Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The phrase "contributing factor" is key.
'enry

Posted by JFish (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People die every single year of whatever seasonal flu is going around. And it is almost always because of some underlying condition. We rarely, if ever, get a daily mortality count. Why this one?

We need to stay home if we're sick. That means, don't go shopping and don't go to work sick, at all. Don't spread the flu around, either the H1N1 or the seasonal flu.

We should wash our hands frequently when out, even carry hand sanitizer, and not touch our faces. And stay away from coughing people (who should not be out exposing other people to it anyway.)

I wonder why this one is making such waves when the seasonal flu doesn't make waves this big, yet it too kills people every single year.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One explanation given is that this H1N1 flu is hitting younger people in larger numbers than usual, especially small children. Also more deaths have taken place among the young -- 95 deaths of children since April. Among pregnant women, the death rate is 6 times higher with this flu, but not the regular seasonal flu.

We're seeing more cases earlier this year than we usually see of the regular flu. The CDC believes that it will peak earlier this year because cold weather seems to be earlier this year and as people stay indoors, flu risk increases.

I'd say it's a good idea to open doors and windows at least once a day to let fresh air in.

Another explanation I heard was that older people seem to have more immunity to this because they may have had the Asian or Hong Kong Flu in 1969-70.

I remember getting that Hong Kong Flu in 1969. It was the first time in my life I had ever been that sick and I've never been that sick since then.

People with other underlying health problems are also at greater risk.

I wouldn't downplay the seriousness of this. I'd rather err on the side of being careful than be a fool and get sick.

And you're right, we need to practice all the things like hand-washing and staying home if sick. I ran into one person yesterday who had the guts to apologize for being where many people were by saying, "Sorry, I've got the crud." And she was coughing!!! Stupid idiot woman!!!

So I left and came home instead of doing the volunteer work I had signed up to do.

Does it make me a bit nervous now that we have had a death in Lyon County? In a word, yes.

STAY AWAY FROM CROWDED PLACES.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the H1N1 virus can be fatal even to seemingly healthy people.

The study found a majority of Americans who've been killed by the H1N1 flu had underlying conditions.

However, 45-percent of H1N1 deaths were among people who seemed healthy.

Posted by hottopics (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We didn't attend a elementary school function last week for just this reason. To many people in one spot. We are choosing to just stay away from the groups at all possible.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good info, YY. This flu is definitely a conundrum.

Something I saw on the news yesterday made sense. The doctor was saying that people should purchase sickroom supplies early, while they are healthy. That way, when you're sick, you're not out infecting others. If you don't get sick, yippee, you're ahead of the game.

Drinking lots of sensible liquids is also a good idea. Hydrated cells are healthy and less likely to become infected. Oh, and that goes for household environment too. Keep moisture levels up.

Posted by JFish (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the information. That's what I was curious about.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Has anyone read why the flu is most common in the fall and early winter? If you were to think about what kind of environment best suits viruses, it doesn't make a bit of sense why it is most common in the fall and early winter.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People sneeze a lot more in the fall and winter. NPR has a great video that explains how a virus invades your body. Here is a link to the page: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow!! Where was all this discussion when poor callalily wanted to discuss all of this??

Posted by callalily (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 5:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I knew that it would eventually come to this and people would start to take it seriously. The sad thing is that the CDC did much to encourage the complacency. In hindsight, a lot of people are going to be asking why the CDC mishandled this so badly. I believe that the main reason is that they have far too much political pressure.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People sneeze all the time YY4U. Allergies are bad in the spring, summer and fall. The viruses have to be brought in, they don't just appear out of nowhere, and you don't just catch a cold or flu virus, it's given to you by someone else that helped spread it around. They know how H1 got into the USA, they followed it's progress North out of Mexico. I suspect the other viruses arrive the same way, on seasonal foods.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Think about this -- in the fall and winter, we are in closed up houses and places of employment where the air is dry because of furnace heat. Even in my own home where my gas forced-air furnace is equipped with a humidifier, it isn't enough.

When the air is dry, your lungs are too. Fluid in the lungs gets thicker. Allergies also contribute to lots of thick phlegm. When that happens, it is easier for viruses to stick to the thick environment.

Ever seen a virus? Under a microscope, viruses look like balls with sharp points sticking out. The easier to hang on to thickened fluid. However, if the fluid in your lungs is more liquid, viruses can't stick as easily because the liquid is constantly moving freely with breathing.

Bottom line, stay hydrated by drinking sensible liquids. Water is the best choice, but so is broth or black tea. If you do get sick, Mucinex sure is a big help to cut that phlegm and keep it more liquid. When using Mucinex, drink plenty of water. I mean plenty. And don't use antihistamines while on Mucinex.

