A lot of people in this world, especially women, need to have a bright and beautiful skin. This will be even more important for artist and film star. Being a film star, these people need to stay beautiful because this is what they sell. No wonder, the best dermatology Austin is the thing that these people are looking for when they want to make their skin more beautiful or just to keep their skin healthy. Fortunately, dermatologist has not been, and it is not supposed to be, monopolized by the artist and film star only. If you want to make your skin healthy or you want to make your skin more beautiful, you can go to the nearest and trusted dermatologist to get your skin treated right. If you have never been in the dermatologist center, there are the things that you need to know about dermatologist and I hope that by knowing this, you will be able to choose the best and the right dermatologist for you.
First of all, when you have a plan to see the dermatologist, what you need to do is to get along with the dermatologist first without even meeting him or her. So, how do you do it? What you have to do for this tip is to search for the dermatologist’s information using the internet. I am sure that the internet will give you bad and good things about the dermatologist that you are about to go to. Second of all, always search for some reference when you are looking for the right dermatologist. The reference should be from the doctor since the doctor will give you any idea about where you should go and what kind of service that you will need to have from that dermatologist you are about to go to.
The Growth of Medical Care
For most of the worlds more developed countries the medical field is one of their largest industries. If you count the money generated by medication sales, diagnostics, nursing homes, hospitals, physicians, and other ancillary activities it is quite easy to see why the medical industry accounts for 10-20% of a country's gross production.
In the US alone there are nearly 800,000 medical doctors, more than 5000 hospitals and millions of health care workers. One of every dozen US citizens works in health care now and this number is expected to grow. Still there are not enough workers and facilities to handle the 20 million outpatients that are currently being seen every day. This staggering amount of outpatient visits does not include the average daily count of 4 -5 million hospitalized patients.
The vast, complex health care industry in the United States is one that attracts people from around the globe. Switzerland and Germany both have large medical industries, but these countries run their health care differently from the US. Could it be possible that our nation's health care will soon be undergoing a radical type of change?
Answers are Difficult to Find
Is the answer to the current health care dilemma as simple as nationalizing health care for all? Will this possibility only make the situation worse? How will the medical resources be allocated among the various segments of our society? These are only a few of the questions that are waiting to be answered.
Today medical health has become a controversial subject among many groups of citizens. There is talk of overhauling the medical system as we now know it. We are also hearing predictions that the government will try to restructure the nation's health care system. Although much of this rhetoric has been publicized for a number of years it seems that people are becoming more polarized by the possible changes that are now constantly making headlines.
The Senior Citizens Have their own Concerns
The elderly population in the US is keeping a close eye on what is being proposed because health care and medication issues are of great concern to them. Medical and insurance coverage for people 65 and older have undergone many changes since the 1980s. Most senior citizens are very vocal about their displeasure with the way Medicare is addressing the problems, and they are also worried about what the future might hold. The costs of health care and medication needs are extremely high for senior citizens as a whole. Every year they are fearful of having their benefits cut even further, and now they have new worries regarding medical care.
Groups at Risk
It has been just a few short weeks since Governor Sara Palin galvanized many citizens with her predictions and comments about "death panels" and nationalized health care. While there were many people who rallied around her statements, the mere possibility of such radical notions began sending shock waves through the nation. This was particularly unnerving to a large percentage of our elderly population. It was also causing concern among advocates for the poor and disabled. Even parents and caretakers of people with physical and mental challenges were becoming alarmed, and feeling threatened.
Future Allocation of Health Care Resources?
Could it be possible that Medical professionals would possibly agree to form commissions that would allocate health care resources to those they deemed most deserving? This thought was both frightening and "Orwellian" in prospect. A careful review showed that there was no written documentation that actually stated such possibilities, but this did not alleviate the fear and worry of many ordinary citizens. Just the idea that access to hospitalization or medication needs might one day be restricted was enough to generate small scale panic in many communities across the nation.
Problems, Problems, Problems
Medical concerns, health care and affordable medication plans are major sources of worry for everyone today. Insurance coverage is very expensive. There is a growing trend among companies to provide less employee and family benefits in order to cut costs. In some cases this is making it difficult for employees to participate in the insurance plans being offered by their employers. However a growing number of families are too cash strapped to afford health insurance premiums on their own. This is creating a "Catch 22" type of environment with people unable to afford the cost of becoming sick as well as the cost of being insured.
A RAND Corp study, released in September of 2011, examined the health care an the average American family's budget from 1999 to 2009. While the average family saw a 30% increase in their income, much of that was wiped out by greater gains in the cost of medical care. Inflation and higher taxes further decimated the gains.
