By: Rosemary Young

If you’re searching for a cure for thrush then there’s a very good chance that you’ve probably been searching for some time. One of the most unfortunate aspects of thrush is that it does become chronic for many sufferers, as many find they are continually on the treatment merry-go-round. Thrush symptoms start to appear, they seek treatment and then it either clears up for a while and then comes back or the symptoms recede before slowly getting worse.

Many Thrush sufferers are at their wits ends. Some even get to the stage where they give up and slowly start to accept that Thrush is something that they’ll just have to live with for the rest of their lives.

This is very unfortunate indeed as some of the symptoms of Thrush can be quite nasty and can actually lead to other health issues and a debilitating lifestyle. Therefore, whether you are a sufferer of chronic Thrush or whether you have contracted it for the first time then you must understand this…..

There is a cure for Thrush. Thrush can be treated and it can be prevented so you can live a life free from Thrush and it’s debilitating symptoms.

What you’re about to discover may just be the most important information any Thrush sufferer will ever see. It’s also where many suffers make their first mistake and this is how many Thrush infections become chronic.

Most Thrush sufferers only treat the symptoms and that’s where they stop. Treating the symptoms of your Thrush will not cure your Thrush. If you just treat the symptoms then there is a very good chance that your Thrush will continually come back.

Therefore, it’s important to understand that the symptoms you might be experiencing are a reflection of a much deeper health problem. Despite that fact that they might be very unpleasant and have the potential to affect your health greatly, they are after all a warning that you do have other underlying health issues that need to be addressed.

These health issues have left the door open for a Thrush infection to develop and may also leave the door open for other health issues to arise as well. If you continue to only treat the symptoms and ignore the warning signs, you’ll not only end up with a chronic Thrush infection but also other health issues as well. Health issues that are the result of the very same problem that’s causing your Thrush in the first place.

If you want a permanent cure for your Thrush it’s vitally important you treat the cause. The consequences of ignoring what is causing your Thrush are too great. Addressing the root cause of Thrush and correcting it, is the only way to cure your Thrush and keep it away permanently.

Understanding that Thrush is caused by Candida cells which occur naturally in and on the body of nearly every human being on the planet is very important. Everyone has the potential to become infected with a Thrush infection but not everybody does.

Candida’s normally kept under control by the body’s immune system and naturally occurring good bacteria. When one or both of these factors are out of balance the very opportunistic Candida cells rapidly proliferate in and/or on your the body. The end result is a Thrush infection. Understanding why this happens is the secret to treating the cause of your Thrush.

You can use any of the Thrush treatments that only treat the symptoms. But it’ll just keep coming back. Eventually, you’ll end up with an embarrassing and irritating Thrush infection that affects your lifestyle so badly you’ll fear there’s no cure for Thrush in sight.

The only permanent cure for Thrush is the one that addresses the reasons why you contracted your Thrush infection in the first place. Only then will you finally get some permanent relief.

If you would like to learn more about a Cure for Thrush that is all natural, non-invasive, doesn’t have nasty side effects and above all is effective then please take some time to have a look around my blog about Thrush, also known as Yeast Infections or Candida.

No related posts.

About The Blue Cross

Blue Cross was started in 1929 by Justin Ford Kimball, at Baylor University in Dallas, Texas. It was developed to guarantee teachers 21 days of hospital care for $6 a year. Later on the plan was enlarged to other people in the Dallas area and then throughout the country.

In 1939 the term Blue Cross was used to include other plans as well. Blue Cross is a name used by an association of health insurance plans throughout the United States.

It was developed in 1929, by Justin Ford Kimball, at Baylor University in Dallas, Texas. The first plan guaranteed teachers The plan was extended to other employee groups in Dallas, and then nationally. The American Hospital Association (AHA) adopted the Blue Cross symbol in 1939 as the emblem for plans meeting certain standards.

So as it stands today Blue Cross is an independent membership association working on a service basis and providing protection against the costs mainly of hospital care. Benefit payments are made directly to the hospital. Benefits vary among various Blue Cross associations.

And then there is Blue Shield which, rather than covering hospital care, provides protection on a service basis against the cost of surgical and medical care in a limited geographical area.

The actual Blue Cross, which was a blue Greek Cross, was created by the artist Joseph Binder under the auspices of E A van Steenwijk who was the Company secretary of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota.

The Blue Cross began now to be used in other parts of the country a

Supposedly, Blue Cross operations are considered to happen as franchises in specifically designated regions. At present these services are available in every state wihin the United States and every Canadian province

Blue Cross is very prevalent in providing coverage to State as well as Federal government employees and they are also very important in the administration of Social Security. There is a problem with health insurance in the United States.

There is a conflict between the need for the insurance company to make money versus the need of their clients to remain healthy.

This need to make money has become so uncontrolled that one third of the population in the US can not afford medical insurance and medical bills today are the major cause for bankruptcies. This is why state and federal regulation of health insurance companies is necessary.

On the other hand medical insurance companies could hypothetically face unforeseen events such as the chicken flu where a large percentage of their clients all of a sudden face horrendous hospital bills.

Theoretically this could bankrupt the insurance company within a very short timeframe. So to prevent this situation medical insurance companies use a variety of checks and balances to limit payments to beneficiaries.

And of course it is a well-known fact that those seeking health insurance are also those most likely to have medical problems being present or future ones. It is also known that if the cost of healthcare to the beneficiary is very low than the use of medical benefits will be much greater than if the cost is substantial.

So to find the balance where medical services are available when needed but not abused to the extend that for every paper cut you will make a visit to the doctor proper safeguards should be in place.

So in theory, if people would exercise, would eat healthy food, would avoid addictive substances, this would lower health insurance prices because the insurance companies would pay fewer doctor bills.

However, you could then also say that too much of the insurance premiums would be paid out in executive salaries or kept as profits by the company.

Frank Vanderlugt

Author Bio

J Schipper is very interested in the Blue Cross. http://blue-cross-basic-fed-blue.info/

No related posts.

I once asked a friend of mine what it was like to give birth to twins. She said: ?First one came out and then the other.? I didn?t both to ask her whether raising twins was as simple. We all know the answer to that. As you know, New Zealand has a unique situation the envy of women and midwives worldwide. Here, pregnant women and their families have ?choice?. Over 85% of all pregnant women are cared for by one lead maternity carer – a midwife. Maternity care is paid for by the Government and women can give birth at home or hospital and have the same care provider with them throughout their pregnancy, labour and post natal period.

Yet, the caesarean rate has doubled since midwives became lead maternity carers in 1995 and women pregnant with breech babies and multiples are more likely to be strongly encouraged to have an elective caesarean. This is a huge paradox. On the one hand, birth is promoted as being a natural and normal occurrence of a woman?s life and on the other hand, there are more medically assisted births. In Nelson 26% of all babies are delivered by caesarean. What does this mean?

Where does Common Knowledge Trust and The Pink Kit Method for birthing better? fit into this and why would you want to read this article? First, it?s important to know what the Trust is besides being a Nelson based Charitable Trust. The Trust was set up in 1996 by its founder, a woman who uses the name Wintergreen. She has worked as a natural health practitioner for over 30 years, many of those years were spent working with traditionally living cultura

The basis of The Pink Kit Method for birthing better? comes from this fact?we are all one humanity.

Although we all share one human body regardless of whether we are fat or thin, pregnant with one or three babies, are vegetarians or like to rip into a steak; we also have many differences such as our beliefs, health, religion, ethnic background etc. We seem to focus more on our differences than on our similarities. Yet, that?s how The Pink Kit Method developed. We stayed focused on our universal human female birthing body. We then took this knowledge into absolutely every single birth. The Pink Kit Method also gave skills and tools to our birth coach who was, most likely, to be our partner/husband/father of our child or a friend or relative.

Men have the same body. They also have been born through a woman?s body, so it?s easy for them to learn about this common knowledge. When a woman?s coach is another woman, then they discover their similarities and uniqueness. There are always variations on a theme and that?s why this information has been so important. For example, women are often told that the best positions are? yet, once you?ve mapped your pelvis, learned how to relax your minnie mouse muscles, done Kate?s Cat and prepared using the Internal Work from The Pink Kit, then you?ll know which positions keep you open and relaxed.

For the past 30 years there has been a pulling apart of birthing beliefs. Now women believe and are told that they have a choice between midwife, home and natural versus doctor, hospital and medical births. Yet, the strength of The Pink Kit Method comes from the reality that no matter where you labour and give birth or with whom, you will have another contraction. You can learn positive birthing and coaching skills so that you breathe well, relax internally, stay open, override the natural reaction to pain which is to tense up, develop team work with your coach and manage your way to a positive birth experience. You still might not like the experience, but you?ll be proud of the way you handled it. That?s empowerment!

In the birth climate of today, where ?choice? and ?information? are the basis for childbirth education and care, Common Knowledge Trust offers ?skills? which have been terribly neglected to be passed on. Sadly, we hear women tell each other: ?There is no way to prepare for the experience.? It?s true that labour is an unknown journey; however, there are many simple skills that are effective tools to work with that journey as it unfolds. Why have we come to believe that ignorance is bliss, that we should hope for a good birth and that ?natural? means we all know exactly what to do? Ignorance is not bliss, being skilled is. Hope is not a plan, nor is a birth plan adaptable, yet skills are. Birth is natural, it follows pregnancy; however, we do naturally tense up, labour is naturally intense. As human beings, we are gifted with our amazing minds. We have the ability to apply skills to natural physiological processes. We do it all the time. When we?re hungry, we cook not just browse on the nearest bush. When we?re randy we learn to make love if we really want pleasure rather than rut. When we have to pee or poo we wait until we get to the proper receptacle rather than right here, right now!