I am not a doctor, but as a teacher who had been exposed to viruses constantly during my career, I did a lot of reading and learned a lot about this stuff. While in college, I was a pharmacy tech in a hospital where sickness is viewed at the cellular level.

Yup, hottopics. Good idea not to go to areas where large numbers of people are gathered.

I need to go look at that NPR video provided by YY. Hope I haven't repeated, repeated, repeated. :)

Think positive, don't stress. Stay well. Stock up on soup and Tylenol (for fever) and tissues and bathroom tissue so you can stay home if sick.

Posted by callalily (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama just declared H1N1 a national emergency. Also, the U.S. had 593 lab-confirmed H1N1 deaths between April and August. We had 411 lab-confirmed H1N1 deaths between September 1st and Oct 17th. Therefore, 41% of U.S. deaths have occurred in the past 6 weeks. That's a sobering statistic.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this H1N1 just a part of the big plan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPnCz_rtI...

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can a relatively healthy person even get vaccinated now? I have never had a flu shot but believe I would be tempted to get a H1N1 jab if I could find one.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

go for it alfalfa! Just don't watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScGC7nFD...

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I always get a regular flu shot and got one in late September, earlier than usual, but my doctor recommended it since they ran out of vaccine last year and higher numbers were getting vaccinated this year.

I did not get one for H1N1. For one thing, the vaccine isn't available right now in Lyon Co. My friend who works in a medical practice says the vaccine is available only for medical personnel right now.

That youtube video is misleading. It says flu shot; it doesn't say H1N1 or swine flu shot.

Alfalfa, are you at risk? In other words, are you around people a lot? Do you have children who would be possibly bringing it home from school?

I was in a grocery store yesterday and the man behind me in line was coughing and coughing, not covering his mouth. Was he coughing in the produce aisle too? This is what we have to deal with. All it takes is one negligent yahoo. I was most irritated and washed my fresh vegetables and fruits with a vinegar solution when I got home.

Am I paranoid? I wouldn't go that far, but I am more careful since I do have asthma and the dude was right behind me with his coughing.

I forgot to say in my earlier post that we need to be mindful of our eating habits. Eat your fruits and vegetables every day and take a multi-vitamin.

You know what I miss? Dillon's salad bar.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Will halloween trick or treating be banned this year due to this epidemic? Everyone do your part by staying home, with the curtains pulled. Don't answer the doorbell. Parents, keep your kids and their runny noses at home. If we would ALL just stay at home for 30 days and shut the country down, wouldn't this epidemic run itself out? Was that NWA flight that overshot its destination caused by the h1n1 virus? The spike in gas prices was caused by h1n1 infected refinery workers not being able to work?
National Emergency?
Or a diversion to keep the sheeples mind off what really is news?

I have underliying health issues, and I hope I make it through this years epidemic so I can see what next years brings.

ONE REAL QUESTION ON THIS STORY!

Did anyone die in Lyon County last year from the flue?

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm confused by your question, Steve. Since H1N1 was not a factor last year, how does last year's statistic relate to the present?

Alfalfa, here's some general info for you:

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/...

I found this interesting bit of info from the CDC website, that people can have H1N1 respiratory symptoms without a fever:

What are the signs and symptoms of this virus in people?
The symptoms of 2009 H1N1 flu virus in people include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people may have vomiting and diarrhea. People may be infected with the flu, including 2009 H1N1 and have respiratory symptoms without a fever. Severe illnesses and deaths have occurred as a result of illness associated with this virus.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What was last years flu called? Or was it just a seasonal varitey? How many die each year from flu viruses?
This year we have an overhyped 'SWINE FLUE", a while back it was the 'BIRD FLU".
Think back a few years ago when the government ran agency (weather), forecast the worst year ever for hurricanes. After months of no storms people became complacent, and said, "what do they know about it?"
Them came Katrina.
does the old phrase "THE SKY IS FALLING" ring a bell?

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YEAR, 2006: Leading causes of death in the U.S.
Number of deaths: 2,426,264
Death rate: 810.4 deaths per 100,000 population
Life expectancy: 77. 7years
Infant Mortality rate: 6.69 deaths per 1,000 live births
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234

I would like to see a Gazette headline stating ominously:

SIX BILLION PEOPLE WORLDWIDE WILL DIE IN THE NEXT 120 YEARS!

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HEADLINE OF THIS STORY:

"H1N1 death in Lyon County"

2ND SENTENCE OF THIS ARTICLE:

"Officials did not know where the death occurred."

