ObamaCare

From: Alliance for Natural Health USA <office@anh-usa.org>
I found this interesting because I hadn't read this slant:

You aren’t likely to read this anywhere else….

To everyone’s surprise, John Roberts, chief justice of the Supreme Court, didn’t exactly approve or disapprove of Obama’s healthcare law. He simply rewrote important parts of it and then approved it. So what do these changes mean for integrative medicine?

The most important change Roberts made for integrative medicine is that he changed the mandate, which in turn has truly major implications for financing integrative treatments. Under President Obama’s legislation, it was a legal requirement to buy an insurance policy that met all US government requirements. Under the law as modified by Roberts, it becomes a “lawful choice” (his own words) not to buy this government-defined insurance, to buy some other kind of insurance, or to buy no insurance at all.

The financial consequence is the same. Under the original legislation, you paid a “penalty” for not complying with the law. Under Roberts, you owe a tax but can get yourself exempted from it by buying government-approved insurance. Since the financial consequences are the same, is there a difference?

Yes there is. Studies show conclusively that people are not only motivated by money. Most people, quite apart from the cost, do not want to violate the law. If the law says they must buy the government’s version of insurance, they will. If they are told it is a “lawful choice” not to buy it, they may not, even if there is a financial cost attached to it, especially if the cost is not too high.

The cost of not buying government-defined insurance under Obama’s legislation is much less than buying it. The first year cost (in 2014) for an individual is $95. This increases to $695 in 2016 and then goes up with “inflation.” Households will either pay the greater of this or 1% of their total income, rising to 2.5% in 2016.

But how does this matter for integrative medicine in particular?

In our January article, “New Regulations Threaten Insurance for CAM Patients,” we showed how Obama’s legislation and related regulations seemed to doom the Health Savings Account (HSA). This was something we had tried hard to fix in the legislation before it passed but weren’t able to do. That was very, very bad for integrative medicine.

Many people today use HSAs to pay for their integrative medicine. They then add a catastrophic policy on top of the HSA to cover hospital and other costs if something really dire happens. The cost of the HSA plus the very low-cost, high-deductible catastrophic policy may be significantly less than one of the very low-deductible, government-defined policies required under the new healthcare legislation.

It is still possible that HSAs and catastrophic insurance policies will simply disappear as the new health system kicks in. Before this ruling, that was what everyone expected. If insurance companies have no demand for such policies, they won’t be offered. Now the chances of there being a demand for such policies—and the chances of the policies themselves surviving—are greatly increased. This is because it is now more likely that millions of people will choose to pay $695 rather than buy a government-approved policy that has a low deductible and no coverage of integrative medical services. Because it is now a “lawful” choice, they will pay the $695 and then turn around and pay for an HSA and a catastrophic policy, assuming that those are still available.

Under this scenario, the cost of integrative medicine goes up. But not nearly as much as would be the case if someone were to buy a very expensive, government-approved policy and then have to pay out of pocket for all integrative services on top of that.

There have been many articles suggesting this or that “fix” to the healthcare legislation. The single change we wanted the most was to save HSAs used in conjunction with catastrophic coverage. In broader terms, the whole bill would have been transformed if people had a choice about the kind of policy they bought and didn’t have to buy a one-size-fits-all policy defined by the government in consultation with hospitals, drug companies, the AMA, and other special interests. Legislatively this would be an easy fix: just say that any policy selected by an individual qualifies as health insurance or, if that sounds too broad, then any policy that has catastrophic coverage qualifies.

Changing the nature of the mandate was not the only major change that the Roberts court made to the bill, although it is the change that most directly affects integrative medicine. There is another change that is very much worth noting.

Seven of the justices, not just five, said that the government cannot force states to adopt the proposed new Medicaid program, which is an integral part of the healthcare legislation. Under this legislation, not only would states add a lot of people to Medicaid, the federal government would also have much more say about what services are covered under Medicaid.

