relief. The portion who take a time out to control their temper will be more likely to act out, meaning increased violence. The portion who use a smoke break to reason out problems will have no similar outlet ingenuity and productivity will decrease. People will eat more increasing demands on the food supply and increased obesity will be unquestionable. For those who can not afford to purchase more food desperation leading to other problems will be an effect.
All in all many deficits are being ignored which have never truly been weighed. We likely are seeing those effects already with the lowered percentage numbers of smokers and rising levels of all the effects I have noted. Has anyone ever done research to measure the true effect and determined how many of the effects have risen due entirely to social pressures limiting choice either directly as a job requirement, or indirectly as people flock to be "normal" and acceptable to the rest of society.
Certainly personality types and lifestyles lead to more people smoking to aggregate the benefits. others don't understand because they are not so affected by the same circumstances or pressures, or if they are, social pressures won't allow them to try it, which leads to health deficits among non smokers as well.
To say smokers are just weak or foolish is not really ethical or nearly insightful enough, especially for professionals who have never really examined the situation beyond it's created reputation. Many who smoke especially for long term smokers; the quit may be in a less biased perspective, known to be, not the best outcome for their lives, compared to others who don't have the same personalities or lifestyles.
We can't ignore the fact before the social pressures were applied; the majority of doctors smoked and felt no aversion to doing so, regardless of the Surgeon General's initial report. If the same percentage of doctors smoked today as the rest of the population, one has to wonder if smoking bans could have ever been sold to the general public, who would still see the proposition of ETS dangers every bit as foolish today as it sounded when it was first invented.
This leaves us to wonder by extension if Doctors who were forced to quit, may be simply acting out an envy of the rest of the population who are free to choose, while they, in order to advance a career, are forced to not smoke by social pressures alone.
Keeping in mind that those who can't, teach, it is little wonder the university effects of the teachers will reflect at least in some part that envy. For others, people like our good friend Bill and who are forced to quit by the power of others opinions, become what we know as born again smokers. Those who quit and go on a moral crusade to make others do the same, in hopes the eternal cravings will go away, if they are just not reminded of how much they used to actually enjoy a smoke and that peaceful moment to enjoy it.
Smoke em if you've got em guys...
Kevin,
Similarly to your question, I previously asked if ecconomists had ever projected the financial consequences of an aging population if everyone stopped doing "the bad things" that shorten (allegedly) life span. I don't mean just smoking. What would happen if the average age at death increased by 10 years?
More pension and welfare payments, hospital care, old folks homes,cost of prescription drugs to maintain failing bodies, less tax revenue, more accidents etc etc. Could it result in financial meltdown?
I never got an answer.
GreatScot
Quote from the article: ""For employees at Clarian Health, feeling the burn of trying to lose weight will take on new meaning. In late June, the Indianapolis-based hospital system announced that starting in 2009, it will fine employees $10 per paycheck if their body mass index [BMI, a ratio of height to weight that measures body fat] is over 30. If their cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels are too high, they'll be charged $5 for each standard they don't meet. Ditto if they smoke: Starting next year, they'll be charged another $5 in each check. Clarian has been making headlines for its aggressive and unusual approach to covering escalating health-care costs."
Question, Will the employees have to pay for their own mandatory health tests and checkups?
How much is this mandatory healthy employee plan going to cost the facility?
How much did it cost the facility development of this plan to cut costs?
How do they figure that eliminating (or attempting to) the possible health risk is going to in any way decrease, minimize or halt the escalating cost of Health-Care? Which (I believe) at this point is more about the elaborate water fountain in the lobby, soothing surrounding and asthec, pleasing to the eye buildings and offices and PR than any "care". Don't peek behing the curtains!
BTW, my sister-in-law had a heart attack the other day, spent the night in the small local hospital, transported via amb to the medical ctr. had a stint put in and got the bums rush out the door the next day. Medically treated... "care" non existent. Where is the "cost" for the care?
Michael;
Considering the arguments and keeping in mind how social pressures affect everyone in varying degrees, we have to recognize social pressures to be a true non linear hazard we all are exposed to.
The statement ETS or even smoking have no safe level is inherently false because biological and timeline observations consistently demonstrate a linear effect, we know both can have acceptable risk levels. Only the consensus self perpetuated need to create social pressure stands in our way.
How could we calculate a mortality risk of social pressure, defined simply as the insistence others act as we do? Even by the most precise of estimates the true association between social pressures and shortened longevity or decreased standard of living, is likely much higher than most if not all of the mortality risks currently recognized. We can't say it would be lower than the top 5.
There is actually "no safe level" of social pressures in a logical unbiased perspective.
Can you provide an RR? Having that perspective available to balance choices, could be seen as a major benefit in making health and life relevant choices about smoking and a great deal of other choices we make daily.
If only someone in our institutes of knowlege had the courage to look outside the box with so few smokers available perhaps the treasured moments of contemplation and consideration once associated with a smoke break have fallen victim to the moral crusades keeping us confined and in line with how others think.
[or most who don't think, simply because by consensus it wouldn't be right headed to do so]
Banzhaf in the USA today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/hea...king-
bans_x.htm
Excerpt.
"We are very rapidly moving to protect children from secondhand smoke," says John Banzhaf, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health. "Even from their own parents and grandparents."
Where will it end??
GreatScot
If anyone can dismiss the hazards of Social pressures as facetious, consider how ignored the perspective is, when we haven't even developed a comparative scale the public could recognize in assessing quantitative exposures.
We can't say so many pounds pressure or liters per gallon or even micro grams per cubic meter of air per 24 hour period.
How would we quantitatively assess how much pressure someone is exposed to in a lifetime? And what is the consequence?
As with smoking we know so little yet we are able to make such brave and absolute claims to facts, in absence of those insights of scale.
I'm just very glad I don't work for these idiots.
Aside from the $5 they'd have off of me for smoking, the odds of me getting my BMI below 30 without amputation of one leg at the hip are neglidgible.
If you want a good laugh, work out the BMI for any national rugby team. I did, there was a grand total of 1 person who wouldn't have had their pay docked.
I can't help that Clarian's 13,000 staff may well be 12,000 or 10,000 or fewer in the near future.
Doesn't this also potentially throw up accusations of racism? With one exception, all of the pacific islanders that I know are considerably broader across the shoulders and shorter than me (think 5'6" tall and about 4' wide). This may be just based on my stereotyping or ignorance, but are there different race-models for BMI? Or is it a one-size-fits-no-one system?
One would have to wonder if someone like Banzhaf ever were to be elected, what he would do to all of us.
By his ignorance he demonstrates why he will never be a leader, outside of the leadership of ignorance.
From GreatScots Link
""We have laws on the books in every state of the union against child abuse," Mathis says. "This is a form of child abuse." (Mathis-D-Arkansas)
Yet we are not permitted to fight back. This Senator is most likely a lawyer. Isn't there a law against making accusations that are have not been proven?
.
Rufus---"Or is it a one-size-fits-no-one system?'
They are driving us into a corner of the 'one size fits all' in every aspect of our live. When the HELL will people wake-up?
.
Kevin---'Those who quit and go on a moral crusade to make others do the same, in hopes the eternal cravings will go away, if they are just not reminded of how much they used to actually enjoy a smoke and that peaceful moment to enjoy it'
My thoughts exactly!!!
.
From the BBC laugh a day site.
Cancer rising due to lifestyle choices.
Food / drink / obesity / sun bathing blamed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6938186.stm
Excerpt
"Everyone can help reduce their risk of cancer by avoiding smoking, keeping a healthy body weight, eating a balanced diet with plenty of fruit, vegetables and fibre and taking regular exercise," she added.
There should be a law!!
GreatScot
""We have laws on the books in every state of the union against child abuse," Mathis says. "This is a form of child abuse." (Mathis-D-Arkansas)"
If the proof of harms of ETS to children are in unproven theoretics [or theatrics]this statement stands alone, as an insensitive opinion and an ignorant attempt to "tell others" in support of that ignorance how to raise their own children.
The harms of ETS keep in mind are based primarily in calculated lifetime risks to those most exposed, no significant harm beyond the effects of pre-existing medical conditions is known in general populations. Certainly no significant proportion of children in our population suffer from these conditions which would by description be rare.
The ignorance is heightened when we compare the act of smoking to the real abuse many children suffer. To minimize that impact on society is reprehensible and entirely reflective of the source.
Yes, but, doesn't exercise contribute to Man-Made Global Warming?
Of interest to all 'travelers' here:
Travelers Clear the Air on Smoking Regulations
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfe...509082007-
1.htm
~snip~
"Travelers, for the most part, seem to have a 'live and let smoke' philosophy," said Michele Perry, director of communications for TripAdvisor. "While there is a public outcry for restaurants and hotels to better define smoking areas, it is interesting to note that one third of respondents actually support smokers' rights in open-air restaurants and lines."
.
And from Houston, TX
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....tx/
5032465.html
Here they are with the 'level playing field' stuff. When they fight these bans on the junk science they are based on they might get somewhere. IMHO (I do wish them luck)
.
Enough is still not enough in Ontario Canada:
http://www.thepeterboroughexamin...20News&
classif=
~snip~
In addition to the current provincial legislation, the bylaw would prohibit the use of tobacco in any building, or on land, owned by the health unit. It would also prohibit smoking or holding lighted tobacco within nine metres of any entrance, exit or air intake of some of the city's municipal buildings
.
If they are "fining" people for high blood pressure, cholesteral, etc., what will stop them from fining people for having a cancer gene or an alzheimer's gene...or history of heart disease? The article implies that interest in this idea appears to be expanding.
The trend seems to be that anyone who is less than perfect will be fined or charged to the point they can't afford proper health care. Long term..? People who are "genetically inferior" or have socially unacceptable behaviors will not be able to afford proper health care. Consider this...people who don't (or can't) comply with the health requirements will eventually die off and we'll have a world of "perfect" people. Can anyone believe that this type of thinking will NOT lead to social engineering and possibly eugenics?
And to think the anti-smoking movement started all this....
Julie,
Social engineering is here already---eugenic not yet---but the happy group of the Antis are leading us there.
They must be so very proud of their conquests. What heros, ugh!!!
.
As one who has been urging employers to behaviorally risk rate employee and spousal healthcare insurance policies for more than twenty years, I'm pleased to read that Clarian is doing just that.
The irresponsible and selfish comments posted on this blog (i.e. I want to increase healthcare costs but insist that employers and others should be required to subsidize those cost increases) demonstrate the pathetic mindset of those who advocate a right-to-smoke.
RE: F D A Regulation
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscien...a-tobacco-
.html
See comments to see just how educated on some of these folks are about who is really behind this. with.
Give it up, Godshall. You're not personally responsible for the policy.
Selfish, huh? I'm Bill Godshall and I want everyone to pay for my health care, while I gleefully deny it to others.
Pot, kettle, black.
Don't get upset Bill, give in, it'll help you relax.
Julie and Sunz;
Take a look at the history of the Galton Institute 135 years young, formerly the Eugenics society. This organization has many subdivisions including the pro abortion movement and in the right to die crowd.
Galtonites are actively working as policy makers at the WHO. Many of the same old, same old, Eugenics principles are at play here we just hear them in kinder gentler ad agency terms. The wording has changed but make no mistake the same mindset is being promoted by the same organization.
Best babies contests are really only a reality show away.
I see someone did not get the concept of the video posted by Karen. And since he is feeling cranky because he has choose not to smoke----we all get personally assaulted. We are not permitted to fight back personally, as warned by the doctor.
http://isil.org/resources/philos...rty-
english.swf
Gee I thought it was remedial enought for the biggest of blowharts to 'get'. Smoking is permitted during the video, so light up (perhaps, your grandchildren could explain the hard parts), relax and have a look.
Or does liberty (or that idea) scare the bejeeeeeezzzzzuuuuuussss out of you?
.
Choose should have been chosen. sorry
Kevin,
I have still been reading through the many posts/links from you about Galton, WHO----and you are really spot on. Thanks so for all the info.
As one who has been urging employers to behaviorally risk rate employee and spousal healthcare insurance policies for more than twenty years, I'm pleased to read that Clarian is doing just that.
If that's how you really feel Bill, then you should be pushing for ALL behaviour choices to be "risk rated". Seriously, look at the number of "sports-related" injuries. As someone who hates sports, I resent paying for their healthcare. If they want to play sports and risk injury now or joint damage later, they need to pay a higher insurance premium OR pay for their own healthcare, I should not be required to pay for their injuries, just because the masses feel sports are fun and necessary.
Talk about selfish.
Using YOUR logic, that should also be expanded to everyone on "taxpayer funded" insurance. Everyone on SCHIP, medicaid, medicare should be forced to take NO risks whatsoever, which basically amounts to never getting out of bed. Since I'm paying their healthcare I get to dictate how they live, right?
I'm the only smoker in my office. I'm also the only one who hasn't called in sick in over a year, OR been to the doctor more than once in the past year (and that was only for a yearly check up and blood work). So who's really costing here? It sure as hell isn't me. But it does appear to be all my non-smoking, non-drinking, vegitarian co-workers....always ill with allergies, stomach problems, etc.
Do you really believe the bile you spew?
Linda F wrote:
"Using YOUR logic, that should also be expanded to everyone on "taxpayer funded" insurance. Everyone on SCHIP, medicaid, medicare should be forced to take NO risks whatsoever, which basically amounts to never getting out of bed."
Wrong, never getting out of bed can lead to bed sores. The true answer is never being born.
Lynda to Bill----Do you really believe the bile you spew?
He bathes in it.