For some unfortunate reason, there has been a trend of thinking for 30 years or so, has let birthing skills lapse. Common Knowledge Trust is a change agent for that belief?one woman at a time, one father at a time?.one contraction at a time. When we couple skills to choice, we are more likely to have a goal and steps to achieve it. When we marry skills to information, we are more likely to have mastery rather than intellectual knowledge. For 30 years, skills have been missing because the focus has been on who and where should women labour and give birth rather than what we can do to have a positive birth because we have the skills to manage our way through the process of labour as it unfolds. This is not rocket science. It?s common sense, common knowledge.

You might be reading this, knowing that you are planning an elective caesarean. There?s no difference between you and a woman who will labour to give birth. You and your partner can use these skills as well. You can have the pleasure of preparing your body for childbirth and the joy of working together to develop your teamwork. And you?ll use these skills because you?re still going to give birth.

Because Common Knowledge Trust is the collective voice of thousands upon thousands of expectant women and their partners, we can speak to whatever situation you find yourself. We?ve all used the information and have benefited hugely, been enriched tremendously, felt more connected, competent, capable and self empowered by becoming skilled at giving birth and coaching. Our self taught skills have grown positive parenting and developed closer partnership relationships.

When you are pregnant with multiples, you are in a situation with your birth provider that will require you to negotiate about your birth plans and in a trend climate of care. The management of multiple pregnancies has changed over the years. Regardless of the choices you have or the ones you make, you can still enjoy the preparation of your birthing body. Become Pink Kit parents!

Wintergreen

Author Bio

Wintergreen is trustee and founder of the Common Knowledge Trust based in Nelson, New Zealand. The trust promotes the Pink Kit Method which gives private childbirth lessons for use in ones own home. For more information visit the Birthing Better website

No related posts.

I’m starting out with lots of detail, but it gets easy. The topic of essential fatty acids have a holistic affect on your health, as you’ll see.

Essential Fatty Acids and their functions in your body are just as described, essential. You cannot manufacture these particular nutritional elements from other foods that you eat.

** 1.Essential fatty acids need to be present in your body to regulate several important biologically active compounds which have a wide range of desirable effects including reduction of inflammation, lowering blood pressure and preventing platelet aggregation, or blood platelets from sticking together.

Inflammation is a localized protective reaction of tissue to irritation, injury, or infection, characterized by pain, redness, swelling, and sometimes loss of function. If this occurs inside your skin, in your heart, liver, blood vessels, joints, eyes, nerves and brain tissue, you probably won’t know for years. If you get a splinter in your finger, you’ll see it in moments.

** 2.Essential fatty acids are involved in transporting and metabolizing cholesterol. These acids makes it more soluble so that the body is able to get rid of it. They also have the ability to inhibit the production of LDL, the bad cholesterol in your body.

** 3.Essential fatty acids are required for every single cell in your body to function effectively. Cell membranes must be composed of a high enough level of fatty acids for proper structure and integrity.

One especially important area is your nervo

They are vital for your eyes’ function also.

Consider your blood, blood pressure and fluidity. Decreased amount of healthy fats in the

red blood cell wall makes the blood cells rigid, and unable to supply adequate oxygen and nutrients to the nerves. The decreased delivery of oxygen and nutrition reduce healthy nerve functions. Deficiency in omega 3 fats also leads to inflammation in the blood vessels, arteries, and then to high blood pressure.

Ultra purified fish oil, the omega 3 oil extracted from the flesh of cold water fish such as salmon, mackerel, tuna, sardines, herrings and anchovies, is a rich source of the eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). You don’t have to remember those names, but you’ll see the terms EPA and DHA referred to in relation to omega 3 oils. You are recommended to limit these foods to two or three times a week, because of pollutants such as mercury. Fortunately the purified, or pharmaceutical grade oils are cleansed of the toxins in them

Without having to remember all the above details, just note that ” Essential fatty acids are required for every single cell in your body to function effectively” and take it from there. Start adding it to your diet every day in the purified supplemental form.

Just imagine the difference it could make for your health issues, and for all middle aged women, to add the one element, omega 3 oils to your diet. It’s easy learning that goes a long way to avoid or help with a mid life crisis.

Dianne M. Buxton

Author Bio

Get your purified fish oil to prevent or help manage high blood pressure, arthritis, add, diabetes, menopause, heart health,depression, joint pain and more. Dianne M. Buxton is a mother, writer, and a ballet teacher, interested in anti-aging nutrition and lifestyles.

No related posts.

Take Inventory of Societal Attitudes and Your Eating Style.

By Kathleen Fuller, Ph.D.

The path and the process when healing eating issues and weight issues involve many convoluted and confusing choices. Your healing journey is unique, but certain behavioral similarities are fundamental at the start for nearly everyone who is affected.

First point you should know is that the sociocultural roots of eating issues and weight issues are hidden deep in plain view. We can look for them in the silent and generally accepted expectations we hold about the world in which we live. These commonly held expectations are primarily formed by the combined attitudes of people who comprise this culture and society.

Ask yourself:  what can you do to uncover these deeply entrenched sociocultural systems that each of us has? How about taking stock of the conscious and unconscious influence these expectations hold on us individually?  That could be your first step to freeing yourself from them forever, and living the principles of healthy eating.

You can find out for yourself how immune or immersed you are in these biases, by completing the Health Quiz for Eating Habits and Weight Issues by answering “yes” or “no” to the following questions. The totaled answers may surprise you, but they can also act as a wake-up call or a catalyst.

Health Quiz for Eating Habits and Weight Issues

Have you ever:

(1) Thought constantly about fo

(2) Felt overwhelming emotional stress?

(3) Felt depressed with low self-esteem over several weeks, months, or longer?

(4) Felt out of control?

(5) Believed that all it takes to conquer weight issues and eating issues is willpower?

(6) Tried to restrict your diet to lose weight gained from overeating?

(7) Felt guilty or ashamed about your eating habits or patterns?

(8) Started eating, then found you couldn’t stop?

(9) Eaten so much at night that you could hardly get up in the morning?

(10)  Experienced relationship or family problems because of overeating, dieting, bingeing or purging?

(11) Held high expectations or standards for yourself and others?

(12) Told family what you think they want to hear about your eating habits, rather than the truth?

(13) Maintained a lower or higher than average weight?

(14) Gorged yourself, then used exercise, vomiting, or laxatives so you wouldn’t gain weight?

(15) Placed overt importance on your physical appearance?

(16) Admitted physical appearance is of ultimate importance to your family and/or yourself?

(17)  Experienced swollen glands from vomiting?

(18)  Experienced menstrual irregularities?

(19)  Felt compelled to monitor what you or your children ate?

If you answered yes for one to five of these questions, then you’re reading this at a good time.

If you answered yes to five to ten questions, it’s a wake-up call. Pay attention to the warning signs of weight issues and eating issues now and begin seeking help. Implementing a commitment is a good first step.

If you answered yes to ten to fifteen questions, consider employing the help of a qualified therapist as you use other tips and tools, for the sake of your health and well-being.

If you or someone you know can answer yes to fifteen or more questions, it’s time for immediate action or a personal intervention.  Healthy eating has been absent and your life or the life of someone you love may be at stake.

First Steps to Healing

You’ve already done the first step by completing the Health Quiz for Eating Habits and Weight Issues. This showed you where you are in relation to societal attitudes about food and weight. The next step is equally important.  Make a commitment to become sincerely involved in techniques, exercises, and the process of actually living the principles of healthy eating.  After you make your commitment to “walk the walk,” your life will change forever.

Free biweekly newsletters loaded with tips and tools for eating issues and weight issues are at my website. You’ll gain understanding on how to establish healthy eating in the easiest way possible.  Go and sign up now and receive free excerpts from my book Not Your Mother’s Diet.

Barefoot Body Paradise Everyday

Dr.  Kathleen Fuller

www.notyourmothersdiet.com

kathleenfuller@notyourmothersdiet.com

© 2007 Kathleen Fuller, All Rights Reserved.

Kathleen Fuller

Author Bio

Kathleen Fuller, Ph.D.’s work as a leading eating disorder expert, has helped countless individuals find happiness that has eluded them. Her seventeen years of private practice specializing in eating disorders gives her a unique insight into what can work to change one’s life.

No related posts.

11 health care experts from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Texas recently shared their views via e-mail on how to make health care more affordable and accessible.

Options for reforming texas health insurance coverage range from a single-payer system like those in Great Britain or Canada to a mostly non-group market where people would shop for their own private coverage, helped by federal tax credits. Which is preferable? Or is there a better middle ground?

Also Online

Is French health system a model for U.S.?

Dallas-Fort Worth residents share their stories of coping with rising costs of health insurance

DR. RON ANDERSON: I’ve long been an advocate of the concept of a single-payer system. It’s more cost-effective, and its administrative overhead is low. However, I don’t think this country is ready for anything that would take away competition. If competition for patient loyalty is possible and if there is still an adequate emphasis on quality, safety and access, I would support it. America uniquely likes competition; we like choices. If the choice of doctor and hospital is made possible, that would be attractive. I think the U.S. will end up being somewhere in the middle of the road. We need to differentiate between socialized insurance and socialized medicine. The former doesn’t have to travel with the latter. But to do that we have to change our delivery models to be much more cost-effective than we currently are. But I do think there is a middle ground.

