Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Suzanne Somers Calls ObamaCare "A Socialist Ponzi Scheme"

WSJ:Susanne Somers thumb SUZANNE SOMERS: As a writer of 24 books mostly on health and wellness and by using my celebrity to get to the best and brightest doctors, scientists and medical professionals in the alternative and integrative health-care world, I have come to the following conclusions:

First of all, let’s call affordable health care what it really is: It’s socialized medicine.

I’ve had an opportunity to watch the Canadian version of affordable health care in action with all its limitations with my Canadian husband’s family. A few years ago, I was startled to see the cover of Maclean’s, a national Canadian magazine, showing a picture of a dog on an examining table with the headline, “Your Dog Can Get Better Health Care Than You.” It went on to say that young Canadian medical students have no incentive to become doctors to humans because they can’t make any money. Instead, there is a great surge of Canadian students becoming veterinarians. That’s where the money is. A Canadian animal can have timely MRIs, surgeries and any number of tests it needs to receive quality health care.

My sister-in-law had to wait two months to get a General Practitioner. During this period she spent her days in bed vomiting continuously, unable to get any food or drink down because she couldn’t get an appointment with the doctor. When she finally did, the doctor said, “Oh you don’t need me, you need a specialist.” That took another two weeks until she got a pill that corrected the problem.

Really, is this what we want?

All of my husband’s cousins are doctors. Several have moved to the U.S. because after their years of intensive schooling, they want to reap financial rewards. My 75-year-old Canadian girlfriend was denied treatment because she was too old. She died recently, having been given palliative care. That’s all the system would allow.

Affordable care will allow for pre-existing conditions. That’s the good part for retirees. But, let’s get down and dirty; the word “affordable” is a misnomer. So far, all you are hearing on the news is how everyone’s premiums are doubling and tripling and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that the whole thing is a big mess. Plus, even after Obamacare is fully implemented, there still will be tens of millions of people not covered. So what’s the point? Medical care will be degraded, the costs will skyrocket, and most frightening of all, your most intimate and personal information is now up for grabs.

So, is affordable care a good thing for retirees? Perhaps over time, it might work if you don’t get too old and you don’t get too sick, and you don’t live too long. But frankly, the economic ramifications with our already swollen debt load don’t add up. Retirees who are on Medicare will suffer the consequences of 700 billions of Medicare dollars instead being used to cover the skyrocketing cost of Obamacare. In essence, less dollars for seniors, means less service. Not fair. The Boomers are going to take the “hit.” In Obamacare, “too old” has limitations of service.

Boomers are smart. They see the train wreck coming… most I speak with think the Affordable Care Act is a greater Ponzi scheme than that pulled off by Bernie Madoff.

CORRECTIONS AND AMPLIFICATIONS:

An earlier version of this post contained a quotation attributed to Lenin (“Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state”) that has been widely disputed. And it included a quotation attributed to Churchill (“Control your citizens’ health care and you control your citizens“) that the Journal has been unable to confirm.

Also, the cover of a Maclean’s magazine issue in 2008 showed a picture of a dog on an examining table with the headline “Your Dog Can Get Better Health Care Than You.” An earlier version of this post incorrectly said the photo showed and headline referred to a horse.

What will the Affordable Care Act mean for retirees?

Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) is a health advocate, entrepreneur, Emmy-nominated actress and author including: Newest Book: I'm Too Young for This!: The Natural Hormone Solution to Enjoy Perimenopause (Kindle), as well as: Bombshell: Explosive Medical Secrets That Will Redefine Aging, The Sexy Years: Discover the Hormone Connection: The Secret to Fabulous Sex, Great Health, and Vitality, for Women and Men, Sexy Forever: How to Fight Fat after Forty, Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones, Suzanne Somers' Get Skinny on Fabulous Food, Breakthrough: Eight Steps to Wellness, Suzanne Somers' Eat Great, Lose Weight: Eat All the Foods You Love in "Somersize" Combinations to Reprogram Your Metabolism, Shed Pounds for Good, and Have More Energy Than Ever BeforeBombshell: Explosive Medical Secrets That Will Redefine Aging and more.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

$634 Million ObamaCare Website Company was Fired by Canada

500xNxObamacare.jpg.pagespeed.ic.d1b4NYtYqW

FrontpageMagazine: So Obama took a Canadian company that Canadian officials fired for screwing up their health care website and gave it a much bigger job.

Canadian provincial health officials last year fired the parent company of CGI Federal, the prime contractor for the problem-plagued Obamacare health exchange websites, the Washington Examiner has learned.