In Bill's ever safer save the world network, many fail to realize when you are young and in peak condition as an athlete with the lowest BMI and health risk, many do participate in competitive sports and the results are evident later in life for most. If anyone has ever been to an old timers Hockey game you will see the fruits of their labours exemplified in declining years, those areas most utilized in sports are magnets for fat when the activity slows or ceases.
Runners grow overly extended thighs Hockey players legs and bellies and weightlifters have man boobs.
As an effect of being the "best you can be" in younger years the health effects are unusually disproportionate as life continues into the glory days when war stories are swapped over a beer and a smoke. When one works in an office for extended periods of time and smoking breaks are eliminated by using addictive alternatives, in one of the few instances most actually get on their feet during an entire day, the situation worsens.
In a wider view[Pun intended] what is being promoted more than anything else in The Clarion perspective, could well be a designed strategy to eliminate the older workers, in avoidance of paying health benefits owed for many years of service. We can see no group above the aged will be more significantly affected by the pinching of pennies in promoting corporate greed.
Considering the fact that smokers only get charged 5 $ a month, compared to 10 $ for being obese, I'll place my choice on tobacco. It seems to be less hazardous to health to smoke than to eat!
Kevin---'Runners grow overly extended thighs Hockey players legs and bellies and weightlifters have man boobs'
Could this happen to volleyball players as well???? OMG!!! What a site. s/
And think of the sun exposure risk with all of the healthy types in their younger years.
.
Bill, if you would actually look into what you were talking about you'd realize that cost increases aren't over bad health, but over greedy people. Before you call smokers selfish, perhaps you should look into greedy hospitals that charge $126 for a box of Kleenex.
I recieved this email this morning and I hope you all enjoy it as much as I did.
Will I live to be 80?
I recently turned 65 and had to choose a new primary care Physician for my medicare program.
After two visits and exhaustive lab tests, he said I was doing "fairly well" for my age.
A little concerned about that comment, I couldn't resist asking him, "Do you think I will live to be 80?"
He asked: "Do you smoke tobacco or drink alcoholic beverages?"
"Oh no." I replied. "I don't do drugs either."
"Do you have many friends and entertain frequently?"
I said, "No, I usully stay home and keep to myself."
Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs?"
I said, "No, my other Doctor said that all red meat is unhealthy!"
"Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, sailing, hiking or bicycling?"
"No I don't", I said
"Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have alot of sex?"
"No" I said, "I don't do any of those things"
He looked at me and said, "Then why do you give a shit?"
So lighten up Bill and Doc. This Doctor knows how to live!!!!
Diane, Thanks for the light moment!!! What a hoot.
I'm with Bill Godshall on this one. People have got to start taking responsibility for their own health, especially when the rest of us have to pay for it. For example, last week, I didn't take airborne after I sat next to someone on the plane who had a cold. If I'd gotten sick & needed medical treatment, why should Bill Godshall or anyone else have to foot the bill? If I tripped over my coffe table and broke my ankle, why should my employers have to provide the healthcare to treat my injury? I should have watched where the f*ck I was going, right Bill? Where do people get off getting sick in the first place, anyway? If we all just lived clean, healthy, socially responsible lifestyles, we wouldn't need doctors-ever. Way to go, Clarian! Keep up the oppression, er, uh, progression! Progression!
So in our world NONE of us can be trusted?
Enjoy your smoke-free world you control freaks!!!!
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_art...sp?
art_id=11839
~snip~
'But here's the rub: These little gems may impose de facto Prohibition by making it impossible to drive home if you've consumed even very small amounts of alcohol. Not enough to render you "impaired" (let alone "drunk") as far as the law is concerned. Just enough to trigger the interlocks'
.
Bill G said: "The irresponsible and selfish comments posted on this blog (i.e. I want to increase healthcare costs but insist that employers and others should be required to subsidize those cost increases) demonstrate the pathetic mindset of those who advocate a right-to-smoke."
Are you reading the same posts as the rest of us?
Talk about irresponsible, selfish and pathetic.
Forcing a large minority of 50 MILLION people through solicited government intervention to stop doing something that you personally don't like?,...SELFISH.(incredibly selfish)
Forcing small business owners through solicited government intervention to cater to only a portion of their customer base?,...IRRESPONSIBLE. (incredibly irresponsible)
Crusading to convince everybody SELFISH insecure, and IRRESPONSIBLE enough to believe that solicited government intervention should be the answer to achieve YOUR goal of not having to endure the nightmarish personal hell of actually allowing someone,... anyone to smoke anywhere at any time, for any reason, and that eliminating a choice of venue specifically designed to cater to smokers is "for their own good",...PATHETIC.(incredibly pathetic)
Backtalk;
Anyone even remotely connected to health scare knows there are no such things as accidents, so we have to assume at least some of the injuries you mentioned are self inflicted. Perhaps that is where we draw the line; Police could assess an accident scene and once responsibility was decided, in light of the fact many self inflicted injuries which without medical treatments would likely be fatal, in order to avoid unnecessary suffering the officer could just shoot them right there. The cost of a bullet is relatively small in comparison to the costs to society and the poor insurance companies who are having such a hard time affording furnishings for their shiny office towers of late.
It would just be better for all parties concerned to simply widen the police powers slightly in order to avoid unnecessary pain and expense. In process we could greatly reduce the smoking related mortalities dramatically unless it could be proved the accident was caused by careless smoking. In fact if they just shot everyone who smokes the mortality risk could be avoided altogether.
What do you think Bill? Since all smokers are of no use to society beyond the income they share, perhaps you could add an amendment to your anti smoker legislation demands.
That way no one could mistake exactly how you stand on this contentious issue.
LightningBoy,
And he sees absolutely nothing wrong with what he is doing.
Thanks for the great post.
.
As one who has been urging employers to behaviorally risk rate employee and spousal healthcare insurance policies for more than twenty years, I'm pleased to read that Clarian is doing just that. --moral busybody Bill Godshall
"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." --C.S. Lewis
...
BG-----"As one who has been urging employers to behaviorally risk rate employee and spousal healthcare insurance policies for more than twenty years...'
"In the midst of a world of light and love, of song and feast and dance, [Lucifer] could find nothing to think of more interesting than his own prestige."
CS Lewis
Sunz,
You have to understand that from Bill's perspective, and as has been demonstrated here repeatedly Dr. Siegels perspective as well, we are the ones that don't see what we're doing.
Since they can't seem to formulate an "adequate warning" of the alledged dangers of smoking and of ETS specifically, they are compelled to continue the crusade "for our own good"
The fact that we acknowledge that we do hear what they're saying, but choose to ignore or simply continue to disbelieve means that of course, we can't possibly be adequately warned.
Unless we acknowledge in the affirmitive that we agree with their assesment of the alledged dangers and that we believe they are correct, and commit to a nicotine replacement therapy program of some kind, ...the crusade must continue. The only way to demonstrate that we have been adequately warned is to believe in their cause and agree to surrender our liberty.
UMmmm,... No thanks.
Forcing a large minority of 50 MILLION people through solicited government intervention to stop doing something that you personally don't like?,...SELFISH.(incredibly selfish)
LB, you forgot to add in how those same 50 MILLION are also expected, AND forced when the SCHIP bill passes - and it will, to PAY for the HEALTHCARE of everyone else earning under $82k/year.
Not only are Bill and his ilk selfish, but greedy and cheap too.
To prove my point, I saw this poll on CNN this morning:
Quick Vote
Should the federal gas tax be increased to pay for bridge repairs?
Yes 25% 557
No 75% 1652
Total Votes: 2209
Note how the majority (all car owners too I’ll bet) do NOT want gasoline tax raised to help pay for bridge repairs (bridges THEY use daily and help wear out - on top of the poisons visibly hanging over our heads that their vehicles spew out).
Now what was that about selfish Bill?
LighteningBoy,
'UMmmm,... No thanks."
Ditto.
Bill and the doctor are the ones who have asked for the gun of the government to force other into their nirvana.
If they want to hate smokers, avoid smokers, ban smokers from their homes, their business hey, have at it.
The difference is I would not intrude on their world one little bit----I would never consider such a vile concept.
.
Backtalk -- Good points! Why should anyone have to pay for someone else's reckless behavior? If you drive a car over the speed limit and have an accident, no medical coverage for you! If your child plays with matches and burns himself, no medical coverage for him! If you are over 60 and like to go skiing, no medical coverage if you hurt your fragile bones (people over 60 have more brittle bones and shouldn't be skiing!). If you're a waitress trying to manage more trays than you can carry, and burn yourself with hot coffee...why should I pay for your recklessness?
And why should I pay for someone else's hereditary defects? Anyone who has a family history of health problems should not be included in MY medical plan. I mean, their parents should not have even reproduced in the first place (that's child abuse if you ask me).
Insurance coverage should ONLY be for people who lead an absolutely healthy and careful lifestyle...or at least made unaffordable for all the risk-takers or careless people. Right, Bill?
LB,
The Doc may have convinced himself the persecution of smokers is for their own good.
However I have no such belief that Bully Godshall is doing anything other than getting self gratification making peoples life as miserable as possible. Some of his posts sound almost psychopathic in their tone. He apparently has no empathy with smokers plight or business loses and absolutely no conscience about the part he plays.
GreatScot
Bill Godshall wrote:
"As one who has been urging employers to behaviorally risk rate employee and spousal healthcare insurance policies for more than twenty years, I'm pleased to read that Clarian is doing just that."
I would agree with you (who wants to pay for your G-D volleyball injuries and your years of smoking 3 packs a day?), but your idea is too cumbersome. Suntan levels, motorcycle riding, volleyball playing...There's just too many risks for a company to have to worry about it.
It would be a lot easier (and less nannyisque) if companies quit offering health insurance and just added that savings into their employees paychecks.
On a lighter note, the Brits do this stuff sooooo well:
Numby Awards (12/06)
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/
200...ember.htm#numby
~snip~
'The award for Creativity (sub-section self-expanding numbers) goes to a former Numby laureate, Professor Graham MacGregor. In under two years since the Fourth Numby Awards, his claim for theoretical corpses due to salt consumption had increased from 5,800 to 15,000 by March. This is believed to be an even greater rate of numerical auto-acceleration than that achieved by the anti-tobacco industry. Experts forecast that before the end of the present parliament consumption of salt in public areas (i.e. private business premises) will be banned.
Enjoy
.
HEALTH QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION
Q: I've heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life; is this true?
A: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that's it... don't waste them on exercise. Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live longer; that's like saying you can extend the life of your car by driving it faster. Want to live longer? Take a nap.
Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these? Vegetables.
So a steak is nothing more than an efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain?
Eat chicken. Beef is also a good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable). And a pork chop can give you 100% of your recommended daily allowance of v egetable products.
Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?
A: No, not at all. Wine is made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that means they take the water out of the fruity bit so you get even more of the goodness that way. Beer is also made out of grain. Bottoms up!
Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?
A: Well, if you have a body and you have fat, your ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is two to one, etc.
Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise program?
A: Can't think of a single one, sorry. My philosophy
is: No Pain...Good!
Q: Aren't fried foods bad for you?
A: YOU'RE NOT LISTENING!!!... Foods are fried these days in vegetable oil. In fact, they're permeated in it. How could getting more vegetables be bad for you?
Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?
A: Definitely not! Wh en you exercise a muscle, it gets bigger. You should only be doing sit-ups if you want a bigger stomach.
Q: Is chocolate bad for me?
A: Are you crazy? HELLO . Cocoa beans! Another vegetable!!! It's the best feel-good food around!
Q: Is swimming good for your figure?
A: If swimming is good for your figure, explain whales to me.
Q: Is getting in-shape important for my lifestyle?
A: Hey! 'Round' is a shape!
Well, I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had about food and diets.
And remember:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, “ Cabernet Sauvignon in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and
screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"
“The irresponsible and selfish comments posted on this blog (i.e. I want to increase healthcare costs but insist that employers and others should be required to subsidize those cost increases) demonstrate the pathetic mindset of those who advocate a right-to-smoke.”... BG
BG
Is it my understanding that you gave up your right to smoke? Is that what I’m reading here? 3 packs a day! God Lord Man! Talk about selfish were you trying to smoke all cigarettes and leave none for others. Thank God you quit. Just imagine you could have supported a big chunk of children’s healthcare and host of other programs all by yourself, how could you be so "selfish". Now I understand why you harbor such hate for all these wonderful people who smoke and pay for the programs you refuse to support with your own money. I had no idea. Can you still blow smoke rings?
Kindly do not refer to individuals as “selfish” unless you advocate back taxes to be paid by former BIG SMOKERS. Thank You.
Can Bill still blow smoke? You bet!
James Austin "It would be a lot easier (and less nannyisque) if companies quit offering health insurance and just added that savings into their employees paychecks."
James Austin | 08.09.07 - 3:06 pm | #
They (companies) have a choice, they can move to Mexico... or other places. No health insurance, no workman's comp., no minimum wage, no paid vac. time, no maternity leave... lots of productivity and cheaper to ship the product from where ever than to make in the very state you are shipping to. Sounds bad without all those legally enforced perks.
Business has never been compassionate it is always about the money, cost and profit. Winner takes all loser bites the bullet.
Everything now is Big Business. We all bought insurance voluntarily, thinking it was an advantage and some security for the "what if". Ahhhh, the fear factor, very good!
Now it is a Law to have medical insurance in Massachusetts! Imagine, I remember the day... oh well, lets just say, some days you're the windshield and some day's you're the bug.
IMO this is legalized, legislated racketeering. Pay up or shut up or we will huff an puff and blow your house down.
Now what was once a humanitarian service, (caring for the sick and infirmed) has been bought out by for profit Big Business and if you have a medical problem you are a liability and will be stigmatized, ostracized and labeled.
Well. I leave for a few days and Dr. Siegel busts out the snark.