ROSSIA AVERY: As a registered

U.S. REP. MICHAEL BURGESS: The guide for reform should be improving what works and fixing what does not. President Barack Obama said on the campaign trail – and this is clearly something that resonated with Americans – that if you like what you have, you should be able to keep it. I take that to mean that whatever reform we undertake in Washington shouldn’t force an individual back in Texas to go to a different doctor against their wishes or force anyone to buy insurance they don’t want or need. I also believe we need to take a look at the tax code. It’s fundamentally unfair that small businesses, the self-employed and individuals do not enjoy the same tax benefit as larger companies when purchasing health insurance. This is a key step in making health care more affordable and giving Americans more choices. We need to ensure that whatever we do doesn’t adversely affect the quality and affordability of American health care, and there are some really troubling proposals out there that would do just that.

ANNE DUNKELBERG: Settling on the precise form for an American system to guarantee every one of us access to a decent standard of health care no matter what our job, income or health status is not the most difficult step in reaching health reform or the most important one. The crucial and weighty step needed is the decision as a country to ensure access to health care as a public good, just as we do education, roads, military, fire and police protection. Every taxpayer knows that these public structures on which our civilization relies (and which all but the most diehard anarchists support) are not free, and affordable health care for every American will be just that: affordable but not free. Every American will have to contribute to the health care system no matter what model we pick to deliver and finance care – just as every American has to support schools, roads and the military. The critical change will be the guarantee that Americans will not have to spend more than a predictable upper-limit percentage of their income on health care. This change will eliminate health care bills as the No. 1 cause of U.S. bankruptcies, along with the profound fear American families live with today of not being able to pay for or receive the health care their loved ones need. What Americans desperately need today is a system that will provide every person the same access to a decent standard of care at a price that they can afford and which cannot be taken away if they lose a job or become sick or injured. Once the decision to create such a system is reached, there are many models to choose from, since every other industrialized nation already has such a system. A system that provides the health care security described above could be delivered under a single-payer system like Canada’s, under our current system, which includes a major role for the health insurance industry alongside large public insurers (Medicare and Medicaid), or under an infinite number of variations in between the two. In fact, no country has a perfect system, and our U.S. system will not be perfect, either. For health reform to work here in the U.S. with a continued private insurance industry, however, some of the basic ground rules for the industry will have to change.

MARIANNE FAZEN: Most employers prefer a private health care insurance system over a government-run single-payer system. We believe that a private insurance system fosters innovation, competitive pricing, accountability among providers and patients, provider payments that reward superior performance and good patient outcomes, personal responsibility for healthy lifestyles and behaviors, and a wide range of coverage choices for consumers. We’ve seen just the opposite in government-run programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Although there are few examples where all of these desirable characteristics are in place and working well together, employers believe that the chances of this happening are far greater in a private, tax-favored health insurance system than a government-run single-payer system. However, in order to make the private insurance affordable, everyone who is not covered by Medicare or Medicaid should be required to purchase coverage in order to spread the risks across the sick and the healthy to keep costs down. Government can help by offering tax incentives for individuals and small businesses.

DR. ROBERT FINE: An American version of single payer is the best option not only for achieving universal health insurance coverage but also for improving quality and controlling costs – both of which are necessary to achieve and maintain health care for all. Traditional market-based solutions such as individuals “shopping” for private health insurance cannot accomplish any of these tasks because medical care is not an ordinary commodity and the health care sector is not an ordinary market. The “consumer” (patient) can never be adequately educated or informed about the product, and the provider can never escape the moral obligations intrinsic to medicine – obligations that don’t exist in other markets. For the past 30 years since graduating from medical school, I have watched market-based solutions fail to improve access quality or, most important, cost, which has increased from 7 percent to 17 percent of gross domestic product. And why should this matter? Because we can’t compete in the global marketplace when so much of our business investment is tied up in an inefficient health care system! The necessities of competition force insurance companies to keep anywhere from 15 percent to 25 percent of every premium dollar for screening out unwanted patients, marketing and sales, private-sector executive salaries and profit. A dollar spent on insurance sales is a dollar not spent on health care services. A dollar spent denying health insurance to a patient betrays the very purpose of health insurance. On the other hand, for every tax dollar devoted to health care, over 95 cents is disbursed for health care services. The middle ground thus is not between a single-payer system and shopping for private coverage but within a single-payer system fostering cooperation rather than competition between providers. Only a single-payer system offers the efficiency of a universal premium collection system, a single risk pool and a universal payment system coupled with the freedom for patients to choose their own doctor and hospital – something they don’t have under market-based proposals.

LARRY JAMES: Whether there is a better option for U.S. citizens only time will tell. I do believe that given the fact that so many Americans already enjoy publicly administered health care coverage (Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ health and SCHIP) and given the market realities and preferences of consumers here, it is most likely that our first steps into the world of universal coverage will be a blend of options. It is worth noting here that the public solutions we have already embraced are administered at a fraction of the cost of private coverage and that these groups have been able to negotiate rates that keep health costs lower than would be the case if they didn’t exist at such a scale and if they weren’t public plans.

STEPHEN MANSFIELD: While I believe free-markets and the associated innovation and competitiveness derived from those markets are hallmarks that have allowed America to accomplish greatness by most any historical metric of societal greatness, I also believe market forces work less effectively in cases where a society deems a good or service to be a right. Studies indicate that the overwhelming majority of Americans view access to basic health care as a right. I am among that group and hence among the group who believe our best option for reforming and improving our overall health care economy is through fiscal policy which ensures health coverage and access for all paid for by all.

J. DARREN RODGERS: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas supports changes that will lower the cost of health care, improve the quality and safety of care and ensure that all Americans have health insurance. Today, the federal government and states struggle to maintain programs like Medicare and Medicaid, so it’s hard for me to understand how a government-run, single-payer system would improve the cost, quality and safety of health care for Americans covered by private insurance. A government-run, single-payer system would be an unnecessary new bureaucracy that would only create a huge diversion from the true goals of health care reform. A number of alternative reforms are being debated. Guaranteeing access to coverage for everyone is one example. That would have no cost to taxpayers and should be instituted before we disrupt the current system, which works well for many people. Some of the more radical options could have unintended consequences that negatively impact the quality and safety of care.

As more Americans lose their jobs and employer-based health care coverage, they’re turning to individual insurance. But they’re finding that policies are unaffordable and, if they have certain medical conditions, unavailable. How can we guarantee that these individuals get affordable coverage?

ANDERSON: Currently, there are ways to get individual plans, but many times what you get is a bare-bones plan with a very high co-insurance and deductible. This prevents some unnecessary utilization, but it also prevents necessary utilization. You need a system that’s going to be protective of the patients and focus on quality, safety and access, not just cost. It’s important to remember that insurance is not the same thing as providership. We can’t meet the needs of health reform without expanding capacity to take care of more people. Our focus needs to be broader than just payment reform.

AVERY: We can’t, under the current system. Insurance companies only want to cover the healthy and the young, not because they are evil but because their primary goal is not providing care but generating profit for their shareholders. They make that profit by limiting who they will cover and denying claims, even for care recommended by physicians. Thus, tens of millions of people are simply denied the ability to buy insurance if they have ever been sick, are older or considered likely to incur medical costs, and women are charged more primarily because we can have children. Could this system be any more immoral? The best way to guarantee that everyone is able to get coverage is by having one system, such as Medicare, that treats everyone fairly and has one very large risk pool that can share the risk and that also has the strength in numbers to negotiate bulk pricing from the drug companies, medical suppliers and other parties in the health care system to control costs.

BURGESS: I think our goal in reform should be to say, “If you want health insurance, you should be able to purchase it.” I think with greater individual control and more equity in the tax treatment of health insurance, more Americans will be able to afford coverage on their own that isn’t tied to an employer. There are a number of innovative models for making health care affordable – even outside of traditional insurance – and I think we need to be very careful not to stifle these innovations. I’m also open to some form of premium support for those who cannot afford coverage. I’m willing to consider proposals that will make health insurers reconsider their decision to use pre-existing conditions as a means of denying coverage. This is clearly bad corporate citizenship. I think the best remedy is to provide patients with more choice and control, and then you will see insurance companies actually compete for all patients regardless of health status.

DUNKELBERG: Fundamental reforms of our private insurance market will be needed to create a sustainable health care system. Texas Department of Insurance data reveal that the average cost of a family employer group premium is around $12,000 a year. But under current law our lax regulation of health insurance allows insurers to legally charge as much as $62,000 per person to a small employer group. In practice, the state insurance department data show real-world maximum annual per-person premiums being charged small Texas employers as high as $29,000. In the individual market, there is no legal upper limit on the premium at all, and of course you can simply be turned down for coverage altogether.

The key reforms needed for the private market would end most of the differences between individual and group insurance by establishing the following ground rules for every insurer:

•No person or group can be turned down for coverage (“guaranteed issue” in insurance-speak).

•The difference between the lowest and highest premium charged for the same coverage is limited. For example, the highest premium can’t be more than twice the lowest.

•The differences in premiums cannot be based on your health history or status. Rate variations would only be allowed for age, gender and geography – and the final premium would still have to be no more than twice the lowest premium.

•These rules would apply to both group and individual insurance, so that individuals purchasing a policy directly could benefit from the same kinds of shared risk that those of us who work for large employers have.

