Category Archives: Health Care

The Brain Freeze: Why Does it Happen?

Among brain researchers, the Perry moment is a fascinating display of a common human experience: the brain freeze.

“There are a lot of potential explanations for why it happened,” said Daniel Weissman, a University of Michigan neuroscientist who studies attention. “A lot of things are going on when we try to recall memories, and problems at any stage could lead to failure.’’

Brain researchers note that countless memory lapses like these happen to the rest of us every day, whether it’s walking into a room and forgetting why you are there or being unable to recall a name that’s on the tip of your tongue.

Some memories, like the name of the first president or a child’s birthday, are so strong that recalling them is effortless. But when the information is relatively new or used less often, we must rely on the brain’s ability to strategically search our memory for the hard-to-retrieve information. During this process, we engage the brain’s prefrontal cortex, which interacts with the medial temporal lobe, the part of the brain that forms and retrieves memories of facts and events.

When all goes well, the medial temporal lobe acts like a library’s card catalog system, pointing to the locations in the brain where different parts of the memory are stored and allowing the memory to be recalled. But in Mr. Perry’s case, it appears that something went wrong, and the search turned up the wrong card or looked in the wrong place or was interrupted.

The culprit could have been distraction, experts say. Just before the gaffe, Mr. Perry looked directly at his opponent Ron Paul, which suggests the glance may have disrupted his train of thought. Or it’s possible that Mr. Perry’s mind may have started moving ahead to his next point too quickly, leaving him muddled in the moment. Stress also can impair the function of the hippocampus, which is also involved in memory retrieval.

“Trying desperately to fulfill the promise you made at the beginning of your utterance, then, under the bright lights, with the stakes still very high and getting higher, stress bad and only getting worse, the time late and getting ever later, grasping for straws offered to you by your competitors in a debate — the problem is only compounded,’’ Neal J. Cohen, a University of Illinois professor of psychology who studies human learning and memory, said in an e-mail exchange.

Another possibility is that Mr. Perry has had other cost-cutting conversations with his campaign strategists, and those memories were interfering with his ability to recall the details of his current plan. Such interference from past memories occurs, for example, when we leave a grocery store and stare at a sea of cars in the parking lot, realizing we have forgotten where we parked.

“As you search in your memory, there are all these very similar memories of parking at the grocery store that are interfering with each other,’’ said Dr. Weissman. “If there had been discussions of cutting other departments, it’s possible that there was somehow interference from those memories, and that’s why he couldn’t recall it.’’

Recent brain research has used functional magnetic resonance imaging scans to watch brain activity during lapses of attention during a monotonous task. The real-world equivalent would be driving along the highway, only to discover you have driven well past your exit. The research suggests that during familiar tasks, a brain region called the default mode network kicks in and the brain gets lazy.

“We think that it gets lazier — or less diligent — with respect to the external task because it thinks it knows what is going happen next,” said Tom Eichele, a neurophysiologist and adjunct professor of biological and medical psychology at the University of Bergen in Norway.

Whether it was stress, competing memories or distraction that caused Mr. Perry’s brain freeze, it’s clear that he’s not alone.

“I thought it was a pretty everyday experience,’’ Dr. Weissman said. “We’ve all had this happen.’’

(Report by the NYT)

Only the Name “Public Option” Dumped

There is a “tentative deal” to drop the public option from the HCR bill, but people who oppose the PO should be aware that its dropped only in name, just a trick to tip the Right off balance. But the Dems still DO plan to have some other way for the government to run more of Health Care.

Senator Snow (R-Maine), an important vote for Dems, is according to www.politico.com not playing this game. She made it clear that a government-run system regardless the name, will not have her blessing.

All in all, what changed tonight is only the name of a plan, not a plan itself.

Help Me, Senator

I have a problem getting health insurance. No, the monthly premium is with God’s blessing not the issue here. At issue is that most NY-based HMO’s won’t provide me with a high-deductable health plan, because I am self-employed. This is what my Insurance agent told me.

So Senator: if you wonder why some people don’t have coverage, here is your answer. Firms just won’t provide it to self employed Americans, even if they are willing to pay a monthly premium. Can you – while working “hard” on HCR – help me with this?

While I am at it: please change the law to permit me deducting monthly premiums from income, i.e. let me have an income tax deduction on my premiums (for when ill have Insurance), just as W2 workers don’t pay tax on employer provided HC.

If you take care of these two issues, Senator, millions of Americans will be encouraged to buy health insurance.