Careful, though. Because if you applied it to yourself, it might not be so... snarky?
It's not hard, if snark's what your after. Because we are all hypocrites in our own way.
I always go back to the fact that the doctor is so very, very concerned about workers at Madison Square Garden that he is working to pass laws to protect them. So which workers are in danger? The boxers who have their heads pummeled into early Parkinsons? The goalies who get in the way of 120 mph slapshots? The guys jumping cars in tricked-out monster trucks?
Nah. Those guys can keep on dying. Just like the NASCAR drivers. As long as the peanut vendors don't get a single whiff of SHS, the doctor considers his work done.
So what do you call it when someone selects what is obviously one of the lesser dangers in a given workplace and demans its elimination, while allowing all the rest of them to go on?
I'm not sure. But the good folks at Clarian are not the only ones with some explaining to do.
Here is a link to a sotry about a guy who died. And not a single one of the doctor's proposals would have saved him.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports...tory?
id=2376842
But the peanut vendors? The peanut vendors are fine.
Can anyone provide a link to a peanut vendor dying of SHS exposure? Doctor?
Bill said: "As one who has been urging employers to behaviorally risk rate employee and spousal healthcare insurance policies for more than twenty years, I'm pleased to read that Clarian is doing just that."
Unfortunately, what Clarian is doing is not risk rating employees in their health insurance policies. What they are doing is punishing people, through their paychecks, for failure to comply with several specific health behaviors and laboratory values, and invading employees' privacy repeatedly to monitor those individual behaviors.
If the company were simply assessing these things initially in order to consider the application for health insurance, that would be one thing. But this is nothing of the sort. It's clearly a form of punishment for failure to comply with the prescribed lifestyle.
The invasion of privacy, alone, is so troubling that I have to condemn the policy on those grounds alone.
Well, here we have another individual that has become addicted to prune juice that did't get his dose today.
Aren't they such pests when they are deprived:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/n...m/headline/
3425
~snip~
'Social engineering may soon join frivolous litigation, junk science, and other dubious tactics employed by Michael Jacobson and his prune squad at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). The group recently resorted to trickery in order to manipulate the public to order the food deemed "healthy" by CSPI's standards'
.
Doctor---'The invasion of privacy, alone, is so troubling that I have to condemn the policy on those grounds alone.'
It is outright theft, also. (thanks Jales for pointing that out.)
I hope these folks go to the labor board for denial of these justly earned wages.
.
Bill said: "As one who has been urging employers to behaviorally risk rate employee and spousal healthcare insurance policies for more than twenty years..."
Another volunteer service offered from the President of the Daisy Do-Gooder Society no doubt.
.
MAN PROUD MAN
DREST IN A LITTLE BRIEF AUTHORITY
PLAYS SUCH FANTASTIC TRIES
BEFORE HIGH HEAVEN
AS MAKE THE ANGELS WEEP.
~Shakespeare
But man, proud man, drest in a little brief authority, most ignorant of what he's most assured, his glassy essence, like an angry ape, plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven as make the angels weep.
(third time's the charm...good therapy arggggghh... the road to hell..we're there)
“If the company were simply assessing these things initially in order to consider the application for health insurance, that would be one thing.” …MS
Not really doctor, many of us don’t whine and moan to our doctors about every little ach and pain we feel.
So, how does a company assessing an application for health insurance take in to consideration and >compensate< the applicant who may partake in “risky” lifestyle choices, but does not partake in the cry baby society club frivolous use of health insurance? Is there some type of scale that takes this into consideration? A lot of people may be entitled to a credit. I’m sure there’s some numbers out there that could lead to a fair amount of compensation.
“risk rating employees”… ? Its time to start risk rating the fraternities and other clandestine groups who continue to blame everything on “lifestyle choices” rather than the sissy society they managed to help create as a matter of self convenience’s and job security. IMO it’s the fragile phony’s an those who aid them, that has driven healthcare cost through the roof. SAD state of affairs any way you cut it.
sorry about that...
It was another busy eve at work and I'm a bleary eyed RN for a reason. One of my five patients was getting a colon prep for a colonoscopy as well as 2 units of blood AND he had MRSA in his sputum and CHF and his blood sugar was dropping... anyway you medicine types get the idea... but, to my point, I also had a woman from Western Europe that was visiting and developed chest pain. She told me she has to wait TWO YEARS to be seen after submitting her *PETITION* for chest pain in Europe. For CHEST PAIN!EYE POPPING SOCIALISM. Is this where we are headed?????????????? Almost made me happy to be at work...
From the BBC laugh a day site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6939041.stm
Prevention 'may not help elderly'
Excerpts
Elderly people may not benefit from drugs to prevent heart disease
Use of medicines to prevent disease may not prolong or improve life in elderly people, say doctors.
Drugs such as statins, prescribed to combat heart disease, may simply switch the cause of death to cancer or dementia in older people, they warn.
A little more worrying
Around 40 million statins are prescribed annually in the UK, a figure that is rising.
GPs are offered financial incentives through their contract to prescribe them to as many high-risk patients as possible
Money, money, money
GreatScot
Michael;
"If the company were simply assessing these things initially in order to consider the application for health insurance, that would be one thing. But this is nothing of the sort. It's clearly a form of punishment for failure to comply with the prescribed lifestyle. "
When we take a broad opinion of the medical condition of those discussed and assume lifestyle choices reflect the reason all would not match the ideal standard we presume far too much. As you know many because of medical disability or chronic condition have no choice in the matter. One has to assume as well the majority of those positions are office or clerical meaning being in peak physical condition is not necessary in order to complete the task at hand.
Job hazards if you want to define them in order weight gain, stress and hypertension are all much higher job risks than second hand smoke in the office ever was. Hazards formed as an accumulation of inactivity for many years as a job demand. Contributory to poor medical conditions primarily exactly; the now to be of the employer taxed description.
Many office workers realize spending a good portion of their working life sitting in a chair is not exactly conditioning them for the Boston marathon.
The employer fails entirely to disclose at what point in life the medical conditions being taxed will have adverse effects in glad handing themselves, they fail to admit the demographic they are targeting is without doubt the elderly, who if forced to quit no longer qualify for many long term benefits they have earned over many years of service.
The similar second hand smoke campaign never fully disclosed to the public the majority of damage being presumed to have been caused by ETS was also primarily of the elderly making it much easier statistically to lead others to assume nothing else caused those diseases. Or that other causes have a separate numeric damage level when in fact lobbies share the same bodies to enhance the fears being manufactured.
Although the actions of this group are reprehensible I can not say TC and Public Health have conducted themselves any better. The Clarion Group are simply following the leadership of Public Health which apparently now, has no ethical boundaries.
smokenreader----'So, how does a company assessing an application for health insurance take in to consideration and >compensate< the applicant who may partake in “risky” lifestyle choices, but does not partake in the cry baby society club frivolous use of health insurance? Is there some type of scale that takes this into consideration? A lot of people may be entitled to a credit. I’m sure there’s some numbers out there that could lead to a fair amount of compensation'
Excellent point!!! But that would shut down the risk assesment analysts and they might have to find a real job.
Pity.
.
GreatScot;
"Around 40 million statins are prescribed annually in the UK, a figure that is rising.
GPs are offered financial incentives through their contract to prescribe them to as many high-risk patients as possible
Money, money, money"
Consider how hard it is to find a good mechanic you can trust to fix your car. Most have recieved the same training however many if not most are outright crooks. That was not always the case years ago businsees formed with the idea if you act responsibly you will gain a reputation and people will build your business for you because of the trust in good value for the dollar.
For a time large corporations followed or at least tried to give that impression. Of late have you noticed how the largest corporations no longer wish to have direct communications with their customers. They hire heavily limited, time consuming and deliberately frustrating customer service companies, who can offer limited assistance and absolutely refuse to allow you to go up the chain of command even when they admit they can not help you.
We see large corporations reducing the time allowed to pay your bill with penalties when your bill is not paid on time. Many large companies are actually back dating bills in order to make them payable before the bill arrives. The banks charging a growing list of large unearned fees. They are saving billions in wages and benefits while we are made to pay for "the convenience" of using bank machines.
Yet Banks and other corporations who no longer respect their client base continue to present themselves as caring members of communities in targeted ads we see every day, the "we are your friend" is generally accepted by the same people they hose every day.
What is missing and has not been significantly addressed for a long time is the large corporations have developed a world where they do not have to maintain the same level of integrity they impose on their clients. Just imagine if you sent a bank a service charge for making a mistake [And they make a lot of them] or being late paying a bill.
The idea of growing a business based in integrity and respect has been replaced by the example set.
You don't need to earn a reputation if you can afford to buy one. Medical associations are now nothing more than PR firms which sell an empty bottle of credibility.
This has grown to such a degree ethics in business is simply a nuisance and can be ignored, the thought moved downstream to the mechanics and others who see how profitable your business can be if you can replace respect with a good con job.
The medical profession lost my confidence a long time ago, the first time I saw the leader of a major medical association talking about the adverse effects of second hand smoke;
with a straight face!!!
I knew at that point this con job was slated to be promoted.
Never trust a doctor, always ask to see proof and always get a second opinion, because just like auto mechanics good doctors you can trust are now few and far between.
It is all about the money today and doctors are no different than the rest of the greed inspired con men out there, who live by the urgency to get their hands on that dollar. That urgency drives Doctors ethics much more than pretty much anything else, including the wallets they describe as patients.
The irony of it all; is the fear Doctors inspire to produce dollars is perpetuating higher prices and less value in the dollars they chase.
They abandon integrity in degrees of those devalued dollars, driven in reaction to their own fear; of the same poverty they promoted with the fears they produced by the ethics they have ignored.
Michael agreed with me earlier poverty is the main factor which inspires health deficits. When Doctors increase the levels of poverty by irresponsibly promoting unnecessary fears in the careless use of reputation, they not only destroy the standard of living in communities they eventually also destroy their own.
Keep in mind At the end of the Nuremberg trials, doctors were hanged because they failed to maintain the integrity and trust afforded them. The cost of abandoning integrity then was millions of lives lost. Income taxes were originally devised to pay for the costs of war, those taxes are now entrenched in government budgets permanently.
How much will the price be this time around, with vastly improved communications methods and advancements in technology?
A small quote:
"Shall we try to get the grip of monopoly away from our lives, or shall we not?... we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world... a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men." Woodrow Wilson 1912
We're back to the future...
What was that battle cry? "Give me Liberty or...
Read the entire speech here:
Woodrow Wilson's Progressive Program: The New Freedom
From his Campaign Speeches, 1912
http://www.sagehistory.net/
progr...WNewFreedom.htm
From a tiny town this kind of pollution.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...in3153740.shtml
Mind you---San Francisco (all of Calif) has been smoke-free since 1998!!
They just export the pollution from industry/auto etc to this farming community.
Ahhh the beautiful people are just so perfect.
.
.
Come on Sunz, you know that there must be some SHS there. Everybody knows that it is the cause of all childhood respiratory ailments. How many times have we read that just minutes or seconds of exposure can cause a lifetime of harm. No, there must be some SHS somewhere for this to be happening.
I know, they don't have a ban on smoking in this community. That's it! All of these smokers in this area are contaminating their neighbors.
Never trust a doctor, always ask to see proof and always get a second opinion, because just like auto mechanics good doctors you can trust are now few and far between.
Well said Kevin. Back in NYC, when I turned 50, I was at my doctor's office for blood work checking my thyroid (I have an underactive thyroid), anyway, the doctor mentioned that now that I was 50 I needed to take a calcium supplement to keep my bones strong. I mentioned that I get plenty of calcium rich foods daily, but she insisted I still needed the supplement. Now I had liked and trusted this doctor so I followed her advice.
3 months later, my sister is calling an ambulance for me at 1 am as we both thought I was about to die, I was in so much pain I couldn't move. After several hours lying around the ER it was discovered that I had a kidney stone (my first and hopefully last). I managed to capture it 24 hours later and the lab results came back that it was all calcium.
I was furious. I realized that my doctor made that recommendation based on my age and gender.
I told my mother and sister that if they were ever told to take calcium, demand proof that they were calcium deficient first.
Now when I'm told to take something, I demand proof I need it. Most of the time, they can't be bothered ordering the tests to give you the proof.
I no longer believe in or trust anyone who makes suggestions just because some book claims it to be time.
rrgabe23----LOL (Has to be SHS---it simply must be.)!!!
.
Bill said: "As one who has been urging employers to behaviorally risk rate employee and spousal healthcare insurance policies for more than twenty years, I'm pleased to read that Clarian is doing just that."
Then Michael said: "Unfortunately, what Clarian is doing is not risk rating employees in their health insurance policies. What they are doing is punishing people, through their paychecks, for failure to comply with several specific health behaviors and laboratory values, and invading employees' privacy repeatedly to monitor those individual behaviors."
I say: You're right Michael that docking their pay is tantamount to punishment and inappropriate. I propose they simply turn the punishments into incentives. Provide $5 or $10 "rewards" for each goal met.
hrj01---'I propose they simply turn the punishments into incentives. Provide $5 or $10 "rewards" for each goal met'
Right. Use coercion to acheive your master plan!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
~snip~
The term is often associated with circumstances which involve the unethical use of threats or harm to achieve some objective. Coercion may also serve as a form of justification for a conclusion in a logical fallacy or non-logical argument
________
.
But then TC or control fanatics don't engage in much logic---they are however big on ligical fallicies.
.
ligical= logical
;(
I agree with Michael that this particular instance goes over the edge in the invasion of privacy arena. However, the issue (IMHO) is much larger and goes to the entire idea of health insurance. Most of us here reject the idea of a nationalized health insurance at least in part because it gives everyone a stake in everyone else's health choices. But private health insurance (and the sharing of risk) in general already does that.