They found that monthly premiums for health insurance grew by 128% over the decade studied. This is well beyond the rate of inflation. Prices on all goods tend to go up over time due to the devaluation of currency called inflation. But when a price for a good goes up faster then inflation, it becomes relatively more expensive then other goods in the economy. This is precisely what is happening with health care. When people are forced to spend relatively more on a good, they feel they are taking a step backward in terms of the living standard.
Making matters worse, many people who receive their health benefits through their employer are seeing lower wage gains. An employer has to take the total cost of an employee into account, and that includes what the employer spends on health benefits. When health care costs increase for the employer, they have actually increased the amount they spend per employee, only it doesn't feel that way to the worker. The worker is indeed getting a raise, it is just going directly to their health care costs. As health care costs for employers continue to rise, it will put downward pressure on wages.
Health care costs are going up for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, patients now have access to cutting edge - and expensive - medical procedures that were not available before. While these procedures extend people's lives and well being, they are very expensive and have to be paid for. Additionally, with few patients paying the direct cost of medical care, rather paying their insurance company, the market for medical care becomes distorted.
Another reason for the recent surge in health care costs is the recent Affordable Care Act. One of the new requirements is that employer plans now cover children up to the age of 26. While that may help provide insurance to young adults, it comes at a cost. A survey by the Kaiser Family foundation found that the cost for premiums on employer heath insurance plans increased by 9% in 2010. The increase in premiums has put even more downward pressure on wages during the weak economy.
Many employers are now putting some, if not all, of the cost of health care on to their employees. Many workers are now paying part of the monthly premium and often a large deductible as part of their plan. Often times, if they are young and have no pre-existing conditions, they can purchase private health insurance at a lower price then they are paying for their work plan.There is no end in sight to rising health care costs. Medical advances will continue, the American population is aging, and reforms in Washington do not seem likely to help reduce the cost of health care.
The fundamental problems Americans are really having are with health care costs, not health insurance. Why is health insurance being regulated and the actual cost of health care not addressed at all?
The fact that an entire industry (insurance) has been created to act as a replacement for affordable health care costs should clearly indicate the real issue is the cost of health care, not the cost or availability of health insurance.
But, without getting into the economics of the statement above, let's assume that we can't afford health care. If that is the case, what is the cause?
Let's separate the problem into two parts*, 1. Cost of treatment and 2. Cost of drugs. So we have two industries here, the Medical community and the Pharmaceutical industry.
Let's address the Medical Community. Based on simple economics one can deduce that a large part of the problem of medical cost is a matter of supply and demand. There are not enough doctors to take care of the population, thus medical professionals charge more simply because they can.
According to an April 2010 article in the WSJ "Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law (Obama Care). At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges..."
If the government is compelled to intervene in the nation's business for the sake of saving lives, then a better governmental solution to the health care dilemma is to create programs that promote the making of more doctors and placing them where they are most needed.
Over the period of one or two (at most) decades we could have enough physicians to not only adequately care for the population, but enough doctors that "supply and demand" would bring medical fees in line with what the general population could afford. Some doctors may have to give up their Porsches' and limit the number of vacations they take, but they shouldn't be in that profession if they are only money motivated anyway.
If there was an area where the government should intervene in order to save lives and in the name of the welfare of this nation, it is in the pharmaceutical industry's business practices.
These are just my thoughts on the matter; I have never heard these ideas intelligently addressed by any politician in all the endless droning regarding health care that has been going on for the last two years. I know there may be some gaps in what I've written and there may be much better solutions than what I quickly jotted down. But the point of this is that we (you) need to really hold our government's feet to the fire and not be sheep. We need our representatives to really confront the issues, not just glibly parrot talking points that either do nothing or make matters worse.
Do your own research, look into matters that concern and affect you personally. Don't let the talking heads on T.V. solely shape your view of the world. If something concerns you, look into it and then write about it.
*Medical tort is a third factor that will have to be addressed to reform medical costs. My opinion on this is simple. Great doctors don't kill or maim people. If we only had great doctors there would be no need for lawsuits. Instead of suing doctors for negligence, simply create a system that takes licenses quickly away from bad doctors. If a doctor kills a patient or ruins the patient's life through negligence, then he/she loses their license-this will ensure doctor's standards are always high and that bad doctors get weeded out of the system.
Social Marketing, Social Norms, Social Media, Social What?
December 13, 2011
The strategies and evidence that support different prevention practices often get confused, severely limiting the effective implementation of these approaches. Learn about the differences between some of the more common and evidence-based prevention strategies, including social marketing and social norms, as well as how new tools like social media fit in to the mix. This webinar will leave you with new tools, a better understanding of your prevention arsenal and the energy to make positive behavior change a reality.
