Weighing the Health Benefits of Birth Control

In 1960, Contraception was transfigured with the birth control pill. But even with the plentiful amounts of birth control options, many of the pregnancies in the country are still unintended, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Close to 1/3 of women who start a new type of birth control will stop within a year because of changes in their insurance coverage. Not only that women that are getting the intrauterine devices which have a nearly perfect efficacy rate have been slow to catch on because doctors need more extensive training on properly inserting them. Women need to know that, According to Dr. Nancy Padian, an epidemiologist at the University of California, “To have a significant effect you have to use a product very consistently.”

Birth Control Manufacturers and doctors that are trying to promote their specific brand or trying to encourage better compliance promote contraception by using the noncontraceptive benefits like reducing the risk of cancer, improving the health of mothers to be, easing cramps amongst many others. These contraceptives are made by using different combinations of estrogen and progestin and distributing them in array of ways such as the pill, the shot, skin patches, implants and vaginal rings. Each method is proven to reduce the risk of ovarian, endometrial cancer and help protect against osteoporosis. Using contraception can give women a chance to get healthy by helping them stop smoking, lose weight, and lower blood sugar.

Many manufacturers are now marketing the “no-bleed” or “extended regimen” pills. It is said that the newer contraceptive techniques are likely to cause no long-term problem since in the past women spent most of their reproductive years either pregnant or nursing which made them have fewer menstrual periods but the health effects of going months or years with a period is still a mystery. In clinical trials led by the Food and Drug Administration, 40 percent of participants had breakthrough bleeding after a year of use. Lybrel’s manufacturer, Wyeth, recommended that women take a monthly pregnancy test because the absence of a regular menstrual period makes it harder to tell whether conception has occurred.

The Question is, is it really worth it to using birth control with all the other side factors you have to factor in?

To view full article: http://health.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-contraception-ess.html

Reform Scares Away Senior Citizens

Democrats Trying to Sell Health Plan to Seniors", worries and questions were brought up by seniors regarding their current health benefits and how the new Health Bill will affect them. Vice President Joe Biden assured seniors at a retirement community in Maryland told them, "Nobody is going to mess with your benefits. Nobody. All we do is make it better for people on Medicare."

In order to aid in persuading the seniors, who play major part in the voting process, Democrats are prodding at AARP, American Association of Retired Persons. However, AARP is on the same page as the senior citizens because their financial documents show that more than half of their revenue last year came from royalties they earned by letting private health insurance companies and other firms use AARP's name in selling their products. Although there are other organizations Democrats are trying to win over, none compare to the magnitude of AARP's distinction.

This relates to the question of whether to use the available money to cure the young or the senior who's on his or her deathbed. Instead of the question "who should we cure", now it is "how can we convince the senior that the reform will not affect them adversely in a considerable amount".

Someone has to bite the bullet. The question is who, when, and how is it going to be.

Who Represents the Uninsured?

As shown in this interactive map provided by National Public Radio (NPR), the majority of the districts with the highest uninsured rates are under republican or Blue Dog representation. Blue Dogs are conservative democrats who, for many reasons including reform, have worked to slow health care reform. In the NPR article, Who's Representing The Uninsured On Capitol Hill, Arkansas Republican Rep. Mike Ross’s involvement with the health care reform is analyzed taking into consideration his voice as one of the highest uninsured districts.

As most representatives, Ross held many town hall meetings over the past months. However, NPR notes that out of a 2+ hour meeting only three questions were asked by people without insurance. When asked why the meeting was so underrepresented, one attendee suggested that " [the uninsured] were too busy earning hourly wages and trying to keep roofs above their children's heads. [Their] voices are not going to be present in that discourse." If the uninsured are too busy to attend town halls how will they communicate their needs to politicians?

Over the course of the summer many congressmen held meeting with donors and constituents to talk about health care and raise campaign contributions. This summer alone, Rep. Ross earned $20,000 from health care political action committees. These donations usually come with suggestions on how to make health care work better for the private sector. Obviously the poor and uninsured are not making campaign contributions, so how are their voices being heard by the politicians that promise they’re working to help the uninsured? The answer? Re-election. Analysts suggest that even incumbent politicians worry about re-election. If politicians aren’t hearing the opinions of their constituents how will they correctly represent them in congress? Will the big players such as lobbyists and the wealthy drown out their needs?

Healthcare For Inmates

In an editorial published in the New York Times on September 15, 2009 legislation regarding healthcare programs for the inmates of New York State Prisons was questioned. According to the article, inmates have the highest HIV and Hepatitis C rates of any group in the population. Despite these rates correctional officers in the state of New York are urging the current New York governor David Patterson to veto a bill that would offer testing, counseling and treatment for the infected inmates.

The correctional department is urging the veto of this bill because of their current increase in identifying and treating the cases of HIV and Hepatitis C amongst the inmates. Because their new system, they claim, is working well, they do not need to improve it.

Opponents to the bill also think the bill would cost too much money.

What do you think? Should the state of New York implement this policy of better testing, counseling and treatment for inmates with HIV and Hepatitis C?