Of course, regulation of the insurance market is only one key needed change. Many working Texas families earn too little to afford the full cost of coverage, even if they were guaranteed to get that $12,000-a-year average premium. Half of Texas families earn less than $56,000 a year before taxes. The family grossing $36,000 cannot afford to spend more than a third of their income on insurance premiums – not to mention the other health costs those premiums do not cover. And the newly unemployed Texan in our question above probably cannot afford to pay the full cost of coverage with their unemployment insurance benefits. For this reason, a system making coverage affordable for all will also have to set an upper limit, such as 10 percent of income, on what families are expected to pay for health care (not just insurance premiums but all expenses). It will also require intense attention to the many ways in which the costs of health care could be better controlled.

FAZEN: A combination of tax reforms and tax incentives seems like the best way to help individuals obtain affordable insurance. Individuals and small businesses should be able to deduct their health insurance premiums the same as large employers are allowed to do. Individuals could also receive a tax incentive, either as a credit or a deduction, to help offset the cost of insurance that they purchase for themselves. As for guaranteed coverage regardless of health status, the only way this can be affordable is to mandate that everyone purchase health insurance, whether individually or through one’s employer, in order to spread the risks broadly across a large population of both the sick and the healthy. That’s what insurance is all about.

FINE: We can only guarantee affordable coverage by creating a single risk pool that accepts all patients – and this means creating a single-payer system. The private health insurance market “works” by stratifying risk and excluding any patient who is not profitable for the insurer to cover. Such patients typically won’t receive treatment until they are seriously ill, at which point they will come to an emergency room where treatment is much more expensive. The insurance company has denied the patient coverage, but the patient will still be treated – by law, by the inclinations of the healing professions and by ethical concepts embedded in our traditions, such as the admonition to “not stand idly by” the blood of our neighbors and treating “the least of these” brothers (and sisters) among us. The costs of this emergency treatment are then passed on to those still insured, driving up their costs and causing more people to lose insurance coverage. If we believe it is ethical to deny health insurance coverage because of a prior condition – for example, coronary artery disease – then we should believe it is ethical to deny the patient treatment in our emergency rooms and simply watch them die when they come to us uninsured with a heart attack!

RALPH HOLMES: Unfortunately, there are no guarantees that individuals, with or without health conditions, will be able to get coverage that they can afford. We realize that with rising unemployment rates, there are people who are making tough decisions such as putting food on the table or going to the doctor. From Aetna’s standpoint, we offer a wide range of plan alternatives, from plans that are comparable to what individuals received from employer-based plans to lower-cost plans that provide coverage for preventative care as well as protection against catastrophic medical expenses. With different options, consumers can choose what would best fit their health and financial situations. For those who have lost their job since Sept. 1, 2008, they should look at taking advantage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was passed in February. The law provides a substantial subsidy to COBRA, which allows people to retain their health insurance benefits after a job loss. The government will subsidize up to 65 percent of their old employer’s insurance premium for up to nine months. For those people who may have pre-existing conditions and are having trouble finding individual plans, this might be a good alternative. However, there might be some consumers who cannot purchase COBRA or individual plans for a variety of reasons. That is why one of Aetna’s main goals is to educate people on all of the different options available to them, so that they can make informed decisions. To that end, Aetna and the Financial Planners Association developed Plan for Your Health (www.planforyourhealth.com), which is a free, public-education Web site designed to inform consumers about all aspects of health insurance. The comprehensive site includes such things as the basics of individual health insurance, recent changes to the COBRA program as a result of the stimulus package and tips on what consumers should think about when they are purchasing plans. Other alternatives for coverage to be considered are the Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance programs. For the 47 million uninsured in this country, approximately 11 million people are eligible for these types of programs but do not enroll.

JAMES: Only strong public policy decisions will be able to adequately address this hard reality. Health care should not be seen as a publicly traded commodity but more as a human right or at least a “public utility.” Only clear, strong regulatory policy that forces restrictions on the private marketplace will solve this problem. Ironically, it likely will be this growing problem that forces us into a new strategy altogether.

MANSFIELD: Health insurance coverage has been in what some refer to as a doom spiral for several years, as more people are uninsured and unable or unwilling to pay for their health care, and the costs for charity and bad debt are passed along to those with insurance in the form of higher premiums. That means that employer-sponsored and individual insurance policies cost more than they should because they include a surcharge for the uninsured. The resulting effect is premiums increasing to substantially more than general inflation. This prices more and more employers and individuals out of the insurance market, contributing to the downward spiral in the number of employers and individuals able to afford insurance. I think the problem must be fixed at its source, providing basic coverage for all. Doing so would reduce insurance premiums and allow more individuals and employers to afford to purchase health insurance and would change the direction of the spiral in a positive direction.

RODGERS: Health insurance is expensive because health care is expensive, so there must be reforms that impact the cost of health care. Of course, these reforms will need to extend far beyond insurance. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas believes everyone should have health insurance. To make individual coverage more affordable and available, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas supports requiring health insurers to take all applicants regardless of health status as long as there is an effective individual obligation to maintain health insurance, possibly combined with federal subsidies or tax credits for certain individuals. With everyone having health insurance, the insurance will work as it should – spreading risk across a broad population and avoiding the risk of only those who need insurance actually purchasing it. Allowing individuals to waive in or out of the insurance only when they feel they need it would only increase the cost for those who try to maintain the insurance, resulting in more uninsured.

Our health care payment system seems to reward the volume of services provided, not necessarily the quality of the outcome. How do we change reimbursements so that they reward performance?

ANDERSON: Service providers need to be rewarded for practicing prevention and achieving better outcomes. Achieving this means we need to become as evidenced-based as we can, creating incentives for both doctors and hospitals to practice prevention. We need to find a strategy that will create a win-win situation for health care providers, insurers and patients.

AVERY: The current system rewards services that generate the most profit. That’s why we have inflated charges and an explosion in boutique services, while far too many of our patients go without appropriate and timely care. We need a system that is based on patient need and prevention. The most cost-effective approach is to ensure that people are encouraged and not financially penalized for getting regular medical, dental and vision checkups and other preventive health care screenings and services. This will lower overall health care costs and reduce long-term pain and suffering, and it will ensure that patients get the care they need when and where they need it.

BURGESS: The payment system is actually one of the reasons I decided to run for Congress. As a physician, I saw the way that Medicare, for example, wasn’t paying nearly what it costs to treat a patient. Of course, when you’re losing money on every patient you see, you can never make up for the losses with volume. And the problem is even worse in Medicaid. Fundamentally, doctors are focused on using their knowledge and skills to treat their patients in the best ways possible with the latest technology. I think new tools like comparative effectiveness research and best-practice guides are important steps in improving outcomes, but these should never interfere with the patient-physician relationship.While improving quality and efficiency are noble goals, the treatment should always be a decision between doctor and patient. Addressing medical justice reform is a key part of improving the ballooning volume of services. Too many doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine to insulate themselves from lawsuits by trial attorneys. I also like some demonstrations that have enabled doctors to recoup a portion of the savings they’ve returned to the government as an incentive for participating in quality improvement.

DUNKELBERG: Health economists have been thinking for several decades about how to correct the financial incentive to provide more care in order to make more money. Managed care and HMOs were the first large-scale attempt in the U.S. to change the rewards. Of course, we quickly came to realize that the incentive to deny needed care in order to make profits was just as objectionable. There are no perfect systems, here or abroad, for rewarding “performance,” partly because even with the very best lifestyle choices and health care, people will still get injured and sick and eventually die. It is not easy to set goals for performance for health care providers that do not hold them responsible for the failure of individuals to follow medical advice and take care of their own health through diet and exercise. Despite these caveats, our country will be in a far better position to reward performance instead of sheer volume when no American is excluded from care due to financial barriers. One key will be making long-term connections to our health professionals and insurers. When health plans know that they will be with us for the long haul, they will have a far greater incentive to keep us healthy. Information is also key. Currently, no one is tracking the effectiveness of the vast majority of health care being delivered in the U.S. Our knowledge about what works is limited to special studies, and many of those are paid for by someone with a profit motive, which can distort whether and how the findings get shared. A health system that serves everyone will have a far greater ability to collect information about what works and what doesn’t. And, without expecting doctors to make us immortal, the new world of information systems can also make sure that best practices, basic standards of care and the latest updates are communicated systematically to all doctors. One of the first steps we are already taking in the U.S. is refusing to pay for medical errors (no pay for poor performance) in Medicare.

FAZEN: There’s no question that our current reimbursement system, which rewards providers for the number of services performed regardless of patient outcomes, is topsy-turvy. “Pay for performance” is a relatively new concept that is gaining traction with health plans and employers. This makes sense intuitively, but defining and measuring quality are tricky, publicly reporting providers’ performance is rare, and determining a fair payment structure is extremely difficult. Only recently has national consensus been achieved by leading health care experts on how to define and measure performance for selected medical conditions, which may explain the slow start that pay for performance has had. However, health plans are now beginning to segregate providers into tiers with different reimbursement schedules, based on how well they adhere to evidence-based medical practices for certain illnesses, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and how well their patients fared under their care. Also, some employers are paying bonuses to physicians for delivering high-quality care and good outcomes. Medicare has a demonstration project in progress that pays bonuses to physicians who demonstrate good performance and good patient outcomes. However, I think there is a lot of concern among physicians and hospitals about “cut-and-dried” performance measurements, which tend to view health care as “pure science” without also considering the “art of medicine.” They also are concerned about transparency, or public reporting of performance scores, fearing punitive action by the health plans or, worse, loss of confidence among their patients. Dallas-Fort Worth Business Group on Health members think it’s very important for providers to be directly involved in determining how performance is defined, how it will be measured and how and by whom the results will be used. Our communitywide health care improvement collaborative has both hospital representatives and practicing physicians literally at the table with our employers and health plan executives making joint decisions about performance metrics for diabetes care that we will use in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, as well as reporting rules and appropriate use of the information by each stakeholder. I think we need to get the performance measurement issues worked out first before we change the reimbursement structure. But I also think a reimbursement model that rewards good performance and good patient outcomes will soon become the norm.