CGI Federal’s parent company, Montreal-based CGI Group, was officially terminated in September 2012 by an Ontario government health agency after the firm missed three years of deadlines and failed to deliver the province’s flagship online medical registry.

The online registry was supposed to be up and running by June 2011.

The CMS officials refused to say if federal officials knew of its parent company’s IT failure in Canada when awarding the six contracts.

It wasn’t just those contracts. As mentioned earlier, Obama dumped huge amounts of money on CGI.

CGI Federal is a subsidiary of Montreal-based CGI Group. With offices in Fairfax, Va., the subsidiary has been a darling of the Obama administration, which since 2009 has bestowed it with $1.4 billion in federal contracts, according to USAspending.gov.

HHS is by far the single largest federal contractor of CGI, showering it with $645 million in contracts. The Defense Department pays the Canadian company $254 million, the EPA $58 million and the Justice Department $36 million.

In comparison, in 2008, under President George W. Bush, CGI contracts totaled only $16.5 million for all federal departments and agencies.

The interesting question is why Obama dumped 1.4 billion in taxpayer money on a company this incompetent and ignored all the warnings.

It’s one more thing that ought to be investigated.

The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One's Talking About

Monday, October 21, 2013

The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One's Talking About

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnyUrXKPOTha9z8KUu_8nUUpkDl_l3HCtlmkugcvZKwe7rPi6_nJAn5FZo3PM48tJ44vK6zV0uwUljojzxwGz2vi4FUNeEYGghmYihQ03D3qoXYaypE4ewiyCFQp6JCEJFecEz5VMZeSCP/s1600/062812_Obamacare-lied.jpg

JoshuaPundit – Cross-Posted at AskMarion: At this point, much is being made about the failure of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare.

President Obama himself tacitly admitted as much by calling in what amounts to an emergency rescue squad from Silicon Valley to try and make sense of the dysfunctional website...paid for by the American taxpayers at a staggering cost of over $500 million. (And some say it cost as much $634 Million and was not even an American company.  That’s right… that outrageous amount of American taxpayer money went to a Canadian company.)The website itself was granted to a company with connections to Obama backer George Soros, CGI Federal in a no bid contract, and the job they did was so amateurish and sloppy that they even opened the government to a lawsuit for violating the licensing agreement of a copyrighted web script used by the site.

The estimated cost to repair the system and get it up and running again may run as high as $2 billion, and it might take months to repair.

Meanwhile, Americans coast to coast are experiencing sticker shock over the huge increases to their existing healthcare policies, and the demographic ObamaCare targeted to pay the freight - largely uninsured healthy young adults - is steering clear as they discover what enrolling in ObamaCare actually entails.

For instance, here’s a typical deal that's being offered:

“One option available only to people under 30 is a so-called catastrophic policy that kicks in after a $6,350 annual deductible. In Monroe County, you can buy that policy on the New York State of Health exchange for as low as $131 a month for single coverage.”
Let's look at the math. They're offering coverage for $1,572.00 per year that only kicks in after you pay $6,350, not a sum the majority of under 30s still paying off student loans have laying around even if they happen to have full time jobs. Any wonder that healthy young adults aren't signing up, and opting to pay the tax instead? And without their participation, ObamaCare is doomed to failure.
There are significant voices on the right end of the spectrum who are saying that the best policy is simply to allow this debacle to happen. The strategy they're touting assumes that when this happens, both President Obama and the Democrats will be blamed for the colossal and expensive failure and it will all end up collapsing and eventually being repealed anyway.

They're missing two important factors.

First, no federal entitlement has ever been repealed.They just morph into something different in the name of 'reform'.

And that brings us to the second factor, the dirty secret behind ObamaCare - it was always designed to fail.

President Obama and his minions always had the goal of Sovietizing the American health care system by making it single payer and having it controlled solely by the Federal government. ObamaCare was never anything more than a poorly constructed Potemkin village designed to fail so miserably that the American people would demand single payer just to get rid on the unwieldy mess ObamaCare would create.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid admitted as much  when he was asked whether Obama Care was merely a step towards single payer answering, “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

Senator Reid's told PBS in his interview that he and other 'progressives' wanted single payer all along, but even with the Democrats having a veto proof majority in 2009, they didn't have the 60 votes needed to push it through.

“We had a real good run at the public option … don’t think we didn’t have a tremendous number of people who wanted a single-payer system,” Reid said.

But in the end, some Democrats weren't willing to go along - Reid named former Senator Joe Lieberman as a prominent obstacle - so they opted for the next best thing...a cumbersome train wreck in the making which, as an added benefit, provided plenty of pork and contracts for well connected donors as well as 'new revenues' the Democrat euphemism for increased taxes.