Posted by abc123 (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I recommend using a Neti pot DAILY!
http://www.webmd.com/allergies/sinus-pai... good old fashioned preventative measure and no side effects or medications. If the virus is harboring in your nose or throat it will be flushed out. I use it for my seasonal fall allergies and it keeps your nose and connected parts hydrated! And it just feels goooood!

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I got this through e-mail and while I don't know how accurate it is, it seems harmless enough for those who need to feel like they are doing all they can. My family will remain doing the same hygienic things we always do to make sure that whatever we get can't cause too much damage while our bodies fight it and that we won't knowingly pass it on......which is the tricky part as the most contagious phase of any virus is in the 24 hrs. preceding symptoms.

"Dr. Vinay Goyal is an MBBS,DRM,DNB (Intensivist and Thyroid specialist) having clinical experience of over 20 years.. He has worked in institutions like Hinduja Hospital, Bombay Hospital, Saifee Hospital Tata Memorial etc.. Presently, he is heading our Nuclear Medicine Department and Thyroid clinic at Riddhivinayak Cardiac and Critical Centre, Malad (W).
The following message given by him makes a lot of sense and is important for all to know. The only portals of entry are the nostrils and mouth/throat. In a global epidemic of this nature, it's almost impossible to avoid coming into contact with H1N1 in spite of all precautions. Contact with H1N1 is not so much of a problem as proliferation is. While you are still healthy and not showing any symptoms of H1N1 infection, in order to prevent proliferation, aggravation of symptoms and development of secondary infections, some very simple steps, not fully highlighted in most official communications, can be practiced (instead of focusing on how to stock N95 or Tamiflu):
1. Frequent hand-washing (well highlighted in all official communications).
2. "Hands-off-the-face" approach. Resist all temptations to touch any part of face (except to eat or bathe).
3. *Gargle twice a day with warm salt water (use Listerine if you don't trust salt). *H1N1 takes 2-3 days after initial infection in the throat/ nasal cavity to proliferate and show characteristic symptoms. gargling prevents proliferation. In a way, gargling with salt water has the same effect on a healthy individual that Tamiflu has on an infected one. Don't underestimate this simple, inexpensive and powerful preventative method.
4. Similar to 3 above, *clean your nostrils at least once every day with warm salt water. *Not everybody may be good at using a Neti pot to clean nasal cavities, but *blowing the nose hard once a day and swabbing both nostrils with cotton buds dipped in warm salt water is very effective in bringing down viral population.*
5.. *Boost your natural immunity with foods that are rich in Vitamin C (Amla and other citrus fruits). *If you have to supplement with Vitamin C tablets, make sure that it also has Zinc to boost absorption.
6. *Drink as much of warm liquids (tea, coffee, etc) as you can. *Drinking warm liquids has the same effect as gargling, but in the reverse direction. They wash off proliferating viruses from the throat into the stomach where they cannot survive, proliferate or do any harm."

(cont)

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(cont)
The only other thing I have come across that I would add is to make sure to be eating plenty of protein as viruses can use the carbs (especially simple ones that we crave more when we get sick) against us but they can't use the proteins and we can.

Steve, you are right. It is a new thing every year, and every year everyone freaks out. Last year, we didn't have a specific monster virus, so we flipped out about the flu shot being miscalculated and not including most of the strains that ended up being in the US. Remember the dreaded West Nile Virus and Asian Bird Flu? Everyday hygiene should always account for viruses and past that, you just can't do much more. Thankfully, though, we have a president who is very in touch with what the people want to hear and has taken media action on this flu. Why waste our time talking about the unpleasant things that we don't want to hear about (war and socialism) when we can focus on the unpleasant things we hypochondriacs want to obsess over. Finally, a pres,who gets us!!!!

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You don't need a neti pot, just carelessly drink your green tea while reading some of the posts on the gazette. Eventually you will blow something out your nose. Here is a shor video of a neti pot in use: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQm7YpxgO...

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for that video YY. It proves that idiots really do exist. I hope that guy washes his scruffy beard. Yuck!

Thanks for all your info, Steve. It is still best to take precautions, and in general, to take care of yourself period.

I smoked for nearly 30 years before I quit 8 years ago. It's so nice not to spend my mornings hacking and getting bronchitis 2 and 3 times a year. I consider quitting taking care of myself. No, this is not a bid against SHS. I voted against the ordinance because I'm against government telling private enterprise how to conduct business.

And no, I am not over-reacting to the flu thing as you have suggested.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I'm against government telling private enterprise how to conduct business."