I always thought the idea of health insurance was to share risk. But it seems as if - with rising health costs - people simply don't want to share anymore. The extreme then, after we risk-rate everyone for everything they do, is back to self pay.
Yup -- I think I pretty much said nothing here. But it's that sort of issue. We share all risks, we share some (which?) risks, or we share no risks?
Hi Dr.
I'm writing to invite you to a press conference New York City Councilman James Gennaro is holding Aug. 16 at 1 p.m. on the steps of City Hall in Manhattan. I know it's quite a distance for you, but I think it's in your field of interest and knowledge. The councilman will be discussing some new legislation that he is proposing, which would make it illegal to smoke in a vehicle carrying passengers younger than 18.
Please give me a call or e-mail me to let me know if you're interested and able to come into the City for this. I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thanks,
Lee Landor
Director of Communications for Councilman James F. Gennaro
917 439 6026
lee.landor@council.nyc.gov
Well, look guys, this guy was kind enough to leave phone number and email address...
hrj01 said;
"I say: You're right Michael that docking their pay is tantamount to punishment and inappropriate. I propose they simply turn the punishments into incentives. Provide $5 or $10 "rewards" for each goal met."
That method simply won't do.
It's the carrot and stick approach.
The stick costs nothing, and in this case, the employess will actually be paying for the priviledge of being abused.
If they offer the Carrot instead, that's just going to cost them even more, and if it was to prove successful, they would be stuck with all those employees their trying to get rid of in the first place.
Using this tactic, it's the employees "fault"
The "It's for your own good" or "in an effort to reduce healthscare costs" cliches are becoming increasingly popular to justify institutionalized theft in corporations as well as government.
Healthscare costs have nothing to do with anyones actual physical health.
It has everything to do with BrandName prescription drugs that cost on average 500% more than the generic equivalent with the same active ingredients.
It has to do with competition among medical facilities to have the biggest, newest, most expensive, most powerful, fastest, best of everything from equiptment used, to the buildings to house it.
On the surface, ..that's great, but as a result, no one can afford to take advantage of any of it.
Newer doesn't mean better, stronger doesn't mean more effective, and spacious doesn't mean anything if a potential patient can't afford to set foot in the facility.
It's not about health, ....wait, I think that's already been pointed out, ..at least once.
godownfighting wrote: "I always thought the idea of health insurance was to share risk. But it seems as if - with rising health costs - people simply don't want to share anymore. The extreme then, after we risk-rate everyone for everything they do, is back to self pay."
Agreed. It should be self pay. Then watch to costs come down. Those insured who rarely visit a doctor pay for those insured that visit for every little thing. Insurance lead people to believe it not their money paying for things. If everyone paid for only what was needed when needed costs would come down and not just because the middlemen, health insurance companies, would be gone. But also because medicine would have to be made more affordable for everyone or no one would use it unless they had to.
"...a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
The above quote (see below) is in reference to the Global Warming debate. However, it fits perfectly with the claims of harm by SHS, Obesity, etc.
Excerpt from the end of a Wall Street Journal opinion piece:
"So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
...........
From:
Wall Street Journal
EARTH IN THE BALANCE
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006
Kevin and tohers
The New england Journal of Medicine may have answered your question, when ya asked what would happen if all smokers quit.
It looks like there would be another 12% decline in heart attacks.
All ya have to do is register as a free member and ya can get free access to this one.
This was in the June 7 ed of the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/cont...ull/356/23/
2388
and it says that a 50% drop in active smoking leads to a 12% drop in AMI deaths between 1980 and 2000,
If so, then if 100% of smokers quit, we could expect an additional 12% drop in AMI deaths.
So, then how many deaths could secondhand smoke cause?
Well, if you look at Table 2, you will see that they assign active smoking as RR= 2.25 for death due to ami. and they say that saved 39925 lives in year 2000.
Yet the antismoking activists claim shs causes about the same number of ami deaths each year as the NEJM authors claim were prevented by cutting active smoking in half.
To me this seems highly implausible. We cannot rule out that shs does not cause some deaths this way, but we can certainly rule out that's it's 35,000, or whatever they have it up to now. This approach would yield ami deaths much below the claimed 35,000..
Of course, these authors did not even enter shs declines into the calculations, and pretty much achieved a mass-balance of observed and theoretical results. This makes it almost impossible that shs declines could be co-mingled within these data, and ERGO, that shs deaths do not really exist.
Dave K
Thanks, doctor. I heard this on the morning news program; forgot which network.
My thought is "what's next?". Should we consider breasts and prostate glands as precancerous lesions that must be removed precautionarily in order to be eligible for employment?
*shrug*.
I know a lady, 80 years old, a tiny petite woman who eats like a bird, walks 3 miles a day, mows her own large yard, is an avid gardner, never smoked in her life and her cholesteral levels are very high and have been for quite some time. Apparently it runs in her family, but she is otherwise very healthy and vigorous.
She was on Lipitor for a while, which gave her only a slight improvement in her cholesteral levels, but ultimately made her very sick. If you read the package insert, she had all the classic symptoms of the bad side effects of this drug.
Since cholesteral issues are one of the fashionable sacred cows of medicine, it took several weeks and a lot of pushing by her before her primary care physician ordered the proper tests and took her off lipitor. After delaying as long as possible, they finally did some bloodwork and took her off lipitor.
It took her a while to recover; it didn't happen in a few days.
At what cost do you try to make people come in with "ideal" numbers for trendy medical conditions?
"Good Morning America" did a segment this morning on Clairion charging their employees if they don't stop smoking, lose weight, etc. They were totally against it, even though more times than I can remember, they were always in favor of smoking bans. Looks like they are starting to fear the day the PC nuts comes for them. Anyway, they brought in an employment specialist who said something very interesting and who made a case that I have not seen or heard of or even thought of myself. She said that, smoking is considered an addiction, therefore we are considered ill, obesity is an illness, etc. All these conditions or illnesses are covered under the "American Disablility Act" so therefore, Clarion or any of the companis should not or can not legally discriminate or charge someone who they don't feel is living in their perfect world! I wish I had thought of that, and that should be perfect legal grounds to sue these people!
She said that, smoking is considered an addiction, therefore we are considered ill, obesity is an illness, etc. All these conditions or illnesses are covered under the "American Disablility Act" so therefore, Clarion or any of the companis should not or can not legally discriminate or charge someone who they don't feel is living in their perfect world! I wish I had thought of that, and that should be perfect legal grounds to sue these people!
While it's a nice concept on the surface, I for one do NOT consider myself ill. I am actually quite healthy, much to any doctor's chagrin.
IF I worked for such an organization that attempted that, I would demand, and do so legally IF necessary, the proof that *I* as a smoker, was in fact causing the firms healthcare costs to rise. I would demand to see the actual numbers from HR of the biggest healthcare users............I'd bet it was all the healthy, fit, in shape, perfects.
So, while it's nice there might be a legal out there, I'm not comfortable with using the "I'm an ill addict" to gain any ground. I've always thought the discrimination claims via the ADA were overly used. There are people for whom those laws truly are needed and benefit. It just feels wrong to lump smokers and the obese in there as well. We do NOT have a disability, NOR are we ill.
But that's just me.
"The councilman will be discussing some new legislation that he is proposing, which would make it illegal to smoke in a vehicle carrying passengers younger than 18."
Here's a better idea for legislation for the councilman to consider.
A proposal that would prohibit city, county, state, or federal government politicians from eroding the rights and civil liberties of the population any further, ...at all, ...ever.
Lets call it:
"The Prove It Act" in which any attempt to rescind the rights and liberty of *ANY PORTION* of the population based on "elevated risks" claimed by ANY NON-PROFIT entity, or panic stricken ASSOCIATES of ANY NON-PROFIT entity must be scientifically proven by actual, factual, science that doesn't include any of the following verbiage in the findings of that science:
Maybe, Could be, Might be, should be,Casual association, Infers, Implies, or sometimes. Such scientific "evidence" would have to be of such quality that the "average American" could be "adequately informed" of the DEFINITIVE "elevated risks" involved along with easily understood analogies of the alledged danger for mass consumption, or of the DEFINITIVE lack of any substantial dangerous life altering elevated risk whatsoever.
All research would have to undergo a rigorous peer review by a panel of 10th grade Science teachers selected at one per every Public School district in the country.
Regardless of the outcome of any study, only the portion of the population that is subject to the rescision of rights and liberty will have get to vote on whether or not they impose such restrictions on themselves.
All necessary monies needed to conduct this type of research would be paid for by a special exicise tax on political salaries above $80,000.00
Think the councilman will give it some consideration?
It's a pretty good plan, and could probably gain a lot of votes with this one.
Dave K
With all of the creative numbers flying around----we ought to be down into negatives numbers by now.
What will they every do then?
.
ahhh cholesterol, one of my favorite pet peeves...since the 1970's...
unknown quotes saved over the years:
'instead of preventing cardiovascular disease the new guidelines may increase the mortality of other diseases, transform healthy individuals into unhappy hypochondriacs obsessed with the chemical composition of their food and their blood, reduce the income of producers of animal fat, undermine the art of cuisine, destroy the joy of eating, and divert health care money from the sick and the poor to the rich and the healthy. The only winners are the drug and imitation food industry and the researchers they support.'
'News you will not see reported on the evening newscasts:
THE PARALLEL DECLINE OF RISKINESS AND THE SERENITY OF LIFE IN SUCH A SOCIETY.'
Lightning Boy,
I absolutely LOVE your plan!
I would also add to such a bill that anyone introducing it, backing it also MUST be accountable to those who pay his salary (the taxpayers) for all their actions and votes. They should all be held accountable for all their voting actions anyway. After all, they are supposedly representing ALL the taxpayers. AND smokers are not only taxpayers, we are the BIGGEST taxpayers.
I agree with Dan above. The problem is that health care costs have already spiraled so high that it will be very painful for society to start to unwind this mess (a kind of health insurance addiction) that we're in now. But I'm pretty sure the answer is NOT to dig us in any deeper.
LB- "prove it act" -- brilliant!
Dave K, when looking over the NEJM heart disease deaths dropped from aprox 542 per 100,000 to 267 per 100,000. Seeing TC uses these number to calculate deaths from RR (1.3 heart SHS)those 53,000 deaths from SHS should have dropped also Hmmm... Looks like those 220 dead bartenders are going to even be harder to find.
This is the response I received from Mr. Landor:
"I apologize that you feel your rights are being trampled on. And yes, you own your life and your body and have the freedom to do with it what you will. You do not have the freedom to do whatever you wish to your children in the areas of health and education.
Doctors in Nazi Germany and occupied countries murdered people or intentionally misdiagnosed them, leading to their deaths. Banning smoking to maintain the health of a child is quite the opposite.
Once again, we apologize that you feel alienated as a smoker in a city where people do not want to involunatarily smoke the cigarette fumes and exhalation airs of smokers. We are only trying to do what we believe is both environmentally sound and progressive.
Thank you for your response.
Lee Landor
Director of Communications
917 439 6026
lee.landor@council.nyc.gov"-----
______
Note how clear he is "You do not have the freedom to do whatever you wish to your children in the areas of health and education."
And the doctor does not think the comparison to history are appropriate.
So there you have it folk----from the perfection of NYC air!!!
.
"We are only trying to do what we believe is both environmentally sound and progressive."
There's that word again,.."PROGRESIVE"
It seems to have multiple meanings depending on the ASDS infected beaurecrat you're talking to and the circumstance surrounding it's useage.
Since ASDS affects communication skills, (particularly among infected "public servants" and their aides)allow me to attempt to translate what he was actually saying;
"We don't really care what you think because we have been told by reliable paid sources that have absolutely no reason to lie to us,(and NO, we have no need to verify) that the "science" is on our side and in order to appear to be doing something of consequence regarding healthscare, we want desperately to be considered as caring and concerned totalitarian benefactors, and not just the oppressive totalitarian control freaks we really are."
Didn't Shrillary Clinton recently use that term to describe herself as well?
Progressive:
The 21st century term for Socialist.
Here's a better definition of Progressive:
"continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease."
Here's another: proceeding step by step. (toward Socialism?)
You bet'cha.
OK off topic but just to prove that people truly cannot connect the dots, comes THIS little ditty from Seattle……….home of the most sensitive, perfectly fit citizens; who don't believe smoking bans ARE nannyism. While they appear to ‘get it’ read the last sentence to see that they really don’t:
County believes it is Weight Watchers
The menu rule, unlike the trans-fat rule, doesn't apply to all restaurants equally. It applies only to restaurants in chains of 10 or more. Anthony's is covered and Salty's is not. Ruth's Chris is covered and Canlis is not. Outback is covered and the Metropolitan Grill is not. Wendy's is covered and Dick's is not.
What's more, school and hospital cafeterias are not covered — the Board of Health does not regulate them — nor is the county's own jail.
I smell a “level playing field” argument about to ensue.
The menu rule overreaches. Something may need to be done about disclosure of calories, salt, etc., but it should be done in a less heavy-handed way. Maybe the information could be on a Web page, or posted on the wall along with the business licenses and the health inspector's report.
Putting it on the menu in large type reeks of nannyism. Crab cakes are not cigarettes.(bolded emphasis mine)
Amazing how they use OUR arguments, but can’t make the connection.
http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com...1_menued10.html
Note how clear he is "You do not have the freedom to do whatever you wish to your children in the areas of health and education."
Perhaps someone should point out to this so-called public official that parents DO have the freedom to do as they wish with their children in the areas of health and education.
Parents ARE allowed to seek alternative medicines for their children, ARE allowed to seek 2nd and 3rd opinions and question doctors, or exercise their religious beliefs in the area of healthcare for their children.
