Silent Inflammation--a not so silent Killer!

Every wellness-conscious person should be aware of the silent killer responsible for many multi system deadly and disabling disorders. My friend and a colleague Dr. Bary Sears is clear and concise--please read, it might improve and/or save your life!

Be aware, talk to your doctor, get tested and get treated, if needed!

Be Well and remember that it's not the effort that counts, but its effectiveness!

Dr.D.

Shame on John Edwards...

...for shamelessly exploiting the unfortunate progression of his wife's cancer. Her previous bouts of cancer did not stop Mr. Edwards from campaigning in 2004 when his wife was receiving chemotherapy. Her psychological scars of abandonment are probably still healing.

Shame on Mr. Edwards for using his wife's now fatal condition to "breed new life" into his losing candidacy for President

Fortunately, during my 32 years of carING for patients with cancer and other terminal diseases (with and without social stigma attached) I only came across one patient, and one next of kin that were actively publicizing and benefiting from their terminal diseases.

Both individuals were illegally abandoned by their "mangled care" insurance companies, and were doing so to collect funds for life-prolonging treatments.

Fortunately for Mrs. Edwards, she appears to be able to afford the best care available in this country without participating in a public debate and discussion of her most sacred possession: her life--a "living monument" to her husband's ambitions, despite his floundering campaign.

Shame oh her physicians for their willing participation in Mrs. Edwards' joint CNN-FOX disease management circus, and for possible HIPAA violations.

Mr. Edwards' time "invested" in press releases, news conferences, TV appearances, etc might have had a "higher return" should he engage in private carING for his wife.

I wonder if Mr. Edwards can ride the "sympathy wave" long enough to make a difference?

We gripe, you decide.

Be Well!

"Mangled Healthcare" for All

With great fanfare the Consumer Federation of California (CFC) announced on February 27th, 2007 that "...every Californian deserves access to high quality, affordable health coverage"--a noble concept, indeed.

I certainly agree that “Our health care system is a disaster for the uninsured and insured alike. Nearly seven million Californians are uninsured. Co-payments for workers are skyrocketing, and businesses that cover their employees are being crushed under the rapid escalation in insurance premium rates."

When originally introduced to this naive country and promoted by then, and still, misguided and ill qualified Mrs. Clinton and her Jackson Hole task Force, it was defined as: " A prepaid risk-based system of integrated health care delivery, having appropriate capabilities to improve quality of care and manage utilization and cost of a given population.” (Thomas Morrow, MD., at NMHCC/IT Fall 1998, Los Angeles, CA)

Here are my postulates of "Mangled Care" vs Managed CarING:

•If someone is already paying a lot, let him or her continue
•Even if a lot of people complain about quality of managed care, it won’t contain cost
•Never provide coverage unless the treatment is unpleasant
•Quality is being in a waiting room with people who earn more money than you do

Managed care is an oxymoron by default--this system that should have been providing health carING, while managing costs--in its present form is better described as mangled health care.

The for-profit (and very profitable) “managed care” companies have embraced, and are functioning under divergent and practically mutually exclusive core values.

These companies are obligated to provide (or rather severely ration) health care services. They are also obligated to generate consistent profits for the executives and shareholders of those companies.

When the provision of proper health care and managed care companies profits come into direct conflict, it creates a “double explosion” of the system, where the availability and quality of health services goes down, while costs of services and mangled care companies' profits go up.

This abominable situation creates significant “counter-incentives” to provision of appropriate, accessible, affordable health carING to Californians, which can be gauged by the divergence coefficient.

In addition to the conflicting core values, “business disconnects” exist due to logistical, financial, physical and ethical aspects of mangled health care:

•The recipient usually does not request, does not order or pay for the service.
•The payor never requests, does not receive nor order the service.
•The orderer does not pay nor receive the service.

Governor Schwarzenegger, a traditional foe of pro-patient health care reforms, now says he wants to address the health care crisis. Unfortunately, the governor’s proposal puts too much of the burden on the uninsured, and it fails to control cost increases. Similarly, Sen. Kuehl “Zelda’s Single Payor Legend” falls far short of the target.

While it’s true that every other industrial democracy offers universal health coverage to its citizens, it does not translate into universal health carING, and in the case of Canada and England is actually counter-productive.

Surely, universal health care made some inroads in Hawaii, but only because it is a State with a super tight control of population---there are no immigrants (especially illegal) pouring over the boarder from the rest of the world. California, from the point of health care services, is a perpetual bottomless barrel, with fixed amounts of moneys paying into the system, while an ever-increasing numbers of residents generate a snowball demand for services.

Before declaring that health care (not just basic and/or catastrophic), but in fact “appropriate” (cosmetics?) health care “…is a right, not a privilege – and every Californian deserves access to high quality, affordable health coverage…” the CFC might want to clarify the definition of a “Californian” to prevent even faster emptying of the “bottomless barrel”.

CFC’s purposely trying to confuse general public and exert undue influence on Legislators by implying that just because they are uninsured resident of California, they are uncared for. Nothing can be further from the truth--the tax-paying and health insurance-paying Californians are actually paying for the care of the un/under insured.

I also disagree with CFC’s assertion on the issues of providing “…universal health insurance for all Californians at no added cost simply by taking the for-profit insurance industry waste out of the system and using those dollars for the delivery of health services”.