FINE: I am skeptical about “rewarding performance,” which, although well intentioned and reasonable at first glance, is fraught with problems. There is too little agreement on what constitutes good performance, too few reliable tools with which to measure performance and too much uncertainty as to who should be rewarded for good performance. What tool reliably measures the effectiveness of physician communication, one of the essential elements of quality health care delivery? Or consider improved diabetic control. We can measure average blood sugar control, but a reliable, health literate, easily motivated patient is likely to have much better diabetic control than a health illiterate, unmotivated patient. Should one physician or one health care system receive greater rewards because they have more health literate and motivated patients? Overall, I think it probably is best that we stay away from too much emphasis on using reimbursement to “reward performance” at this time and focus on simpler methods of reducing unnecessary procedures. Single-payer systems have clearly already accomplished this. For example, elderly heart attack patients in the United States receive 5.8 times more revascularization procedures than elderly Canadian heart attack patients, but their mortality rates are the same. More is not always better, and single-payer systems are more efficient in curbing nonbeneficial treatments.

JAMES: Unknown to many, Medicare already is imposing quality-control performance metrics on hospitals around issues like readmissions. I know similar outcome performance and quality-of-care issues relate to home health care and other sectors of the health care world. Care standards indexed to patient outcomes will ensure that improvements are made. As President Obama clearly understands, the spread of electronic health record technology will make this much easier and more cost effective. The same electronic record capacity will make best-practice treatment protocols more accessible to doctors and hospitals and outcomes easier to obtain, report and improve upon.

MANSFIELD: We are starting to see some efforts to tie pay and outcomes together from a reimbursement perspective. For example, Methodist has been among a handful of hospitals across the country to receive additional Medicare reimbursement because the quality of our outcomes is in the optimal range. I think tying pay and performance can be a good thing if it is approached as a zero-sum methodology rather than as another veiled attempt to reduce reimbursement without sound scientific reasoning behind the methodology. It is equally important that the models encourage stellar performance and outcomes as it is that they discourage suboptimal outcomes.

RODGERS: Today, ineffective, redundant and inappropriate care is estimated to account for as much as 30 percent of health care spending. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas believes the incentives with the health care delivery system must be changed, and it is pursuing a number of initiatives to reward providers for delivering appropriate, cost-effective care. For example, we’ve converted about 25 percent of our physician agreements to “pay for performance” programs that reimburse physicians for providing the right care in the right place at the right time. Additionally, we’ve partnered with other organizations such as Bridges to Excellence to recognize and reward physicians for better management of patients with chronic illnesses.

There hasn’t been a major federal push for health care reform since the Clinton administration’s failed attempt in the 1990s. With the many differences of opinion that exist between all the stakeholders, will President Obama and Congress be able to stitch together a compromise and achieve reform this year? Why or why not?

ANDERSON: For over 15 years a lot of policymakers have decided to not touch health care. Meanwhile, health care costs have skyrocketed compared to wages, salaries, benefits and the gross national product. Hopefully, now we know enough to create a rational approach where we can save money and reinvest that money in reform. It would be better to have a system where care is given based on need rather than on ability to pay. I’m glad to see the Obama administration step up and try to create a reform package. It may not be perfect, but the current approach is not sustainable. We must be prepared to sacrifice “perfect” for “good and improving year by year,” or we’ll never get anything done.

AVERY: We will achieve genuine and fundamental reform of our system when patients, nurses, physicians and health care activists have constructed a movement that is as powerful as the insurance lobbyists. I believe we’re watching that happen around us. For this year, it seems highly likely that President Obama and Congress will pass legislation, particularly if the House and Senate proceed with the same “budget reconciliation” process used by President George W. Bush in 2001 that allows bills to pass by a majority vote of 51 in the Senate. The outcome may also depend on whether congressional leaders fight off poison pills, such as provisions to tax employer-provided health care benefits and to mandate that individuals purchase products from the private health insurers, no matter the cost or quality. Both of these proposals would cause any compromise to lose support among health care activists and make the bill difficult, if not impossible, to pass.

BURGESS: I think we have a tremendous opportunity to reform health care. I am afraid that many Democrats are looking at this as an opportunity to settle old scores with the insurance industry or physicians, but if patient care is kept as the goal and if we remember that we have a responsibility to “do no harm,” we’ll be able to work toward a product both sides of the aisle can be proud of. Obviously, the numbers favor the president’s party, and they can pass any bill they want without a single Republican vote. But the Democrats have indicated that they want to move forward in a bipartisan way, and I am hopeful they are sincere because I want to help. I also think we need to take our message to the American people because this is something that can be won by Republicans in the court of public opinion. I really think there are some important timing considerations, given the nature of our political calendar and the vast array of challenges facing President Obama. Nevertheless, I hope all good ideas are considered.

DUNKELBERG: In favor of health reform, President Obama has the benefit of considerably stronger backing for health reform in Congress, among the American people and in the business sector than was the case during the Clinton administration. The level of insecurity and concern among average Americans has increased dramatically, along with the costs of coverage and health care. From 2000 to 2007, Texans saw their health insurance premiums increase 87 percent, while their incomes increased only 15 percent. With the cost of coverage growing nearly six times faster than incomes, health insurance becomes less affordable for Texas families every year and for employers who are trying to maintain health insurance as an employee benefit. Voters today express a strong desire for change in our health care system, with over two-thirds saying we need a complete overhaul or major reform. While this support is strongest among Democratic voters, 59 percent of independent voters and 52 percent of Republican voters also support major reform. A bedrock concept of the administration’s health reform vision is that Americans who are happy with the coverage they have today will be able to keep it, while new coverage choices will be created for those who are uninsured or who have inadequate coverage. The sense that the entire health care system will not be turned on its head overnight is critical. Having said that, every step we take as a nation to reduce the cost of care, eliminate waste and select the most cost-effective drugs and procedures will result in someone’s profits being reduced, and we can expect that there will be resistance to specific aspects of change from every sector whose income is affected.

FAZEN: We all have high hopes for transformational change in the health care system, since the current system clearly isn’t meeting the needs of many Americans. However, with so many stakeholders in this very rich, $2.4 trillion industry with different opinions and fears of losing out if they must give up something to help another group, I’m a bit pessimistic about achieving any meaningful reform this year. However, I applaud President Obama for making health care reform one of his administration’s top three priorities. Although real reform may be beyond our grasp this year, at least this gives us an open forum for meaningful discussion and debate about both the positive and the negative aspects of our current health care system. From this will emerge innovative ideas and solutions, and there will be opportunities to test these ideas in smaller-scale pilot studies in communities and as statewide initiatives before we as a nation decide what type of national health care system we want.

FINE: I am an optimist by nature and believe in the growing good of the world through human endeavor, yet I don’t think the type of reform I believe we need is likely this year. There are simply too many special interests and too much fear. Too many politicians – starting with the Clintons in the 1990s and followed by George W. Bush and President Obama – have been unwilling to take on the health insurance industry. In a single-payer system, even though marketing and risk selection services would disappear, other elements such as claims processing or supplements to a basic single-payer insurance package should survive. This remaining work will not likely be enough to keep insurance companies and their lobbyists satisfied. Meanwhile, many insurance company employees, fearful of losing their jobs, will work to scuttle any reform that might leave them unemployed, and who could blame them? Sadly, the “House of Medicine” is also divided by the fear that if primary-care reimbursements rise, subspecialty reimbursements will inevitably fall. Finally, fear among the broad public will help scuttle reform. Although over 15 percent of our population is uninsured and poor quality plus high costs affect rich and poor alike, there is too much fear among the 85 percent of us who are insured – a fear that health insurance reform will hurt more than help. I personally think this fear is illogical and not supported by the evidence, but I also know that fear does not always respond to logic.

JAMES: In my view, this is largely a matter of political will and available political capital. The president seems willing to involve everyone in the debate and the process. The prospect of some sort of “blended” solution that I’ve already suggested could make the process easier. The most important changes since the Clinton administration’s failed attempt to achieve universal coverage relate to this president’s popularity and to the impact rising health care costs are having on American business. It is no accident, nor is it surprising, that a growing number of leaders from business, industry and trade are now advocating for universal coverage of one kind or the other.

MANSFIELD: I think getting it done this year is a bit optimistic, but I am of the opinion that President Obama and leaders in Congress have the will and the mandate to substantially reform our health care system. The Clintons’ efforts probably failed for two primary reasons: The public mandate for change was less prevalent then than now, and special-interest groups poured lots of money into an effort to negatively influence public opinion regarding the Clinton plan. Reforming health care in a meaningful way is a tremendous public policy challenge, especially given the economic milieu. I believe this Congress and this president have the best chance anyone has had to do so, but it will be a tremendous challenge.

RODGERS: With 45 million uninsured Americans, steadily rising health care costs and unprecedented economic challenges, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas believes the time is right for some type of health care reform and is working with Congress to achieve this. The primary question is: Will health care reform be accomplished by addressing the underlying health care cost problem? Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas administers health insurance for over 4 million Texans, and we’ve seen hospital charges go up about 50 percent in the past five years and physician charges go up about 20 percent. We can’t have meaningful reform unless we find a way to deal with this reality.

What should be done about Medicare to rein in costs and improve quality?

