Obamacare is unpopular in nine swing states, but not when the law is described without that label

Party labels affect what rural voters think about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, according to the latest National Rural Assembly and Center for Rural Strategies poll of rural voters in nine swing states in the presidential election, reports Bill Bishop of the Daily Yonder, which the center publishes.

When asked if they approved or disapproved of the "Affordable Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare," 60 percent of rural voters said they opposed the law, and 34 percent said they favored it. Without reference to "Obamacare," voters were asked if they approved or disapproved of the law, which "would give states the opportunity to extend Medicaid coverage to cover more low income families with health insurance, with the federal government picking up 90 percent of the costs," and 45 percent said they approved, while 42 percent disapproved.

Bishop concludes that partisanship is the culprit for such results. "Partisanship overwhelms issues in today's politics," he writes. "Voters are willing to change their beliefs -- even their religious affiliation ... in order to stay with their political tribe." (Read more)

Party labels affect what rural voters think about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, according to the latest National Rural Assembly and Center for Rural Strategies poll of rural voters in nine swing states in the presidential election, reports Bill Bishop of the Daily Yonder, which the center publishes.

When asked if they approved or disapproved of the "Affordable Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare," 60 percent of rural voters said they opposed the law, and 34 percent said they favored it. Without reference to "Obamacare," voters were asked if they approved or disapproved of the law, which "would give states the opportunity to extend Medicaid coverage to cover more low income families with health insurance, with the federal government picking up 90 percent of the costs," and 45 percent said they approved, while 42 percent disapproved.

Bishop concludes that partisanship is the culprit for such results. "Partisanship overwhelms issues in today's politics," he writes. "Voters are willing to change their beliefs -- even their religious affiliation ... in order to stay with their political tribe." (Read more)

Read More

Study Results Say To Take Your Vitamins And Prevent Cancer

-->

Vitamins Lower Cancer Risk in Men!

October 18, 2012

By: Dr. Walter K. Crooks, DC, DM (P.), CCCN

In a cancer study that spanned 17 years and included 14,641 male participants who were 50 years of age or over, it was found that men that take multivitamins had a decreased cancer rate of 8% and reduced the deaths associated with cancer by a whopping 12%.

130,000 Lives Potentially Saved!

These numbers a statistically significant, especially knowing that more than 1.6 million new cancer cases are diagnosed in the U.S. each year, this translates into about 130,000 cancers being prevented every year!

The study has been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association to coincide with the Annual American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research meeting.

I can remember the time when MD’s stated for fact that vitamin supplementation does nothing to increase the health of a person unless they have a deficiency, as measured by what they determine a deficiency entails.

Even now there are many MD’s that refuse to accept the fact, a fact that holistic health care providers have known all along, that people are not cloned and exact copies of one another, we are all as varied as the snowflake.

To look at the human as a collection of separate parts that have been assembled, and to treat in that manner is no different than being a auto diagnostician, checking each system of a car and repairing them as they are located.

If people would sit back and think for a second how it is to visit their own doctor they will see a pattern that is usually the same for everyone:

You go in they give you a drug that has been shown to ameliorate your symptoms. If that drug doesn’t do the trick then the MD answers with another drug to try out.

It is what I refer to as the “Spit-Balling” method of health care; meaning let’s shoot stuff at you see what sticks…

That’s not science; heck it’s not even as skilled as your local auto mechanic’s analysis of your vehicle!

It is becoming more and more apparent that the medical community has missed the boat whenever it comes to Chronic Health Conditions such as cancer.

Americans make up 5% of the world’s population, however we consume 47% of all the drugs produced worldwide!

You would think, if you follow the medical establishments propaganda, that we would rank 1^st in the world for healthcare!

Well, don’t shoot the messenger but:

The U.S. Ranks 37^thIn The World!

How can this be the case if we are taking our medications?