Health consumers can request and receive health carING from doctors, nurses, pharmacists, hospitals, labs, pharmaceutical companies, etc, without mangled care companies.

Doctors, nurses, pharmacist, hospitals, labs, pharmaceutical companies, etc, can provide health carING without mangled care companies.

Healthcare consumers (Payors) can pay for health carING without mangled care companies.

Only complete elimination of the middle man-managed care companies can generate enough money to provide universal health carING.

Its time to move from patient-driven to health consumer-administered health carING.

California Government can only guarantee universal health care when all of the recipients of such care, including the illegals, pay their fare share.

Be Well!

Tobacco first, than...

In a letter of February 21, 2007 to US Representative Henry Waxman, http://www.house.gov/waxman/ Robert A. Donin, MPA, President of TRi-PAC writes:

"...On behalf of TRI-PAC Health and Wellness Advocacy, our Industry Advisory Board, as a longtime tobacco control advocate, and as your longtime constituent:

It is a personal privilege to congratulate, commend, and to express our SUPPORT and ENDORSEMENT of HR 1108.

Given your leadership and the new leadership in Congress, the time has come for the FDA to be granted authority to regulate the sale, production, and marketing of tobacco products.

Tobacco companies have long been able to play under their own rules and deceive the public.

As this legislation wades its way through the legislative process’, may the change in tobacco companies rules and operating process’ and the benefits to our citizens commence..."

As a Physician and a former smoker, I am wholeheartedly against smoking, and support any all efforts to educate the entire population as to to the dangers of all forms of tobacco use.

However, as a private citizen and longtime advocate of individual freedoms and health consumers rights, I am extremely concerned with governments, from local to Federal, getting into the business of controlling private lives of its citizens, and, in the process, infringing on the individual freedoms of citizens.

It started a while back with bars, than restaurants, than parks, than beaches, that public areas (City of Santa Monica-http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid252586736?bclid=254756163&bctid=254756161) and all the way to no smoking in the city (Calabasas and Belmont, both in California).

When enough is enough? How and when our health concerns balanced with the citizens rights!? Ms. Esther Schiller runs an organization dedicated to availability of smoke-free housing, especially affordable housing and is working with the City of Santa Monica to enact the appropriate ordinances (http://www.smokefreeapartments.org/).

I believe a person has a right to be dumb, uninformed, ignorant and/or outright self destructive (A.N.S.-RIP) with regard to tobacco uses, whether sniffing, chewing, or smoking, especially inside person's home.

Once citizens who used to use tobacco are under "control" the politicians will decide to "control" global warming. According to Al Gore, the best way to reduce his personal carbon foot print is to buy indulgence (carbon credits) for his own energy-wasting life style. What if, in the interest of reduction of carbon foot print the government decides to control flatulence? Are we going to see flatulence-free bars, parks, beaches, public buildings, and entire cities (like Santa Monica)?

How do you balance occasionally involuntary physiologic occurrence (of cultural significance in some European countries) with other peoples right not to be exposed to noxious and potentially harmful methane? Should the "flatulant", or "flatulator" be fined and/or forced to buy carbon credits like Al Gore does?

I for one, think the government should start "no flatulating" enforcement in enclosed/crowded spaces like bathrooms, elevators, Costco check-out lines, movie theaters, prisons, museums and Jet Blue planes! But than again, according to Al Gore, there are legitimate energy uses of bio-gases!?

A person has the right to smoke & be flatulent by the same reasons that a person enjoys its foundation right to self-determination, which allows a person to refuse medical treatment for any reason, or without one, and soon will allow a person to exercise its right to die painlessly, with dignity, and without attached stigma.

Don't use tobacco & be well!

TRI-PAC Health and Wellness Advocacy can be contacted at: 11693 San Vicente Boulevard, #346, Los Angeles, CA. 90049, robertdonin@yahoo.com; 310-319-9305, 310-420-2169 ©

Request to Chairman Dymally

Given the reintroduction today of the Compassionate Choices Act of 2007 (AB 374), and recent announcement of support by the Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez, Prof. V.S. Dorodny, TRI-PAC Health & Wellness Advocacy and the NEW Institute have appealed to the Chairman of the Assembly Health Committee Mervyn Dymally.

Prof. V.S. Dorodny, a long time health carING and patient rights advocate, is seeking support and endorsement of the subject legislation by the powerful Chairman to reflect the intent and the will of the overwhelming majority of Californians.

We hope that this long overdue legislation (AB 374) will become law.

Thank you Mr.Speaker

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez said Tuesday, February 13, 2007 that he will join Van Nuys Democrat Lloyd Levine in leading a legislative move (AB 374) this year to establish an Oregon-style, physician-assisted suicide law in California.

A Senate committee narrowly rejected a similar bill by Levine and Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Santa Rosa, last year.

But Levine and Berg said odds of passage have risen now that they have the support of Nuñez, a Los Angeles Democrat.

The legislation, modeled after the nine-year-old Oregon Death With Dignity Act, would allow adults diagnosed with less than six months to live to receive life-ending drugs from a doctor and take them by themselves.

They would have to be determined to be mentally competent, see two doctors, make written and oral requests for the medicine, be counseled about alternatives and wait through a cooling-off time.

Only the patient would be able to make the decision, not a family member or a guardian.
A spokesman for Nuñez, who leads the Democrat-dominated Assembly, said the speaker thought long and hard about taking on the high-profile role of joint author on the effort.