Isn't that what the proposed Health Care Reform bill is about too?

Not judging you nor your stance create, just pointing out the fact that everything the Government does is about generating revenue, creating jobs, and getting bigger and more controlling thru regulation and taxation.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Then I made a dangerous blanket statement, didn't I? Those never work, neither in politics nor love nor religion. Thanks for catching me.

In 1976, I read a book entitled "Megatrends." In it, the writer pointed out that in 20 years, government would be the big employer, not the private sector. The Age of Information had only just begun, and as private enterprise shrunk, it was suggested that young people think about employment in the service industry--teaching, public health service, public transportation, that sort of thing. In view of outsourcing, he wasn't far off was he?

The proposed Health Care Reform bill is still in its planning stage as long as Washington keeps arguing about it. However, what the bill does do is long overdue because the health insurance industry has been ripping people off for many, many years. The term "reform" is not being used here lightly. There needs to be reform.

Because of that giant rip-off, it's time something happened to curtail runaway premiums, people not being able to obtain coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and another runaway situation, bankruptcies due to medical bills.

If it takes government to step in and reform the health insurance industry then so be it because left on its own, that is one industry that wasn't going to police itself.

I watched the 1929 Crash of the Stock Market last night on PBS. That's another industry that was knowingly ripping off the public in a free-for-all and all due to lack of regulation.

I wonder how many people employed by giant car manufacturers are content not to have health insurance now?

Or Modines? Or IBP? Or any job that has been outsourced....

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's where you can watch the video on that PBS program I mentioned. American Experience. Good viewing with a good explanation of the Crash of 1929 and exactly how it came about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperien...

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Almost all government expansion into the control of previously private enterprise has occurred after the failure of the private sector to effectively deal with its own problems and excesses. Health care reform would have never been needed had the private sector did a better job of controlling its own house.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The medical industry has raised rates, required us to pay for things that are necessarily needed, and have grown to the point that they have priced the general public and working class right out of the picture. A trip to the doctor with a serious condition is more than a month's wage for most, a short stay in the hospital is often times more than what most make in a year, let alone if major surgery is required. In 1991, the year my first born came into our lives, we were charged a normal birth rate of about $4k. We had to pay our portion that the insurance wouldn't cover in advance which we did. Then when complications arose and she had to be delivered via C-section, our bill jumped up to over $30k. Out of 10 babies born the week we were at the hospital, eight of them were delivered C-section. Nearly $250k in one week versus $40k if all had been delivered naturally. In our case, the procedure was definately needed, I find it hard to swallow that 80% of the births that week did.

Greed has taken the US to a point not only in the medical and insurance, but in other industries as well(bank and lending, automotive sales and service, etc), that I'm afraid America is in for a major slap in the face when it is realized that the well does in fact have a bottom.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very well said neighbor. But when business is either unwilling or unable to police its own house whose left to police it if not government.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025...

"Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans."

And this came out 4 days ago:

http://www.benzinga.com/29300/health-ins...

"Health Insurance Companies Rank #86 By Industry Profit Margin, Earning $98 on Average Per Policy"

"Four health insurance companies (Molina, Health Net, Coventry, and Universal American) have profit margins below 1% for the most recent quarter, and another four (Humana, Magellan, WellCare and Centene) have profit margins between 1 and 2 percent (data here).

America's Health Insurance Plan, the industry's trade association, recently reported that annual health insurance premiums averaged $2,985 for individual coverage and $6,328 for family plans in 2009. Using the industry average profit margin of 3.3% means that insurance companies make less than $100 per policy in profits for individual coverage, and a little more than $200 in profits for each family policy."

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12408743...

How Bush Prepared for the Outbreak
Tools developed in the last few years will help the Obama administration fight back.Article

Swine flu has presented the Obama administration with its first major public-health crisis. Fortunately for the Obama team, the Bush administration developed new tools that will prove critical in meeting this challenge.

Under President Bush, the federal government worked with manufacturers to accelerate vaccine development, stockpiled crucial antivirals like Tamiflu, war-gamed pandemic scenarios with senior officials, and increased the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) sample identification capabilities. These activities are bearing fruit today."

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But that same health care industry seems to have zillions of dollars to mount a TV ad campaign against health care reform. Poor babies.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Think of it as stimulus money. It's putting alot of media & advertising people to work ;-)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Frankly, if they do not make that much then why spend a over a billion dollars in a 10 year period fighting legisation? And with the money that they tossed at Republican candidates is it any wonder they are fighting changes too?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...