Americans Are Very Well Medicated, See For Yourself:

• 11% of adults aged 18-65 are on 5 medications!
• 21% of adults aged 18-65 are on 3 medications!
• 25% of children are on at least one medication!
• 37% of seniors are on 5 medications!
• 52% of women in the U.S. are on at least 1 medication!
• 65% of seniors are on 3 medications!            
• 90% of all seniors in America are taking at least one medication!

Study after study proves that the Holistic Health Care Model is the true path to living a healthy life.

The holistic, natural and hands on approach to health has as its base a goal of disease prevention!

On the other hand, allopathic, chemically engineered and un-natural “health care” has as it’s base disease management!  (if you would call it that)

A more fitting term for the American health care model would be “Monopolized Sickness Profit Care-less”, a program of keeping us alive but just sick enough and often enough to rely on their chemicals and death causing drugs.

You see no medication really has a side effect.

All Medication Have EFFECTS, Period.

The effect may rid your body of an infection, or the effect of the drug may be that you die……

Take your vitamins!

 http://LifeChangingCareHouston.com

Life-Changing Care FaceBook Page 

Follow Us On Twitter! 

-->

Vitamins Lower Cancer Risk in Men!

October 18, 2012

By: Dr. Walter K. Crooks, DC, DM (P.), CCCN

In a cancer study that spanned 17 years and included 14,641 male participants who were 50 years of age or over, it was found that men that take multivitamins had a decreased cancer rate of 8% and reduced the deaths associated with cancer by a whopping 12%.

130,000 Lives Potentially Saved!

These numbers a statistically significant, especially knowing that more than 1.6 million new cancer cases are diagnosed in the U.S. each year, this translates into about 130,000 cancers being prevented every year!

The study has been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association to coincide with the Annual American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research meeting.

I can remember the time when MD’s stated for fact that vitamin supplementation does nothing to increase the health of a person unless they have a deficiency, as measured by what they determine a deficiency entails.

Even now there are many MD’s that refuse to accept the fact, a fact that holistic health care providers have known all along, that people are not cloned and exact copies of one another, we are all as varied as the snowflake.

To look at the human as a collection of separate parts that have been assembled, and to treat in that manner is no different than being a auto diagnostician, checking each system of a car and repairing them as they are located.

If people would sit back and think for a second how it is to visit their own doctor they will see a pattern that is usually the same for everyone:

You go in they give you a drug that has been shown to ameliorate your symptoms. If that drug doesn’t do the trick then the MD answers with another drug to try out.

It is what I refer to as the “Spit-Balling” method of health care; meaning let’s shoot stuff at you see what sticks…

That’s not science; heck it’s not even as skilled as your local auto mechanic’s analysis of your vehicle!

It is becoming more and more apparent that the medical community has missed the boat whenever it comes to Chronic Health Conditions such as cancer.

Americans make up 5% of the world’s population, however we consume 47% of all the drugs produced worldwide!

You would think, if you follow the medical establishments propaganda, that we would rank 1^st in the world for healthcare!

Well, don’t shoot the messenger but:

The U.S. Ranks 37^thIn The World!

How can this be the case if we are taking our medications?

Americans Are Very Well Medicated, See For Yourself:

• 11% of adults aged 18-65 are on 5 medications!
• 21% of adults aged 18-65 are on 3 medications!
• 25% of children are on at least one medication!
• 37% of seniors are on 5 medications!
• 52% of women in the U.S. are on at least 1 medication!
• 65% of seniors are on 3 medications!            
• 90% of all seniors in America are taking at least one medication!

Study after study proves that the Holistic Health Care Model is the true path to living a healthy life.

The holistic, natural and hands on approach to health has as its base a goal of disease prevention!

On the other hand, allopathic, chemically engineered and un-natural “health care” has as it’s base disease management!  (if you would call it that)

A more fitting term for the American health care model would be “Monopolized Sickness Profit Care-less”, a program of keeping us alive but just sick enough and often enough to rely on their chemicals and death causing drugs.

You see no medication really has a side effect.

All Medication Have EFFECTS, Period.

The effect may rid your body of an infection, or the effect of the drug may be that you die……

Take your vitamins!

 http://LifeChangingCareHouston.com

Life-Changing Care FaceBook Page 

Follow Us On Twitter! 

