That's Fit

Medication is supposed to make you feel better, but even the safest medication is not risk-free. Doctors usually weigh the benefit of the medication with the potential risk factors. But some medications have more risks than others. According to Men's Health, there are at least eight commonly-prescribed medications that doctors (the ones interviewed anyway) wouldn't even take themselves.

Before I share the list with you ... a disclaimer. This information came from a magazine. When making medical decisions, you should not rely on a magazine. You should talk to your doctor. So if you are taking one of these eight medications, do not stop taking them. Suddenly quitting a medication can be very dangerous. Instead, do a little research and take the list to your doctor to see what he or she thinks.

Promise? Ok then, here's the list:

• Advair (for asthma)
• Avandia (for diabetes)
• Celebrex (for arthritis)
• Ketek (for infection)
• Prilosec and Nexium (for heartburn)
• Visine Original (for irritated eyes)
• Pseudoephedrine (for sinus trouble)

For better strategies to treat the conditions in question, click through to Men's Health and read what their doctors had to say.

Nearly four in 10 Americans cite health care costs as one of their biggest financial woes. As more and more employers cut medical insurance coverages (or eliminate them all together), health care costs are falling squarely on the shoulders of the individual. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that health care costs are one of the top financial concerns for American families. In fact, health care struggles have affected many families financial well-being and have influenced their health care decisions.

28% of Americans report that they have had a serious problem paying for health care/insurance. And the difficulties don't only exist for lower income families; almost three in 10 middle income families report financial problems due to health care as well. More than four in 10 Americans state that they have cut corners (such as postponing treatment or not getting prescriptions filled) because of the related costs.

As it turns out, it isn't worth a pound of cure, according to the Washington Post.

I was more than a little disheartened to read the cover story in the Health section of yesterday's paper. Apparently, as the story points out with examples, an ounce of prevention is worth a whole lot less than a pound of cure despite political campaign banter claiming otherwise. Not even close, in fact. The scales are actually tipped the other way. It's cheaper to let people get sick. Smoking cessation, colonoscopies for guys in their 60s and childhood vaccinations are among exceptions.

The article mentions at the very end a point that I think is bigger than dollars and cents. Paying for good health is an investment. And a good one. I wonder how any attempt to calculate the cost of prevention and measure it up against cure can be absolutely accurate. The examples in the Post are convincing. Giving a bunch of people cholesterol-reducing drugs in an effort to prevent heart disease that will develop in only a fraction of them clearly requires a heap o' dough for prescriptions. But if life is all about how much things cost and that leads to deciding whether our health -- and by extension our very lives -- are worth the expense, what's the point anyway? Have we really reached a point at which money is more valuable than life?

Wow. I think our society needs a colonoscopy. On second thought, we can save the money. I think we can skip ahead to diagnosing cancer. The good news: I believe this type can be cured. What do you think? What's the cure? Am I wrong? Do you disagree with the diagnosis?

In our community, we have a volunteer clinic run by local doctors to serve the uninsured. They do not take Medicare or Medicaid patients, nor will they serve patients with insurance. Instead, their goal is to get health care to those in the middle who have too much of an income to qualify for Medicaid, but who can't afford health insurance. The need is so great, however, that patients start lining up early in the morning before the clinic opens and often wait long hours to be seen.

Oregon has a similar, state-run idea. They put aside money in 1995 for this same group of people, but closed enrollment a few years ago. Now, however, there are a few thousand openings and the state is holding a lottery for new applicants. So far, 80,000 people have applied.

The program covers basic health care and prescriptions, as well as some limited dental and vision. Applicants will find out over the course of the next few months if they qualify.

When it became common knowledge that Blue Cross had been sending letters to doctors, asking them alert the insurance company when a patient had a pre-existing condition that wasn't reported on their insurance form, the outcry was so great that Blue Cross immediately terminated the practice.

Though Blue Cross claims that they only sent out the letters to protect themselves from fraud, critics say that they used the knowledge they gained to cancel policies when patients racked up expensive medical bills. The company has been accused of offering coverage and then using practices like this one to pull it away just when it's needed most.

California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton were among those calling for a halt to the practice. Blue Cross was also targeted in Michael Moore's movie Sicko, in 2007.

Wal-Mart Stores, the world's largest retailer, indicated today that just over 50 percent of its employees in the U.S. were now subscribing to (and benefiting from) its company-provided health insurance. This was the first time in many years that over half of its domestic employees were covered by the retailer's health insurance.

In 2005, Wal-Mart pegged health insurance coverage participation at 43 percent, so the retailer has had a gain of over 7 percent in a little over two years.

Wal-Mart did state that 9.7 percent of its U.S. employees reported receiving government-sponsored health care coverage. To Wal-Mart critics, that points to wages that are too low for many employees to even afford health insurance through the retailer's programs.

The retailer said that its new health care plans were responsible for the decline from 9.6 percent uninsured to 7.3 percent, as it offers health insurance premiums as low as $5 monthly in addition to the retailer's public $4 prescription drug program.

Medical spending information released from the federal government this week indicated that a record $2.1 trillion was spent in 2006 for health care in the U.S. Yes, that's trillion with a 't.' Excuse me, but is that number unbelievably high?

The $2.1 trillion figure was 7 percent higher than in 2005, and although the 2006 figure indicates that health care spending is actually slowing down from just a decade ago, it may be headed for higher ground in the near future.

Why on earth are we spending so much on health care in the U.S.? Although the $2.1 trillion figure includes everything from insurance to individual spending and from local to federal government spending, the figure is still astounding.