This is of vital importance. Over half of the presently uninsured who would become insured under the new legislation were supposed to enter the new Medicaid program. According to figures from the Congressional Budget Office, Medicaid enrollment will grow from the current 36 million, or 13% of the population, to 52 million, or 18% of the population, under the new healthcare act. Here is a chart showing the changes:




Now, with this court ruling, there may not be a new Medicaid program in any given state. Moreover, as we pointed out in April, states are cutting, cutting, cutting what they offer under Medicaid. So if the federal government can neither force the states to adopt the expanded Medicaid program nor define what is in that program, there may either be fewer people entering Medicaid or those people entering may find that their insurance doesn’t cover much. They may be “insured,” but in name only.

One of the little-known features of the new healthcare act from the beginning has been that it sharply increases medical expenses for poor people even while increasing their coverage. The Roberts court ruling on Medicaid will potentially make this worse and require some kind of legislative fix. The other worry has been that the minimum coverage provisions for employers may, in effect, nearly double the cost of hiring minimum wage workers, since the new, required coverage costs nearly as much as the minimum wage itself. This could lead to massive layoffs of the poorest workers and would also seem to demand some kind of urgent fix.

Sunscreens - 2012

From Aunt Willow and http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2012sunscreen/sunscreens-exposed/sunscreens-exposed-9-surprising-truths/

Sunscreens Exposed: Nine Surprising Truths

Sunscreens prevent sunburns, but beyond that simple fact surprisingly little is known about the safety and efficacy of these ubiquitous creams and sprays.  EWG’s review of the latest research unearthed troubling facts that might tempt you to give up on sunscreens altogether. That’s not the right answer. Despite the unknowns about sunscreens’ efficacy, public health agencies still recommend using them, just not as your first line of defense against the sun. At EWG we use sunscreens, but we look for shade, wear protective clothing and avoid the noontime sun before we smear on the cream. Here are the surprising facts:

1. There’s no consensus that sunscreens prevent skin cancer.

The FDA’s 2011 sunscreen rules allow sunscreen makers to advertise that using their products can decrease the risk of skin cancer and sun-related skin aging.  But a wide range of public health agencies – including the FDA – have found very little evidence that sunscreen prevents most types of skin cancer. In reviewing the evidence, the FDA said that the available clinical studies “do not demonstrate that even [broad spectrum products with SPF greater than 15] alone reduce the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging.”   The agency also said that it is “not aware of any studies examining the effect of sunscreen use on the development of melanoma.”  The International Agency for Research on Cancer recommends clothing, hats and shade as primary barriers to UV radiation. It says that “sunscreens should not be the first choice for skin cancer prevention and should not be used as the sole agent for protection against the sun” (IARC 2001a). Read more.

2. There’s some evidence that sunscreens might increase the risk of the deadliest form of skin cancer for some people.

Some researchers have detected an increased risk of melanoma among sunscreen users. No one knows the cause, but scientists speculate that sunscreen users stay out in the sun longer and absorb more radiation overall, or that free radicals released as sunscreen chemicals break down in sunlight may play a role. One other hunch: Inferior sunscreens with poor UVA protection that have dominated the market for 30 years may have led to this surprising outcome. All major public health agencies still advise using sunscreens, but they also stress the importance of shade, clothing and timing. Read more.

3. There are dozens of high-SPF products — but no proof they’re better.

The FDA has proposed prohibiting the sale of sunscreens with SPF values higher than “50+.” The agency has written that values higher than 50 would be “misleading to the consumer,” given that there is an “absence of data demonstrating additional clinical benefit” (FDA 2011a), and that “there is no assurance that the specific values themselves are in fact truthful…” (FDA 2007). Scientists are also worried that high-SPF products may tempt people to stay in the sun too long, suppressing sunburns (a late, key warning of overexposure) while upping the risks of other kinds of skin damage.
Flouting the FDA’s proposed regulation, companies continue to sell high-SPF offerings in 2012. More than 1 in 7 products now lists SPF values higher than 50+, compared to only 1 in 8 in 2009, according to EWG’s analysis of more than 800 beach and sport sunscreens. Among the worst offenders are Walgreens and Aveeno brands.  These manufacturers boast SPF values greater than 50+ on more than 40 percent of their sunscreens Read more.