Read More

UK study definitively shows that meth labs proliferate in state's counties where pseudoephedrine sales are high

A University of Kentucky research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this week shows a direct correlation between pseudoephedrine sales and methamphetamine production in Kentucky counties. Pdeudoephedrine, the main ingredient in Sudafed and similar decongestants, is the key feedstock for meth labs. The General Assembly further limited its sale this year.

“We find that counties where more pseudoephedrine is sold, more methamphetamine lab seizures are reported. Even though Kentucky requires pseudoephedrine sales to be tracked electronically, in real-time, the per-capita sales in some counties appear to be aberrant. Our results indicate a 565-fold variation in pseudoephedrine sales between counties. It is highly improbable that demand for pseudoephedrine in these counties is solely due to cough/cold/allergy,” explained Jeffrey Talbert, director of the College of  Pharmacy's Institute for Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy.

The other authors of the study are College of Pharmacy faculty members Karen Blumenschein and Trish Freeman, staff member Amy Burke, and Arnold Stromberg of UK’s Department of Statistics. For a copy of their report, click here.

A University of Kentucky research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this week shows a direct correlation between pseudoephedrine sales and methamphetamine production in Kentucky counties. Pdeudoephedrine, the main ingredient in Sudafed and similar decongestants, is the key feedstock for meth labs. The General Assembly further limited its sale this year.

“We find that counties where more pseudoephedrine is sold, more methamphetamine lab seizures are reported. Even though Kentucky requires pseudoephedrine sales to be tracked electronically, in real-time, the per-capita sales in some counties appear to be aberrant. Our results indicate a 565-fold variation in pseudoephedrine sales between counties. It is highly improbable that demand for pseudoephedrine in these counties is solely due to cough/cold/allergy,” explained Jeffrey Talbert, director of the College of  Pharmacy's Institute for Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy.

The other authors of the study are College of Pharmacy faculty members Karen Blumenschein and Trish Freeman, staff member Amy Burke, and Arnold Stromberg of UK’s Department of Statistics. For a copy of their report, click here.

Read More

13-year-old with national following succumbs to rare cancer

A 13-year-old McLean County boy whose fight with a rare cancer gained national attention died last night. The death of Lane Goodwin was announced to 342,000 followers on his "Prayers for Lane" Facebook page, report Rich Suwanski and Megan Harris of the Messenger-Inquirer in Owensboro.

"In 2010, Lane was diagnosed with alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma Stage IV, a rare and aggressive childhood cancer that is only diagnosed in one out of 1 million children," the reporters write. "In 2010, he underwent 54 weeks of chemotherapy and radiation treatment. In 2011, 13 tumors were found in his bones. . . . The family regularly updated followers on Facebook with his condition. Almost half a million people worldwide 'liked,' posted words of encouragement or started fundraisers to help the family with medical expenses. Followers included celebrities, college and professional athletes and social media friends who were inspired by his fight against the deadly disease."

His mother, Angela Goodwin, told the newspaper last month, “We never expected this. We knew there was some good support and prayers for Lane the last couple of years, but this has been unbelievable.” (Read more)

A 13-year-old McLean County boy whose fight with a rare cancer gained national attention died last night. The death of Lane Goodwin was announced to 342,000 followers on his "Prayers for Lane" Facebook page, report Rich Suwanski and Megan Harris of the Messenger-Inquirer in Owensboro.

"In 2010, Lane was diagnosed with alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma Stage IV, a rare and aggressive childhood cancer that is only diagnosed in one out of 1 million children," the reporters write. "In 2010, he underwent 54 weeks of chemotherapy and radiation treatment. In 2011, 13 tumors were found in his bones. . . . The family regularly updated followers on Facebook with his condition. Almost half a million people worldwide 'liked,' posted words of encouragement or started fundraisers to help the family with medical expenses. Followers included celebrities, college and professional athletes and social media friends who were inspired by his fight against the deadly disease."

