Robert Reich explains the “public option” re health insurance reform.

In this video at Bill Moyers' Journal, Bill Moyers and and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich rolled up their sleeves to discuss Barack Obama's objectives regarding national health care reform, including the (potentially feasible) "public option" and (not unlikely option of) "single payor." The bottom line: Barack Obama has an uphill struggle against some extremely powerful (monied) interests, including the private insurers, pharmaceutical manufacturers and other profit-driven corporations that have each hired fleets of lobbyists yelling "socialism." At the 14-minute mark, listen to Reich describe how the financial sector has "pulled the wool over the eyes" of the Obama Administration. He warns that the lobbyists are enormously powerful, and that we need Obama and average citizens to start standing up to the lobbyists. As things are, nothing has fundamentally changed regarding the financial system, other than the financial sector's new ability to paper over its scandalous practices and its ever-increasing massive transfer of wealth from America's middle class to the financial sector. In 1980, the top 1% of the country took home 9% of the total national income. By 2007, the top 1% was taking home 21% of the national purchasing power. Reich explains that the middle class has been drained of financial and government power. What has happened is that "capitalism has swallowed democracy." Reich explains that when the government fails to set boundaries, we have the law of the jungle, and we then have super-capitalism, which is capitalism without democracy. The culprits were the lobbyists who made sure that there was no effective regulation of the financial sector.

Continue ReadingRobert Reich explains the “public option” re health insurance reform.

Tobacco money at work at Congress

When a product kills 450,000 Americans every year, don't you think it deserves a high level of scrutiny and regulation? I mean, aren't you a bit surprised that it's even illegal, given that marijuana, which kills nobody (except due to insanely reactionary law enforcement), is completely outlawed? Consider that the bodies of the people killed by tobacco every year would stretch more than 500 miles, if laid end to end. Every one of those dead people were using tobacco products exactly as anticipated by the manufacturers. Those dead bodies could stretch from New York City to Charlotte, North Carolina (or pick your own 500 mile radius). Can you imagine the tobacco executives walking along one of those 500 mile lines of dead bodies, justifying the carnage? Walking, whistling and thinking, "Just look at all of those people who were dumb enough to buy that highly addictive product that I promoted and sold . . ." And now consider the morals of some of our politicians. Step forward, Senators who oppose the new law that subjects tobacco to FDA regulation. Thanks to McClatchy Newspapers, we know that many of you are tobacco whores:

Among the 17 senators who voted against allowing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco are some of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the tobacco industry, which has donated millions of dollars to lawmakers in the past several campaign cycles.

If you want more details who which tobacco whore has received how much money, visit OpenSecrets.org. Consider, too, that the corruption that exists with regard to tobacco, also exists with regard to any major industry. For instance, consider health care, defense contracting, farming (including wasteful corn ethanol subsidies), and last but not least, the financial "services" industries. Serving themselves to our tax-dollars. Now I'm not for outlawing tobacco. But I am for unleashing a torrent of high-profile prime-time advertising that would show the death and destruction caused by tobacco up close and in nauseating detail. And I am for allowing the FDA to join in the war against smoking. Why? Consider this comment from Dick Durbin from a report by MSNBC:

"This is a bill that will protect children and will protect America," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a leading supporter. "Every day that we don't act, 3,500 American kids — children — will light up for the first time. That is enough to fill 70 school buses."

Continue ReadingTobacco money at work at Congress

Alternative medical “cures” flunk out en masse

According to the Associated Press, numerous alternative medical cures have now been tested by the U.S. government, at great cost, and almost none of them show any promise at all in controlled studies sponsored by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine:

Ten years ago the government set out to test herbal and other alternative health remedies to find the ones that work. After spending $2.5 billion, the disappointing answer seems to be that almost none of them do.

Continue ReadingAlternative medical “cures” flunk out en masse

Portable defibullator used on soccer field

There's no doubt that this soccer player received a jolt of electricity (you can see his foot jump at the 15 second mark). I'm still wondering about the accuracy of this on the fly diagnosis, however. Can a sports trainer really make such a quick yet accurate diagnosis as to whether an athlete needs the use of a defibrillator?

Continue ReadingPortable defibullator used on soccer field

Statistical illiteracy afflicts health care professionals and their patients

Over at Scientific American Mind Gerd Gigerenzer and his colleagues have published a terrific article documenting the statistical illiteracy that sometimes runs rampant in health care fields. The article, "Knowing Your Chances," appears in the April/May/June 2009 edition. The authors point out numerous medical care fallacies caused by statistical illiteracy , including Rudy Giuliani's 2007claim that because 82% of Americans survived prostate cancer, compared to only 44% in England, that he was lucky to be living in the United States and not in England. This sort of claim is based on Giuliani's failure to understand statistics. Yes, in the United States, men will be more quickly diagnosed as having prostate cancer (because many more of them are given PSA tests), and then many more of them will be treated. Despite the stark differences in survival rates (the percentage of patients who survive the cancer for a least five years, "mortality rates in the two countries are close to the same: about 26 prostate cancer deaths per 100,000 American men versus 27 per 100,000 in Britain. That fact suggests the PSA test

has needlessly flagged prostate cancer in many American men, resulting in a lot of unnecessary surgery and radiation treatment, which often leads to impotence or incontinence. Because of overdiagnosis and lead-time bias, changes in five-year survival rates have no reliable relation to changes in mortality when patterns of diagnoses differ. And yet many official agencies continue to talk about five-year survival rates.

Gigerenzer and his colleagues give a highly disturbing as example regarding mammogram results. Assume that a woman just received a positive test result (suggesting breast cancer) and asks her doctor "What are the chances that I have breast cancer?" In a dramatic study researchers asked 160 gynecologists taking a continuing education course to give their best estimate based upon the following facts:

A.) the probability that a woman has breast cancer (prevalence) is 1% B.) if a woman has breast cancer the probability that she tests positive (sensitivity) is 90% C) if a woman does not have breast cancer, the probability that she nonetheless tests positive (false-positive rate) is 9% The best answer can be quickly derived from the above three statements. Only about one out of 10 women who test positive actually has breast cancer. The other 9/10 have been falsely diagnosed. Only 21% of physicians picked the right answer. 60% of the gynecologists believed that there was either an 81% or 90% chance that a woman with a positive test result actually had cancer, suggesting that they routinely cause horrific and needless fear in their patients. What I found amazing is that you can quickly and easily determine that 10% is a correct answer based upon the above three statements--simply assume that there are 100 patients, that one of them (1%) actually has breast cancer and that nine of them (9%) test false positive. This is grade school mathematics: only about 10% of the women testing positive actually have breast cancer. As the article describes, false diagnosis and bad interpretations often combine (e.g., in the case of HIV tests) to result in suicides, needless treatment and immense disruption in the lives of the patients. The authors also discuss the (tiny) increased risk of blood clots caused by taking third-generation oral contraceptives. Because the news media and consumers so often exhibit innumeracy, this news about the risk was communicated in a way that caused great anxiety. People learned that the third-generation pill increased the risk of blood clots by "100%." The media should have pack is aged the risk in a more meaningful way: whereas one out of 7000 women who took the second-generation pill had a blood clot, this increased to two in 7000 women who took the new bill. The "absolute risk increase" should have been more clearly communicated. Check out the full article for additional reasons to be concerned about statistical illiteracy.

Continue ReadingStatistical illiteracy afflicts health care professionals and their patients