ANDERSON: One of the best ways to improve costs is through risk reduction: to look at patients who become higher risk and make interventions to get them to lower risk. Many times this is as simple as exercise, diet, decreasing tobacco use or taking proper medications. Chronic conditions like obesity, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and asthma can be addressed through care management and save substantial dollars while improving care. I think Parkland’s network of community-based clinics is a model that can be applied other places, creating integrated health care systems where patients have a medical home. We also need to continue to invest in information technology, because the more information we have on outcomes and best practices, the more we can tweak the system to accomplish what we want.

BURGESS: I’ve long been a harsh critic of the way Medicare reimburses physicians and hospitals. I’ve also been vocal about my displeasure at the way the annual cuts are dealt with as a political football. Clearly, the low reimbursement rates in the program are affecting patients. This is something I encountered as a physician. Many of my fellow doctors wouldn’t see any Medicare patients because of adverse reimbursement. Medicare is a program that gives Americans 65 and older universal coverage, but this doesn’t mean they get to see the doctors they want when they want to see them. It drastically reduces their health care choices. Medicare highlights the problem with the notion that increasing funding will improve a government program. It’s simply the nature of a program as expansive as Medicare that its heft becomes too difficult to control. At the end of the day, we have to recognize that millions of Americans have planned on Medicare in their retirement and that this is a promise we’ve made to them. Medicare should be a cautionary tale for those who want to pursue a government-based health care system. This is why I’ve often said we really do have an obligation to fix the health care programs the government already runs before we create new ones.

DUNKELBERG: The cost challenges for Medicare – and thus their solutions – are not really different from those facing the nation as a whole, but the population served – seniors and disabled adults – is by definition the one with the highest average costs per person. The same question asked above (how to reward health-promoting care and not high-volume care) is a challenge for Medicare just as it is for the rest of the U.S.population. Medicare’s recent moves to deny payment for medical mistakes are an important step in providing financial incentives for providers to take more aggressive steps to stop avoidable errors and hospital-acquired infections. Systematic collection and sharing of what really works will help doctors provide the most effective high-quality health care based on scientific evidence, for Americans in Medicare and out. It should also be noted that Medicare already pays much lower rates to doctors and has much lower administrative costs than private insurance. Some specific cost-saving steps for Medicare should include reforming how Medicare HMOs are paid. Even though managed care was conceived of as a way to reduce health spending, Medicare HMOs are now paid about 12 percent more per person than traditional Medicare enrollees cost. Because current medical advances for seniors depend on access to medications, Medicare should take aggressive steps to monitor medications for seniors to avoid overmedication and drug interactions that can result from uncoordinated care. Fixes to the Medicare drug benefit, Part D, should address the bewildering array of options that seniors must wade through and should make sure that seniors can change plans if their Part D plan stops covering the medications they need. Finally, we sometimes confuse the serious issue of the sustainability of Medicare financing with the equally serious problem of the costs of health care services. Even if we can succeed in cutting health care costs, the system of payroll deductions and premiums must always be constructed so that the costs of running the program are fully supported. Of course, the more we control costs of care, the easier it is to keep the books in balance.

Although employer-based health care coverage remains the main source of insurance for working families, rising costs are forcing many businesses to shift more of the burden back onto families. How can we help businesses, especially smaller ones, afford health insurance for employees?

FAZEN: Tax reform should be a priority to help make private health insurance purchased by individuals and small businesses more affordable. Small businesses and individuals should be able to deduct the cost of health insurance from their income tax, just as large employers do. They also should be encouraged to purchase high-deductible health insurance plans that are eligible for tax-favored health savings accounts (so-called “consumer-directed health plans”). These plans are less expensive, give the insured more skin in the game and encourage participants to make informed decisions about where and when to obtain health care.

HOLMES: It is true that employers, mostly small businesses, bear a disproportionate share of medical expenses. A portion of the expense related to the medical care of the uninsured is allocated to private business in addition to costs related to their own employee base. In essence, we are all paying for the uninsured already. Adding this group would improve the risk profile of the entire pool (40 percent of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 35). An individual coverage requirement combined with subsidies for low-income people is a potential method for reducing the number of uninsured and minimizing some of the financial burden on private firms. In Texas, only 30 percent of small businesses with 50 or fewer employees offer health insurance to their employees, leaving 70 percent not supplying any type of coverage. Costs and other economics, such as trying to just stay afloat, could be the primary reasons. To lower costs, there need to be more individuals covered, which is why Aetna was the first insurer to support an individual coverage requirement, where the state or federal government would require everyone to have basic health insurance. However, in making this a requirement for those who can afford health coverage, provisions must be in place to assist those who cannot afford it or for whom access is limited. To directly help businesses, creating tax incentives for small employers to continue offering health benefits to their employees is another solution. Aetna offers a wide range of plan designs and price points for both businesses and individuals. In addition, in Texas, insurers are permitted to offer mandate-light plans to small business that exclude some of the state-mandated benefits in order to improve their affordability.

RODGERS: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas supports a range of options to help employers offer coverage, including targeted subsidies for small employers and individuals. There are tax credits for low-wage workers in small businesses, tax-deductible insurance premiums for those without access to employer-sponsored coverage, a refundable, advance tax credit for those whose premiums represent a disproportionate share of their income and a refundable tax credit to help those between jobs.

As the population ages and a higher percentage of the population lives with chronic conditions, long-term care will become a greater concern. Should this be addressed as part of health care reform?

AVERY: Yes. But our present, for-profit, insurance-based system is exacerbating the problem. A recent study in California, for example, found that 43 percent of people under 50 had postponed care for a chronic condition due to high out-of-pocket costs. When people delay needed care, they all too often end up in emergency rooms or with longer hospital stays, driving up costs for everyone. Under a genuine universal system not based on the profit motive, such as an expanded and upgraded Medicare system for all, people would be encouraged to seek preventive care or take medications in a timely manner, which would help manage care delivery in a more cost effective – and more humane – manner.

BURGESS: I’m not going to rule anything out. I think all good ideas need to be considered. That’s what we’re asking the Democrats and President Obama to do – consider our ideas. I want to put patients first. There are good ideas about long-term care out there, and I think we need to consider making long-term care insurance a more popular product. The key is to recognize this increase in life expectancy and disease management as an achievement of our advanced methods and technology in medicine instead of as a problem.

DUNKELBERG: A failure to access early care due to financial barriers leads to avoidable disability for millions of Americans. Better access to early preventive and chronic care under national health reform has the potential to reduce and delay disability and thus the need for long-term care. Again, even with the very best of care, illness and injury can and will leave Americans in need of assistance with their daily living needs. Health reform will represent a major down payment toward establishing public-private systems that allow our elders and disabled adults to live as independently as possible, but there is no question that the U.S. will need to take further steps to get to a real system of care that addresses nonmedical supports. While attacking the long-term care challenge at the same time we set up systems to create and pay for medical care access for all would be ideal, it is probably not politically feasible today.

Growing numbers of physicians are leaving the ranks of primary-care medicine, raising doubts that there will be enough to care for everyone. What can be done to recruit more young doctors to general practice?

ANDERSON: The main reason many are leaving primary care is that it’s underfunded. We say it’s very important, but we don’t pay for it in a way that encourages young people to go into it. One thing we can do is try to decrease their debt coming out of medical school. Many students go into subspecialties that are more lucrative in order to pay for it. In addition, many doctors want a change in lifestyle. They want a healthy family life. They don’t want to be burdened by the business of medicine; they just want to practice good medicine. We have to start looking at ways to entice physicians to go to rural and underserved inner-city areas. We’re going to have to think outside the box to meet society’s needs.

FINE: Until we end the extraordinary income and lifestyle discrepancies between primary care and procedural specialties, the problem will not be solved. All physicians come into medical training on an equal basis as uniquely talented and hard-working individuals. However, the medical student who chooses a procedural specialty can easily earn two to 10 times the annual income of a nonprocedural physician. Until this disparity ceases and physicians are compensated comparably whether or not they perform a test or procedure, we will continue to see inadequate numbers of primary-care physicians.

DR. A TOMAS GARCIA III: Texas has many small towns without primary-care physicians. At the same time, there are many young physicians who are very concerned about their private lives and private time. Clearly, there will have to be some sort of financial incentive for young physicians to consider practicing in medically underserved areas. Here’s where common sense comes into play. Students are graduating from medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. Why not forgive some of these students’ debts if they agree to care for Medicare or Medicaid patients in areas where doctors are in short supply? It will help the communities, and it will help the young doctors. It’ll be a win-win situation.

JAMES: This is a thorny problem. One major part of any solution will be to reimburse primary-care physicians – based on clear performance and prevention benchmarks – at a rate that encourages excellence as well as entrance into this sector of health care. Again, strong public policy and investment will be required to address this clear and growing need. Plans to assist with paying medical school debt and a national campaign that rewards the decision to practice family and community medicine must be devised. Reimbursement rates for general-practice doctors should be given due attention. At the same time, we must adopt a new national “frame” for wellness and, with that, the understanding that health and wellness are less about medical professionals than we currently assume. Individuals and communities working together must be challenged to take responsibility for their own health and wellness outcomes. This does not lessen public responsibility. Rather, it creates entire communities of health and wellness advocates.

MANSFIELD: Over the past few decades, the variability between what comparably trained physicians are able to earn has expanded dramatically due to our reimbursement methodologies. This economic model is skewed very negatively against physicians in primary care. A payment system that instills more parity in this equation would help immensely. Personally, I think national health policy has allowed this situation to exist too long and has created a shortage that cannot be overcome in the near term. To meet the growing demand for primary-care services and a medical home in the face of a shortage of the physicians most skilled to provide these functions, we must make more and better use of midlevel practitioners (nonphysicians) to extend the availability of primary care. We have a crisis looming that is getting worse by the day and needs to be a major tenet of our health care reform efforts.

