Keith Olbermann, Special Comment On Health Care: Part 2
Posted by Michelle Moquin on October 18th, 2009
I was especially moved by this segment, as Keith makes it personal in speaking about his own father’s unstable health, and the dreadful situations that other families experience. He goes on to say that our mortality rate is increasing…yes increasing! Our mortality rate is rising because people are dying. Not because they have an incurable disease, but because of one simple thing: lack of money. We are letting people die because they can not afford health insurance.
Yeah, life is about survival of the fittest, but without access to insurance for all of us, the playing field isn’t level. The ones surviving…the ones that are truly the fittest, are the ones that can afford health care. The ones that can’t, are dying. The mortality rate of Americans under the age of 65 that are uninsured is 40% higher than those with insurance. Let me repeat: The mortality rate of Americans under the age of 65 that are uninsured is 40% higher than those with insurance. That statistic is crazy. Once again, let me repeat: We are letting people die because they can not afford health insurance.
And we call America The Land of Opportunity. Yeah but what opportunity? The opportunity for Big Pharma to rip people off with ridiculously high-priced medications? The opportunity for Big Pharma to feed fear by playing on our emotions, by selling us drugs with more side effects than the symptoms were trying to get rid of, not to mention trying to sell us more drugs to combat those side effects? The opportunity for Big Pharma to pay their peeps huge salaries and bonuses while people are foreclosing on their American Dream in order to save a life, their own?
Here’s Part 2:
If you watched the video that I posted, I bet you are as stunned as I am.
The Holidays are coming up. The remake of A Christmas Carol staring one of my fave actors Jim Carrey will be in the theaters. With health care in the state it is in…with health care in the direction that it is going, unless the necessary changes happen, I think this movie will have a different, more profound meaning for many.
Let’s not let this happen to us. What can we do today to make sure that it doesn’t? I will end this post with this: ”Some people make things happen. Others watch things happen. The rest wonder what happened.” If we don’t do something about our current health care system, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Cecil: How did you like this one? I hope that you e-mailed to all of your friends too.
Adam: How goes it? I guess it was meant to be that you accidently made this discovery. A live version of ‘Invasion Of The Body Snatchers’ is not my idea of fun. I think we have enough going on in this world to focus on. Again, I am grateful for your accident, and Obama taking charge of the situation. I am sure there are others involved too and my gratitude extends to them also.
Readers: In case you too are curious about what’s happening on the islands, here’s what I found from Saipan News:
SANTA RITA, Guam-The U.S. Navy will conduct live-fire training exercises on the island of Farallon de Medinilla from 7am to 1am on Oct. 13-14, 16 and 18.
The general location of this activity will be on the island of Farallon de Medinilla Training Area on a 10-nautical mile radius on all quadrants. The general public especially fisherman, commercial pilots and marine tour operators are advised to stay clear from this area during the time and date indicated.
Farallon de Medinilla plays a special and unique role in national defense because its location provides access frequency that supports established training requirements. In addition, the air and sea space in the Farallon provides sufficient room for the many different attack profiles necessary to replicate training opportunities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Anna, Peter: Anything to add here?
Stay healthy and Peace out…
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: Your Bad Ass Bitch Editor
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the ‘Donate’ button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my ‘Donate’ page)
October 18th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Adam, I want to thank you for taking the initiative and preventing a possible catastrophic situation from occurring that would have negatively affected both our species. Regards to Alexander H.
HOWIE
October 18th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Thanks Michelle for the Keith articles. My friends are surprised to discover MSNBC KEITH.
Not me. I have been a fan of Countdown since the election season. He is also a sports commentator on NBC.
Lonnie
October 18th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
NO-SWEAT SOLUTIONS FOR HYPERHIDROSIS
If you are old enough to remember the 1980s movie Broadcast News, I am sure you recall the scene where the desperate-to-get-promoted news reporter (played by Albert Brooks) gets his big chance. On camera, delivering the news, he begins to sweat… and sweat… and sweat. His suffering was painful to watch, but the scene graphically showed what it can be like to have primary hyperhidrosis — a medical condition that causes excessive sweating unrelated to thermoregulation. About 1% to 3% of the population, both male and female, has primary hyperhidrosis, and estimates are that about 60% of people with it do not seek medical help — a shame, because there is plenty of help to be had, much of it natural.