Gunning for Health Care

The article, "Gunning for Health Care" poses the question " Is it okay to carry a armed gun as long as it is legal in the state? and if so, how can this pose a safety problem when it comes to a health care protest where safety is the biggest issue? In this article, columnist Gail Collins talks about how people feel the need to bear arms on everyday occasions such as going to the supermarket, going to a meeting and health events. The problem posed is a gun not being seen as a defensive tool but being seen more as a threat to public safety. There were four incidents talked about in this article: The first incident occurred in Portsmouth, New Hampshire where William Kostric welcomed President Obama with a gun strapped to his thigh. William Kostric feels everyone should bear arms and wonders why people do not bear arms as much anymore. He has the right to feel this way because in New Hampshire guns are legal. The next incident resulted in a congresswoman being exscorted out after her gun fell to the floor and bounced at a supermarket. This is another case in which having a gun is legal not only that, this incident caused a larger danger of having the ability to back fire when it hit the ground, but still no action was taken. What is amazing is the the fact that in the article a 62 year old man was arresting for lingering around a high school in which the president was suppose to appear at, the reason he was arrested was because he had a loaded gun in his car with no permit. I find it remarkable that a congressman can physically drop her gun on the floor and not be arrested but a man can have his gun in a car and be arrested because it is not registered. But still the question today is, Is it okay to carry a armed gun as long as it is legal in the state? and if so, how can this pose a safety problem when it comes to a health care protest where safety is the biggest issue
To see the full article go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13collins.html?scp=3&sq=Ron+Paul&st=nyt

Predictions for Obama Administration's Health Care Bill

While many of you were probably glued to your television set during the airing (or re-airing) of the Obama health care recovery plan, bloggers, twitter bugs, and journalists alike were busy writing up news stories for up to the minute coverage regarding Obama's healthcare proposal. Some journalists from CNN and NY Times were more concerned with the outburst of "YOU LIE!" during the middle of President Obama’s speech (allowing for more political theatrics). But contrary to the recent political coverage of Republican emotional melt downs, there were indeed a number of journalists who actually took to the web to discuss the aftermath of tonight’s proposed recovery plan.

Although not necessarily a front page bolster, NY Times writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg offered audiences a well structured afterward to Obama’s latest televised address on health care recovery. In her Sept. 8^th opinion piece entitled “Despite Fears, Health Care Overhaul Is Moving Ahead”, Stolberg provides readers with a bit “hope” when she reveals the status of the health care recovery bill that is currently collecting dust in House of Representatives.

Though there has been an enormous amount of coverage geared toward the indecisiveness of the Democratic party, Stolberg reassures us that “despite tensions… there is broad agreement within the party over most of what a package would look like”. She then continues by stating that 80 percent of the “Congressional committees considering health care legislation have already passed bills. Each would require all Americans to have insurance and provide government subsidies for those who cannot afford it.”Stolberg continues by mentioning the 60 some odd votes needed in order for the bill to be passed; which she claims the Obama administration has a “reasonable chance of corralling”.

Although she provides rather optimistic forecasts for the health care bill, she also informs the reader of the failures that could occur if no action is taken. Time is indeed ticking quite hastily for the Democrats to act. Stalberg quotes current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (and former Pres. Clinton aide) as stating at a recent meeting that if Democrats failed to act on the health care bill then there will indeed be political consequences. These “consequences” that Emanuel recalls, are the same “consequences” that occurred during his time as a Clinton aid in 1994 when Dems failed to act on the Clinton health bill forcing them to lose control of the House.

Many say that history indeed repeats itself. Do you believe that the Obama health care plan may receive the same stamp of disapproval as former President Clinton’s 1994 bill?

To read the full article visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/health/policy/09assess.html?_r=1&ref=health

The politics of death

In an article published in the magazine, The Economist, the debate about health-care reform is discussed in terms of death. The article discusses Obamacare – Obama’s health-care plan – and how it will determine priority when receiving treatment. The major theme to this article is, how does the health-care plan justify age, and who receives priority. Most people would be willing to spend $1000 to save a child, but is it worth spending one million dollars on a terminally ill patient, to keep them alive for a week? Republicans are furious with the idea that middle aged people, people who have a whole life ahead of them who can contribute to society, should be treated first over very old people, 65+, who face life threatening illnesses. The article then goes to quote Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who creates an elaborate formula for who should receive medical attention first. Age is the greatest factor taken into account and that people middle age or even younger should receive priority over those who are well past their prime. Who should receive a liver transplant, someone who is 25 years of age and could potentially have a full life ahead of them, or someone 75 years of age, who could potentially die within the year because of unrelated causes.

This article brings about an excellent debate topic in terms of age and who benefits most from Obama’s health-care plan. Who will impact the United States more after receiving a life saving medical procedure? A 25 year old person who has no other illnesses, or a 75 year old person who is closer to death than actually impacting the prosperity of the United States? Clearly this is a very sensitive and controversial topic, but should the health-care reform save the most lives possible, or save lives so that they can live as long as possible?