Parents also ARE free to send their children to private schools, hire private tutors OR home school them themselves if they meet the criteria.
Mr. L tried really hard to stand his ground................unfortunately, he slipped and went BOOM.
We won't even mention that all the rules regarding automatic vaccinations should be looked into again, and parents given the option to opt out of some of them.
Seriously, is tetanus a communicable disease that vaccinations are mandatory for kids but not adults?
I'm so thankful I left NYC when I did. How embarrassing to live somewhere and be treated like a blooming idiot BY a blooming idiot.
LighteningBoy,
Your translation was exactly what my translation was. Thanks for your input.
.
Nemo,
UHHHHH??? what 220 bartenders are you taking about? the ones out of a job?
The NEJM article did show that treatment after the causes of heart disease were most effective in preventing the deaths. ( about 53% of the prevented deaths) It seems that if the 800 million spent each year on tobacco control were spent on finding more lifesaving techniques to deal with heart disease, perhaps we could prevent many more?
I reiterate, if the authors believed shs causes heart disease, then why did they not include that in thier ananysis? Better yet, if the NEJM really beieves shs causes heart disease, then they should have rejected the manuscript unless/until the authors included changes in shs exposure in the calculations.
Mystifying..
Dave K
OK, here's another OT article for your overflowing "stupidest s**t I've ever read" file.
"Oh no! Holidays (vacations) give you cancer"
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/
...7360884,00.html
DECKCHAIR out, beer in one hand, 99 ice cream in the other – that’s what the British summer is all about.
But a scene like this could soon be a thing of the past, because it seems these simple pleasures could be killing us.
As the nation finally starts to enjoy itself after weeks of miserable weather and devastating floods, a leading cancer charity has decided to tell us that all that fun is bad for your health.
You might have thought that putting in the longest working hours in Europe and not being able to get a GP’s appointment would be the death of you.
But no, according to Cancer Research UK that much-needed break in Spain, where you dare to bask under the sun and indulge in a pint or three, is much more damaging.
~snip~
Reasons to be cheerful ... our holiday check list
The report found that rates of malignant melanoma (too much sun), kidney cancer (too much grub and fags), womb cancer (too much food), liver cancer (too much booze), and mouth cancer (too much booze and baccy) are all on the up because of our unhealthy ways.
We’re not advocating a lifestyle with no regard for our health. And we know our risk of certain diseases rises if we do too much of the things we know are bad for us.
But do we really need research that at best is telling us what we already know — everything in moderation — and at worst, to enjoy yourself at your peril?
Did you hear that Dr. Siegel? Listen close because it means you too!
"You do not have the freedom to do whatever you wish to your children in the areas of health and education."
If these oppressive totalitarian control freaks (copied that from LighteningBoy, thank you) get their way... nah, American's are waking up, I believe. It's only going to go so far.
I think he's just blowing smoke. Honestly, there is absolutely no one, NOT ONE, that I have talked to that agrees with this Government Intrusion on personal rights and property and they don't believe the so called "science" either! Thanks to our last Surgeon General's claim that 30sec of ambient exposure to shs could cause sudden death to long term chronic condition(s). Hat's off to you General. LOL
Many didn't even know shs was an issue. Non smokers and smokers alike. Most think it is a joke, at first now they know that Big Government is on a feeding frenzy and they will be coming for more and more till there is nothing left!
Sooooo many people feel sold out by their government!!
Dr. Siegel if you decide to go to NY - do NOT bring Lee Landor back to Massachusetts and (further) pollute my air space, we have enough sickos.
By the way, I think New Yorkers should start having to pay taxes on the so called clean air that government has legislated.
Let's see, for 24hrs of breathing Government air the tax would be... lets start off easy. 25cents per person per day.
Yeah, taxachusetts could clean up there too 
Government is in for another windfall!!
Lynda,
I agree with you about addiction not being a health issue, but should it come up, I will throw it in their face, if only for a momentary laugh at the expression on their faces. I do think humor is the best medicine for all that ails anyone! Even asthmatics or people who don't know how to shower or wash their clothes after an evening in a restaurant or bar.
As one who has been urging employers to behaviorally risk rate employee and spousal healthcare insurance policies for more than twenty years, I'm pleased to read that Clarian is doing just that.
The irresponsible and selfish comments posted on this blog (i.e. I want to increase healthcare costs but insist that employers and others should be required to subsidize those cost increases) demonstrate the pathetic mindset of those who advocate a right-to-smoke. --Bill Godshall
Thank you. Bill, that is exactly the point. Great idea. We have areas of agreement.
That is exactly how things are handled in a free capitalist country. If you want to have unsafe sex, drink a case of beer, smoke 4 packs of Camel unfiltered or consume 15,000 calories per day that is your right.
But PRIVATE insurance compnaies will charge you more because of an increased risk.
That is how you coerce the sheeple. Not through Government social engineering and bogus studies.
If you are serious about promoting this idea, you can count on me for support.
Dr. Siegel, the premise of your blog post claiming that Clarian is being unfair and hypocritical is mute:
Clarian is a PRIVATE business. If they want to exclude midgets (sorry, the PC term is vertically challenged)or obese neurosurgeons from employment that is their right as a private company.
The talented 300 pound diabetic surgeon is free to take his skills, patients and experience across the street to the competitor.
When Clarian loses those patients and dollars, they might reconsider their position. Maybe the $10 will make up for the millions of lost revenue, maybe it won't.
Let the free market decide.
Mike wrote:
"Unfortunately, what Clarian is doing is not risk rating employees in their health insurance policies. What they are doing is punishing people, through their paychecks, for failure to comply with several specific health behaviors and laboratory values, and invading employees' privacy repeatedly to monitor those individual behaviors."
I'm sure that Clarion would be pleased to simply not provide health insurance to any employee who didn't want to participate in this policy.
When employers provide (i.e. pay for) health insurance for employees, why shouldn't an employer (like an insurance company) be able to charge a higher premium (i.e. by witholding the amount from a paycheck) for those who engage in high risk behaviors?
I'm pleased to read that Eric Blair and I agree on this issue.
Bill, two people can agree on the same thing but for different reasons.
You are not in the same league as Eric. His opinion is arrived at nobly. Yours is calculating.
His is based on being a staunch supporter of the free market built on constitutional republic ideals. Yours is based on a bias built on your self-serving ideals.
Bill Godshall Re: "I'm sure that Clarion would be pleased to simply not provide health insurance to any employee who didn't want to participate in this policy.
When employers provide (i.e. pay for) health insurance for employees, why shouldn't an employer (like an insurance company) be able to charge a higher premium (i.e. by witholding the amount from a paycheck) for those who engage in high risk behaviors?"
So, if you are an employee of Clarian Health and do not sign up for their provided health insurance would that employee still subject to their "set of health guidelines, including requirements to quit smoking and keep their weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar in a specified range."?
Or would the requirement just apply to the employees that are eligible and sign up for their health "benefits"?
If so, I would agree with it
When employers provide (i.e. pay for) health insurance for employees, why shouldn't an employer (like an insurance company) be able to charge a higher premium (i.e. by witholding the amount from a paycheck) for those who engage in high risk behaviors?
Bill, I swear on my Grandmothers' non-smoking grave (she yelled at me 20 years ago when I first started smoking like my uncles and her sons, long before you and the Gubmint did), not only do I agree with you, you can take it a step further...
When Government provides (i.e. pay for) health insurance for citizens, why shouldn't the Government(like an insurance company) be able to charge a higher premium (i.e. by performing social engineering to coerce people to quit smoking, eat right, and excercise) for those who engage in high risk behaviors
"The Government that is big enough to give you everything you need, is big enough to take away everything you have."
--Barry Goldwater
sound familiar? i think i hear an echo...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20215678/
apparently this clarian health topic was featured on the 'today' show with matt lauer this morning. the comment section (link at bottom of article) is most interesting, always incitful. some see the issue very clearly while others are just plain stupid (big surprise). i'd say a clear majority are against such draconian policies, based on the comments.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20212332/
I hear the echo too brandz!
From the linked article:
"The study adds to growing research into non-medical complications of being fat, including data suggesting that obese adults miss more workdays and go to college less frequently than people of normal weight, Geier said."
I reiterate: "growing research into non-medical complications of being fat"
Who pray tell is funding this research?
I received further comment from the councilmens office.
I will not post it in it's full content as in does contain some personal information.
First of all It's Ms. Landor NOT Mr.
When I challenged her statement
'You do not have the freedom to do whatever you wish to your children in the areas of health and education.'
This was the response: 'I don't mean to imply that anyone owns your children, but there are tough guidelines in place that require parents to provide at least minimal education and health plans.'
She stateed that she was a smoker that at first felt alienated by Mayor Bloomberg smoking bans, but has come to appreciate "his efforts and to realize that there is no excuse for subjecting children, who have no say in what their parents teach them or how they behave toward them, to involuntary smoking."
"As for the Councilman's initiative, we've received support from various organizations and we intend to continue pushing for this legislation. Rockland County passed a similar law several months ago and has so far, had no problems."
I found some conflicting comments as in the beginning or the response
'I don't wish to challenge you or engage in a debate. You are, by all means, entitled to your own opinion and the councilman to his.'
Then ends the correspondence with
'Thank you again for opening dialogue on this issue.'
I appreciate her position as an employee here, but am baffled why she would not see employment elsewhere. But that's just me, I don't take well to be bulldozed.
On the issue of the insurance for Clarian. When I had my own business and insurance became too expensive and uncontrollable, we stopped the coverage through the company. We compensated through wages what the cost of the coverage was at the time we discontinued it, and all was well.
Most employees chose to spend their extra on trucks, motorcycles, and the like.
The folks at Clarian perhaps could be offered such and option.
.
Bill Godshall - When employers provide (i.e. pay for) health insurance for employees, why shouldn't an employer (like an insurance company) be able to charge a higher premium (i.e. by witholding the amount from a paycheck) for those who engage in high risk behaviors?
........
BG,
Employers "provide" nothing. It is part of a pay package. If it "provides" health insurance and/or pays a portion of the premiums, then the pay scale is reduced accordingly.
BG makes the same mistake every socialist makes: They believe there is a free lunch. They believe corporations pay taxes, they believe corporations pay fines, they believe federal and/or state funds drop from the sky like manna from heaven.
Bill Godshall - when are you going to finally awaken to the fact that the individual, a flesh and blood person, pays for everything?
Karen,
RE: Funding of Obsety Research:
Childhood Obesity
http://www.rwjf-newconnections.o...eAddi-
2921.html
Healthy Eating Research
http://www.rwjf-newconnections.o...Heal-
list0.html
Key to Funding:
http://www.rwjf-newconnections.o...Heal-
list0.html
Yep the very same folks that have funded the anti-smoking nonsense.
.
Why if I want to self pay for any medical treatment or exam does it cost me 3 times what they charge my insurance company?
Rod asks----"when are you going to finally awaken to the fact that the individual, a flesh and blood person, pays for everything?"
As long as the smokers are funding the high wave he's riding he will never awaken. He will simply go to the next 'health threat' when the smoking party ends.
When he has to get a real job or run a real business, he might awaken===but my bet would be he'll just keep pressin' the snooze alarm.
BTW Rod welcome back.
.
Karen----' Why if I want to self pay for any medical treatment or exam does it cost me 3 times what they charge my insurance company?'
That has not been my experience, Karen. My coverage is for catostrophic coverage only. When I tell my health care provider I don't have coverage, they generallly reduce the charge by 20-30% if I pay at the time of service.
.
OT but this is a good Glow Bull warming read. Is it deja vu all over or what?
Twisting Science to Fit the Global Warming Template
http://www.americanthinker.com/
2...fit_the_gl.html
~snip~
The global warming crowd does not take kindly to being contradicted, either by critics or data. Of course, critics can be defamed and data can be skewed. But unless the critics can be silenced, they can fight back and expose phony data. When it begins to look like predictions of doom are not turning out sufficiently catastrophic, a full Orwell is called for. The media mobilize their templates to completely re-cast the information.
Gee, can anyone smell a cigarette burning?
"You do not have the freedom to do whatever you wish to your children in the areas of health and education."
Lee Landor, speaking on behalf of Councilman James F Gennaro.
.............
Councilman Gennaro's goal is very clear:
He advocates removing children from their parents' control (taking away their children) for violating the state's (or municipality's) definition of "Health" and "Education." Health and Education means whatever the Socialist System decides it means.
How cruel and ruthless can a system be? To force compliance by the specter of jack-booted police kicking down a door to forcibly remove, for their own health and "proper" education, someone's children?
That is exactly where Gennaro is going, one step at a time. Why do I say that? Because, in the end, if a mother and father defy this "boot in your face" proposed legislation and those that follow, that is the only way it can be enforced...and Mr. Gennaro knows it.
I'm writing to invite you to a press conference...discussing some new legislation ... which would make it illegal to smoke in a vehicle carrying passengers younger than 18.
So Doc-- ya gonna go?
And, either way, what's your response to this "progessive" legislation?
:
BTW, I think more of us should write to Ms. Landor.
" Note how clear he is "You do not have the freedom to do whatever you wish to your children in the areas of health and education."
This guy should be pressed on this statement and asked if he is making a specific allegation, connecting anyone who smokes to child abuse or if he is generally promoting hatred against a quarter of the population in support of his political self interests.
The broad brushing of a group with allegations against individuals, is an old ploy which needs to be discussed in detail whenever it occurs. He is taking a freebie and he should be asked to pay for it, just so no one is broad brushed and punished prior to being found guilty.