WHAT IS HYPERHIDROSIS?
Hyperhidrosis is way worse than the kind of sweating that a person without the condition would normally experience in, say, Arizona in August. It is diagnosed in people who, at least once a week for at least six months, have visible, excessive sweating without apparent cause in one or more specific sites — usually on the soles of the feet (plantar), the palms (palmar), the underarms (axillae) and sometimes the face and head (craniofacial). Onset of the apparently lifelong condition occurs as early as infancy, often in adolescence and sometimes as late as the mid-20s. Hyperhidrosis is caused by distorted communication between the brain and the sweat glands, and sadly there’s no cure, though, as mentioned above, new and more effective treatments are being developed to keep symptoms at bay.
NEW TREATMENT SHOWS PROMISE
I called Dee Anna Glaser, MD, president of the International Hyperhidrosis Society and professor of dermatology at St. Louis University School of Medicine, to learn what options are available to people with hyperhidrosis. She told me that the first-line treatment is bedtime application of aluminum chloride antiperspirant to the affected area nightly or every other night, which is then washed off the next morning. The most common side effect, skin irritation, is vastly reduced with a new version that contains salicylic acid, Dr. Glaser said. In a recent (albeit small) study of 10 patients, all reported sweating 75% to 100% less when they used this new preparation.
Another treatment is to have Botox injections in the affected area. This works by blocking nerve endings from communicating with sweat glands in a specific area. It is becoming more popular because the treatment lasts several months and can theoretically be used for the rest of a patient’s life. However, Botox is expensive — plus there are always concerns about interfering with a natural physiological function, in this case the body’s natural cooling mechanism. Oral medications, such as glycoprrolate (Robinul) and, occasionally, Inderal or clonidine, also can be helpful.
Surgery can be a solution, too, but it has problems. Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy involves clipping the nerve responsible for the oversweating stimulation. This technique has worked well for patients with palmar sweating in particular, but Dr. Glaser says it can cause a serious postsurgical complication called compensatory sweating — 40% to 80% of patients report developing new sweating that takes place in other areas of the body. This can arise anytime, even years after the procedure.
“CURRENT” THERAPY: IONTOPHORESIS
A curious form of treatment that has been around more than 50 years is called iontophoresis. For this the patient plunges the affected body part (it works best for hands and feet) into a bowl of water infused with chemicals (anticholinergics) that inhibit the communication between brain and body and then applies a low-level direct electrical current (about equivalent to a flashlight battery) to the water. Dr. Glaser explained that the current forces the mineral and ions in the water to plug up the sweat ducts. It takes 20 to 30 minutes, and patients start with three to four sessions per week. It usually takes six to 10 treatments to get sweating down to an acceptable level, and maintenance treatments are required in intervals of one to four weeks. Patients occasionally take oral anticholinergics, but Dr. Glaser says that these reduce sweat production throughout the body, which is undesirable, especially for people who are active and need to sweat for the usual reasons.
NATURAL THERAPIES
It is known that heat, spicy foods, crowds and humidity may trigger episodes, so it makes sense to avoid those whenever possible. Also, Dr. Glaser told me that anxiety and stressful situations are known triggers. As in Broadcast News, “a person may become anxious about possibly sweating in, say, an interview and then gets nervous about that and starts to sweat as a result, which causes more anxiety, causing more sweating and on and on,” says Dr. Glaser. Episodes may come in spurts, disappear for a few days and then reappear. Biofeedback and other relaxation techniques may be helpful.
If you believe you may have hyperhidrosis, see a dermatologist — Dr. Glaser suggests finding one who has a special interest in the condition. Visit the Web site of the International Hyperhidrosis Society, http://www.sweathelp.org, for names of doctors near you who treat the condition.
Source(s):
Dee Anna Glaser, MD, president of the International Hyperhidrosis Society (www.sweathelp.org) and professor of dermatology at St. Louis University School of Medicine.
October 18th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
The aliens have forced the USA to shut down the “TDRS-1″ because they were using it to spy on the aliens. Now most of us here are going to lose our jobs.
Thanks AH
October 18th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Evelyn
You have me and my gal pals checking the web for health stuff tool. I want to share this.
————————–
When smart choices are not very bright
Dear Friend,
Beware of “smart” choices in your supermarket — because many of them are downright foolish.
