Pinchos Lipschutz Says Obama's Wrong, U.S. Health Care Is Fine The Way It Is

"Lately, Yated Ne'eman editor-in-chief Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz has been repeatedly attacking Obama's health reform push."

"Okay, so what? I mean, he attacks everything Obama says or does."

"I know, right? But one line he keeps using is that we have 'the finest health care system in the world.' It's not true."

"What do you mean it's not true! In Canada, they have to wait months to see a doctor! And now they want to go killing Grandma? I don't want any death squads taking away my health insurance... They just want a government takeover of healthcare... They're Robin Hoods who want to tax the rich and give it to the lazy!"

"Calm down, no one's hiring death squads or killing grannys. Take a deep breath. Canadians live longer than Americans and are more satisfied with their health care system. The French achieve better health outcomes, single-payer and all, and they do it for a lot less than we spend, too. (France spends 11% GDP on health care vs. 16% here in the U.S. - and our GDP is higher to start with.) Even in socialized Israel, life expectancy is more than 2 years longer than it is for Americans. Out health care system is not so hot.

"What he really means is that the United States has the best health care technology. It is home to some of the best doctors. It sports facilities capable of carrying out the most cutting-edge procedures. It invests in some of the most aggressive life-sustaining treatments. It is the site of some of the most advanced medical research. However, it is not the best health care system. All those things stand as an indictment: Why isn't that spending translating into better outcomes?

"The system is broken. The components may be there, but the system isn't working as it should. When politicians discuss comparative effectiveness, they aren't actually saying 'let's pull the plug on grandma because we decided it's too expensive to let her live.' They are saying, 'Gee, we've got all these great medical technologies, let's find out which ones I should use.' Because under the current "fine system", they just throw one thing after another at an illness and just hope one of them works. That's why you can have the greatest medical capabilities and terrible outcomes.

Comparative effectiveness is more like saying, "Let's figure out which drugs are good for melanoma and which are good for melioidosis. Let's stop wasting money doing the equivalent of trying to treat cancer with antibiotics. Let's be efficient about care. And if Grandma wants to maybe try clindamycin to help reduce her blood pressure because the statins she takes aren't cutting it - yes, the healthcare system's going to have to say no. Not because it wants to kill her. Not because that treatment is too expensive. Not because she's not worth it. But because it doesn't work.

BBC E-mail: 'Organic has no health benefits'

Teddy Douglas saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
should see it.

** 'Organic has no health benefits' **
Organic food is no healthier than conventionally produced food, a large independent review has concluded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/health/8174482.stm

Are Indoor Pools Bad for Your Lungs?

The chlorine in indoor pools can be detrimental to pulmonary health for competitive swimmers who spend a lot of time at the pool. “When some of our high-school swimmers are going on college recruiting trips, we tell them to follow one simple rule,” says Dr. Jim Miller. “If you walk into the building and can find your way to the pool without directions, don’t go to that school. A smelly pool is, chemically, way out of balance.” If your favorite pool is easy to find, blind-folded, talk to the manager about re-calibrating the amount of chlorine being used or improving the air flow in the facility.

Overall, researchers say, the benefits of swimming for exercise outweigh the risks. As the authors of the Quebec City study of youthful swim racers were careful to point out, only one of the 72 swimmers they studied smoked and none were obese, making them statistical anomalies among the young. “Breathing problems do sometimes develop,” Miller says. “But with rare exceptions, they can be controlled. Swimming remains, in general, very good for you.” (NYT)

Taxing Healthcare Benefits Shortsighted

A tax on employer-provided health benefits is extremely short-sighted. Rather than pay the tax, many employers would simply trim the benefits they offer. This means the actual revenues the government receives from the program will be far less than projected, and it will also lead to less coverage for employees, greater long-term health complications, reduced quality of life. About the only upside is higher profits for employers who now get away with lower premiums and can blame the government. This too, is short-term, as doctors would suffer from lower payments and seek redress.

Cut coverage for over-the-counter drugs, but enhanced prescription coverage? Does this make sense? Who says prescription drugs are better or more important than OTCs? So now, instead of covering an $11 OTC, you want people to go to the doctor ($75) and get the prescription version ($35) so it will be covered?

Third of EMS Stethoscopes Carry MRSA Virus

Be sure to ask your doctor about his/her equipment sanitization policies. (U.S. News)

Ideology of Insurance Regulation

"Insurance is about the accurate pricing of risk." Jane Orient in The New American

So take 10,000 people, each with a 1% chance of incurring a $10,000 charge. You'll probably end up with about 100 people suffering the charge, or about 1 million dollars of pooled risk. If you charge $100 to each of the 10,000 people you can protect everyone from a devastating $10,000 charge with a relatively affordable premium. You might tack on about $5 a piece for your profits.

This is insurance. You knew that already, I know. The punchline is that each person effectively pays for his own risk. That is, if the risk wheel were spun over and over, the amount each person pays as a result of incurring the fees would about equal their premiums.

On the other hand, when you pool people with different levels of know risk and charge everyone similar premiums, you are no longer selling a true insurance product according to Dr. Orient's definition. Take 10,000 people. 5000 have a .5% chance of incurring the $10,000 charge. 5000 have a 2% chance of incurring the same charge. Overall, you have about a million dollars of risk in the group. But if you charge each a $100 premium, you're effectively overcharging those with lower risk and undercharging those with higher risk.

The question becomes: Is this fair?

• Makes insurance affordable for high-risk individuals
• Unfairly penalizes low-risk individuals. In fact, it effectively takes a valuable product off the market.
  

One Session of Hookah May Yield Equivalent of 100 Cigarettes, Says New York Times Report.

But that's just a World Health Organization figure, those leading propaganda artists of our time, and everybody knows not to trust their fuzzy numbers. (see article)