It takes a lot of stones for a politician to assume the rights of parental authority especially in taking those rights and decisions away from such a large proportion of society in plain sight. The rest of society will not stand idle and watch as their rights are taken in process.
This guy could be on the receiving end of a lot more than he can handle simply by engaging him, as to the meaning of his statements, a no win for the best of politicians who sound off like they want to be your children's significant guardian.
Leaving your only responsibility to do as your told and pay the bills.
Governments make a ridiculous mess of managing, what we hire them to do, now they want to oversee every parent in the country and manage their personal lives in a similarly bumbling inefficient manner. Based entirely in the conflicted opinions and demands of industry lobby groups who take responsibility for nothing.
How many children will that kill?
From the WHO;
http://www.who.int/tobacco/resea...s/en/
index.html
"In high-income countries up to 15% of the health- care budget is spent on dealing with tobacco-related diseases. Within countries,
TAKE NOTE OF THIS INSIGHTFUL COMMENT;
tobacco consumption is inversely related to the socioeconomic level: it goes up as the standard of living goes down.
Higher smoking prevalence means that it is the poorer who bear more of the burden of both the health costs and the economic costs of tobacco."
- Dr LEE Jong-wook, WHO Director-General
If we increase costs even by the small numbers discussed, we increase the total socioeconomic disparities. meaning cost increases actually result in higher health related deficits, by widening socioeconomic levels you increase the smoking prevalence figures ALONG WITH A HOST OF OTHER DEFICITS and by direct inverse association; the costs [social and economic] of health care will rise.
Those insurers who develop economic models to promote these mistakes should pay attention to overall costs and benefits.
Funny Bill with his 20 year advocacy to cutting off his nose to spite his face failed to realize the inevitable effects if they actually adapted his model.
From Health Canada take a look at how many times the arguments of a similar health scare trouper contradict themselves. The following analysis amounts to incoherent babbling when you understand the total effects of ignoring reality; Are governments well informed? Michael's previous comments of fully informing Bartenders should actually be proceeded with a more general understanding starting much higher up the corporate model, at the level that information originates.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publi...c/18-1/
c_e.html
" In 1991, smoking accounted for an estimated $2.5 billion in health care costs, $1.5 billion for residential care costs, $2 billion from workers' absenteeism and $10.5 billion in lost future earnings, totalling $16.5 billion. Nevertheless, had there been a tobacco-free society, the smokers who had died in 1991 would have lived longer, on average, and ultimately would have cost society for such services as pensions, medical care and residential care. Except for pensions, these "avoided" costs were estimated to be about $1.5 billion. Thus, overall, smokers cost Canadian society just under $15 billion in 1991.
These estimates are, of course, neither totally accurate nor complete. For example, future costs of pensions are not included because current federal government policy to make pensions self-financing makes their inclusion in this calculation uncertain.36 In addition, some of the calculations may either underestimate or overestimate costs. For the purposes of this report, it was assumed that these differences would tend to cancel each other out.
Finally, a number of smoking-attributable costs are not included because there are no methods, at present, to estimate their value. For example, there is very little information regarding the cost attributable to friends' and families' visits to sick and dying smokers, of long-term smoking-attributable disability or of smoking-attributable home health care. Furthermore, the psychological and emotional costs incurred by the families of dead or dying smokers are incalculable.
Yet, is the real cost of smoking economic? In 1987, Warner concluded that the biggest gain to a tobacco-free society would be "significantly enriched quality and quantity of life."37 This was written in the US at a time when it was believed that smokers actually cost society more than they contributed in taxes. Back then, many of the calculations did not include future costs but did include lost income costs. For this reason, economists argued that smoking-attributable costs were too high.37
In Canada, the situation is very different. In 1991, smokers spent $10.45 billion on tobacco products,38 of which about 75% went to governments in the form of taxes. Excluding lost income (which costs individuals and not governments) and disability (which incurs costs for the employer), the cost of smoking for governments was about $2.3 billion in health care costs (including residential care) and an additional $96 million in lost income taxes from smokers who died in 1991. The latter number is estimated by assuming that, on average, those smokers who died in 1991 earned one half of their income at a tax rate of 19.8%.39 Even with this latter amount included, the result is that smokers paid in more than they took out by about $5.4 billion. After the reduction in excise taxes on February 8, 1994, however, smokers saw a substantial decrease in their smoking-related contributions."
For insights;
http://healthcare-bandwagons.blo...-
reasoning.html
For a balanced perspective;
Recently the major news outlets carried a humanities story. A dog had been left in a car in Toronto on an extremely hot day with the windows only opened a crack. When enforcement officers arrived they broke the window and rescued the dog. The owner showed up while they were treating the dog for extreme heat prostration by soaking it with water. The owner was first handcuffed to the car and told to wait while they began treating the dog.
The announcer in applauding the efforts of the enforcement officer went on to state; the dog owner had received his just rewards when he was in turn placed in a car for a long period of time with the windows completely closed.
Many who heard the cheer leading failed to understand; if we were being told it is inhuman to treat an animal in such a manner and the enforcement officer took action based on that realization, it was felt it was appropriate to treat a human being in an identical manner to teach him a lesson. The contradiction should have been obvious however while discussing the situation with others who had seen the story, it still took a while for most to think about it and understand what was inconsistent in the thinking of these officials, once the whole situation was put into perspective
Most would have to agree the owner was less to blame than those who should have known better, proven by their own actions making it necessary to rescue the dog. The news piece as it turns out was actually an infomercial framed as news to support the lobby efforts of PETA.
I, along with a number of others apparently, wrote to inquire about the contradiction, being promoted by the broadcasters. I was delighted to hear on the news last night the corrections officer had been relieved of his duties and there is a large lawsuit pending.
Just goes to show how easily we can be promoted to applaud inhumanity, by those who don't really consider what they are telling us, prior to reading it off the teleprompter.
Many who heard the cheer leading failed to understand; if we were being told it is inhuman to treat an animal in such a manner and the enforcement officer took action based on that realization, it was felt it was appropriate to treat a human being in an identical manner to teach him a lesson.
The words "lynch mob" comes to mind....
I'm sure that Clarion would be pleased to simply not provide health insurance to any employee who didn't want to participate in this policy.
When employers provide (i.e. pay for) health insurance for employees,
Bill, employers no longer provide health insurance to employees. They offer the option to buy into a group plan at a discounted rate and both the employer AND employee pay into the premiums. The same goes for dental, vision, life insurance.
It is my understanding that employers offering health care insurance at group rates are not doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. Health insurance, like vacation pay, sick days, life insurance, are perks offered by companies to lure in employees. It also allows them to keep payroll expenses down since they help subsidize the cost of these perks. These costs are figured into their analysis of what each particular job is worth (salary wise). At least that's how it used to be.
While your premise is correct, your reasons are not. These employers are NOT carrying the full financial burden of the coverage they offer. The premiums are discounted for group rates AND shared by the employee. I remember when I entered the workforce, many decades ago, when companies offered healthcare they actually paid for the premium and the employee did not contribute via payroll deductions. This is NO longer the case.
And yes, the employer IS allowed to set their own rules.........however, I do not believe there is any constitutional right for employers to dictate their employees lifestyle choices.
And just because some things are not specifically named in the discrimination laws, does NOT mean it still isn't discrimination. It just means anal people, like yourself, have an out for openly and arbitrarily discriminating against those you don't like.
Consider what Bill is actually supporting and how much impact that support will bite him back eventually.
Going back to the quote from the former head of the World Health Organization
"tobacco consumption is inversely related to the socioeconomic level: it goes up as the standard of living goes down."
I took note of the word "related" which is much more decisive than the term we generally hear from the anti smoker advocates "Associated"
A decisive statement, we can take as much more informative, than speculation provided by the countless studies promoting the denormalization of entire communities taking prominence in government wisdom. Governments with "any excuse will do" splurge in the expenditures of taxes already collected, to finance extremely expensive lobby campaigns.
Illusions of leadership which live only in the power of sound bites. Popular sound bites despite the multiple parroted sources are all the rage, while ignoring the failures of governance to deal with the most substantial Health deficit, actually promoting more poverty with billions wasted in Social Marketing.
Poverty is empowered and profited with higher taxation focussed at those most affected, in reaction to the symptoms of increasing socioeconomic disparities. It is irrefutable the disparities will only grow in dealing with the effects while ignoring the cause.
strike that, what I should have written was
Dealing with the effects while promoting the problem.
Walt - BTW, I think more of us should write to Ms. Landor.
......
Walt and others...
Landor is speaking for Gennaro, an elected official. This is Gennaro's position, not Landor's.
You do not dispute with an underling, you dispute with the official.
Gennaro is the one who espouses using the jack-boot to enforce his agenda of Socialism/Eugenics.
"As one who has been urging employers to behaviorally risk rate employee and spousal healthcare insurance policies for more than twenty years, I'm pleased to read that Clarian is doing just that." -- Bill Godshall
Everyone should note this down for future reference. Here's a fascist-minded twit who should be locked in a cage. And fed a diet of Twinkies (which is probably his proper diet anyway). And no red meat, as he might try to gum his way through the bars.
There's no arguing with an animal like that. Hell, there's no arguing with Siegel, who lives in a bunker, but he's at least semi-approachable.
Question: If Godshall was once a three-pack-a-day smoker, would he be subject to Clarian-like strictures for a certain interval, to be determined, while his body fully recovered? Perhaps Siegel could tell us how long it takes for a body which has smoked x number or cigarettes per day for x number of years to be rid of the effects of tobacco toxicity after quitting.
The most interesting thing about Councilman Gennaro's proposal is that with all of the significant issues that could be addressed -- THIS is the one on which he will spend his time. Can he really believe that smoking in cars is one of the MOST important issues that New York's children face? Or... could it be (just sayin') that it's a good issue to hold a press conference around and get some media attention?
I do hope that someone at the press conference challenges him with regard to some *real* issues.
How to Circumvent the Constitution and Bill of Rights
When the state claims it has the duty, the legal right to override individual rights in order to protect employees and children, then our constitution means nothing.
All the heavily-funded substance "control" groups, government agencies, Health Departments, OSHA, etc., can be lumped into one huge, despotic organization: Health & Safety Control.
Under the false flag of concern for the employee and child, enacting laws forbidding the purchase and use of a "harmful" product are not necessary. The state needs only to proclaim harm (as defined by the state) to employees and/or children.
To "protect" employees, business owners must obey state regulations in order to stay in business.
Enforcement for employee protection is relatively simple: Revoke the business license and padlock the doors. Fine the business owner into bankruptcy.
To "protect" the health and safety of children, the possibilities are endless. However, the easiest method is to have control of the definitions of Health & Safety and Child Abuse.
Enforcement for child protection is also, in most cases, relatively simple: Comply or lose your children.
There is a deeper thing here, though. I, and others, have pressed these advocates of widening the state's intrusion into the home for a comprehensive plan. Here are just a few of the questions we have asked, repeatedly, without receiving an answer:
What is the mechanism for discovering/monitoring for child abuse in the car or home, whether by smoking, unhealthy foods, sleeplessness, parents walking around the house nude, watching too much TV, online too much, etc.
Outline your plan to control how parents should raise their children and list everything you believe should be an act of Child Abuse and/or a threat to the Health & Safety of children. Would lack of breast-feeding be defined as child abuse? Would the use of canned or frozen foods be considered child abuse?
When does childhood end?
How would you monitor/discover the claimed abuse?
Would children be interrogated at school? Would urine testing be required? Mandatory BMI checks?
What should be the penalty?
When should the child be removed from the home?
Where would the child be sent? A foster home? A state-supervised creche for babies or barracks for older children?
What should be taught to the child while in custody of whoever? What regimen of diet, exercise, medical care, education, etc.? Who decides all of that?
How long will the child be under the control of the state?
What requirements must be met for parents to have their children returned to them?
Who will pay for all this?
To those in Health & Safety Control:
If you wish to change the way the system operates, then please give us your plan - in detail.
JTF gets the point Bill.
Would you be in favor of this proposal...
1. All smoking bans and tobacco excise taxes are repealed.
2. The MSA is declared unconstitutional (which it clearly is, but who cares about the Constitution anyway anymore?)
3. The Medicare and Medicaid Gubmint health care programs are completely privatized.
4. Private health insurance companies will be 100% free to "rate" and charge higher premiums to smokers, fat asses, drunks, sluts, skydivers and the mentally retarded control freaks in the anti-tobacco movement.
Are you with me, Bill?
Eric: " Private health insurance companies will be 100% free to "rate" and charge higher premiums to smokers, fat asses, drunks, sluts, skydivers and the mentally retarded control freaks in the anti-tobacco movement."
Well, at least I don't qualify for one of those higher rates! Thank you very much.
From the news spools and coming to a broadcaster near you...
Today in the news the promotion of taxing plastic bags was proposed in a trial balloon, all cheered in the newsroom this stroke of utter genius to thrill ecology minded hearts everywhere. All were found to be in favor, except dog owners who in their obedience in picking up the feces of all dogs, lamented how they would be able to complete their civic duty to control the doodle.
Based on an actual news report, I kid you not.
How much work does it really take any more, to control the ignorant masses who have lost so much dignity and self respect already? We are a defeated people we just haven't woken up to visualize reality yet, dumbed down already, through the efforts of Social Marketing; corporate bosses [AKA government], denormalized the masses.
And what was so wrong with paper bags to begin with that demanded replacement with newer tech plastic, can anyone remember?
Trees need to be saved!!! we need to ban bags entirely and stay in shape taking extra trips.
The food police at CSPI will no doubt be selling the idea dog owners should adjust their pallets and take advantage of the remaining nourishment value from what dogs provide them in place of meat on their dinner plates.