The U.S. population hasn't doubled in the last decade, nor will it double by 2016. However, by 2016, the figure is estimated to hit $4.1 trillion (PDF link) from 2006's $2.1 trillion. That's one meaty decade for health care expenditures.

Kathy Stangl, a woman who was supposed to die last April according to her doctors, is still alive and well -- and she wants to know what the next President is going to do about the state of health care in the U.S.

Strangl says "I want to see what they said about health care, what they said about research." This is a question every single American should be asking of those Presidential hopefuls currently crossing the nation on the campaign trail, hearing things from citizens and blowing smoke in the opposite direction.

Instead of waiting on her days to end, Strangl has attended more than 70 campaign events and has directly questioned two potential candidates. If most of the U.S. is to continue its high-stress, overweight, no-exercise state of affairs, we'll all need health care one day soon. Is that how you are going to vote for the next President?

Are community food pantries the b est place to have that blood pressure checked or that cholesterol level checked? If a project out of Wisconsin takes hold at food pantries nationwide, these sources for food staples for the needy may become miniature clinics as well.

The project is part of a movement to get small medical services into the hands of the uninsured at a place where they're likely to visit often -- food pantries.

Is this a good idea -- to find a popular location for which to provide (sell or give away) medical services to those that could not afford it in the first place? With over 40 million uninsured people in the U.S., the data would say yes -- get health services to those that don't receive them regularly any way you can. Do you agree?

Although the monetary gap between those with money and those without remains significant around the world, at least those without are finding it easier to find food and health care due to not having enough money.

In a recent study by the Kaiser Foundation and the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 35 poor countries were studied to determine trends in food and health care availability.

In 23 of the 35 countries, fewer respondents reported they had not missed health care because of money, with the study reporting that improved national conditions were the reason for increased health care visibility for these poorer patients. The report concluded that "global health is a local phenomenon."

Our health care system is at risk of bleeding to death. With so much attention paid to reactionary care, as opposed to preventative care, major illnesses and diseases that could have been dealt with at their earliest stages (when they would have cost the least to treat) are instead treated when complications arise, which is typically the stage when treatment is most costly. This is why it is paramount that the government take decisive action to stop, or at least reduce, the obesity problem in this country.

Having just posted on the possibility of viruses causing people to gain weight, I think it's pretty clear that my stance on this matter is certainly not Anti-Fat. In fact, I think it rather unfair to blame, ridicule and castigate people merely because they carry more weight than others. That being said, there is little disputing the fact that extremely overweight people run a much higher risk of developing diabetes, heart disease, and many other chronic illnesses -- all of which are, just as unarguably, very expensive to treat. And, based on the recently Trust for America's Health annual report on the status of obesity in this country, it doesn't look like things are getting any better (serving to explain why we recieved an "F").

Since last year, obesity rates climbed in 31 states. Worse yet, not a single state witnessed a decrease in obesity rates. Thirty percent of people living in Mississippi are overweight, making it the fattest state in the country. The report also stated that most states in the South and Midwest have obesity rates over 25 percent. Furthermore, in these regions, about 30 percent of people admit to not engaging in any exercise program whatsoever, which clearly correlates with the obesity rates.

Given the fact that around $35 billion was spent by consumers last year on weight loss-related products and services, yet the aforementioned numbers persist, it's clear that the general public is dropping the ball. It's time that the government stepped to the plate on this issue before it completely cripples our health care system.

In what could be a watershed announcement, the FDA has now said that it cannot protect the nation's food supply any longer.

That's quite an admission from the federal agency whose main charge is to protect the health of Americans, including watching over the safety of the national food supply.

Is the FDA simply overwhelmed? Perhaps. The new report out this week states that "This imbalance is imposing a significant risk to the integrity of the food, drug, cosmetic and device regulatory system, and hence the safety of the public." Ouch -- that is not a good admission.

It's estimated that about 40 million adults are without health insurance, according to a new study from the U.S. government. With no more than 300 million citizens in the U.S., that's a staggering amount of people without health insurance.

But, not all of that amount just can't access needed health care -- they can't afford it as well. Affordability and access are two different things, yes?

Do you believe that health care will be a top issue in next year's presidential election? I do -- and proponents of privatizing health care along with those that believe the government should subsidize a majority of health care costs will surely square off. Among the ammunition will be 40 million Americans without health care.

How does a celebrity affect a hospital waiting room? It's an amazing thing really, as this Time article points out. Even a minor celebrity can turn the usual unpleasant attitudes (who's ever happy to need medical attention?) into much more positive, trusting, and happy ones. People who would normally be eyeing the doctors and nurses suspiciously are suddenly all too happy to trust whatever they say and whatever they're doing, because after all if they're good enough to care for a celebrity they're good enough for the rest of us, right?

Interesting how fame can suddenly inspire faith in a completely unrelated area like health care, and although it's hardly okay I can totally see how it happens. Celebrity endorsements work for everything else regardless of merit, why not medical care?

Health care in the U.S. will most likely be the single largest issue in next year's presidential election outside the 'war on terror,' and experts are already preparing roadmaps of suggestions to feed the candidates.

Areas like more organized care and overall health emphasis (not expensive interventions like drugs) are being brought up, as well as that old bugaboo: ensuring everyone in this country who is a citizen receives access to health insurance.

The insurance undertaking alone will be a monumental effort in policymaking, but a major suggestion so far has been to combine the efforts of federal, state, employer and private coverage to provide some kind of universal coverage.