Would you favor a requirement that businesses either cover their employees or pay into a fund that would provide coverage?

FAZEN: The so-called “play or pay” scheme is a bad idea for employers. Employer-sponsored health insurance is and always has been considered a benefit, not a requirement, and offered voluntarily to employees, who in turn are free to accept or reject this benefit. As some states that are experimenting with a play-or-pay model are discovering, the costs associated with the generous coverage that is usually included in such plans are far higher than expected, and the fees that employers pay are usually far too low to offset these costs, so the price to pay or play keeps ratcheting upward. The alternative is to reduce benefits, but it’s always much harder for government to take things away from constituents than to increase fees for the players. Businesses are not in business to lose money, so they are likely to offset the increased costs for mandated health insurance with fewer hires, lower wages and layoffs.

HOLMES: Aetna does not favor such a requirement, as it may put additional financial stress on small business, which has been the engine of growth and innovation in the U.S. Yes, we want everyone to be insured, but there are different ways to accomplish that goal, such as an individual coverage requirement.

RODGERS: In some ways, businesses that don’t cover their employees pay for it in other ways, such as through increased property taxes. Whether or not businesses provide health insurance for their employees, businesses and individuals are subsidizing the care for the uninsured and underinsured and for Medicare and Medicaid members when their costs aren’t fully covered. Some city governments are realizing this and are not providing economic incentives to companies that don’t provide health insurance or requiring city contractors to provide health insurance. Projections are that we’ll have a shortage of 1 million nurses by 2020, in part because of the limited capacity of nursing schools and the changing needs of the aging population. How can we alleviate this shortage?

Projections are that we’ll have a shortage of 1 million nurses by 2020, in part because of the limited capacity of nursing schools and the changing needs of the aging population. How can we alleviate this shortage?

AVERY: The only genuine way to improve the nursing shortage is to improve safety conditions in hospitals to the point where registered nurses feel they can safely practice their profession. The result is that nearly half of all registered nurses don’t work in critical-care settings – they work in offices or at home, or they just don’t work. Texas hospitals demonstrate the problem. It is not uncommon to hear about a registered nurse being assigned 15 patients. That’s not physically possible, and it deprives the patients of necessary nursing care while saddling the nurse with dread and worry over the patient she or he couldn’t get to. I am a nurse leader in the National Nurses Organizing Committee – Texas. In recent years, registered nurses across the country have been getting organized and active around the idea of guaranteeing minimum ratios of registered nurses to patients. A model bill passed in California has resulted in safer conditions in hospitals and led to a huge increase in the state’s registered nurse workforce. It has nearly ended the shortage in that state. NNOC-Texas has introduced similar legislation here (H.B. 1489 by Rep. Senfronia Thompson), and we hope all Texans will join us and support our nurses by encouraging your legislator to support this bill.

MANSFIELD: Unfortunately, we have far more bright and talented young women and men who are interested in and qualified for a nursing career than our nation’s colleges and universities are equipped to train. Federal and state help is needed to support an expansion of nursing faculty and the number of nursing schools. Creative public-private partnerships, such as Methodist Health System’s with El Centro College and others in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, are helping to bridge the gap, but so much more is needed. Nursing is an inspiring, worthwhile and rewarding career, but we have to do a better job of making training programs available to those wishing to pursue that career.

Both employers and government are putting new emphasis on wellness and prevention, especially regarding obesity and diabetes. What specific steps should be taken to encourage preventive care?

FINE: At least three steps come immediately to mind: changes in agricultural policy, changes in education and changes within the medical profession. Thanks to government subsidies on foods such as corn, the cheapest calories one can buy tend to be the highly processed, calorie-dense foods that promote obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other maladies. Assume an adult man needs about 2,000 calories of food daily. He can buy 2,000 calories of burgers, fries and a soda for $4 or 2,000 calories of fresh vegetables and fruits for five to 10 times as much. Yes, some people can afford the more expensive fruits and vegetables, but too many cannot. When you do the math, it becomes increasingly apparent why obesity is more a disease of poverty. Agricultural subsidies must change and be more balanced toward a diversity of healthy foods. Another specific step must occur in our education system. We should require daily physical education classes for all students at all grade levels and teach human nutrition starting in kindergarten. Finally, increasing the numbers of primary-care physicians and increasing their knowledge of human nutrition would help. However, as noted earlier, this is not likely to happen as long as physicians are paid more to dilate or bypass a clogged coronary artery than they are paid to teach a patient how to avoid the high-sugar, high-fat, pro-inflammatory diet that clogs the artery in the first place!

GARCIA: We need to reform the health care system so that it offers greater financial incentives for preventive care. It would be a winning proposition for the government, insurers and patients. Our system now often doesn’t pay for preventive care. So it ends up costing everyone far more when a patient’s condition worsens and must be treated. Take Medicare as one example. If Medicare routinely covered the cost of all annual physical exams, the government might identify problems early on and spare itself larger expenses later. We have a wonderful opportunity with a new administration. The older policies haven’t worked. It’s time to try something new.

JAMES

Www.easytoinsureme.com

Author Bio

Quoting and Saving on your health insurance has never been easier.

Blue Cross Blue Shield Texas
Texas Health Insurance
EasyToInsureME
Yahoo, AIM, LIVE screen name: EasyToInsureME

No related posts.

By: alexis

Alcohol is an important component of many element of several societies for many years. Many believe that alcoholic drinks have flourished gatherings, parties, and other social celebrations. A number of individuals believe that alcoholic drinks should be served in social gatherings to give enthusiasm to certain events. Alcohol is produced when vegetables, fruits, or grains are fermented. Fermentation is a process which uses yeast or bacteria to change sugars in these items into alcohol. This substance is also used as cleaners and antiseptics.

Alcohol is a depressant that can act as a sedative drug and may slow down the nervous system. In small doses, alcohol can help reduce feelings of stress and anxiety. Alcohol however may do more harm than good if overused. People who overuse alcohol may feel confused and disoriented. Too much alcohol in body may affect the brain and lead to poor coordination, faulty judgment, slowed reflexes, distorted vision, memory lapses, blackouts. Alcohol can damage many organs in the body, it is absorbed directly in the bloodstream and raises the risk of acquiring life-threatening ailments like cancer. Extremely high doses of alcohol at one time can cause alcohol poisoning which can lead to coma or death.

Despite the adverse effects of alcohol, many individuals still engage in drinking this beverage for many reasons. Many teens and young people use alcohol because of curiosity, relax, fit in a crowd, and feel older. One of the reasons why many people are engaged in alcohol is the fact that from a very young age, children are exposed to advertising messages of alcohol. A number of advertisements of alcohol show people drinking alcohol enjoying life. While in reality, it is the exact opposite. Because alcohol damages the nervous system, drinking alcohol can may people do embarrassing things and look stupid acts like peeing on themselves or throwing up. Drinking alcohol may lead also develop bad breath and hangovers.

In addition to the health hazards of alcohol, studies show that almost many deaths among teens are alcohol-related. The use of greatly alcohol increases the possibility of teens and many individuals of being involved in car accidents, suicide or homicide.

Studies show that in every thirty minutes, someone dies from an alcohol related car accident. Driving while under the influence of alcohol can cause many health problems and affect body reactions while driving. People who are drunk may experience decreased amount of performance and judgment while driving. Drunk drivers are not the only ones who are in danger, these drivers may distribute danger to passengers, pedestrians, and other road users.

Alcohol disorders amplify suicide and risk, at least one-third if individuals who have committed suicide are alcohol dependent. In addition, suicide among alcoholics also seem to increase with age. A study released by Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research conclude that middle-aged and older alcoholics have higher risk to commit suicide than young adults who are alcoholics.

Consuming inappropriate amounts of alcohol puts individuals at risk for several health issues like cancer like cancer and diabetes. Alcohol may reduce the body’s absorption of necessary nutrients. Many alcoholics do not partake in healthy diets, therefore further harming the body. The health effects of alcohol should not be taken for granted but should act as a reminder to drink alcoholic drinks in moderation.

alexis

Author Bio

Choose Variety of High Quality Medicines at Online MedicinesEnjoyed Reading this article? More here: Pharmacy Articles

No related posts.

MOLD ALLERGY

The leading cause of health problems associated with mold is the common mold allergy. Many who believe they are being poisoned by toxic molds are actually experiencing a mold allergy. Allergenic responses to molds as well as to other bio-allergens such as dust mite allergens, cat and dog allergens, and cock roach allergens can nevertheless be a serious concern and can result in mild to severe reactions that often get worse over time. Mold allergy symptoms include: runny nose, watery eyes, coughing, sneezing, itchy nose, itchy throat, and skin rashes. The institute of Medicine (1993) estimated that one in five Americans suffers from allergic rhinitis, the single most common chronic disease experienced by humans. Additionally, about 14% of the population suffers from allergy-related sinusitis, while 10 to 12% of Americans have allergically-related asthma. About 9% experience allergic dermatitis. (Institute of Medicine, 1993) and (Washington state Department of Health). We sometimes find that our clients are suffering from debilitating mold allergy reactions when living in moldy homes or working in moldy environments. People often realize after suffering for a few months or a few years, that it may be the mold causing their mysterious prolonged illness and that the situation is getting worse not better and that either they have to leave, or the mold has to go and the condition that caused the mold has to be revealed and corrected. Mold allergy is not the only problem.