Give Sweeteners, and Leave HC as is

If not for a handful of so-called moderate Dem senators going along with the program, the Senate would have not started debate on the issue of Health Care Reform (HCR). In other words, this issue would have been dead by now.

As it was widely reported, one senator gave her vote only after getting a $300 million sweetener for her state. Considering that the other few moderates might sell their final votes for the same price, The Senate would need to come up with a total of $1.5 billion to cover these five votes that can otherwise kill this bill if they are against ending debate of this issue. Now, calculating that in the House 3-dozen Dem lawmakers will each sell their vote for let’s say $100 million apiece, The House will need $3.6 billion. Putting it together with the Senate, we are looking at a total of 5.1 billion dollars.

I have a question and a suggestion. Question: did the CBO add up all these sweeteners when they calculated the cost of the bills? Now my suggestion: without these moderates getting their sweeteners, the bills would have been history by now. In other words, the aye votes were just these lawmakers saying “yes. Give me cash for my district/state.” If so, I suggest that Ried and Pelosi handout sweeteners, without overhauling Health Care. It would be cheaper for taxpayers and for the country.

Pelosi Did Indeed Win Tuesday – HCR That is

Following the election results a few days ago, November third, Speaker Pelosi said ‘we won’?  You remember how the Republicans mocked her for this statement?

well wel well, Pelosi did indeed win that night – she won the Health Care Reform bill. Had the Republicans won on Tuesday the two open congressional seats, the final HCR vote would have failed in a 218-217 vote. Here is how:

The current bill passed in a 220-215 vote. Among the Ayes, were Dem Representative Bill Owens who won Tuesday NY’s 23 congressional seat, held until now by a Republican. Also voting Aye was Dem Rep. John Garamendi, who won an open seat in California, held until now by a Democrat. Had Republicans (or Conservatives in NY-23) won these two seats, the Dems HCR tally would have been cut to 218 votes, and the Republicans’ would have gone to 217.

Then there is the Aye vote by Joseph Cao, a freshman Republican from Louisiana. If you noticed, he only voted for the bill, once the score board showed that the Dems anyway had the 218 votes, which means, if not for that, one might conclude that he would have not given the Dems the deciding vote. Instead, he would have voted with the Repubs giving them 218, leaving the Dems with 217.

Good point. Right? Yes it is, but let me destroy it: A handful of Dems voted against the bill, but only after they saw the 218 mark on the screen. Which means, if not for that, maybe one or two of them would have not given their vote on the NO side. Instead they would voted Aye handing Pelosi the current 220 win. After all, as of 8:45 Eastern, it was reported that 34 Dems (not 39 as it was in final) will vote against the bill.

Go figure. But seeing how Owens, Garamendi and Cao voted, you can’t help but admit that Pelosi did indeed win last week Tuesday night.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Democrat…

 …Thanks so much for reforming the health care system that will cover 94% of the population up from the 88%-90% legal population that are anyway covered.

… Thanks for coming up with a plan that will be “self-sustaining” and “deficit neutral” just as social security was supposed to be.

Now let me ask you a few questions, Mr. and Mrs. Democrat:

… The government will increase taxes as early as next year, to cover this HCR bill. Will the government “borrow” all that money to cover other expanses just as it did from Social Security? Or will the money really be available when the benefit portion of the HCR plan kicks in three-four years from today?

… I am sure you are aware of the Thompson Retuers analysis that because doctors fear being sued, they over-subscribe medications and run extra tests, at a wasted annual cost of up to $300 billion, or as CNN reported back in August, the over-testing costs annually above $200 billion. Don’t you think it’s time to curtail frivolous lawsuits and the hefty portions that attorneys bite out from their poor clients, rather than taxing the “runaway” profit margins of health insurance companies who earn on their money less than what you earn on your Vanguard investments?

… Waste and fraud, including the waste and fraud that drips through the government-run Medicare, costs annually up to $200 billion. Don’t you think cutting back fraud is a good way to “raise” money for our health care system?

… Don’t you think you should first show that the already-existing public options such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Affairs hospitals can be more efficient and at a better cost before you will dump millions of young-to-middle age Americans into the same hell-hole as seniors and veterans are placed?

… A lot Doctors don’t want to accept new Medicare patients because the government pays doctors less than what you think regular Union workers deserve. Based on this, how many Doctors, do you think, will want to serve the millions on the Public Options that will reimburse doctors on Medicare-levels or even worse?