The so-called “Smart Choices” program is a new labeling scheme for foods on supermarket shelves, underwritten by the nation’s biggest food manufacturers. And it seems all a product has to do to earn one of these labels is simply not be the absolute worst of the lot.
Well, that’s not the only requirement. The manufacturer also needs the ability to cut a check for up to $100,000 for the right to use this slick and deceptive new symbol.
All the money in the world won’t turn an unhealthy product into a healthy one — but as this new scheme shows, it can help change how a shopper might view it. Just look at what’s happening already: A breakfast cereal with more sugar than most cookies — a cereal in which 41 percent of the product by weight is nothing but sugar — gets the new “Smart Choices” label, which features a big green checkmark.
The head of this backwards scheme, Dr. Eileen T. Kennedy, actually said in the New York Times that the cereal gets the checkmark because it’s not as bad as some a box of donuts that folks might choose instead.
Maybe next time the donut maker could lobby for a label by cutting its own check — and saying that the donuts are at least better for you than a sack of pure sugar.
Even the Food and Drug Administration, usually a corporate lapdog and willing accomplice in these kinds of schemes, seems to have awakened. They’ve already taken one of the toughest steps they know: a harshly worded letter. I don’t think they’ll go any further than that, but I’d love for them to prove me wrong on this one and really get tough.
The program is so bad that one of the members of the panel quit before it was even launched, saying the group was dominated by food-industry bigwigs who got their way on every issue.
“It was paid for by industry and when industry put down its foot and said this is what we’re doing, that was it, end of story,” Mike Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the New York Times.
Choosing food shouldn’t be based on some fancy new label. The best foods don’t have labels at all. They’re what I call the “living” foods, and you’ll find them in the produce and meat section. In fact, you can pretty much do all your shopping there and skip the rest of the supermarket.
All of the foods in cans, bags and boxes are “dead” foods — foods where all the nutrients have been processed right out of them. Getting a serving of vitamins from a fresh food is far better than getting the same amount of that nutrient from a sugary cereal or frozen meal.
So for now, as you head to the supermarket, here’s a good rule of thumb: If you want to make some truly smart choices, stay far away from any product that tells you how smart a choice it is.
Be Well,
William B. Ferril, M.D.
———————————
Mable
October 19th, 2009 at 12:31 am
This is one of the best articles you have done on your blog.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Also, our good progressive blogging friends, let us send LOTS of emails or make LOTS of phone calls to Democrats, http://www.democrats.org and especially slam Max Baucus over his hypocritical job of putting together a bill that he KNOWS most Americans are NOT in favor of, that is with no public option and with no plan to adopt until about 2013.
Baucus NEEDS to be called out on his greed for payoff from insurance & drug companies that is larger than his wish for Health Care for all. Please put emphasis in messages for Democrats to slam Baucus as well as taking away his chairmanship of the Finance Committee.
Baucus is working for Insurance & Drug companies, NOT FOR US & NOT FOR HIS OWN CONSTITUENTS.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Michelle,
If the public option is THE best way to go for most of the people, then how can the voters get the Senators and Representatives do what the voters want, and not what the insurance industry wants?
Other than using a re-call or some kind of arm-twisting technique prior to the next election, what friends, is the solution?
October 19th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Baucus’s bill is still nothing as far as I’m concerned. Seems wasteful that so many different groups are each working on a different bill. Baucus & Snowe are no victory since Snowe attatched strings to it and Baucus had no intention of working for a Government option bill due to his LARGE payoffs from Insurance & Drug Companies. So where are we? Some place between here & there with our politicians being paid to put in their time and get nothing done that could have been done already before their recess.
We need to insist on our President doing more “hands on” to get what he said he wanted in the first place and what we voted for. Letters, please, to your Senators & House Members.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:44 am
IMO all government state or federal should have to pay into medicare and S.S. just like the rest of us.
If we want another plan we have our 401K’S just as they have their pension plans ,only we pay for their pension plans every last one of them.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:46 am
If my taxes are to go up then they should go up to help support either single Payer insurance or a strong Public Option.
I hope the taxpayers aren’t going to have to bend over again as we did with the Bailout we “gave” to Wall Street and the Banks who were “too big to fail”.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:49 am
What a superb article Michelle.