Quote:
"According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries spent $1.2 billion and $949 million, respectively, on all lobbying efforts since 1998. Moreover, the two industries combined shelled out about $193 million in political donations and expenditures backing Republicans, about twice as much as they spent supporting Democrats. So it is reasonable to conclude that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries have indeed spent at least $1 billion combating legislation that Obama favors."

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets give credit where credit is due, it was not all Bush's doing, for an in depth look at how it developed:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...

I give credit where credit is due, Bush did help usher this in, but he was not alone. I do find it funny that people are chastising Obama for declaring H1N1 a national emergency, all it does is expedite processes and get people care faster, how dare he LOL.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes....I agree with goodoleboy....if health care is such a marginal business for the insurance companies why are they spending so much money and fighting so hard to maintain the status quo?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I never said one way or the other whether any stance on who I think is morally or ethically right or wrong. Just simply published the data that the insurance companies don't have the huge margins everyone thinks (or that the admin is telling us) they have.

I would guess they are shelling out the money because probably because they want to maintain what profit margin they have (duh). They could be afraid their 2 or 3% margin might shrink to nearly 0, or they could be forced out of business. What business wouldn't worry about that? And if nobody thinks they should make money off of health care, does the same go for doctors? Nurses? Makers of drugs, medical supplies, etc? Hospitals? Should it all be just break-even? Are they the only companies that lobby to protect their interests?

From goodoleboy's own link about how much they spent lobbying, there was also this:
"Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio used a vastly inflated figure for the profits of health insurers: Kucinich: "[W]e're stuck with this system, where insurance companies make $600 billion a year out of spending that ought to go directly into health care, we're not going to get the care we need."
In fact, health insurance companies don't make nearly that much....." (the actual number is much less than 1/6 what he claimed).

Again, I'm not holding up for insurance companies either way. I just wish people making claims..... would stick to facts..... either way.

As far as Bush is concerned..... geez, a Bush-bashing article with an extreme left-wing slant. What a surprise. Here's something from NPR (non-partisan enough?) that states "Obama and Bush Teams Getting Solid Grades"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/04/...

"Anthony Fauci, who has overseen the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for the last two decades and change, has told friends and reporters that the Bush administration deserves a lot of credit for getting a federal system in place to deal with a pandemic. "

Besides - nowhere, did I ever state or imply that Bush deserved all the credit. Nor have I breathed one single line chastising Obama for declaring H1N1 a national emergency. Just saw the info and thought they both deserved some credit. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It goes back to the root issue, why spend a billon dollars on lobbying if their profits are not that great? It's like saying 2+2=6, something just does not add up, unless they were only trying to lobby Republicans to pass legislation that would furthur screw people. I realize they tried to lobby Democrats too, but apparently they are cheaper or unreceptive.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I never said that their profits weren't great. Just simply stating the facts, that the profit margin isn't what we're being led to believe. Also, that billion dollars was over a 10 year period. How many other companies have lobbied that much over 10 years?

Well, here's some charts - you can select on the list on the left to see comparisons. This is for the last 10 years total. Insurance is lumped in with Finance and Real Estate, so even though it is number 1, it's hard to tell how much of it was Insurance only, and also notice there's not much difference between the top 4 or 5. Click on the industries link, however, then you see that Pharmaceuticals/Health Products is #1, followed by Insurance, then closely by Electric Utilities. I thought the utilities were all going broke too???? Hmmmm....

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php...

We won't get Tort reform in any bill, because trial lawyers overwhelmingly donate to Democrats. Republicans must either be cheaper or unreceptive.

Besides....... most lobbyist money this year is going to Dems....... it's a fact........

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/...

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

of course most money is going to dems this year. They are the ones with the clout right now. You wouldn't expect lobbyist to donate their big sacks of cash to some group that can only stand in the corner and say no...nO.....NO!

Utility companies.....like insurance companies and drug houses......always claim they are near financial ruin. That's how they can continue to be able to squeeze more and more out of the turnip. It would be harder to do if they were always telling us how fat they were sitting.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wasn't one of Republican Tom Delay's questionable tactics his efforts to punish lobbyist who tried to share any of their cash with the dems? This was back when the repubs. were in the drivers seat. Then it was the democrats crying foul. The more things change.....the more they stay the same.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, math geniuses. Sure, $100 per person times 250 million people.... adds up to alot of moolah.... split amongst all the companies.

But lets look at it this way.

Suppose the government came out and decreed that due to the insurance companies raping the American people out of all their money while the bodies pile up, health insurance companies are no longer allowed to make a profit. Zero. They can only break even. Or, better yet, the government will take over all insurance, since we all know from history the government can always run things at least as efficiently and cost-effective as private companies can (yeah, right, and I've got a bridge in the desert for sale to anyone that swallows that line).