Just think how much we will save in the waste of plastic bags and possible food stuff, being carelessly thrown into the landfill by ignorant child abusers serving meat to their children in place of more readily available healthy food.
Now how can we tax it? perhaps a doggy do production tax calculated by the height and weight of the dog?
Have you heard the latest from the media? After months and years of hearing how with higher taxes on cigarettes, education and cessation programs, the smoking rates have remained level. Now that they want to increase the tax so to pay for children's healthcare, the stories being relayed is, are you ready? Higher taxes has had a major input on the drop of cigarette consumption! Whoever leaked this story has never heard of roll your own, Indian Reservations or the trunks of cars supporting black market. Wonder if it was Enzi who leaked that story or was it you Bill?
Does anyone know if there is an increased risk rating for the wako-eco Prius drivers as their egg cars offer little protection in collisions?
If not, why not? I know as the CAFE standards are lowered, injury rates increase from collisions.
How is it they are permitted this risk (with the kiddies in the car) and we are picking up their tab.
And they receive major tax breaks to purchase these egg mobiles.
Any thoughts would be welcome.
.
Would lack of breast-feeding be defined as child abuse?
Soon -> http://www.massbfc.org/
Public Health Begins with Breastfeeding
Join our campaign to pass breastfeeding-friendly legislation in 2007!
Visit our advocacy page to learn how you can help.
Re: Clarian Health
Most employer-based health insurance plans allow for coverage of spouses and dependent children.
Presently, Clarian penalizes employee enrollees for company-defined "harmful" behaviors.
When will the company take the next obvious step - penalties for the "bad" behavior of the employee's spouse and covered children?
When will it take the next step to tighten even further the present requirements as shown below?
Keep blood pressure lower than 140 systolic and 90 diastolic;
Keep LDL cholesterol less than 130;
Keep blood glucose under 120; and
Keep body mass index less than 30.
Orwell was only slightly off - There will be a "Ministry of Tough Love." The police arm's motto will be "To Love and Protect." aka: The Love Police. Within police ranks there will be insider jokes: "To make love," will mean to kick the face of a suspected Health criminal during an arrest.
She [Ms. Lee Landor] stateed that she was a smoker that at first felt alienated by Mayor Bloomberg smoking bans, but has come to appreciate "his efforts..."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
...
Karen,
In answer to your question about lack of breast feeding being child abuse, the short honest answer is NO. Many women choose not to breast feed for many reasons and one being they are unable to. My daughter wasn't able to with her first child and was made to feel like an inadequate mother. Nothing could be further from the truth. She didn't have any problems with the second child and did breast feed and didn't really like doing it. Baby number 3 will be here in a few weeks and we will see how that one goes, but if she chooses to bottle feed from the beginning, I will be there to support her.
Someday, one of our so called experts will find a link to childhood obesity and breastfeeding and you heard it here first! When I was a child, and when I gave birth, no one breast fed and there was no obesity problem. Now look at the kids and the mom's who do breast feed. Coincidence? Maybe? What could mom be eating or prescription is she taking and passing off to Junior? Some people even blame asthma on formula. Nope, no one in my days had an inhaler or even knew what one looked liked.
Thanks Liberty Belle.
Rod---"You do not dispute with an underling, you dispute with the official."
Sorry, Rod, I gotta disagree here. If more of us had stopped this gathering of troops that has occured in the past 15 years, we might not be here today.
But from the onset, we just kept slinking off while the 'officials' had this chance to brainwash their disciples. The 'officials' and leaders on this have insulated themselves and by using the lemers as their pawns. That is how they advanced their cause.
That, IMHO is in large part why we find outselves in a near criminal corner of society.
.
Very appropriate quote Liberty B
Thanks for that.
For Diane and Karen;
It appears [short term at least] breast feeding is not politically correct. This study even controlled for ETS and we though ETS could never be quantified Surprise Surprise!!!
The social club you mentioned in Mass. has little chance of gaining broad support at least if the following study is considered.
The relationship of breast-feeding, overweight, and asthma in preadolescents
Xiao-Mei Mai PhDa, b, Allan B. Becker MDb, Elizabeth A.C. Sellers MDb, Joel J. Liem MDb and Anita L. Kozyrskyj PhDa, b, c, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
aFrom the Faculty of Pharmacy
bDepartment of Pediatrics and Child Health and the Manitoba Institute of Child Health
cDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba
Received 15 May 2006; revised 30 April 2007; accepted 1 May 2007. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Available online 21 June 2007.
Background
Breast-feeding is suggested to be associated with overweight or asthma in children. Overweight and asthma may share common environmental influences of which breast-feeding may be one.
Objective
We evaluated whether short duration of exclusive breast-feeding and subsequent overweight were associated with asthma.
Methods
A nested case-control study included 246 children with pediatric allergist–diagnosed asthma and 477 controls without asthma at age 8 to 10 years. Information on exclusive breast-feeding was obtained from questionnaire data. Overweight at 8 to 10 years of age was defined as body mass index ≥85th percentile of age and sex-specific growth charts. The association between asthma and exclusive breast-feeding less than 12 weeks plus overweight, adjusted for sex, parental asthma, aboriginal origin, passive smoking at birth, residence location, and family income, was determined in logistic regression analyses.
Results
Exclusive breast-feeding less than 12 weeks was closely associated with overweight at age 8 to 10 years (P < .001). Exclusive breast-feeding less than 12 weeks plus overweight was significantly associated with asthma (adjusted OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.95; P = .01. This association appeared to be strong in children whose mothers had asthma (adjusted OR, 3.93; 95% CI, 1.17-13.2) and also in boys (adjusted OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.14-4.34). Asthma was not associated with either exclusive breast-feeding less than 12 weeks or overweight in the absence of the other.
Conclusion
Short duration of exclusive breast-feeding and subsequent overweight are associated with asthma in susceptible children, suggesting a common pathway.
Clinical implications
This finding adds to the importance of promoting prolonged breast-feeding for the prevention of overweight and asthma.
Of course,this is overweight according to the more recent definition. There are some very healthy children, that are not overweight, but also not starving to death. I know my oldest son would have been considered overweight until he turned 13, of course then he shot up to almost 6 foot. Good thing he was "overweight", he might have run out of skin!!! Part of the problem with some of these "obese" children, is they need SOME of that weight, especially around growth spurt time. I've watched each of mine pile on a little weight right before a growth spurt, and then overnight (it seems) it's gone.
Of course, then again, I'm not some government official who only sees my children when the cameras come around. I see my kids everyday.
Sunz -
Rod---"You do not dispute with an underling, you dispute with the official."
Sorry, Rod, I gotta disagree here. If more of us had stopped this gathering of troops that has occured in the past 15 years, we might not be here today.
........
Sunz, I did not mean to imply that we anti-Nazis should not appear at a meeting.
However, you cannot have a "press conference" and a "discussion" at the same time...especially not on the steps of city hall.
I meant that letters should go directly to the elected official whenever possible, copies sent to whoever and wherever is appropriate as part of the official record.
Establishing a paper trail is very important. Documents and correspondence conveniently get lost, officials claim they were unaware of correspondence addressed to their spokespersons, etc.
I think we should do what we can to talk to the yes-men that surround the officials. Of course, then again, that assumes integrity exists today in any form. Used to be, if you didn't support your employer's behavior, you quit that employer. You didn't want your good name associated with someone who had no integrity. These days though, I suppose that's a pipe dream. As long as you get cash he could bathe in the blood of babies...
Well Rod, it does seem we argree more than not!!
Your point: 'Establishing a paper trail is very important. Documents and correspondence conveniently get lost, officials claim they were unaware of correspondence addressed to their spokespersons, etc.'
Is very important but I would also include paper trails to media, (letters to editor; email etc) Those not only get lost, but they are edited beyond belief!!
.
Rod and others interested in the whole food/obesity scares might enjoy this site:
http://john-ray.blogspot.com/
Lots of his other blogs and links are very good as well.
enjoy
.
After reading Karen's link on the Woodrow Wilson speech, and the 'progressive' smoking ban in cars in NYC, I got to thinking about something I read quite sometime ago about the Progressive Movement in America. Cannot find that but this is a pretty good recap of what I read:
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006...m-
american.html
.
Kevin,
Thank God I am not into studies or else I would be on my knees begging God for forgiveness everyday for the rest of my life. Both my kids were formula fed. My choice. Neither had or has asthma. Each was slim from birth to adulthood. I still tease my son for still wearing size 12 slims when he graduated from high school. Nope no obesity there either. Then again, I did keep them both active in sports and my daughter in dance classes. Think maybe excercise could be the answer to our kids health? What does it take to drop them off at Little League practice or dance class. Busy parents don't even have to stick around. Stick them in front of a tv or x-box day after day and yes, health problems will occur, but trying to tie it to breast feeding or formula in ridiculous.
Diane;
I think you have the answer all the studies in the world will never figure out. Common sense tells us a balanced lifestyle is the best prescription.
Life is about discovery especially where kids are concerned. The kid who tries it all and finds what suits them on their own is usually the happiest and healthiest kid on the block. That kid will break a few bones along the way, but later in life will remember a host happy memories first and their lives will be enriched in the confidence they found on their own. Many kids spend hours in front of an x-box however also play sports ride bikes swim and a number of other things which fill up their day.
Balance and moderation should be the points we embrace. The lobbies so often ignore balance, while trying to paint broad pictures of others to sell their wares. If we promoted education and moderation, smoking as a health risk would be much less of a risk. ETS by direct comparison would not be seen as a risk at all. It is just easier to scare people and intimidate them into submission than to respect and encourage them.
Far too often those who support the Liberal/Socialist common pot seem to be moving toward the mob justice commonality as well. If we can be taught to take punishments for illegal acts into community or police hands, making the jump to punishing legal but distasteful behavior is much easier to be moralized in communities as well.
When a government can buy a website targeting children which teaches children anyone who smokes; smell bad and are brain dead, and call it stupid.ca I would from the outset have to observe we have a real problem with that "Government"
When the public is not letting them know it, I would say the community is in real trouble, and has lost virtually all sense of balance and self respect.
TC is a terrorist movement which embraces the promotion of hatred and fear above the values of balance and respect which is why, smoker or not, I will oppose their actions. They tend to brag a lot [Bill]about their accomplishments however very few have the courage to weigh those hollow and primarily coerced "victories" against the cost they imposed on all of us as a community.
We once saw a lot of wisdom in not negotiating with terrorists who hijack planes, now the media seems to be supporting we should just give in and let the bullies have what ever they demand.
How about it Bill? Have you and your associates even once considered the promotion of balance or respect? When we can see in physical research extreme benefit/deficit markers [as with all things] in those who use less, exhibit less harmful effects. Those who smoke 3 packs a day will see more evidence of effects. When a smoking ban is made law have you even once considered how much it really cost to get there or where it will lead? At the accelerated speed the campaign has carried internationally, it leaves one to ponder; how much humanity around the planet will suffer by many iterations of the same process in other campaigns. Repeat until done to get pretty much anything a lobby group can dream up to be eventually imposed on all of us by top down administration of gang rule.
TC sets an example which will set the standard for a lot of lobby and propaganda campaigns we will see shortly. Promotions of many things we would not have considered reasonable in the past. They will soon be using TC as an excuse for future ignorance [if you look closely they already are]when balance was always an option.
I can only imagine how much worse it will have to get, before the public realizes we are on a seriously self destructive path here. Tc set the stage, eventually TC will have to take responsibility for their actions as well.
When I was a child, and when I gave birth, no one breast fed and there was no obesity problem. Now look at the kids and the mom's who do breast feed. Coincidence? Maybe? What could mom be eating or prescription is she taking and passing off to Junior?
One thing I notice all these breast feeding advocates seem to ignore OR deliberately not mention........mothers milk is ONLY as healthy (good) as the mother is.
I've also noticed that the more common breast feeding became (again) the more children seemed to be weaker health wise.
When I grew up, most were formula fed. We rarely (if that) knew someone who had asthma or was obese. We never heard of ADD or ADHD in children, let alone adults.
Seems the more healthy healthcare advocates try to get us, the more illnesses become prevalent. Talk about an oxymoron!
Lynda & Diane----"Seems the more healthy healthcare advocates try to get us, the more illnesses become prevalent. Talk about an oxymoron!
Your history on this issue is mine as well.
And the more 'free' they talk about being (smoke-free, cancer free, worry free, stress free, etc etc.)the more the noose tightens around
everyones neck in the relentless pursuit to make us the perfect race!!
.
Lynda F;
It's called human experimentation and many times those experiments without informed decisions or planning result in adverse results. Of course those responsible will never admit they have done harm.
Consider the polio inoculations in the 60s and the cancerous effects of SV40. How many in the public have heard an admission by the med community they actually promoted cancers in their haste to cure polio? How about the number who died from malaria in our promoted fears of DDT. The race to eliminate freon with little scientific credibility; ground emissions of a heavier than air gas, was destroying the ozone layer thousands of feet over our heads. The result? A much less efficient gas is now being used at the cost of much higher electrical use and increased ground level ozone smothering us all on high smog days. The community which supported those increases is now blaming the rising temperatures of global warming for the maxing out of our hydro grids in the summer and carbon emissions are the only descriptions allowed for all emissions we could call pollution.
Similarly the acceleration of TC is ignorant of precaution and quite accurately described as a promotion of radical hysteria. Tobacco Control promoted only the ideals of control by tobacco.
How many smokers were told how the studies they participated in over the years would be used to deliberately harm them? Informed consent? Hardly.
Listen to the pigs squeal when THIER business interests are at stake:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/
busin...6530499013.html
"After more than a century of strong cooperation in the use of the Red Cross trademark. ... we were very disappointed to find that the American Red Cross started a campaign to license the trademark to several businesses for commercial purposes," Johnson & Johnson said in a statement'
By way of Marcus:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-
marketing.html
.