I haven’t seen one year in the last ten where my premiums and co-pays haven’t risen by at least 10% and my coverage decrease by an equal amount.
I have read several times that the Insurance industry has spent approximately 30 million dollars a day lobbying against this bill; who do you think will pay that tab; I would bet it’s not being deducted from the CEOs’ bonuses.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Michelle
Your video defending Obama’s winning the Nobel was especially rewarding to me. Thank you for your imposing clarity on the subject.
Here is one I think that not only supports yours, but gives an added weight to what you posted.
Nobel Prize To Obama Defended (VIDEO)
Larry
October 19th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Nobel Prize To Obama Defended (VIDEO)
October 19th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I can’t get it to post. Here is the transcript.
——————————–
OSLO (AP) — The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.
The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee – four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.
They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.
“Some people say – and I understand it – ‘Isn’t it premature? Too early?’ Well, I’d say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now,” Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. “It is now that we have the opportunity to respond – all of us.”
Jagland said the committee whittled down a record pool of 205 nominations and had “several candidates until the last minute,” but it became more obvious that “we couldn’t get around these deep changes that are taking place” under Obama.
Obama said he was surprised and deeply humbled by the honor, and planned to travel to Oslo in December to accept the prize.
“Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations,” he said at the White House.
“To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”
Obama will donate the $1.4 million cash award that comes with the prize to charity.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said the decision showed that great things are expected from Obama and “wonderful recognition” of his effort to reach out to the Arab world after years of hostility.
“It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope,” Tutu said.
Many were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in a presidency that began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline for the prize and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.
“So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is only beginning to act,” said former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the peace prize in 1983.
Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counterterrorism strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.
Jagland told AP that while the war in Afghanistan was a concern, the Obama administration “immediately started to reassess the strategy.”
“That itself is important, because when something goes wrong, then you need to ask yourself why is it going wrong,” he said.
Watch an interview with Thorbjoern Jagland:
Obama said he was working to end the war in Iraq and “to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies” in Afghanistan, where he is seriously considering increasing the number of U.S. troops on the ground and asking for help from others as the war enters its ninth year.
Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi in Afghanistan condemned the Nobel committee’s decision, saying Obama had only escalated the war and had “the blood of the Afghan people on his hands.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called the Nobel decision “hasty.”
“The appropriate time for awarding such a prize is when foreign military forces leave Iraq and Afghanistan and when one stands by the rights of the oppressed Palestinian people,” he was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.
Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the Nobel committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as “support and a commitment for Obama.”
“And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament,” she told AP in a rare interview. Members of the committee usually speak only through its chairman.
The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts, but Obama’s efforts are at far earlier stages than those of past winners, and the committee acknowledged they may not bear fruit at all.
“If everything goes wrong, then one cannot say that this was because of Barack Obama,” Jagland said. “It could be that it is because of us, all the others, that didn’t respond. But I cannot exclude that Barack Obama also can contribute to the eventual failure.”
In Europe and much of the world, Obama is praised for bringing the U.S. closer to mainstream global thinking on such issues as climate change and multilateralism.
A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.
The award appeared to be at least partly a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama’s predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
“Those who were in support of Bush in his belief in war solving problems, on rearmament, and that nuclear weapons play an important role … probably won’t be happy,” said Valle.
At home, the picture is more complicated. Obama is often criticized by his political opponents as he attempts to carry out his agenda – from government spending to health care to Afghanistan.
Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said Obama won because of his “star power” rather than meaningful accomplishments.
“The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’” Steele said.
Drawing criticism from some on the left, Obama has been slow to bring troops home from Iraq and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won’t come until at least 2012.
The Nobel committee said it paid special attention to Obama’s vision of a nuclear-free world, laid out in a speech in Prague and in April and at the United Nations last month.
Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership on nuclear non-proliferation.
“He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts,” ElBaradei said.
In July talks in Moscow, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed that their negotiators would work out a new limit on delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads of between 500 and 1,100.
They also agreed that warhead limits would be reduced from the current range of 1,700-2,200 to as low as 1,500. The U.S. now has about 2,200 such warheads, compared to about 2,800 for the Russians.
There has been no word on whether either side has started to act on the reductions.
Obama also has tried to restart stalled Mideast talks with no progress yet reported.