Key topics will include:
-Social Marketing, including branding strategies
-How to select the right approach
-Differentiating between a tool and an approach
-How to select the right tools for your approach
-How Social Media fits in most effectively
To register, click here.
Drug users and bystanders who witness a drug overdose are often reluctant to call 911 out of fear that they might be arrested for drug possession. Initial results from an evaluation of Washington State's 911 Good Samaritan Law show that 88% of opiate users are now likely to call 911 to get emergency help for drug overdose victims, knowing that they are protected by the state’s Good Samaritan laws.
The study's early findings also indicated that 62% of police surveyed said the law would not change their behavior during a future overdose because they would not have made an arrest for possession anyway, 20% were unsure what they would do, and 14% said they would be less likely to make such an arrest.
The first round of postcards are in the mail and will go to all families of students attending Eckstein Middle School, Nathan Hale High School and Roosevelt High School.
The coalition's Social Marketing Workgroup, which is developing the campaign, will meet again on Tuesday, December 6 at 6:30 p.m. Contact the Prevention WINS coordinator for more information.
Forty-five percent of energy drink related ED visits were made by young adults aged 18 to 25 and 11% were made by adolescents aged 12 to 17.
Most teenagers who visited the ED suffered adverse effects from the energy drink alone. The rest suffered adverse effects from combining the energy drinks with alcohol (5%) or pharmaceuticals (20%) such as Ritalin.
RUaD has been asked by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to submit the names of 100 Washington communities that would like to host town hall meetings. Participants will receive a $500 stipend to underwrite costs of the meetings. Contact RUaD by December 2 if your organization is interested.
Groups can receive a $1000 stipend for conducting a Let's Draw the Line campaign. Groups may sign up on December 1 by visiting http://www.letsdrawtheline.org/.
Here are a few excerpts from the interview:
When Barron Lerner was writing his book on the history of drunk driving in America — and efforts to control it — he carried out an experiment at home that involved a bottle of vodka, a shot glass and a Breathalyzer. He was the guinea pig.
"I was trying to figure out just how drunk you had to be in order to not drive safely," says Lerner, a professor of medicine and public health at Columbia University, who wrote One for the Road. He decided to drink and test his levels — but he didn't actually get into a car.
"And, as I suspected after doing my research, one can drink an awful lot and be pretty buzzed and still legally drive in the United States."
He goes on to talk about how attitudes about drunk driving have changed significantly in the last sixty years.
One of the things Lerner writes about is the history of public attitudes toward drunk driving. He uses the example of Margaret Mitchell, the author of Gone with the Wind, who was crossing the street with her husband in Atlanta in 1949 when she was hit by a drunk driver and died.
According to Lerner, people initially reacted with horror, but then attitudes shifted and there started to be more sympathy for the driver — who had had 22 previous arrests for driving violations, including speeding and drunk driving — than for Mitchell.
"This is such an instructive case about drunk driving in this country," Lerner says. "For years and years, back in that era, people who were killed or victimized by a drunk driver were seen as being in the wrong place at the wrong time — that these things happen. And that was very much the case with Margaret Mitchell. After the initial outrage, people started to say, 'Well, it was her time to go.' I read so many stories like that, and every one was almost more shocking than the next — that we could have had a society that was so passive to a crime that was killing 25,000 people a year for so long."
This is a good lesson for those of us working to prevent youth substance abuse to remember. It may take a long time, but if we are vigilant, attitudes can change. Drunk driving attitudes are a good example. So are attitudes around smoking. Even if people now say "kids will be kids" and that there is nothing we can do to prevent youth substance abuse, those attitudes can change.
The FTC was commended for recognizing that the marketing of these super-sized drinks as single servings is misleading because one can contains the alcohol equivalent of almost five beers. The FTC was also called on to adopt additional measures to address the safety risks presented by Four Loko, such as limiting its alcohol content to no more than two servings of alcohol per can.
For those of you who would like to be present for the second reading and vote on the proposed ordinance, the Mercer Island City Council will take up the matter again during its December 5, 2011 meeting.
To be clear, the petition submitted by Seattle Mayor McGinn asks the LCB to allow "for on-premises liquor service after 2 a.m." in "extended service hours service areas". The proposed rule change would permit certain establishments within those areas to serve alcohol "between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.". This means that some bars could be open 24 hours per day. The City's petition and supporting documentation may be accessed online.