Not only that, but it provided funding and employment for President Obama's friends at ACORN as ObamaCare 'navigators', regardless of felony convictions and legal resident status.

That's where things stand now. The next target, especially if President Obama's union allies get the waiver they're screaming for will be an all out assault on employer-sponsored health care, with vast increases on co-pays and employee contributions...except, of course if you're lucky enough to work for someone who has a waiver or is subsidized, like members of congress and their staffers.

Repeal of ObamaCare is the only way to avoid this. 'Reform' just adds another facade to an already corrupt and crumbling structure. And repeal is going to involve electing enough members of Congress in 2014 with the spine to insist on repeal and stick to it, as well as holding their feet to the fire to make sure they don't weasel out in classic DC fashion.

And yes, those really are the only choices available.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Obamacare's secret plan: Destroy and 'rescue'

Exclusive: Dr. Lee Hieb explains how health bill creates disaster – on purpose

scarydoctor-340x170WND: The real name of Obamacare – a name known only to a few policy wonks and politically correct medical students – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA. With a name like that, who could object to it? Who would be against “patient protection” or “affordable” when it comes to a government-funded program such as Medicare? Really, who would want “unaffordable,” though that’s generally what we get in government spending programs? But what does “Affordable Care” really mean?

Although Obamacare is fluid, being rewritten hourly, as of this moment, the plan is to create “accountable care organizations,” or ACOs. These will be defined by geographic areas that contain a certain number of patients. Currently, for example, a pilot ACO blankets a large area of northwestern Iowa.

You the patient, at first, won’t know that you “belong” to the ACO. But the government has assigned you, if you are a Medicare recipient, to a specific ACO. The ACOs will then be held responsible for quality – as defined by government – and for cost containment.

I recently attended a pie-in-the-sky, rah-rah session given by the CFO of one of the new pilot ACOs. He went into great detail about the good deal awaiting those hospital systems that play the game well. The details, as he admitted, are somewhat lacking, as the rules continue to be written. But I got the big picture. The big picture is: This is a three-step shell game to bring about the death of private practice medicine in America.

Here is how it will work.

Step one: America will be sliced up geographically into ACOs, which will gather all sorts of patient-care data for the feds and will be paid a fee for service at Medicare rates. The ACOs will be lauded as the saviors of medicine and given bonuses for quality and cost containment. Currently, they are being offered a 50-percent cash rebate for any savings they bring about. Patients can choose to go anywhere for care, in or out of the ACO. Private practitioners outside the system will be “allowed” to keep practicing, they will not be forced to join the ACOs – that would be un-American – but these small practices will be unable to survive the regulatory burden of Obamacare. So, these doctors will retire early, or close up shop or simply go to work for the ACOs, where they will do better financially.

Step two: Once private practitioners are squeezed out of existence, there will be no competition. The ACOs will be the only show in town and totally under the thumb of the federal government. At this point, the bonus money will go away, and the feds will squeeze down payment to doctors and hospitals. (The CFO who spoke at our meeting may think the federal government is willing to leave free money on the table for him to pick up, but that only is doled out to favored political donors, not to producers. The bonus is simply another bribe historically given to businesses by government in order to make them vassals of the state … and businesses never seem to learn.) Small hospitals will have to consolidate under big ones or go out of business. At this point, to prepare for the final step, rumblings of problems in the ACOs will start.

Step three: As government reimbursements diminish and there is no private option, the system will fail to deliver adequate care. Patients won’t be able to get appointments or timely surgery, doctors will complain, hospital staffs will strike and in general the system will implode. Government, always ready to leap into the breach (and reminiscent of the precedent of the Reichstag fire), will declare a national crisis and push through emergency legislation – that is already in the system – to nationalize health care. Hospitals will be taken over by the feds, doctors and nurses and all necessary personnel will have no choice but to be government employees, and at this point patients will be assigned to the ACOs without any choice in the matter. At the stroke of a pen health insurance will cease to exist, and perhaps the companies who sold insurance will be placed in charge of administrating these ACOs. (This road is already being paved as big companies like Blue Cross are given government contracts to administer Medicare.)

Think this can’t happen? Even some of the ACO administrators admit they are being set up to fail. But fail to what end? To the goal which has been the goal all along: establish a national health service ala Canada or England or Sweden. This is not a medical or societal evolution; this is programmed incremental revolution, and we – like the Russians and French and Cubans – will pay the price, because when free market medicine goes, so goes freedom. The power that brings about this government takeover will not limit itself to medicine. It will consume every facet of the social and economic life of America.