4. Too little sun might be harmful, reducing the body’s vitamin D levels.

Sunshine serves a critical function in the body that sunscreen appears to inhibit — producing vitamin D. The main source of vitamin D in the body is sunshine, and the compound is enormously important to health – it strengthens bones and the immune system, reduces the risk of various cancers (including breast, colon, kidney and ovarian cancers) and regulates at least a thousand different genes governing virtually every tissue in the body (Mead 2008). About one-fourth of Americans have borderline low levels of vitamin D, and 8 percent have a serious deficiency (CDC 2012). Particular groups are at the highest risk – breast-fed infants, people with darker skin and people who have limited sun exposure (NIH 2012).
Some people can make enough vitamin D from 10 to 15 minutes of unprotected sun exposure several times a week. But many others cannot. The right amount depends on the individual’s age, skin tone, the intensity of sunlight,  time outdoors and skin cancer risk. Check with your doctor to see if you should get a vitamin D test or if you should take seasonal or year-round supplements. Read More

5. The common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A may speed development of cancer.

Recently available data from an FDA study indicate that a form of vitamin A, retinyl palmitate, may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions when applied to skin in the presence of sunlight (NTP 2009). This evidence is troubling, because the sunscreen industry adds vitamin A to 25 percent of all sunscreens.
The industry puts vitamin A in its formulations because it is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging. That may be true for lotions and night creams used indoors, but FDA recently conducted a study of vitamin A’s photocarcinogenic properties – the possibility that it can promote cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight. Scientists have known for some time that vitamin A can spur excess skin growth (hyperplasia) and that in sunlight it can form free radicals that damage DNA.
In the FDA’s one-year study, tumors and lesions developed sooner in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream. Both groups were exposed to the equivalent of just nine minutes of maximum intensity sunlight each day.
It’s an ironic twist for an industry already battling studies that have questioned whether their products protect against skin cancer. The FDA data are preliminary, but if they hold up in the final assessment, sunscreen makers have a big problem. In the meantime, EWG recommends that consumers avoid sunscreens with vitamin A (look for “retinyl palmitate” or “retinol” on the label). Read more.

6. Free radicals and other skin-damaging byproducts of sunscreens.

Both UV radiation and many common sunscreen ingredients generate free radicals that damage DNA and skin cells, accelerate skin aging and cause skin cancer. An effective sunscreen prevents more damage than it causes, but sunscreens are far better at preventing sunburn than at limiting free radical damage. While typical SPF ratings for sunburn protection range from 15 to 50, equivalent “free radical protection factors” come in at about 2. When consumers apply too little sunscreen or reapply it infrequently – and that’s more common than not – sunscreens can cause more free radical damage than UV rays on bare skin. The FDA could improve sunscreens’ ability to reduce free radical skin damage by strengthening standards for UVA protection. Read more.

7. Pick your sunscreen: nanomaterials or potential hormone disrupters.

The ideal sunscreen would completely block the UV rays that cause sunburn, immune suppression and damaging free radicals. It would remain effective on the skin for several hours and not form harmful ingredients when degraded by UV light. It would smell and feel pleasant so that people use it in the right amount and frequency.
Unsurprisingly, there is currently no sunscreen that satisfies all these criteria. The major choice in the U.S. is between “chemical” sunscreens, which have inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body’s hormone systems, and “mineral” sunscreens (zinc and titanium), which often contain micronized- or nanoscale particles of those minerals.
After reviewing the evidence, EWG determined that mineral sunscreens have the best safety profile of today’s choices. They are stable in sunlight and do not appear to penetrate the skin. They offer UVA protection, which is sorely lacking in most of today’s sunscreen products. Mexoryl SX (ecamsule) is another good option, but it’s available in very few formulations. Tinosorb S and M could be great solutions but are not yet available in the United States. For consumers who don’t like mineral products, we recommend sunscreens with avobenzone (3 percent for the best UVA protection) and without the notorious hormone disrupter oxybenzone. Scientists have urged parents to avoid using oxybenzone on children due to penetration and toxicity concerns. Read more.