Sunz;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/backgroun...alth/
radon.html
This link has a lot to demonstrate as well
Go to the bottom and look at the research numbers. For smokers exposure risks.
Could we determine from the numbers in a reactive approach High Radon exposures increase a smokers risk by 250% and a non smokers by 500% making smoking appear to be curative?
Or would we, in a proactive approach understand how we could reduce the risk of smokers by reducing radon daughters in cigarettes with simple regulation of soil and fertilizers?
Stanton Glanz promotes the reaction; he will be the first to tell us cigarettes increase lung cancer risk because cigarettes contain radioactive isotopes. Health Scare would not allow anyone to deal with increased levels of PPAH and Nitrates by controlling the use of product varieties or roots and stems in the filler, because smokers may believe some cigarettes are safer than others. Any excuse will do as long as J&J profits from their investments.
What is the true risk of smoking tobacco compared to the risk of reaction to fears elevating that same risk? How many die due to smoking related disease actually caused by promotion of fears and reactionary principles?
The assumption that a whole system can be made to work better through an assault on its conscious elements betrays a dangerous ignorance. This has often been the ignorant approach of those who call themselves scientists and technologists.
-The Butlerian Jihad by Harq al-Ada (Children of Dune - Frank Herbert)
I wonder If Health Canada will soon be claiming; by reducing the radon safe levels to below 200 they have reduced the number of smoking related mortalities by 10,000 lives annually. If all which they tell us is true they have essentially done just that.
One has to wonder why politicians who could claim to have saved 10,000 smoking related mortalities per year by simple regulation, are not taking credit for their actions?
It really is all about promotions of the fears, to legitimize the taxes and profiteering of addiction.
They claim costs are owed to society by a demographic risk factor they know no longer exists. If smoking and ETS exposures have been reduced at all, the current smoking risk has also been eliminated to the same degree.
I have found a local printer for T-shirts.
Now I'm just waiting for the FDA regulation, and SCHIP bill to become law.
First shirt:
"FDA APPROVED TOBACCO PAYS FOR YOUR KIDS HEALTHSCARE -
HELP REDUCE YOUR HEALTHSCARE COSTS
AND URGE REPEAL OF THE STATE SMOKING BAN - **DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!**"
They'll be available at the restaurant. BTW, today's special was Eggs Bennedict.
Several LARGE adults were seen in the dining room thoroughly enjoying their calorie laden breakfast, ....Oh the Horror!
Diane wrote:
"Both my kids were formula fed...Neither had or has asthma...Nope no obesity there either. Then again, I did keep them both active in sports...Think maybe excercise could be the answer to our kids health?"
Not necessarily (LOL).
From an article I saved in 2002:
In areas of smoggy air, children playing sports are three times more likely to develop asthma than those who don't actively exercise, while in regions of cleaner air, there is no such link between asthma and exercise, according to a study released yesterday.
The findings...are the strongest evidence yet that smog doesn't only bring on asthma attacks...but also may cause asthma in youngsters.
"We've made significant progress in reducing air pollution, but we haven't attained health-based air quality standards,"...
Despite the findings, parents should encourage children to exercise because of the great health benefits, he said. "But...If there's a high pollution level, it would be unwise to go out and exercise vigorously."
When so many TC advocates continually raise our concerns of asthma risk in the workplace, it remains a mystery why they fail to discuss the actual asthma occupational risk, which it would appear is much closer to home.
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/2864b6.htm
Nurses? How do you suppose they could inhale latex?
Brings to mind Clinton's use of his interns. [Sorry I couldn't resist]
James----'Despite the findings, parents should encourage children to exercise because of the great health benefits, he said. "But...If there's a high pollution level, it would be unwise to go out and exercise vigorously'
They can deal with risk if it suits what they want, need or have fun doing?????
Kevin, Perhaps the doc could pair up these nurses and the masses of other asthma suffers and ban their line of work. A career they chose pays them well, and has a variety of scheduling options.
LOL===Devil with the blue dress comment!!!
LighteningBoy---'Eggs Bennedict'
OK I figured out I could send you my cr card # via email----somehow I cannot figure out how you could send me the Eggs Bennedict. YUM YUM God, I haven't had those in soooo long.
Like the t-shirts.
.
Quit smoking and maintain smoking abstinence;
I suppose this requires employer (or insurance)provided smoking cessation classes and "aids". At a cost of what? $3-400/class maybe? $100/mo for "aids" for a success rate of what 5-10%? We measure compliance or no? Annual cotinine tests for all? That would only be fair no? Total cost od program???????? Who knows?
Keep blood pressure lower than 140 systolic and 90 diastolic;
Hmmm. How mny visits required for this measurement? Once, twice, thrice per year? I hear the average person need at least two meds to maintain this number? Average cost of meds/year? So you go in for your annual compliance check and you're late and some boob stoled your parking space and you get brought straight in because you are late and your BP measures 141/91 but you DO NOT HAVE hypertension? Are you penalized? Or let's say your are hypertensive and you take your prescribed meds faithfully and your go in for your annual compliance measurement and it's 150/80 - are you penalized? Hey - you're not the one who prescribed the meds that obviously didn't work as advertised. Who's fault is that? Total cost of monitoring and compliance?
Keep LDL cholesterol less than 130; This one is really tricky. So you had an LDL of 190 and you're on the max dose of lipitor and you come in at 135 - are you penalized? Or your LDL was 140 and lipitor brought it down to 90 but it also made your ALT shoot up to 200? Should you stay on it to avoid your penalty and risk liver damage? Let's say your LDL is 150 and you go on a statin and your LDL goes down to 120 but your muscle ache so bad you stopped going to the gym and your 29 BMI went up to 31. Now your face the choice of surcharge for either your LDL or your BMI - what to do? Total cost of compliance measurements and cholesterol agents?
Keep blood glucose under 120;
As measured by what? A single fasting BS at compliance time? (an extra dose of insulin the night before might take care of that at the risk of a trip to the ER for hypoglycemic shock) Or maybe a HGBA1C? What if it's high even though you flollowed your MD's advice to the letter? And hey - BTW - since you started following your MD's advice to the letter your BMI is creeping up to that penalizing target of 30 - but the insulin that's keeping your BS down is also packing on the pounds. What to do? Hey at least thanks to the statin your LDL is 70 (no one cares that your trig is 350) and your HDL is 23 (no one cares about that abysmal # either). PHWeeew - you only have to pay one penalty! Hmmmm - total cost to employer/insurer for glucose monitoring, insulin and other glucose modifying agents? Who knows?
and
Keep body mass index less than 30. I suppose this also involves a wonderful employee wellness program that you can enroll in to help maintain your weight? So you diet faithfully and are unable to attain that covetted BMI of
stupid program cut off my post
grrrrr
have to keep it that way for now - I have to go.
I was wondering where Margaret-smoker had been lately.
And the cost of Margaret-smokers comments--- P R I C E L E S S!!!
More evidence that Health Control has zero ethics or morals...
Junkfood Science
August 11, 2007
It’s not nice to scare mothers and babies
Lead in:
This week, we saw one of the most inexcusable examples of the misuse of “science” in the war against obesity. Not only were headlines used to scare young women that being fat could mean their babies might be born with hideous birth defects, but both the media and the press release from the journal office of the American Medical Association, failed to fully and accurately report what this study actually found.
Headlines read: “Maternal obesity heightens risk of birth defects” (Washington Post) and “Maternal obesity prior to pregnancy associated with birth defects” (JAMA Press Release). We were told a study found: “Women who were obese before they became pregnant had a higher risk of having babies with certain birth defects, including missing limbs, malformed hearts and underdeveloped spinal cords.”
More accurate reporting (and what women should have heard) would have been: “Maternal "obesity" was not found to be associated with higher risks for birth defects.”
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2zm6ly
.......................
A letter to the editor of the New York times illustrates how Health Control encourages hate:
August 12, 2007
Obesity, Stigmatized
To the Editor:
The antismoking movement started to gain traction when in the 1980s the public began to fear exposure to the smoke of others. This perceptual change precipitated laws and social attitudes that turned smokers into pariahs. Millions gave up the habit if for no other reason than to regain social acceptance.
Now that some scientists assert that being overweight may adversely affect the health of others, secondhand obesity (“You, Your Friends, Your Friends of Friends,” Week in Review, Aug. 5), perhaps the obese may be stigmatized into being more physically active and choosing more healthful foods.
URL: http://tinyurl.com/28erb8
That Health Control is without morals comes as no surprise. Social engineering, conformity to the state's ideal, requires coercion.
Those who surrender willingly ("see the light," like Bill Godshall), must continue to show they are truly converted by openly persecuting the "unenlightened."
Further, to show good faith and demonstrate total dedication, many others become snitches.
http://www.parade.com/articles/e...7/
Teen_Drinking
Should The Drinking Age Be Lowered?
~snip~
“The total environment has to be looked at. The worst thing is to drive these kids underground.”
Twenty plus years later we see what the good intentions of MADD have wrought...can't wait to see the effects of the latest promotions of 'public health'. One prediction...no one to take care of us in the hospitals...
Fund raising. How does it work?
...this lovely federally-funded conference hosted by a group called the California Council on Alcohol Policy, whereby a bunch of anti-alcohol activists are headed to a sunny San Diego resort to discuss how to make it more difficult for you and I to have a drink ...
Typically, excise taxes are pushed on the argument that alcohol causes negative externalities--that it leads to things like wife-beating, drunk driving, and hooking up with ugly chicks.
And typically, excise tax revenues are earmarked and given out as grants to anti-alcohol organizations and programs ... That would be organizations and programs like the California Council on Alcohol Policy, and its conference at a high-end resort in San Diego.
Where they'll discuss ways to raise the excise taxes. And so it goes. Who knows, if they're successful, maybe next year's conference will be in Hawaii.
As you might guess, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is also involved. - http://www.theagitator.com/
archi...8027.php#028027
Sunz -
Margaret's been readying her house to put on the market.
Then boom! the bottom falls out - very bad timing - may have to rethink or take beating. At least the house is looking very nice.
Way too tired to even remember what the cut-off end of my post said. The point was - I doubt very, very much that any significant savings would result from such a costly initiative.
I really wish I worked for them. I'd sue - just to get a hold of their health spending records. I'd like to see just how much they actually spend on the folks who don't meet these targets right now vs those who do. I'd really, really like to see the data broken down by age.
Ironically - we had an MI come in last night. 38 y/o athletic male. Non smoker, light social drinker, low cholesterol, normal BP and glucose. Target values do not always = healthy - eh? We had to ship him up north for a cath.
From Benpal's link
Definitions;
" * Influence international, national, regional, state and local agendas to consider alcohol policy, with an emphasis on communities."
Not including communities in the discussions this is the 14th is a pretty good indication this is a plot to decide what can be done to communities in order to facilitate the needs of the lobbying partners.
" * Strengthen the understanding of sound, evidence-based public policy in preventing and reducing alcohol-related problems."
This is the official presentation of parroted verse, similar to the "preventable deaths" and "no safe level" tripe repeated till your ears bleed.
" * Illuminate the policy-making process at local, state, regional and national levels."
Politically the HIA process starts in cities and is moved into regional and then to Federal levels the progression allows mistakes to be made along the way and corrections to be made before the entire country gets to discuss the issue as a whole in the making of federal laws. Divided and conquered, before the debate begins; consensus and overwhelming public support can be claimed.
"* Expand the coalition of individuals, organizations and agencies committed to public policy approaches to the prevention of alcohol problems."
This is the corruption stage of HIA collecting protected partners who will come forward with conflicted funds and resources to join the big gang who in turn will dominate all official discussions. Putting in the fix to overwhelm opposing voices.
"* Promote public discussion on alcohol policy issues."
Of course those discussions will be limited to discussions within the group behind closed doors and the repeat parrots starting to singing praises in purchased propaganda we understand to be the news.
Margaret-smoker
Market ready and no market!!! Been there before no fun.
Obtaining their records would indeed be enlightening. I know with us the cost of the insurance increased we were receiving had more to do with administrative costs than actual health care costs, IMHO (this was back in the late 80's)
Good luck with your house. BTW my daughter and her husband just bought a house in the bay area in CA----so there are folks out there buying.
.
Junkfood Science has two very interesting articles today:
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2ozgse
Whose “need” are they referring to?
Lead in:
The government has earmarked nearly 700,000 Britons for bariatric surgery, according to a new report in the news today. It’s part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines — the clinical practice guidelines that doctors in the British National Health Services (NHS) must follow as part of their national contracts.
There is a perception among many Americans that under a nationalized healthcare system, we’ll be well taken care of, that government health agencies will decide what is best for us and that the guidelines they will mandate government-employed doctors to follow will be based on sound clinical evidence and be free from the corruption and influence of special interests. None of those have proven true for fat people in the UK.
..................
Do opinion polls count as medical research?
Lead in:
Few consumers would guess how much of the medical literature is devoted to articles on how to sell the obesity crisis in order to garner the greatest support for obesity initiatives. One article recently published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health provides a typical example.
In an article captioned “Evidence-based public health policy and practice,” German psychologists reported on a telephone survey conducted by a marketing and opinion agency, USUMA. They randomly selected 1,836 teens and adults, but were unable to reach one-third of them, and another 13.8% refused or didn’t complete the interview, leaving them with 1,000 people. As with many telephone surveys, those with land-line phones and the free time to participate don’t always represent the general population and, in this case, most of those interviewed were older and of low education.
How long must you quit smoking for tobacco not to show up in a blood test for a life insurance policy?
Commenting by HaloScan