His mother, Angela Goodwin, told the newspaper last month, “We never expected this. We knew there was some good support and prayers for Lane the last couple of years, but this has been unbelievable.” (Read more)

Read More

Doctor's rejection of the willfully obese makes exercise expert ask: Who's responsible for your health? Who should pay for it?

Bryant Stamford, professor and chairman of the Department of Kinesiology and Integrative Physiology at Hanover College in Indiana, wrote in his weekly exercise-and-health column Thursday's edition of The Courier-Journal:

"I caught an interesting news story on TV about a physician who refuses to treat obese patients. That was the headline. In truth, when she was interviewed she made it clear that she had a number of obese patients and she was treating them," if they were willing to lose weight. She referred the other obese patients to physicians who specialized in care of the overweight.

Stamford asked: "Is this approach the rationing of health care? It’s rationing it to those who take responsibility for themselves by managing their weight. . . . I don’t support withholding health care to anyone, and that includes the obese and smokers. But it does raise the issue of who is responsible for your health. We spend far more on health care than other industrialized countries, and we are bankrupting our health-care systems, including Medicare and Medicaid. Why? We follow a health-destroying lifestyle, then we expect to jump into the health-care system and have it perform miracles. And, more often than not, it does, but it costs a fortune for each patient. Does this make any sense?"

He points to ways in which some countries have decided in what order people get heart surgeries -- those who smoke are not first in line. What it could mean in the future for us?  "I believe the writing is on the wall. ... If you engage in health-destroying behaviors, you will be required to pay a lot more for health insurance. It’s the model for life insurance, and there already are rumblings around the country supporting a move in this direction. Stay tuned." Read the column here.

Bryant Stamford, professor and chairman of the Department of Kinesiology and Integrative Physiology at Hanover College in Indiana, wrote in his weekly exercise-and-health column Thursday's edition of The Courier-Journal:

"I caught an interesting news story on TV about a physician who refuses to treat obese patients. That was the headline. In truth, when she was interviewed she made it clear that she had a number of obese patients and she was treating them," if they were willing to lose weight. She referred the other obese patients to physicians who specialized in care of the overweight.

Stamford asked: "Is this approach the rationing of health care? It’s rationing it to those who take responsibility for themselves by managing their weight. . . . I don’t support withholding health care to anyone, and that includes the obese and smokers. But it does raise the issue of who is responsible for your health. We spend far more on health care than other industrialized countries, and we are bankrupting our health-care systems, including Medicare and Medicaid. Why? We follow a health-destroying lifestyle, then we expect to jump into the health-care system and have it perform miracles. And, more often than not, it does, but it costs a fortune for each patient. Does this make any sense?"

He points to ways in which some countries have decided in what order people get heart surgeries -- those who smoke are not first in line. What it could mean in the future for us?  "I believe the writing is on the wall. ... If you engage in health-destroying behaviors, you will be required to pay a lot more for health insurance. It’s the model for life insurance, and there already are rumblings around the country supporting a move in this direction. Stay tuned." Read the column here.

Read More

Board of Medical Licensure to amend pill-mill regulations to address concerns of doctors and some patients

The Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure wants to change some of the more controversial requirements for urine screenings and digital monitoring in the state’s new prescription-drug regulations under the law aimed at fighting doctor shopping and "pill mills" that dispense painkillers indiscriminately.

Mike Wynn of The Courier-Journal reports that Dr. Preston Nunnelley, the board’s president, told state lawmakers Wednesday that the board plans to submit amendments to the regulations by Nov. 1 to address the concerns of doctors that the new law is proving too burdensome, and because patients are being charged for urine tests that insurance companies are refusing to cover. Nunnelley said the amendments would provide more flexibility on when patients must receive those screenings. He said "chronic pain patients would not face regular screenings unless they are considered high risk for abuse or diversion," Wynn reports. "The amendments are also likely to exempt certain patients, such as children, from checks through the Kentucky All Schedule Prescription Electronic Reporting system, or KASPER, he said."