So the average American is going to save........ $98/year.

Oh Happy,Happy, Joy, Joy!!!! Think of all I'll do with all that money! The places I'll see! The things I'll do! I'm getting my Christmas wish list out already! We're gonna live like Kings in the open_eyes household this year!!!!!

Hmmmm........ or maybe......... we also need to look at some other places for the reasons for the rising cost of health care, instead of just painting a bullseye on the insurance companies and lying (as Rep. Dennis Kucinich did) about the numbers.

Well, we KNOW we won't get Tort reform, because the trial lawyers have Obama & the Dems squarely in their back pocket. And we all know that lawyers money is "clean", unlike the "dirty" money given to the other side of the aisle.... LOL. (You know, lawyers are among the most upstanding and admired people there are). So anytime someone talks about tort reform, the Dems are just going to stand in the corner and say no....nO......NO!

Yep...... the more things change..... the more they stay the same. But at least we voted on some good slogans last year ;-)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW - Disclaimer: I am in no way, shape or form standing up for or defending the health insurance companies. I'm just trying to take an honest look at this and try to figure out where the rising costs are coming from, and cut thru all the bull$$$$ being thrown around by both sides. I'm not interested in whether the actual facts support my position or not so much as I just want to know what the facts are to base my outlook on. If I'm wrong then by all means someone correct me. But I think we've all learned not to trust just any old number thrown out by politicians.....

As they used to say on "Dragnet"............

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Bisquitboy. I see I should have edited my response a bit though, as I left a word or two out. In the first paragraph, I meant to say they mandate tests and procedures that are NOT necessary.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Got the bill last week from when my daughter was tested for H1N1 and we were told she tested positive. $160 for the test alone. Hmmmmmmmmmmm Medical stimulous program?

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Buy your health insurance from a Mutual company. You as an owner can elect the board you want and have them slash your premiums and increase your coverage

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honestly the reason this country has the high health care costs that we do is because Americans on the whole take poor care of themselves and eat crap. Obesity in this country is appalling, and coupled with poor diet and exercise is a recipe for a nation costly people to insure. Insurance companies have their part to play in this but like the financial crisis, the vast majority of America has had a role to play in it and refuses to take accountability.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodolboy, how much have you spent on medical bills this year? Your prejudice against and belief that obese people are the cause of high medical bills tells me alot about you. Do you believe everything you read?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My wife and I have spent 0 dollars sir. Only money I have spent on anything healthcare related in the past year is for vaccinations for my son. I have not had H1N1 or the any other bug out there this year yet, although it has run rampant through my place of work, and I do think my diet and exercise regimen has played a large role in this.

I don't need to read anything to know that obese people suffer more health problems than those that are not. Although there is a mountain of scientific evidence to back up my claim it's common sense. Obese people are more inclined to joint problems, diabetes, heart disease, etc, shall go on? I don't need a scientest to tell me if I carry around x amount of extra weight that it will break my body down faster, proof is all around you in everyday life. People of this nation do not take very good care of themselves in general, we eat too much junk food and do not exercise enough, care to dispute that? Go to Wal-Mart look around you, go to a school and look at the kids on the playground, looks to me like they put on a few pounds since my days. But if I am wrong, by all means, lets hear your logic, prove me wrong.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Judging from what I read on this forum there are a lot of people out there who do believe every thing they read. Especially if they read it on some whacko extreme site from either the right or the left.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"We won't get Tort reform in any bill, because trial lawyers overwhelmingly donate to Democrats. Republicans must either be cheaper or unreceptive."

Just saw this the other day, it appears we have been misled quite a bit on tort reform, it is a savings, but not near along the lines as it was made out to be.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malprac...

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Take a course on marketing, and economics and then use that knowledge to understand why the medical industry is so expensive. You are a victim of good marketing.

I hope you keep your health. I had an uncle who ran marathons, ate right, didn't smoke or drink, picture of health with no prior health issues. At 32yrs of age, he dropped dead of a massive heart attack. You haven't caught H1N1 or the other viruses floating around because your immune system has been able to fight it off. Sure, your good health, proper eating etc has played a part in being able to fend off the virus, but being fat or skinny has nothing to do with immunity. I rarely if ever catch colds or have the flu, some of us are lucky to have that ability.

