Thursday, March 14, 2013

The ObamaCare Document Stack Photo: Obamacare’s Regulations in One Giant Stack - 20,000 Pages Already

Any Question as to why we need to support the Paul Ryan Plan and Repeal or Defund ObamaCare?

Senator Mitch McConnell tweeted: #ObamaCare regulations - 828 pages in one day. Overall, there are nearly 20,000 pages – with many more to come… along with the photo of the document stack.

Yes, ObamaCare regulators added more than 800 -pages to an ever-growing document that will govern your healthcare. The bureaucrats’ work product now prints out to 20,000 pages — nearly eight times the length of the infamous original bill:

HotAir: That tower is already taller than Kobe Bryant, and much of the law hasn’t even gone into effect yet. According to the Government Accountability Office, Obamacare is projected to add $6.2 trillion to the nation’s long-term deficits, despite presidential assurances that it wouldn’t add a “single dime” to our red ink:

“This legislation is fully paid for, and will not add one single dime to our deficit.”

We’re also seeing more evidence that the healthcare law is killing jobs, as predicted by the Congressional Budget Office and Obamacare opponents alike:

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday released an edition of its so-called “beige book,” that said the 2010 healthcare law is being cited as a reason for layoffs and a slowdown in hiring. ”Employers in several Districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff,” said the March 6 beige book, which examines economic conditions across various Federal Reserve districts across the country.

A former Obama adviser is now admitting that the law was never intended to be “a jobs program.” Funny, that’s not what Democrats told us while they were jamming it down our throats. I’ll leave you with Nancy Pelosi explaining how Obamacare is really all about creating millions of jobs and, er, reducing the deficit:

Video: Pelosi – “The Biggest Growth in Jobs” This Year…

Time for some common sense!!

Video: Paul Ryan: Our budget repeals Obamacare and the Medicaid ‘expansion’

Tax Prof: ObamaCare Tax Increases Are Double Original Estimate:

The Joint Committee on Taxation recently released a 96 page report on the tax provisions associated with Affordable Care Act. The report describes the 21 tax increases included in ObamaCare, totaling $1.058 trillion – a steep increase from initial assessment, according to the Tax Prof Blog. The summer 2012 estimate is nearly twice the $569 billion estimate produced at the time of the passage of the law in March 2010.

Related:

Will ObamaCare Affect Your Pet’s Vet Bills?

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Will ObamaCare Increase Your Pet’s Vet Bills? We Have the Answer…

The Blaze – Cross-Posted at Just One More Pet:  For all of the debate and conversation about Obamacare’s potential impact on Americans’ wallets — and the economy on the whole — few likely saw coming the controversial health care law’s effect on family pets.

In an apparent “unintended consequence,” as CBS News calls it, the cost of medical equipment in veterinarian offices is going up, with some pet doctors reportedly already announcing that they plan to pass the burden on to consumers.

The reason? Obamacare imposes a new tax that will raise the cost of much-needed supplies.

Obamacare May Cause Shocking Rise in Your Pets Health Care Bills | 2.3 Percent Federal Excise Tax

Credit: AP

Many vets may encounter an increase in medical devices and equipment as a result of a provision in the health care law that places a 2.3 percent federal excise tax on various health technologies. This tax, implemented to help fund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare), was never intended to impact pets.

CBS explains why the tax issue is having an impact on veterinarians:

How does this work? Medical devices used only on animals are exempt. However, items including IV pumps, sterile scalpels and anesthesia equipment, which are medical devices that have a dual use, meaning they can be used on people and animals, will be taxed. [...]

The American Veterinary Medical Association represents 82,000 vets. At this point, they don’t know how much this new tax will indirectly cost them. The organizations members are waiting to hear from more device makers.

See WFOR-TV for more: HERE

In Dec. 2012, the conservative Heritage Foundation was already sounding the alarm on this issue, writing that pet costs would likely increase for consumers. At the time, the organization wrote the following on its blog, “The Foundry”:

The device tax is expected to raise costs for consumers. A recent survey of 181 manufacturers found that a 52.5 percent majority plan to “pass along some or all of the increased cost [of the tax] to our consumers.” Among North American manufacturers, the portion who said they would raise prices was an even higher 58 percent.