8. Europe’s better sunscreens.

Sunscreen makers and users in Europe have more options than in the United States. In Europe, sunscreen makers can select from among 27 chemicals for their formulations, compared to 17 in the U.S.  Companies selling in Europe can add any of seven UVA filters to their product, but they have only three available for products marketed in the U.S.  Sunscreen chemicals approved in Europe but not by the FDA provide up to five times more UVA protection; U.S. companies have been waiting five years for FDA approval to use the same compounds. Until the FDA approves these ingredients and lifts restrictions on combining certain active ingredients, strong UVA protection will be scarce in US sunscreens. Read more.

9. The FDA is still not protecting consumers.

In June 2011 the FDA announced new rules on labeling and effectiveness testing for sunscreens. They will ban the use of misleading claims like “sunblock,” “waterproof” and “sweatproof” and define which sunscreens can claim “broad spectrum” protection. FDA recently granted a 6 month delay in the implementation of these rules, until mid-December 2012. But even when implemented many gaps will remain.
The standard for UVA protection is weak and will allow nearly 90 percent of sunscreens to use the label “broad spectrum” without any reformulation. A weak standard gives companies no incentive to develop better, more effective sunscreens and masks major differences between products.
The FDA has not yet evaluated the efficacy and safety of new sunscreen ingredients or ingredient combinations.  It has no plans to consider evidence of hormone disruption for sunscreen chemicals. The new rules  still allow sunscreen makers to use ingredients such as vitamin A that can damage the skin in sunlight. They fail to require makers to measure sunscreen stability despite ample evidence that many products break down quickly in sunlight.Read more.

Vitamins - a Panacea

There should probably  be a whole category for the curative/panacea effects of vitamins on human civilization.  Nan has long espoused the general non-negotiable position that Vitamin C is like water - you can never have too much of it.  Bleeding?  Vitamin C will help.  Achy Muscles - Vitamin C.  Runny Nose?  Yep, vitamin C.

However, there is little publicity about the cure-all effects of other supplements.  For example, lets pick Zinc.

What can Zinc Do?
Remove those little white spots from your finger nails.

Bloody Nose Cure

Have a bloody nose?  It is a lack of vitamin C.  Take more vitamin C and those pesky night time nosebleeds will stop.

Marathons v. Peak Fitness

• Every year a handful of runners die while competing in a marathon; most recently, a healthy 30-year-old running the London Marathon to raise money for an organization that helps prevent suicides collapsed about a mile short of the finish line and died
• Heatstroke can be a factor in marathon deaths, as can hyponatremia -- low sodium levels in the blood often caused by drinking too much water during exercise -- but in the vast majority of cases, people die during marathons because of a heart attack
• Marathon running puts an extraordinary stress on your heart; research shows the extended vigorous exercise performed during a marathon raises cardiac risk by seven-fold
• The most recent research shows that relatively short bursts of intense exercise such as Peak Fitness—even if done only a total of a few minutes each week—can deliver many of the health and fitness benefits you get from doing hours of conventional cardio exercise, without the potential damage to your heart

Exercise, again ( I personally like the name of Noggin!)

• Scientific evidence shows that physical exercise helps you build a brain that not only resists shrinkage, but increases cognitive abilities
• Exercise encourages your brain to work at optimum capacity by causing nerve cells to multiply, strengthening their interconnections, and protecting them from damage. During exercise, nerve cells release proteins known as neurotrophic factors, such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor or BDNF, which activates brain stem cells to convert into new neurons. BDNF also triggers numerous other chemicals that promote neural health
• BDNF also expresses itself in your neuro-muscular system where it protects neuro-motors from degradation. BDNF’s activity in both your muscles and your brain appears to be a major part of the explanation for why a physical workout can have such a beneficial impact on your brain tissue. It, quite literally, helps prevent, and even reverse, brain decay as much as it prevents and reverses age-related muscle decay
• Exercise also lowers the activity of bone-morphogenetic protein or BMP, which slows the production of new brain cells, while simultaneously increasing Noggin, a brain protein that acts as a BMP antagonist. The more Noggin present in your brain, the less BMP activity there is, and the more stem cell divisions and neurogenesis (production of new brain cells) takes place
• Sugar suppresses BDNF, which helps explain why a low-sugar diet in combination with regular exercise is so effective for protecting memory and staving off depression