… Can you please let me keep some of my income money, in addition giving a tax deduction to people for every dime they might spend on Medical/Dental/vision costs?

… I don’t have Health Insurance. Do you think that if I can afford an “extra” $900 per family member for health insurance, I will rather give you the money in form of a fine for not buying health insurance in the first place?

… One more thing, Mr. Democrat. To cover the cost of living increases, you give yourself every year an increase of a few percent to your three-digit salary. When will you start giving us all a yearly tax cut to reflect our cost of living increases?

Your 50% Chance of Staying Doomed!

Yip yip ya-hoo (as Limbaugh would say). The Dems health care plan, as you probably know, will cover 94% of the U.S. population.

Let’s have a drink to celebrate.

But hold that one, because if you are currently uninsured, you still have a 50% chance of staying this way even if the Dem plan gets signed by Obama.

Here are the simple numbers…

The U.S. population is approximately 305 million people.

The number without health insurance is 47 million.

Of it, less than 37 million are actually legal in the U.S.

From another perspective it means: approximately 12% is not insured.

The Dem Plan covers only 94%, which means 6% will be left without coverage.

Total: if you are of the 12% without coverage you still have a 50% chance of staying without healthcare.

 Yeah… What a marvelous health plan.

You want more? The Dem plan for 94% coverage kicks in only in ’13. So my fellow 12% uninsured Americans: your 50% chance of getting insurance, has a 100% chance of waiting another 3-4 years.

Ok, so let’s give Medicare for everyone, as the recent plan is. In others, if the old plan is not good because it leaves to the dumps only 6% of the population, let’s go with Medicare and screw up the whole population.

Another note: Medicare is not free; it gets “officially” funded through 7.5% tax off of your weekly income. Plus, you still have premiums when you hit 65. So… if you think Free Health Care is coming your way, wash your face with cold water because you are day-dreaming.

The (would-be) Republican’s Health Care Plan

The current Health Care Reform (HCR) plans channeling through the halls of Congress will go into affect only in ’13; will cover only 94% of the legal population (up from the current 87%-90% that are already covered), and will rely heavily on tax increase. The Republicans (can) have a cheaper plan that can be operational by next year, and cover EVERY American that chooses to be covered, all this if Republicans want to go with this one.

Here is the plan (some parts of which that are already being considered in Congress and others already written about). it’s long, but worth reading when you have a few minutes:

1) Increase the earnings limit on those eligible for Medicaid, etc. example: currently, a family of three in NY can earn only $33,000 a year to be eligible for Medicaid. Increase the limit to, let’s say, $40,000, and also permit those enrollees to have more assets and investments. This will give health insurance for millions of Americans, and will be paid by 1) having more people covered, it will increase to long-term health of Americans thus cutting back on other health care costs.

2) The second source of income is actually bullet note two in this health plan: Millions of people who earn now too much to be eligible for government sponsored health care, yet earn too little to pay a monthly premium, have a lot money under their mattress or in the underground economy. When the government will raise the income cap to permit more people to be fully covered, and in addition permit low earners to save up more money and invest them without being kicked off Medicaid, etc, A LOT money will start flowing into the economy and this will help the government coffers.

3) Monthly health care premiums should be tax deductable, up to a certain income bracket, in this manner: A) If its employ provided, it should as the system is currently: Not be counted as income. B) Annual premiums that are within 5% of a person’s gross income of the previous year should be halfway tax deductible. Meaning, a person who earned $50,000 in 2008, yet in 2009 has a health care premium cost of just $2,500 (find me that, please) should deduct half that figure from his income. C) Premium costs exceeding 5% should be fully deductible above the 5%. Example: if this person pays $5,000 in premiums, up to $2,500 should get a half deduction, and the rest should get a full deduction. Of course, if you want to change the premium/income ratio, go ahead. I am just giving you an idea that will encourage middle to high income earners to go out there and get coverage for themselves and family.

4) Any one time co-pay, medical cost above $100 that is done in a regular medical office, out-patient center, etc. should be tax deductible, and any one-time cost exceeding $500 should be billed to Uncle Sam (via Medicaid, which means the State and the County government picks up half). Example: a person who is not on a government sponsored health plan, yet has a dentist fee of $90 bucks, should pay this damn bill just as he/she would pay for a new tire on his/her vehicle. But if the doctor says, ‘hey, you have to come back get a tooth removed for the cost of $225,’ this person should pay it in full, yet deduct $125 from his current year income. If this person needs a root cannel, with a cost of $1,200, the person will pay $500, and deduct $400 from tax, while the rest of tab gets picked up by the government. Again here, you can adjust the actual numbers, but I am just giving an idea that will encourage people to spend some of their money on health care, just as they would spend on repairing an important part of their vehicle.