MOLD INFECTIONS

Certain molds are known for causing infectio

MOLD TOXICITY

Many molds also have been shown to produce very scary toxic substances known as mycotoxins; mycotoxins are located primarily in the mold spores.

These mycotoxins are produced by molds to help them compete with and kill other molds and microbes. It’s a type of biological warfare between molds and their competitors. “Mycotoxins are believed to result in headaches, sore throats, hair loss, flu symptoms, diarrhea, fatigue, dermatitis, general malaise (tiredness) and psychological depression.” (Croft et al, 1986, Jarvis, 1995).

“Other reported responses to mycotoxin exposure includes skin rashes, lesions of the skin and gastrointestinal tract, and interference with blood cell formation.” (Sorenson 1993).

Many of the above are the results of lab animal and cell culture studies on toxic black mold also known as stachybotrys, and human and horse exposure to stachybotrys mold infested hay.

It is very important to not panic and keep in mind that to accomplish the above serious detrimental effects toxic molds like Stachybotrys and others may have to be either:

1. Consumed in mold contaminated foods.

2. Physically handled so that excessive physical contact is made between human skin and the mold.

3. Or the mycotoxins have to be exposed to living cells in the laboratory.

It may or may not be likely that toxic molds can cause the above detrimental effects when humans breathe in mold spores in the home. It is very difficult to gather scientifically reliable proof on the effects of breathing toxic mold spores in the home.

MUCOUS MEMBRANE AND TRIGEMINAL NERVE IRRITATION

Molds produce waste products made up of volatile organic compounds (VOC) such as alcohols aldehydes and acidic molecules after breaking down and absorbing food materials in our homes such as moist dust, and water damaged drywall paper, and wood. Exposure to volatile organic compounds may result in irritation to the eyes and the respiratory system. Volatile organic compounds and moldy pungent odors can also initiate avoidance reactions from the trigeminal nerve such as breath holding and discomfort. Odd sensations may also be noted including itching, burning, and skin crawling. Changes in sensation, swelling of mucous membranes, constriction of respiratory smooth muscle, or dilation of surface blood vessels may be triggered in response to trigeminal nerve stimulation. Decreased attention, disorientation, diminished reflex time, dizziness and other effects can also result from such exposures( Otto et al., 1989)

This web site is designed for informational purposes only. It is not intended for diagnosing or treating a health problem or disease. It is not a substitute for professional care. If you suspect you have a health problem, contact your doctor.

The presence of a small amount of even very toxic mold in your home is not necessarily need for immediate or irrational fear. It seems that most homes from my experience have some potentially toxic mold spores as do most outdoor environments. If unwarranted fear takes over, people become vulnerable to be taken advantage of by dishonest mold inspectors and dishonest mold remediators. It is wise to have your property tested and inspected by a non-biased professional mold allergy inspector to determine if concern is warranted and if and what corrective measures are needed.

Daryl Watters

Author Bio

Daryl Watters is president of A Accredited Mold Inspection Service, Inc. He provides home, mold, and indoor air quality investigations in South Florida. He is also the creator of MIR forms designed to aid inspectors in the production of computer generated indoor air quality and mold inspection reports. For more information visit http://www.floridamoldinspectors.us http://www.florida-mold-inspection.com

No related posts.

By:
It is commonly accepted now by most health professionals that our emotions can create a wide variety of psychosomatic illnesses and symptoms.

Unresolved disruptions in our body?s energy field cause malfunctioning in our organs and systems. This usually occurs when the negative emotion?s energy field affects the pituitary gland and hypothalamus, which in turn control all the other systems of the body through hormonal and electronic messages.

When dealing with health issues, we may need to employ EFT on the following aspects. Remember to work with one symptom o aspect at a time. Do not combine problems or parts of the body even if they are related.

1. On the energy field of the symptoms such as pain, tiredness, numbness or weakness etc.

A.1. Even though I have this (symptom) ___________ in my (part of body)_____, I deeply and profoundly love myself.

A.2. Even though until now I have had this (symptom) ___________ in my (part of body)_____, I now experience comfort, health and vitality.

B. I choose (want, deserve, allow myself, accept, realize that it is in my benefit) to be free from this (symptom – one at a time) ___________ in my (part of body)_____.

C. Reminder Phrase = (Symptom) ___________ in my (part of body)_____

2. On any emotions, which we believe may be creating the problem or which come to the surface while we are working on the physical problem.

A.1. Even though I feel (emotion) ___________, I deeply and profoundly love myself.

A.2. Even though until now I have felt (emotion) ___________, I now feel safe, worthy, peaceful and happy.

B. I choose (want, deserve, allow myself, accept, realize that it is in my benefit) to be free from this (emotion) __________.

C. Reminder Phrase = (Emotion)______.

3. On the actual physical causes of the symptoms at a deeper level.

A.1. Even though I have this (the deeper physical problem) ___________, I deeply and profoundly love myself.

A.2. Even though until now I have had this (the deeper physical problem) ___________, I now create health in the deepest levels of my being.

B. I choose (want, deserve, allow myself, accept, realize that it is in my benefit) to be free from this (the deeper physical problem)__________.

C. Reminder Phrase = (The deeper physical problem)______.

4. On any resistance we feel towards living our lives in a healthy way such as:

a. Eating properly

b. Exercising regularly.

c. Performing relaxation techniques.

d. Positive projection techniques.

e. Anything else, which might improve our health.

A.1. Even though I have this resistance to (what we need/want to do to create or maintain our health) ___________, I deeply and profoundly love myself.

A.2. Even though until now I have had this resistance to (what we need/want to do to create or maintain our health) ___________, I now lovingly and joyfully care for my body and mind.

B. I choose (want, deserve, allow myself, accept, realize that it is in my benefit) to be free from this resistance to (what we need/want to do to create or maintain our health)__________.

C. Reminder Phrase = Resistance to (what we need/want to do to create or maintain our health)__________.

5. Difficulties in communicating our needs and feelings. (These unexpressed feelings or unfulfilled needs may contribute to the problem.)

A.1. Even though I have this resistance to expressing (what we need to express) ___________, I deeply and profoundly love myself.

A.2. Even though until now I have had this resistance to expressing (what we need to express) ___________, I now do so with love and sincerity for the good of all.

B. I choose (want, deserve, allow myself, accept, realize that it is in my benefit) to be free from this resistance to expressing (what we need to express) ___________.

C. Reminder Phrase = Resistance to expressing (what we need to express) __________.

6. Any forms of anxiety, which distort our energy, field in general.

A.1. Even though I have this anxiety (fear, insecurity) about (whatever issue causes our fear) ___________, I deeply and profoundly love myself.

A.2. Even though until now I have had this anxiety (fear, insecurity) about (whatever issue causes our fear) ___________, I now feel totally secure and capable of dealing with this.

B. I choose (want, deserve, allow myself, accept, realize that it is in my benefit) to be free from this anxiety (fear, insecurity) about (whatever issue causes our fear) ___________.

C. Reminder Phrase = Anxiety (fear, insecurity) about (whatever issue causes our fear) ___________.

7. Any forms of resistance which may make us subconsciously not want to be well such as:

a. Fear that others will not pay as much attention to us.

b. Fear that we will have to be responsible for our lives.

c. Fear that we won?t be “as interesting” without our problem.

d. Belief that we do not deserve to be well.

e. Belief that we are being punished for something we did which was wrong.

A.1. Even though I fear (have resistance to) being totally well because ________, I deeply and profoundly love myself.

A.2. Even though until now I have feared (resisted) being totally well because ________, I now feel totally worthy of and safe and secure in accepting total health and happiness.

B. I choose (want, deserve, allow myself, accept, realize that it is in my benefit) to be free from fear (resistance to) being totally well and happy because ________.

C. Reminder Phrase = Fear (resistance to) being totally well and happy

If we have no idea about what may be causing this illness or may be inhibiting our vitality and health, we can just tap for this “obstacle to health.”

Author Bio

Robert E. Najemy, author of 25 books and life coach with 30 years of experience, has trained over 300 life coaches and now does so over the Internet. Become a life coach.
Over 600 free article and lectures at
http://www.HolisticHarmony.com/

No related posts.

Quit now, smoking is bad for you. It’s no secret that smoking is a dangerous to your health, but it also very costly and it smells bad.

Think about it. $5 for a pack of cigarettes a day X $1,835, and that does not include the medical bills and funeral costs that come with smoking. And everyone knows that smoking is harmful and addictive, but do you really stop to think just how bad it is for you?

It is a major cause of peripheral vascular disease, a narrowing of the blood vessels that carry blood to the leg and arm muscles. It also causes high blood pressure, obesity, and high cholesterol, not to mention heart disease, diabetes ad lung cancer, emphysema, and bronchitis – just to name a few.

But there are other physiological and psychological effects it can have on you. Smoking increases the feeling of anxiety, which can result in other stress related diseases. Then there’s gum cancer, so you can look just like your local bum if you like. But since smoking also increases premature wrinkling, you may already be look like one even though you should be young and healthy.

So if you are looking for reasons not to quit now, smoking issues are far and wide. The great thing is it doesn’t take long after smoking to regain your life. After just one year of quitting smoking your risk of hear disease decreases in half, and after five years the chances of experiencing a stroke are equal to that of a nonsmoker. That’s just to name a few, so take the next step and quit now. Smoking can be kicked.

Dave Marrow

Visit Quit Now Smoking for more information on the best stop smoking program for you.

No related posts.