“Across the board there is bigger inclination among firms to raise prices and pass on costs to customers as a way to deal with the US tax,” the survey found.

Pet owners already spend more than $12 billion on veterinary care annually. Obamacare may make it even more expensive to care for your pet.

It’s currently unclear how much, exactly, the new tax will cost vets. But, considering these revelations, it’s likely many pet owners will be preparing to brace themselves for additional health care expenses.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Whole Foods Market Takes Huge Stand Against GMOs: Mandatory Labeling by 2018

Whole Foods

Image: Whole Foods Market

Organic Authority: Whole Foods Market, the nation’s leading supermarket chain focused on organic and natural foods, has announced that it will begin labeling all products containing genetically modified ingredients throughout its U.S. and Canadian locations by 2018.

This moves makes Whole Foods the first national grocery chain to set such a deadline and commit to total transparency on the prevalence of genetically modified ingredients.

“We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer’s right to know,” said Walter Robb, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, in a press release. “The prevalence of GMOs in the U.S. paired with nonexistent mandatory labeling makes it very difficult for retailers to source non-GMO options and for consumers to choose non-GMO products. Accordingly, we are stepping up our support of certified organic agriculture, where GMOs are not allowed, and we are working together with our supplier partners to grow our non-GMO supply chain to ensure we can continue to provide these choices in the future.”

Whole Foods came under scrutiny last year for its slow commitment to support California’s Proposition 37, which would have made it the first state to require labeling of genetically modified foods had it not lost by a narrow margin last November. The retailer came under attack in 2011 when an investigation found genetically modified ingredients in its private-label cereal brands. And it was also targeted last year by the faceless organization, Organic Spies, in undercover video encounters that showed an overwhelming number of Whole Foods employees (in California) who were misinformed about genetically modified ingredients, particularly when it came to whether or not Whole Foods Market actually carried foods containing GMOs.

Genetically modified foods are widespread in the U.S.; the Grocery Manufacturers Association estimates that 75-80 percent of processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients. Five major U.S.-grown crops: soy, corn, canola, cotton and sugar beets are overwhelmingly genetically modified.

While organic foods by definition cannot be genetically modified, organic ingredients can be mixed with non-organic, potentially GMO ingredients in processed food products. And Whole Foods has admitted that their stores most definitely carry products that contain GMO ingredients.

Currently, the U.S. is the only developed nation without any regulations on GMOs, making it a difficult task for consumers to determine which foods are GMO free. The Non-GMO project is the only third-party verification program in the country.

Proponents of GMO labeling cite a number of reasons for wanting labels on genetically modified foods, mainly so consumers concerned about the human health and environmental impacts can make informed purchasing decisions. “While we are encouraged by the many mandatory labeling initiatives, we are committed to moving forward with our own GMO transparency plan now,” said Robb.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Paul Ryan Reveals His Plan to Balance the Budget in 10 Years Includes Repealing Obamacare

usnews.com

This week, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) will release the  official Republican budget plan for fiscal year 2014, a ten year plan to balance the budget. On Fox News Sunday, Ryan explained, “The reason we do a balanced budget is not to simply make the numbers add up. It leads to a healthy, growing economy that creates jobs.”

The congressman says Republicans don’t want to reopen the fight over the fiscal cliff and are also proposing pro-growth tax reform. “No more crony politics, stop picking winners and losers, pro-growth tax reform — those things are still achievable and we achieve them in this budget.”

Instead of absolute spending cuts, Ryan is proposing cuts in the rate of growth. He said his plan promotes Medicare reform which includes the repeal of Obamacare. Chris Wallace pointedly asked, “Are you saying that as a part of your budget […] you assume the repeal of Obamacare?”

“Yes,” Ryan simply answered.

“Well, that’s not going to happen,” Wallace said.

“We believe it should. That’s the point. This is what budgeting is all about,” said Ryan. He went to say that they’d replace it with patient-centered health care instead of a “rationing board” system like Obamacare.

