Had they offered a degree of danger for people to consider, they would have done a service to the nation. Saying something is dangerous without saying how dangerous is fear-mongering.
When we discuss "smoking cessation", I have to wonder what we all mean. Do we mean that one will cease to smoke (ie. stop igniting a plant and sucking in the products of that ignition), or do we mean that one will cease to use nicotine?
The term needs to be better defined. If we are talking about ceasing to inhale the products of combustion, the electronic cigarette has many users who claim to have done just that. If we are talking about ceasing to use nicotine, that number is much smaller.
This also brings up the question, "what's wrong with using nicotine?" It is an addictive substance which can, with chronic exposure, deposit in the organs and cause damage [http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-L_Nicotine-9926222]. However, there is another common substance that most people consume on a daily basis that is addictive and can cause negative health effects over time: caffeine. Chronic use can contribute to heart and lung malfunction [http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/c0165.htm]. Why is it socially acceptable to be addicted to one non-life-interfering substance and not another?
Caught you on Coundown tonight w/ Howard Dean. I am so encouraged to know someone with your experience of the industry is speaking out. And thank you for the information above re/ limited-benefit plans. Having recently exhausted COBRA, I encountered these plans when family friends kept insisting that "of course you can get coverage for less than $1K/mo for an individual policy. AND it will cover pre-existing conditions!" Yeah, right.
The limited benefit plan being heavily advertised here -- FOR LESS THAN THE COST OF ONE GOURMET CUP OF COFFEE PER DAY -- is from Cinergy. I was astounded by the limited benefits. Why not cover pre-existing conditions? They don't pay for much of anything anyway! I live in an area dominated by the military and military retirees who are clueless about the private insurance market. These advertisements are seriously skewing the public's perception of the need for reform. Knowing the industry term for them will let me do more research for a letter to the editor I hope to write.
Many thanks - keep it up and I hope we see more of you on the news shows.
Valerie Sellers
Niceville, FL
Don't hold back now... tell us what you really think. Great posting! The health insurance industry is comprised of bloodsuckers, parasites, and do nothing to elevate the health care people receive. They siphon off the profits that would otherwise be cost-savings and better care.
I do not see how Dr. Gratzer writing for The Manhatten Institute represents a conflict of interest. Are you claiming that the The Manhatten Institute has as one of its goals the stopping of the health care bill now under discussion? Do you also reject any statements or writings from The Brookings Institute or The Cato Institute because they also would represent a conflict of interest?
Dr. Gratzer is quoting data developed by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a group tasked by the Canadian government with providing information on the effectiveness of the Canadian health care system. Do you propose that data that does not support your position is tainted and therefore should be ignored?
Had they offered a degree of danger for people to consider, they would have done a service to the nation. Saying something is dangerous without saying how dangerous is fear-mongering.
When we discuss "smoking cessation", I have to wonder what we all mean. Do we mean that one will cease to smoke (ie. stop igniting a plant and sucking in the products of that ignition), or do we mean that one will cease to use nicotine?
The term needs to be better defined. If we are talking about ceasing to inhale the products of combustion, the electronic cigarette has many users who claim to have done just that. If we are talking about ceasing to use nicotine, that number is much smaller.
This also brings up the question, "what's wrong with using nicotine?" It is an addictive substance which can, with chronic exposure, deposit in the organs and cause damage [http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-L_Nicotine-9926222]. However, there is another common substance that most people consume on a daily basis that is addictive and can cause negative health effects over time: caffeine. Chronic use can contribute to heart and lung malfunction [http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/c0165.htm]. Why is it socially acceptable to be addicted to one non-life-interfering substance and not another?
Pages