Author: Staff (Page 155 of 157)

Study says soda tax would reduce weight and add revenues

Obesity is one of the biggest problems in this country, so people are searching for innovative ideas to attack the problem.

One possible approach is to tax sodas and other sugary drinks. It seems logical, but of course one has to deal with the food and beverage lobbyists. Also, some Americans hate the idea of the government dictating anything, though here it’s just a tax to cover the costs we as a society pay for these beverages.

A recent study, however, provides some ammunition for proponents of the soda tax.

Millions of people would lose about a pound or more a year if large taxes were tacked onto regular soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages such as sport drinks and fruit drinks, a new analysis shows.

A soda tax of 20% or 40% would generate about $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion in annual tax revenue. The 40% tax would cost the average household about $28 a year, the research shows.

“If the tax money was used to serve healthier foods in schools and build parks and recreation centers, it could lead to even more weight loss,” says the study’s lead researcher, Eric Finkelstein, a health economist and associate professor of health services at Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School.

The idea of a substantial tax on soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages has been the subject of hot debate in recent years among national, state and local policymakers. Public health advocates have been pushing for a hefty tax as a way to reduce consumption of these products to help people lose weight and become healthier.

Currently, two-thirds of people in this country are overweight or obese, which is linked to an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and many other health problems. Obesity costs the country roughly $147 billion a year in increased medical expenses, according to another study by Finkelstein.

The soda tax seems like an obvious solution, and perhaps this study and others like it will start to tip the balance.

Depressing study about patient safety at hospitals

A new study taken over the last decade indicates that efforts to improve patient safety and cut down on medical errors at hospitals have not had much effect.

The study, conducted from 2002 to 2007 in 10 North Carolina hospitals, found that harm to patients was common and that the number of incidents did not decrease over time. The most common problems were complications from procedures or drugs and hospital-acquired infections.

“It is unlikely that other regions of the country have fared better,” said Dr. Christopher P. Landrigan, the lead author of the study and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. The study is being published on Thursday in The New England Journal of Medicine.

It is one of the most rigorous efforts to collect data about patient safety since a landmark report in 1999 found that medical mistakes caused as many as 98,000 deaths and more than one million injuries a year in the United States. That report, by the Institute of Medicine, an independent group that advises the government on health matters, led to a national movement to reduce errors and make hospital stays less hazardous to patients’ health.

We’ve just gone through a bruising fight on health care reform, but patient safety is something all of us should be able to agree upon. We need national standards to help reduce medical errors.

Sarah Palin is an idiot – slams First Lady’s anti-obesity initiatives

Obesity is a national epidemic, and First Lady Michelle Obama is trying to do something about it with an emphasis on exercise and healthy food like fruits and vegetables. But that apparently is a real problem for Sarah Palin. Here’s her idiotic quote:

Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And I know I’m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.

Palin is a complete buffoon.

Big insurance companies and the fight to protect profits

This story is disgusting.

As health care costs soared nationally, a small Michigan firm gave Ford Motor Co. a proposal to cut its physical therapy costs. The automaker signed up for an in-state pilot program, which was so successful Ford expanded it last year to cover about 390,000 employees, retirees and their families nationwide.

Yet the cost-saving program created by Pontiac-based TheraMatrix has come under attack from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

Court records allege Blue Cross used its position as the state’s dominant insurer to try to crush TheraMatrix as it worked to also sign up Chrysler and General Motors. A USA TODAY review of hundreds of pages of e-mails and internal documents that are part of a lawsuit TheraMatrix filed against Blue Cross indicates that TheraMatrix’s efforts to carve out a niche market in managing outpatient physical therapy costs was seen as a threat by officials at Blue Cross and by some Michigan hospitals.

In one sense, it’s not surprising that a big company will play rough with an upstart competitor. But in the health care area, where costs are exploding, this is indefensible. Also, Blue Cross is a nonprofit – go figure.

Alison Young then goes on to write the following, which gets to the crux of the issue:

The aggressive tactics employed against TheraMatrix raise questions about whether relationships between hospitals and insurers are inflating medical prices and stifling competition needed to control costs.

The government needs to get tough with insurance companies.

The benefits of free-range eggs

Here’s some interesting information on the benefits of free-range eggs over regular eggs. Basically, they are much more nutritious:

This only makes sense considering the chickens are allowed to consume their natural diet, which includes seeds, insects, green plants and worms. Compared to U.S. Department of Agriculture nutrient data for commercial eggs, eggs from chickens raised on a pasture may contain the following: two-thirds more vitamin A; two times more omega-3 fatty acids; three times more vitamin E; and seven times more beta carotene. The problem with eggs labeled “free-range” is that the USDA defines free-range as chickens having access to the outside. The problem with this definition is it doesn’t define their diets or what “outside access” means. Under this definition, the chickens can have access to a cement courtyard while eating an unnatural diet that includes soy, corn and cottonseed meals, and still be called free range. (Mother Earth News. Oct/Nov, 2007)

Now you need to figure out where you can purchase real free-range eggs.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 MedClient.com

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