Libertatem requiescant in pace.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

SICK & SICKER: ObamaCare Canadian Style–Please Take the Time to Watch This

This presentation of the movie SICK & SICKER is sponsored by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons. However, instant downloads, DVDs and screening packages are available at http://www.sickandsickermovie.com or by calling 310-795-2509.
Where will ObamaCare lead America?

Logan Darrow Clements shows what happens when "the government becomes your doctor" using licensed news footage from Canadian TV, interviews with doctors, patients, journalists, a health minister, a Member of Parliament, a doctor who went on a hunger strike as well the producer's own Canadian relatives. Clements even rents a hospital to show the mismatch between supply and demand in a medical system run by politicians. SICK and SICKER puts ObamaCare on ice with cold hard facts from Canada. (widescreen, color, 50 minutes)

This is an important watch, if you haven’t seen it, and timely since the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing arguments right now on overturning the entire law as well as just the individual mandate.

Video: SICK & SICKER: ObamaCare Canadian Style  - Please take the time to watch

Video: Obama Argues Against Obamacare

--> Listen to Audio of Supreme Court over Obamacare <--

Day One of the Supreme Court ObamaCare Hearings  -  Day One ObamaCare Hearing Summary

First words leaking from the court room after day two is that Judge Kennedy appeared to be leaning toward overturning the mandate based on his questions.  -  Day Two ObamaCare Hearing Summary to come… Please check back later.

March 23rd Second Anniversary of ObamaCare… March 26th a Future Day in American Infamy?

The 5 possible fates of 'ObamaCare'

h/t to MJ

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Scientists Cure Cancer, But No One Takes Notice

Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have recently cured cancer, yet there is but little ripple in the news or on TV. It is a simple technique using a very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders, so there is no concern of side effects or other long term effects.

The drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies.

Canadian scientists tested dichloroacetate (DCA) on human cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, but why are the major drug companies not involved, or the media not interested in this find?

In human cells there is a natural cancer fighting organelle, the mitochondria, but it needs to be triggered in order to be effective. Scientists used to think that the mitochondria of cancerous cells were damaged and thus ineffective. They used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in fighting cancer and wasteful. The drug manufacturers focused on the glycolysis method to fight cancer. DCA treatment on the other hand doesn’t rely on glycolysis but instead on reactivating the mitochondria; which allows the cell to die and preventing the cancer from spreading.

This reactivation is a process called apoptosis. You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that cannot be pressed in cancer cells. Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished. Fully functioning mitochondria, thanks to DCA, can once again allow them to die.

With glycolysis turned off, the body produces less lactic acid, so the bad tissue around cancer cells doesn’t break down and seed new tumors.

Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, and without a patent they cannot make money. They’re currently making fortunes with their AIDS patent. Since the pharmaceutical companies won’t develop DCA drugs, independent laboratories should start researching DCA more to confirm all of the above findings and begin producing drugs. All of the groundwork can be done in collaboration with the universities, who will be glad to assist in such research and can develop an effective drug for curing cancer.

This article hopes to raise more awareness of dichloroacetate, and to hopefully inspire some independent companies and small startups to pick up on this idea and begin producing life-saving drugs… because the big companies won’t be touching it for a long time.

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Gekko  -  Money Trends Research ^

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Canola Oil… Danger?!?

Olive oil comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil from sunflowers, but what is a canola?

Canola is not the name of a natural plant but a made-up word, from the words "Canada" and "oil". Canola is a genetically engineered plant developed in Canada from the Rapeseed Plant, which is part of the mustard family of plants. According to AgriAlternatives, The Online Innovation, and Technology Magazine for Farmers, "By nature, these rapeseed oils, which have long been used to produce oils for industrial purposes, are...toxic to humans and other animals".

Rapeseed oil is poisonous to living things and is an excellent insect repellant. I have been using it (in very diluted form, as per instructions) to kill the aphids on my roses for the last two years. It works very well; it suffocates them. Ask for it at your nursery. Rape is an oil that is used as a lubricant, fuel, soap and synthetic rubber base and as a illuminate for color pages in magazines. It is an industrial oil.

It is not a food.

Rape oil is strongly related to symptoms of emphysema, respiratory distress, anemia, constipation, irritability, and blindness in animals and humans. Rape oil was widely used in animal feeds in England and Europe between 1986 and 1991, when it was discontinued.

A few relevant facts

It is genetically engineered rapeseed. Canada paid the FDA the sum of $50 million to have rape registered and recognized as "safe". (Source: Young Again and others)

Rapeseed is a lubricating oil used by small industry. It has never been meant for human consumption.

It is derived from the mustard family and is considered a toxic and poisonous weed, which when processed, becomes rancid very quickly.