Will Republicans in Congress and the president reach a compromise? President Obama had lunch with Republicans including Ryan on Thursday and will go to Capitol Hill next week to meet with Senate Republicans for the first time in almost three years. Ryan blamed the stalemate on President Obama, slamming his plan for raising taxes as one that aims to fuel more spending rather than reducing the deficit. “Tax reform to us is an economic growth generating exercise. Tax reform to the president so far seems to be a spending growth exercise.”

Wallace asked Ryan if he has plans on seeking House speakership or possibly the presidency. Ryan didn’t rule it out but said that until he figures out how to close the budget gap, he won’t be thinking about running for president just yet.

Despite having a positive experience as the GOP vice presidential candidate, he said, “I’ve always believed a better place for me is in policy leadership, like being a chairman. […] I shouldn’t be clouding my judgment today by thinking about some political thing four years from now.”  See video HERE

Marco Rubio On Board With Paul Ryan’s Aim to Defund ObamaCare

Fox News: Florida Senator Marco Rubio reacted to the Obama administration ending White House tours and blaming it on the sequester. “This is just the beginning,” Rubio told Sean Hannity. “Every single day you’re going to see the best known national parks close down, you know, airports being targeted. They’re going to try to make this as painful as possible because they’re trying to make a political point.”

He pointed out that many families have already had to cut back on their own budgets. “I think they’d be shocked to hear a bunch of politicians bellyaching over a two to three percent across the board reduction in spending, when in the real world people have seen massive reductions in their own home budgets and in their businesses.”

Audio: Ryan says New House Republican budget includes ObamaCare repeal

Senator Ted Cruz @SenTedCruz:

#6 reason to #DefundObamacare: If you like your health care plan, under Obamacare you may lose it pic.twitter.com/eRkuxhs6SW

Related:

Welcome to Budget Week in DC! Like Shark Week, Only with More Blood, Tears, and Chum

How serious is Paul Ryan's new budget when it calls for repealing 'Obamacare'?

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Butter Verses Margarine Debate

Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil

Butter is NOT bad. It is GOOD! And Margarine - You'd Better Believe It's Not Butter!

Butter Verses Margarine Debate

For many years people have debated the merits of ‘guns versus butter’ as symbols of spending on military might or domestic comfort. But since 1869, another political debate has gone on, this one concerning the merits of margarine versus butter. In that year, a French food chemist succeeded in making a cheap substitute for the real thing, which had become scarce and expensive in the wake of a European cattle plague.  And recently we have been given a definitive answer that was actually covered, although very quickly, on many mainstream media news programs.

The word margarine came from the Greek for "pearl," because the original version was hard, white, and glossy. It also must have been less than appetizing, since it was made from beef fat, milk, and chopped sheep's stomachs and cows' udders, all treated with heat, lye, and pressure.

In its early years, margarine was a meat product which was dependent on the beef and dairy industries and whose main appeal was its low cost relative to butter. In this period, it was exclusively a food of the poor. In the early 1900s, food chemists discovered how to harden liquid oils by reacting them with hydrogen in the presence of metal catalysts and heat. Vegetable and fish oils then became raw materials for margarine, weakening its ties to the meat industry. Manufacturers bought up the cheapest oils they could find throughout the world, reduced them all to bland neutrality through chemical processing, and hardened them into margarine, which remained a food of the poor.

By the 1920s only vegetable oils went into the product, and over the next 30 years, busy food chemists using a host of chemical additives greatly improved the spreadability, appearance, and especially the flavor of margarine, always working toward the goal of greater resemblance to butter.

The improved margarine's appeal was still its lower cost, but now its sales increased enormously, seriously threatening the butter industry. The butter people responded with a bitter and dirty political fight to hamper sales of margarine, but in the end, they were to lose out because of an unforeseen change in consumer perceptions. In our lifetimes, people have come to see margarine not simply as a cheap substitute for butter, but as a healthy alternative to it, and this change has occurred particularly among the educated and affluent. For example, when I look in the refrigerators of fellow physicians, I find margarine instead of butter more often than not.