In the Gaza Strip, leaders of the radical Hamas movement said they had heard Obama’s speeches on better relations with the Islamic world but had not been moved.
“We are in need of actions, not sayings,” Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said. “If there is no fundamental and true change in American policies toward the acknowledgment of the rights of the Palestinian people, I think this prize won’t move us forward or backward.”
Obama has said that battling climate change is a priority. Yet the U.S. seems likely to head into crucial international negotiations set for Copenhagen in December with Obama-backed legislation still stalled in Congress.
Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by the five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament.
Like the Parliament, the panel has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties and two right-of-center members. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous.
The secretive committee declined to say who nominated Obama. In Nobel tradition, nominations are kept secret for 50 years, unless those making the submissions go public about their picks.
This year’s nominations included Colombian activist Piedad Cordoba, Afghan woman’s rights activist Simi Samar and Denis Mukwege, a physician in war-torn Congo who opened a clinic to help rape victims.
Nominators for the prize are broad and include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.
Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.
In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”
October 19th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Hi Michelle,
thanks for posting parts of the Keith Olbermann Special Comment on Health Care. Sorry to have missed the hour long special. One thing in particular I took note on is the naming of bills such as this.
Why must they try to confuse voters with obscure names such as the “public option”? Why not call it what it is, like “Health Care for Everyone”?
Great series!
Al
October 19th, 2009 at 8:37 am
How to Give Great Toasts at Weddings, Retirement Parties, More
J. Lyman MacInnis
A good toast can be the highlight of an evening and remembered for years. How to do it…
PERSONAL TOASTS
Personal toasts are given at social occasions, such as wedding receptions and retirement parties.
Share an anecdote, preferably a humorous one. Stories are more engaging for listeners than lists of accomplishments or glowing praise. Select anecdotes that…
Convey something meaningful about the individual, perhaps reflecting his/her character or importance. It also should have some relevance to the event at which the toast is given. If this relevance is tenuous, add a sentence at the end that ties things together. Example: If your anecdote about the groom has little to do with his new wife, add, “But I know he’s found the perfect bride, because she’s already heard this story and she’s marrying him anyway.”
Are interesting to most of your audience, not just certain insiders. Example: A funny accounting anecdote could be appropriate for the toast at an accountant’s retirement party — if only accountants are present. If the accountants’ spouses are on hand as well, choose another anecdote.
Feature the person being toasted as the obvious star of the anecdote. If several people in your audience play supporting roles, all the better — this holds listeners’ attention.
Are not embarrassing to the guest of honor. Exception: Almost anything goes with bachelor party toasts.
Quickly describe your relationship with the person being toasted at the start of your toast if some in the audience do not know you (assuming that you were not introduced). The audience will be distracted if people are asking one another, “Who’s that?” Example: “For those who don’t know me, I’m Larry Peterson, the groom’s cousin.”
Keep the toast to five minutes or shorter.
Do not tell jokes. Jokes such as those in joke books often fall flat.
Never mention the bride or groom’s previous romantic partners.
Save the punch line for the end of your story. If you open with, “Let me tell you the story of the time Hal’s pants fell down at the ballpark,” you will not get as big a laugh when you reach the big moment in the anecdote.
At the end of your toast, offer a concluding sentence. Example: “Let’s all raise our glasses to one of the greatest men I know, Bob Smith.”
Speak toward the audience, not to the person being toasted. Turn toward the guest of honor only when you deliver the final line of your toast.
Write your toast out before the event, and rehearse it.
FORMAL TOASTS
A formal toast is given at a business meeting or professional conference. It should be short — usually just a minute or two. If you do not know much about the guest of honor, speak instead about the honor being presented or the accomplishment being recognized. Example: “This is not a routine honor we’re giving to Mr. Williams tonight. The XYZ Alliance has been around since 1950, and this is only the third time we have made this award…”
The best way to end a formal toast is to simply repeat your congratulations and, if appropriate, add a wish for continued success.
Bottom Line/Personal interviewed J. Lyman MacInnis, a Toronto-based executive coach and public-speaking expert who has given more than 100 toasts. He is author of The Elements of Great Public Speaking: How to Be Calm, Confident, and Compelling (Ten Speed). http://www.lymanmacinnis.com.