It has been shown to cause lung cancer (Wall Street Journal: 6/7/95)

It is very inexpensive to grow and harvest. Insects won't eat it.

Some typical and possible side effects include loss of vision, disruption of the central nervous system, respiratory illness, anemia, constipation, increased incidence of heart disease and cancer, low birth weights in infants and irritability.

Generally rapeseed has a cumulative effect, taking almost 10 years before symptoms begin to manifest. It has a tendency to inhibit proper metabolism of foods and prohibits normal enzyme function. Canola is a Trans Fatty Acid, which has shown to have a direct link to cancer. These Trans Fatty acids are labeled as hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils. Avoid all of them!

According to John Thomas' book, Young Again, 12 years ago in England and Europe, rapeseed was fed to cows, pigs and sheep who later went blind and began attacking people. There were no further attacks after the rapeseed was eliminated from their diet.

Source: David Dancu, N.D.

Apparently peanut oil is being replaced with rape oil. You'll find it in an alarming number of processed foods. I read where rape oil was the source of the chemical warfare agent mustard gas, which was banned after blistering the lungs and skins of hundred of thousands of soldiers and civilians during W.W.I. Recent French reports indicate that it was again in use during the Gulf War.

Check products for ingredients. If the label says, "may contain the following" and lists canola oil, you know it contains canola oil because it is the cheapest oil and the Canadian government subsidizes it to industries involved in food processing.

Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) is a rare fatal degenerative disease caused by in a build up long-chain fatty acids (c22 to c28) which destroys the myelin (protective sheath) of the nerves. Canola oil is a very long chain fatty acid oil (c22). Those who will defend canola oil say that the Chinese and Indians have used it for centuries with no effect, however it was in an unrefined form.*

(* taken from FATS THAT HEAL AND FATS THAT KILL by Udo Erasmus.) I read about a man who bred birds, always checking labels to insure there was no rapeseed in their food. He said, "The birds will eat it, but they do not live very long." A friend, who worked for only 9 mo. as a quality control taster at an apple-chip factory where Canola oil was used exclusively for frying, developed numerous health problems.

Rapeseed oil used for stir-frying in China found to emit cancer-causing chemicals. (Rapeseed oil smoke causes lung cancer.) Amal Kumar Maj. The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 1995 pB6(W) pB6 (E) col 1(11 col in). Compiled by Darleen Bradley.

Because of the lungs need for essential fatty acids in the oxidation relationship I have to suspect that canola oil has a quite negative affect on the way we breathe.

MORE FROM AN HERBAL WEB SITE-rmhiherbal.org

Canola oil Because of the public scare over animal fats, sales of vegetable oils of all types increased. It was the established wisdom that those oils high in polyunsaturated fatty acids were especially beneficial (animal fats are high in saturated fatty acids). The obsession with polyunsaturated versus saturated fats led researchers and nutritionists to overlook some of the other features of vegetable oils that we now know are crucial to health, including: (1) susceptibility to rancidity; (2) ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids and its relevance in inflammatory diseases and immune system function; (3) possible presence of irritating or toxic compounds in particular plant oils. Unlike the case of trans-fatty acids, for which there is massive amount of research data, there is much less documented scientific research on canola oil consumption in humans, specifically.

Some sources (unverified) claim that the Canadian government and industry paid the U.S. FDA $50 million dollars to have canola oil placed on the GRAS ("Generally Recognized As Safe") list, which allowed the canola industry to avoid the lengthy and expensive approval process, including medical research on humans. However, experimental rats that were fed canola oil "developed fatty degeneration of the heart, kidney, adrenals, and thyroid gland. On withdrawing the canola oil from their diets, the deposits dissolved but scar tissue remained on all vital organs." [ref. 3a] In the absence of direct research studies of canola oil and human health, many concerned nutritionists and biochemists have attempted to analyze the canola oil situation on the basis of current knowledge of the biochemistry of fats and oils. While hard-nosed canola industry spokespersons may claim such commentary to be speculative, in the absence of proof of safety, anyone concerned about their family's health should pay close attention to the various arguments and warnings. [refs. 3a - 3i; for canola industry position, see refs. 3j, 3k]

The Canola Council of Canada has published a report [ref. 3k] that focuses heavily on the high polyunsaturated fatty acid content of canola oil and the presumed benefits of polyunsaturated oils on various blood parameters (platelet phospholipids, platelet aggregation, eicosanoid production, clotting time). In spite of the many scientific references listed at the end of the report, the author studiously avoids discussion of the toxic effects mentioned by many nutritionists and biochemists, and, instead, attempts to link many of the benefits of Mediterranean-type diets high in olive oil to diets high in canola oil, when in fact, no such evidence is presented, and canola oil has never been part of a traditional Mediterranean diet.