Nunnelley called the changes “tune-ups." “This is a new experience for the board of licensure,” he testified. “This is the first time we’ve done anything on this scale and obviously we didn’t do it perfect.” Or perfectly. (Read more)

The Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure wants to change some of the more controversial requirements for urine screenings and digital monitoring in the state’s new prescription-drug regulations under the law aimed at fighting doctor shopping and "pill mills" that dispense painkillers indiscriminately.

Mike Wynn of The Courier-Journal reports that Dr. Preston Nunnelley, the board’s president, told state lawmakers Wednesday that the board plans to submit amendments to the regulations by Nov. 1 to address the concerns of doctors that the new law is proving too burdensome, and because patients are being charged for urine tests that insurance companies are refusing to cover. Nunnelley said the amendments would provide more flexibility on when patients must receive those screenings. He said "chronic pain patients would not face regular screenings unless they are considered high risk for abuse or diversion," Wynn reports. "The amendments are also likely to exempt certain patients, such as children, from checks through the Kentucky All Schedule Prescription Electronic Reporting system, or KASPER, he said."

Nunnelley called the changes “tune-ups." “This is a new experience for the board of licensure,” he testified. “This is the first time we’ve done anything on this scale and obviously we didn’t do it perfect.” Or perfectly. (Read more)

Read More

Georgia doctor prescribes pills to help in school -- whether or not the ADHD shoe fits -- to level the playing field for the poor

Amanda Rocafort and her son, Quintn,
who takes Adderall for his ADHD.
(NYT photo by Bryan Meltz)

In light of last week's news that the number of poor children on Medicaid in Kentucky are being prescribed anti-psychotic drugs at alarming rates for such diagnoses as attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder and depression, the New York Times reports that some doctors are making "no excuses" for prescribing psychostimulants in other locales for children of the poor.  Dr. Michael Anderson, a pediatrician in a poor county north of Atlanta, Ga., said he thinks ADHD is "made up" and "an excuse" to prescribe pills to treat what he "considers the children’s true ill -- poor academic performance in inadequate schools." Still, "I don’t have a whole lot of choice,' said Anderson. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.'"

Dr. Anderson is one of the more outspoken proponents of an idea that is gaining some ground: Prescribe drugs to struggling students in schools not to treat ADHD, necessarily, but to boost their focus and impulse control.  Alan Schwarz reports that Anderson figures that he is arming them with the only tool he has because these children can't afford family therapy or tutoring or behavior-based counseling or any of those other tools that other children might have at their disposal to help them learn.

Of course, Anderson is not without his critics. Many doctors, writes Schwarz, warn of the dangers of exposing children to the unwarranted physical and psychological risks of powerful drugs on everything from mood to blood pressure to the suppression of growth. (Read more)

Amanda Rocafort and her son, Quintn,
who takes Adderall for his ADHD.
(NYT photo by Bryan Meltz)

In light of last week's news that the number of poor children on Medicaid in Kentucky are being prescribed anti-psychotic drugs at alarming rates for such diagnoses as attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder and depression, the New York Times reports that some doctors are making "no excuses" for prescribing psychostimulants in other locales for children of the poor.  Dr. Michael Anderson, a pediatrician in a poor county north of Atlanta, Ga., said he thinks ADHD is "made up" and "an excuse" to prescribe pills to treat what he "considers the children’s true ill -- poor academic performance in inadequate schools." Still, "I don’t have a whole lot of choice,' said Anderson. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.'"

Dr. Anderson is one of the more outspoken proponents of an idea that is gaining some ground: Prescribe drugs to struggling students in schools not to treat ADHD, necessarily, but to boost their focus and impulse control.  Alan Schwarz reports that Anderson figures that he is arming them with the only tool he has because these children can't afford family therapy or tutoring or behavior-based counseling or any of those other tools that other children might have at their disposal to help them learn.

Of course, Anderson is not without his critics. Many doctors, writes Schwarz, warn of the dangers of exposing children to the unwarranted physical and psychological risks of powerful drugs on everything from mood to blood pressure to the suppression of growth. (Read more)

Read More