Medical fees, insurance premiums, etc are high because we continue to pay whatever they tell us we have to. Think about it, if Walmart you mentioned was like the Medical Industry, do you think they'd be as large as they are? If a fat person has medical issues, has insurance and or pays their own way, please explain to everyone how you believe that would effect YOUR medical expenses. Let me guess, you'll say it makes everyone's insurance go up. Have you ever heard of anyone's insurance going down? If you believe fat people cause this, what is your opinion about senior citizens who spend most of their retired life in doctors offices? What about the hypochondriacs? What about the diabetics, and those born with other medical dependent issues, those unfortunate people born with medical issues? Oh let me give your response, "Those people can't do anything about their health, fat people can."

The medical industry is expensive because they are greedy and want all the money they can grab, which is very easy for them when there are people who believe everything they are told.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I see your point, have acknowledged it before, but you missed mine. I do not believe our habits are solely responsible for the health care fiasco. What I am saying is that even if we fix everything we still need to look in the mirror and make more responsible choices on our end.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 1:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The USA spends more on Medical expenses than any other country, 15.4% of our GDP. China spends 5.8%. Japan spends 7.8%.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_ex...

Japan owns the title for the longest life expectancy of the larger industrialized nations at 82yrs of age. In the US, it's 78yrs. How could that be, they are heavy smokers(see below).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_li...

The USA ranks 28th in the number of daily smokers with 17.5% of adults being smokers. Japan ranks #8 with 30.3% smoking. Austria has the #1 spot with 36.3% people. Funny, I don't see Austria at the top of the cancer and heart data sheets?????.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_da...

Death by Cancer is most prevelant in The Netherlands, at 433 deaths per 100k people. Slovakia is #5 at 405.3 per 100k. The US is #9 at at 321.9 per 100k.

The USA ranks number one in obesity, they say 30.6% of us are overweight. Slovakia comes in at #4 at 22.4% of their population being obese. Hmmm, shouldnt we be #1 in the cancer and heart categories with what we've been told and taught?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_ob...

Slovakia ranks #1 with the total number of heart disease deaths per 100k with 216. The USA ranks #13 at 106.5, Japan comes in 26th with 30!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_he....

Using "common sense", one should see that throwing money at the medical industry is not going to improve our overall status.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Some interesting data on that website, but beware it tries to download alot of extras on you.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Much like stimulus spending & cash for clunkers, it is hard to pin down exactly what tort reform would save, let alone intangibles like doctors who otherwise close their practices or turn away patients. But why not put it in? Are the Democrats, as Howard Dean (former Democratic National Chairman) put it, that afraid to take on the trial lawyers? We're supposed to be scared of lawyers but not insurance companies?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not really, I respecctfully disagree, after reading the article I posted at factcheck.org it would seem that the states have already realized most of the savings, which is the way the Republicans would like it anyways. The more I delve into the subject the more I find that tort reform is not the major issue I thought it was.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well there's plenty of arguments and room for debate on both sides. But as I said, I think some of it is hard to quantify. Like these I found from various sources:

"But the real problem isn't the cost of malpractice claims, it's the threat of them. A 2005 study from the Journal of the American Medical Association showed more than 90 percent of doctors reporting that they practice "defensive medicine," ordering extra tests to make sure that they don't miss anything. Dr. Cecil Wilson, president-elect of the AMA, said most of these tests end up as wasteful spending.

"When you see a patient in the ER that fell and hit their head, you know that most of the time they don't need a CAT scan," Wilson said. "But with the threat of going to court, you have to order extra tests."

The costs of defensive medicine are hard to pin down because it's difficult to quantify what tests were ordered for what reasons. In 2003, the Department of Health and Human Services pegged it as high as $126 billion per year, including $56.2 billion paid by federal programs, but a 2008 study from the Health Research Institute at PricewaterhouseCoopers put the cost at a whopping $210 billion."

I also question why the numbers aren't "significant".

"Even a half percent savings would be roughly $11 billion dollars ANNUAL savings - not including the indirect costs of liability, which are impossible to truly measure. For some reason, annual savings like that are scoffed at, while $80 billion dollar savings from drug companies over 10 years is praise-worthy."

Let's see.... 80 billion over 10 years is less than 10 billion/year, and everyone is screaming bloody murder about that, but 11 billion a year isn't worth bothering with. Confusing.

But one question is, who would see the benefit: Found this interesting:

"There is no guarantee, however, that any savings from tort reform would be efficiently distributed. Tort reform in Texas during the 1990s created $600 million in savings for insurance companies but liability policy rates stayed flat while the fraction of policy dollars needed to cover losses fell from 70.1 cents in losses in 1993 to 58.2 cents in 1998"

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just my opinion but using your ER story, I have to say, why not the extra tests? A head injury is something not to be trifled with, it's only someones life right? They probably won't have a aneurism right? I think I'll look into some studies on what "defensive medicine" has turned up that has saved lives or caught something early.