Concerns about the risks of using canola (rapeseed) oil focus on several aspects: (1) the presence of long-chain fatty acids, including erucic acid, which are thought by some to cause CNS degeneration, heart disease, and cancer; (2) the high temperatures needed in the refining process to make canola oil palatable, which lead to formation of trans-fatty acids; (3) miscellaneous undesirable chemical constituents (thioglycosides and thiocyanates) whose effects are unclear, as their concentration in the refined product is probably very low. Although Chinese and Indian peoples have long used rapeseed oil in cooking, it was not refined and processed to the extent of modern commercial methods, and it was never considered to be a high quality oil for human consumption. Ayurvedic physicians have for thousands of years classified olive, almond, and sesame as the best oils for human health, and have considered safflower, soybean and rapeseed oils to be undesirable for human consumption except perhaps when no other oil sources were available. Recent epidemiological studies of high lung cancer rates in Chinese women suggest that wok cooking with rapeseed oil is responsible, rather than tobacco smoking, which was only a weak factor. Chinese rapeseed oil tended to produce the highest emissions of the potentially carcinogenic or mutagenic compounds 1,3-butadiene, benzene, acrolein, and formaldehyde, when compared with soybean oil and peanut oil. [ref. 3n] Canola oil contains a long-chain fatty acid called erucic acid, which is especially irritating to mucous membranes; canola oil consumption has been correlated with development of fibrotic lesions of the heart, CNS degenerative disorders, lung cancer, and prostate cancer, anemia, and constipation. [ref. 3a, 3b]

Canola oil derives from the plants Brassica campestris and B. napus, which have been selectively bred to substantially reduce the erucic acid content. However, some health professionals feel that there is still too much present in current canola oil products for safe use. Some critics of canola oil focus on the fact that rapeseed oil was originally used as an industrial lubricant and known to be unfit for human consumption, although many vegetable oils have been used in industrial applications as well as in foods. The long-chain fatty acids found in canola have been found to destroy the sphingomyelin surrounding nerve cells in the brain, in some cases leading to a degenerative brain condition remarkably similar to mad-cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy); in advanced cases the brain tissue develops a Swiss-cheese-like appearance, full of holes. Illnesses and conditions that have been associated with canola oil consumption include loss of vision (retinal capillaries are very sensitive and easily damaged), and a wide range of neurological disorders. [ref. 3a]

The high temperatures used in canola refining will damage many of the essential fatty acids, which are much more susceptible to damage by heat than saturated fats. (Heat may convert many of the unsaturated double bonds to the "trans" configuration.) While high-quality essential fatty acids are required for human health, in their damaged or rancid forms they become harmful. Additional problems with canola oil include the presence of minute, but potentially dangerous, amounts of thioglycosides, which have thyrotoxic effects. [ref. 3m]

To reduce the concentration of these compounds requires processing with alkalinizing agents plus high temperatures; unfortunately, the high temperatures used in processing have other undesirable effects, the most serious of which is the conversion of unsaturated fats to the trans form. Rapeseed has been selectively bred and genetically engineered [ref. 3a] in an attempt to reduce the toxic components and processing methods were developed to further reduce the concentration of undesirable compounds. Prior to its entry into the "health" food market, it was known as rapeseed oil, but savvy marketing professionals knew that the health food market, heavily dominated by young, college-educated women, would not purchase a repulsive-sounding product called rapeseed oil. The name of the selectively bred variety was changed to canola (as in "Canadian oil"; it has been heavily promoted by Canadian government and agricultural organizations) oil; the name rolls off the tongue with a mellifluous sound. [3.1]

Recommendations The biochemistry of plants and natural food products is often complex; the total effect of a given food on human health is dependent upon many chemical constituents and their interaction with biochemical pathways of the body. To radically alter our diets based on scientific evidence regarding only a few aspects of this biochemistry is like cooking in the dark. Common symptom reactions to unhealthy oils and fats, or to an unhealthy balance of the types of fats in one's diet include joint pain and aggravation of arthritic conditions, a general tendency to have increased tissue irritability and inflammation, and, in the case of unhealthy fats such as hydrogenated oils and excessive amounts of fried foods, abdominal fullness and indigestion. While these conditions also may be due to other factors, quality of fats and oils is important. How one feels immediately to within several days after eating specific types of fat is often a useful indicator of whether one's fat consumption is healthy or unhealthy. Avoid canola oil; there is too much doubt about its safety. Recommended oils and fats, which are essential nutrients, include moderate amounts of meat in the form of clean sources (organically grown, etc.) of beef, lamb, and other red meats, poultry, fish (especially sardines and mackerel), plus olive, almond, or sesame oil; of all the vegetable oils, olive oil is probably the safest and best for health reasons. All of these have been in traditional use in various cultures for thousands of years. Individual differences in metabolism will dictate needs for more or less of these types of oils and fats.