5) Services provided in a hospital, especially under emergency care, should be paid by the patient up to only 10% of last year’s income. If this person has already in the current calendar year a bill exceeding the 10% mark, the government should pay the new bill in full.

6) When paying large medical bills (such as following an emergency), patients should be permitted to pay it in 12 monthly installments, without any interest, or with just a low interest (which in order to avoid paying interest, the patient might pay the bill much faster).

7) Permit interstate health plans, which mean a person in NY will be permitted to buy a health plan from a firm in Utah that maybe provides it for much cheaper. This will open a field of great competition.

8 ) Tort reform! Yes, the CBO said that reforming the laws that permit people to get compensation worth ten times the amount they would otherwise earn their entire life, will save $54 billion through ten years, but those numbers reflect if only modest reforms are put into place. How about putting tougher reforms into place? It will sure save much more money. (Example: if a doctor is SO reckless that he caused damages worth $8 million, this doctor should be barred from practicing, rather than just suing him to death. Two, how about putting a limit of how much money lawyers can earn from a law-suit? Let Obama’s Pay Tzar take care of this. Ok I don’t support this because I am a Capitalist, not a Socialist Democrat).

9) Let people keep more of their earned income. It will encourage them to pay more for health care.

To leftist who don’t like this plan I say. “hey, your beloved government will still be involved in health care, and in fact: on a greater scale than until now.” To those on the Right who dislike so much new government spending, look at this plan as a tax cut. The government is giving back some tax dollars to mid-to-high income earners in form of picking up the tab of some medical bills. To those in the center who Do like this plan, don’t hold your breath. It will not happen, and if you are of the 10%-12% legal citizens who don’t have coverage, you have a fifty percent chance of still not being covered when the year ’13 comes around.

What?

One of the main problems we have with health care is affordably. People just cannot afford to pay monthly premiums, in addition to co-pays and other stuff associated with being healthy. If so, why are Democrats determent to increase costs of health care?

First came the idea of taxing employer-provided health care, which is nuts considering that a person with a 30% tax bracket who receives a  $10,000 health plan, will need to pay $3,000 in taxes. In other words: $3,000 more in annual health care costs. Once the Dems dropped this plan, came a plan from Senate Finance Committee Chair, Dem Senator Baucus, which will tax you and your family if you don’t get health care coverage.

Is Baucus kidding? If a person can afford health care, would he/she not get it? I am sure they would, which means that those who are not covered cannot afford it, so why give them a penalty? Some Dems will say ‘well, a lot people who can afford it just choose not to get covered, so we need to give them a penalty if they don’t get coverage.’ Em, if a lot people “choose” not to get coverage, it confirms again (this time directly from the Dems) that the “horrifying” 47 million without coverage ain’t such a BIG problem, since a lot of them do it by their own choosing.

At any rate, after hearing again about another tax hike associated with health care, I was like: what?

We Won’t Need (Much) More Physicians

One of the critiques against President Obama’s HCR plans is the fact that 47 million Americans will suddenly have access to health care, but without enough physicians to care for them all.

This is pure non-sense, but before I get to that, let me write this: We all know that the number of uninsured Americans is rather in the low 30 million range than in the 47 million. The “47 million uninsured” is just an approximate number of people (Americans or un-American) living in the US without continues coverage. I wrote this just to make sure it gets to those who are not yet aware of these facts.

At any rate, the reason why we won’t need loads of new (primary care) doctors is because people in the United State do not lie in the streets dying because of a health care crisis. Most people get health care. Some only catastrophic care and others get regular care through paying for it on their own. But care they get. In fact, as of now I don’t have health coverage, yet less than two weeks ago I visited my Doctor for a routine visit. Who paid for it? I did! So what will change if everyone has paid health care? In my case, the clerk would have sent a charge to Uncle Sam, and let me keep my money. But in terms of a doctor visit, all would be the same. Would it not? It would, and the same is all across America: People largely get care. It is only a question who pays for it, or if it gets paid for at all.

Maybe I am wrong. There will be a need for more physicians, because if I have it correct, those with paid-for health care go to visit their doctor for (stupid) things that those who pay for HC on their own do not go. Therefore, my original point might be off.