The Citywide Police Advisory Committee is speaking out against increasing hours of alcohol sales. In a recent message from the group, they say, ". . . three of us from the Citywide PAC had an informal coffee with two (of the three) members of the Washington State Liquor Control Board. The perception of the Board was that the City Council's support of this petition was reflective of the community's position. This perception is completely incorrect, for the vast majority of Seattle citizens are against the proposal . . . We do know that the Mayor's Office has not publicized anything about the (LCB) community input process/opportunity."
The LCB is accepting initial comments about the potential rule change until December 1. To do so, contact them at:
Liquor Control Board
P.O. Box 43080
Olympia, WA 98504-3080
After the December 1 deadline, community members can still make comments until January 18, when a public hearing will be held.
People can call me and other pro-regulation advocates a nanny or a liar all that they want, but the research is clear: increased access to alcohol increases consumption, including consumption among minors. I blogged about it on October 24 and August 18. The coalition website contains links to lessons learned about private liquor sales and public health consequences in the UK. AlcoholPolicyMD.com is one of many great online resources about how public policy can be used to prevent underage drinking.
People can also say that "kids will be kids" and that there is nothing we can do to stop them from drinking but, again, we have research that shows otherwise. Not to mention that our northeast Seattle community has worked together to reduce underage drinking rates over the past five years.
Will strong regulations and policy limiting alcohol marketing and availability alone prevent underage drinking? No. However, it is one tool for communities to use to prevent underage drinking. When one part of an already beleaguered substance abuse prevention system is eliminated, it makes a significant difference in a community's ability to keep kids safe and healthy.
Here's an excerpt:
With cities across the country facing their fifth straight year of declining revenues and states cutting services and laying off workers, raising money from people who enjoy a cocktail is becoming an increasingly attractive option.
Since the recession started in earnest in 2008, dozens of states and cities have tinkered with laws that regulate alcohol sales as a way to build up their budgets.
Although some drinkers and government budget writers might like the changes, not everyone is happy.
“Lawmakers are taking a very short-sided view,” said David Jernigan, director of the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “What they gain in short-term tax revenue they are losing in long-term police costs, emergency room costs and work-force readiness costs in terms of the Monday morning effect.”
Like many public health officials, Mr. Jernigan does not support government efforts that increase the availability of alcohol, but he does support raising sales tax as a way to make people drink less.
As I have noted in previous blog entries, stringent alcohol regulations are one tool communities rely upon to prevent underage drinking. So, as our local and state governments propose increasing access to alcohol as a way to raise tax revenue, communities should consider the costs associated with increased access . At the same time, communities may want to consider advocating for an increase in taxes on alcohol -- a policy that has proven to prevent underage drinking.
Are today's parents going too soft on kids' using marijuana? (USA Today)
A chance to safely clean out medicine cabinets (Seattle Times)
Teens hear 34 references to brand-name liquor a day in rap and hip-hop (ABC News)
Prohibition's real lessons for drug policy (LA Times)
Councilman: Why so many drug dealers in the morning (Seattle PI)
Friends of teen’s romantic partner can influence drinking habits (American Sociological Association)
Insufficient sleep among high school students associated with drinking, smoking and smoking marijuana (Preventive Medicine)
Liquor store density linked to youth homicides, U.S. studies find (Science Daily)
Alcohol isn’t worth the trouble for some chain restaurants (New York Times)
Teens who eat at family dinners less likely to drink, smoke and use marijuana (CASA Columbia)
NIH study finds hospitalization increase for alcohol and drug overdoses (NIH News)
Based on just two questions from a newly released guide, health care professionals could spot children and teenagers at risk for alcohol-related problems. Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention for Youth: A Practitioner's Guide is now available from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), part of the National Institutes of Health.
We know that alcohol is by far the drug of choice among youth,” says NIAAA acting director Kenneth R. Warren, Ph.D. “Underage drinking is also a marker for other unhealthy behaviors and it often goes undetected. This new tool was designed to allow busy practitioners who manage the health and well-being of children and adolescents to conduct fast, effective alcohol screens and brief interventions.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says doctors should routinely screen their teenage patients for drug and alcohol use at every visit, and look for signs of dependence or addiction. In a new policy statement, the group provides a guide to help doctors ask adolescents about substance abuse issues.
Deaths from prescription painkillers have reached epidemic levels in the past decade. The number of overdose deaths is now greater than those of deaths from heroin and cocaine combined. A big part of the problem is nonmedical use of prescription painkillers—using drugs without a prescription, or using drugs just for the "high" they cause.
15th Annual King County Community Legislative Forum: Mental Health and Substance Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Recovery and Preparing for Health Care Reform
Thursday, November 17, 2011
6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
St. Mark’s Cathedral, Bloedel Hall
1245 10th Avenue East, Seattle
Learn about local successes and hear from legislators about priorities and perspectives on the upcoming legislative session.