An attorney for the Canola people sent me this.

http://www.canola-council.org/production/thetruth.html

"If you read down into this page you will see a number of links to other independent and very reputable Web sites (the Cancer Association, American Society of Science and Health, Washington Post, Health Central and others) that refute the claims made on this page."

Recommendations Dr. Doug Graham states that oils in general inhibit nutrient absorption in the small intestine. With all the choices why take any chances?

If you must use oils

  • Pure Olive oil only.
  • Bariani (Sacramento California area) is a good one.
  • Udo's Choice or Russell Martino's EFAs is a real good one for balanced EFAs.
  • Safflower and Sunflower oils are OK, but they contain Omega 6 which may or may not be not a good option for the heart or the myelin sheaths.

Reject any foods, packaged or otherwise, which have in the label "...may contain vegetable oil, cottonseed, canola oil..." And if the label just says vegetable oil, we reject it outright since it does not specify which oil.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Democrats Set to Rush Through Government-Run Healthcare


Senate Democrats announced plans Tuesday to begin committee work next week on health care legislation designed to assure coverage for millions of Americans who now lack it, a key objective of the Obama administration.

IBut Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said the measure that goes before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would contain gaps rather than include several controversial features included in a draft that circulated only last week. Among them are a proposed government-run insurance plan to compete with private companies -- vociferously opposed by nearly all Republicans -- and a requirement for employers to pay a penalty if they fail to provide coverage for their workforce.

Dodd said he would preside over the sessions in the place of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the committee chairman, who was diagnosed more than a year ago with brain cancer and has not been in the Capitol in recent days. The committee work will take about three weeks, he said.

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the top Republican on the health committee, responded dismissively to Dodd's comments about leaving gaps for GOP lawmakers to debate.

He said Democrats did so "because they know we're not going to like what they've written and they don't want us to have any time to comment," he said in an interview.

Enzi also said Democrats would have behaved differently if Kennedy were present.

"I've never worked a process on any bill with him that went like this where there was absolutely no input taken from the other party," Enzi said. "And I never treated him that way either."

"What the question is, is Senator Dodd in charge or is he just running the meeting, and we don't know yet," Enzi said.

Dodd's announcement signaled a quickening pace of activity on health care legislation, and came as senior House Democrats disclosed they are considering a new tax on employer-provided health benefits to help pay for expanding coverage to the 50 million uninsured. President Barack Obama opposed a tax on benefits during last year's campaign and aired numerous television commercials criticizing the idea when his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, proposed it.

Several officials also said an outline of emerging legislation in the House envisions a requirement for all individuals to purchase affordable coverage, with an unspecified penalty for those who refuse and a waiver for those who cannot cover the cost.

"There's no sense having a mandate unless you have a contribution," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Monday. He referred to the suggestion as "play or pay."

Rangel and other senior Democrats arranged to bring members of the party's rank and file up to date at a midday session Tuesday on the effort to draft health care legislation at the top of President Barack Obama's agenda.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt the presentation to rank-and-file Democrats on Tuesday.

Under an outline of the House Democratic plan, individuals and small businesses would be able to purchase coverage from a "health exchange" and the government would require all plans to contain a minimum benefit. No applicant could be rejected for pre-existing conditions, nor could one be charged a higher premium.

The outline shows Democrats want to provide subsidies to families up to about $88,000 a year to help them pay for insurance, and to require new policies to limit out-of-pocket spending as a way to prevent personal bankruptcies.

House Democrats also are considering a wide-ranging change for Medicaid that would provide a uniform benefit across all 50 states and increase payments to providers, according to several officials. Medicaid is a joint state-federal program of health coverage for the poor.

The measure also envisions several changes to Medicare, the government program that provides health care to seniors, although details are lacking.

According to the outline, the gap between primary care physician fees and those of specialists would be narrowed, and beneficiaries would not incur out-of-pocket costs for preventive services. The outline also mentions unspecified improvements in the prescription drug benefit. Democrats vociferously opposed that benefit when Republicans passed it, saying it provided billions in unnecessary subsidies to pharmaceutical companies.

The outline does not include an overall cost for the legislation, which is expected to exceed the $1.2 trillion, 10-year price tag Obama's proposal carried last winter.