As for the savings:

"Now CBO has revised its opinion, based on new evidence. Citing recent studies, including two new economic papers published only last month, CBO concludes that limiting malpractice liability would reduce total national health care spending by about one-half of 1 percent, or about $11 billion this year. That would save taxpayers about $41 billion over the next decade in lower Medicare, Medicaid and other federal spending for health care"

So this is major sticking point? One half of one percent? It's just not a gamebreaker my friend, certainly nothing to hold up a bill over.

But yet we still have Boehner perpetuating a myth:

"Rep. Boehner, Oct. 2: We could save over $100 billion a year in less medicine being practiced if in fact we were to have real reform of medical malpractice laws."

And more before him, I'm sorry but this is not somthing to use as a reason to hold up this bill.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As has been stated, the .05 figure does not take into account extra procedures and tests by practicing "defensive medicine". As for Boehner, he IS perpetuating a myth. Estimates by both the Dept of Health/Human Services and Health Research Institute put the figure between 126 and 210 billion/year, as was posted earlier, which is much higher than his figure. Its a hard number to guess or estimate - but every study I've seen admits it is most likely the larger unknown part of tort reform, while the actual malpractice savings are the smaller part.

Nobody doubts that taking extra precautions is usually for the best, and has caught more unknown things than it has not. I certainly prefer to be safe than sorry. That is not the point. A big chunk of the supposed savings of this health care bill is supposed to come from clamping down on unecessary procedures and tests - among cutting out wasteful practices. Obama has already admitted it will lead to rationing for some. So which is it? We want the extra procedures and tests, a life is not to be trifled with. Certainly. But the health care bill wants to cut down on unecessary procedures and tests to save money........ seems like we are trying to have it both ways.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"CBO noted that savings would be even greater if not for the fact that many states have already imposed their own changes. CBO said about one-third of the states already have caps on noneconomic damages, and about two-thirds have imposed other measures being proposed at the federal level. Because of this, CBO said, "a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized."

So its already been addressed at the state level, why the federal level now? Seems like a waste of time to me.

"It’s still an open question whether limiting liability saves lives. "Some recent research has found that tort reform may adversely affect such outcomes, but other studies have concluded otherwise," CBO said. The new UCLA/Rand study mentioned earlier found that a 10 percent reduction in costs related to medical malpractice liability would increase the nation’s overall mortality rate by 0.2 percent. It concluded that the savings in money would not be worth the cost in lives. But another study published in the March issue of the Journal of Health Economics, by health economists from Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, concluded that "tort reforms" don’t have any significant effect on patient outcomes.

So while there is now clear evidence that limiting malpractice liability can save money, it’s not nearly as much as some proponents have claimed. And on the question of whether patients would suffer, the jury is still out."

The way I read this the odds are it won't make much difference.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That may very well be, goodoleboy. But any time there are conflicting studies about something and one side seemingly overly opposes it for no good reason I've learned to be suspicious.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just stumbled across this - interesting read on the cost of defensive medicine:

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/2009110...

"Doctors say the hidden costs of the tests along with malpractice insurance and lawsuit awards are major drivers behind the soaring cost of care. Trial attorneys say bad medicine, not lawsuits, is to blame........
The debate has split along party lines, with Democrats typically siding with lawyers groups and Republicans agreeing with doctors........
The feuding between doctors' groups like the American Medical Association, who have long battled rising malpractice premiums, and trial attorneys, who say malpractice lawsuits discourage bad medicine, has made it tough to put an accurate price tag on the cost of the issues. That, in turn, is hampering Congress from getting an accurate tally for any sweeping national health care overhaul as it seeks to balance those costs against expanded coverage.

Doctors say the price of defensive medicine and malpractice insurance accounts for up to 10 percent of health care spending. Lawyers say malpractice settlement costs amount to less than 0.5 percent of the $2.5 trillion spent each year on health care......

And, doctors say, defensive medicine can also produce a snowball effect, with one unnecessary test leading to more unnecessary tests.

More than 80 percent of the nearly 900 doctors who responded to a 2008 survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society reported practicing defensive medicine. The group estimated the cost of the extra tests at $281 million and the cost of unnecessary hospital admissions at $1.1 billion.

A 2009 analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that government health care programs could save $41 billion over 10 years if nationwide limits on jury awards for pain and suffering and other similar curbs were enacted. Those savings are nearly 10 times greater than CBO estimated just last year.