Part of the cost would be covered in the form of cuts in the government payments under Medicare plans run by private insurance companies, which receive more per patient than the cost of traditional coverage.

Strikingly, the outline made no mention of the possible tax on health benefits, or of the proposed penalty for those refusing to purchase affordable insurance.

Several officials stressed that no final decisions would be made for several days on the possible tax on health benefits.

The idea has been gaining currency in recent weeks as Congress intensifies its search for more than $1 trillion to help pay for a health care overhaul.

America… Do your homework, contract your Representative and Senator (no matter which side you are on) and do not let them pass this legislation without reading it, without having ‘real’ funds to pay for it and a real plan, and without being satisfied that you will be receiving and will continue to receive the same or better health care treatment than you do today… which means better than the care in any country that now has socialized or nationalized healthcare. If not… do not let the government force you into a plan of worse healthcare that nobody can pay for!!

Source: Associated Press/MoneyNews.com

Related Resources and Posts:

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Healthcare: You Think Michael Moore Will Contribute? Don’t Hold Your Breath

The Gipper did it for the same reasons we do it; it isn’t any good.Michael Moore has become the champion of socialized medicine over the last year with his flop movie Sicko. Seems flops don’t seem to bother the Democrats, just look at what happened to Howard Dean.

Anyway, as an example of better living through socialized medicine, Moore took his cameras to England to highlight the joys of their National Health Service and presented a rosy picture of everyone getting everything they need without paying anything out of pocket. Sounds like Utopia, doesn’t it? Too bad it isn’t true.

You see, socialized medicine, or “free health care,” as Moore prefers to call it isn’t free at all, and it isn’t very good for your health. Aside from the oppressive taxes needed to fund it and their stagnating effect on the economy (higher unemployment is but one of the side effects of those taxes), the wait times and straight-up refusal to cover certain things make socialized medicine a great system just as long as you don’t get sick.

We’ve posted examples of the measures to which people stuck in these systems will go to obtain care they need rather than wait their turn, meaning suffer until they can be helped. Remember the woman who made up a batch of fake blood she claimed to vomit so she could skip the long lines where she was forced to wait and wait for a hernia operation, something done regularly and on an out-patient basis in the US? How about the 108 year old woman who was told she would have to wait 18 months for a new hearing aid, should arrive just in time to be buried with her.

Well, we now have another fine example of just what socialized medicine will do for us, or, to put it more accurately, to us.

Anthony Wilson, founder of Factory Records (the label that brought us Joy Division, The Happy Mondays and New Order, just to name a few) and television personality in England is going to die soon from cancer. It’s a shame, but it’s true.

Unfortunately for Wilson, it isn’t really the cancer that’s going to kill him, it’s the National Health Service. See, the NHS won’t pay for the drugs needed to help him fend off the cancer, a drug that has doubled the life expectancy of patients in clinical trials.

Why won’t they pay for it? Did you really think they paid for everything in socialized medicine? Well, they pay for everything they cover. If they don’t cover it, you’re kind of screwed. You either have to pay for it yourself, or go without. When the diagnosis is cancer, going without isn’t the best option.

A dirty little secret the Michael Moores of the world don’t want you to know about is the delay in introducing new drugs into a market with socialized medicine’s price controls. But it’s important to note. Check this out and see if you’re willing to wait an extra 6 months while the government haggles over prices.

In many socialize medicine countries it is illegal to purchase private insurance in order to avoid the long wait times and additional suffering single-payer health systems bring with them. Thankfully, that trend is changing, at least in Canada.

But private health insurance is legal in England, but Wilson has refused to buy it. See, he’s bought completely into the NHS. Now that he needs it he’s beginning to realize how big of a mistake that actually turned out to be.

“I’ve never paid for private healthcare because I’m a socialist. Now I find you can get tummy tucks and cosmetic surgery on the NHS but not the drugs I need to stay alive. It is a scandal.”

No, Mr. Wilson, it is not a scandal, it’s not even new, it’s exactly what you and people like Michael Moore have supported for years. It’s exactly what you’re refused to see while it was too late for others. Now it’s most likely too late for you.

It’s a shame, really. Maybe his friends and the people he’s made rich over the years (maybe even Michael Moore, though we doubt it) will come through with more money than just enough for 5 months worth of the drugs he needs. Maybe the “Big Pharmaceutical” companies will give him free drugs because, well, that’s what they do for people who can’t afford life-saving drugs (no matter how much they are demonized by the Left). Or maybe he die.

We don’t wish ill upon anyone, even a socialist, but this should serve as a lesson to everyone; be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

By First Friday – First Friday Collective Podcast – Originally Posted Friday August 17, 2007

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources and Articles:

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)