This new view of margarine, which North Americans now consume four times as much of as butter, developed along with an awareness of the role of saturated fat and cholesterol in producing atherosclerosis, the degenerative condition of arteries that predisposes us to heart attacks, strokes, and other circulatory diseases. Butterfat is the most saturated animal fat in the American diet, and butter contains a lot of cholesterol as well. As doctors became convinced of the dangers of saturated fat and cholesterol, they began to recommend margarine to patients, and the margarine industry capitalized on this development by emphasizing new formulations made exclusively from polyunsaturated vegetable oils, like safflower, corn, and soy. Producers also stressed that margarine contains no cholesterol. So it is that doctors, like other health-conscious Americans, tended to switch from butter to margarine. Many of these people will admit that they prefer the taste of butter but consider margarine better for them.

I do not share this view, and I predict that over the next decade, medical research will demonstrate clear health hazards of eating margarine.

In the first place, it is total fat in the diet that correlates with risk of premature death and disability from the major killing diseases in our society. If there is one undisputed fact that emerges from the confusion of modern nutritional research, it is that typical high-fat diets are killing us. Most people will live longer, feel better, and have less risk of early death from heart disease, stroke, and cancer if they keep their fat intake to well below 30 percent of calories in the diet, preferably in the range of 20 percent. This is much less than most Americans eat. One way to cut down on fat is to avoid both butter and margarine, especially as spreads for bread, and toppings for potatoes and other vegetables. It is easy to learn to like good bread without anything on it and to enjoy fresh vegetables plain or with low-fat sauces.

Second, although the danger to our hearts and arteries from saturated fat in the diet is clear, many people do not understand that the process of hardening vegetable oils by artificial hydrogenation creates saturated fat. In fact, the chemical term "saturation" refers to the percentage of carbon atoms in fats that are bonded fully with hydrogen atoms. The more saturated a fat, the higher the temperature at which it will liquefy.

When stored in the refrigerator, polyunsaturated vegetable oils remain clear and still pour easily. Saturated fats like beef suet, bacon grease, and butter become opaque and hard in the cold. No matter how unsaturated the oils are that go into margarine, they are made more saturated by the very process that turns them into a harder spread. Most brands of margarine do not disclose the percentage of saturated fat they contain, and even though they contain no cholesterol, they still stimulate your body to make cholesterol when you eat them. So the "heart-friendly" advantage of margarine over butter is not so great as advertised. Butter, unless it is certified as "organic," is likely to contain residues of drugs given to cows.

Butter may also contain residues of pesticides and other environmental toxins. All of these compounds tend to concentrate in fat, making high-fat dairy products more dangerous than lowfat or, especially, nonfat ones. Of course, butter is the ultimate high-fat dairy product. Margarine should be free of drugs, but depending on where its oils come from, it may contain pesticide residues and other toxins. It may also have dozens of chemical additives. So on this score, butter and margarine probably rate about the same.

The most significant area of comparison is the different chemical structures of the component fatty acids of the two. Butter is basically a natural product, and its fatty acids are structurally similar to the fatty acids in our bodies. The heat and chemicals used to transform vegetable oils into margarine change fatty acids into unnatural forms that may be most unhealthy to eat.

Unsaturated fatty acids have points of molecular strain, where carbon atoms are connected to each other by double or triple bonds instead of being fully occupied by hydrogen atoms. These strain points determine the three-dimensional configurations of molecules.

In nature, all of these molecules have a curved shape that allows them to fit neatly into the membranes that enclose all cells and many of the structures within them. Chemists call this natural shape the cis-configuration. Heat and harsh chemical treatment can cause unsaturated fatty acids to spring open into a different shape called the trans-configuration, which looks jointed instead of curved.

The body cannot incorporate trans-fatty acids into membranes, and if it tries to do so, deformed cellular structures may result. Eating trans-fatty acids in margarine, vegetable shortening, and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils probably increases cancer risks, promotes inflammation, and accelerates aging and degenerative changes in tissues. I am convinced enough of these possibilities to try to eliminate those fats from my diet.

Many people ask me whether I think it is better to eat butter or margarine. They should be asking whether it is worse to eat butter or margarine, because both are concentrated fats that contribute to the unhealthy excess of fat calories that most of us consume. I don't keep either of them in my house. But if I were forced to make a choice, I'd take the real thing in modest amounts, and I recommend that choice to you as well.

By ANDREW WEIL who teaches at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, has a private medical practice, and is the author of Natural Health, Natural Medicine (Houghton Mifflin, 1990) .

Postsed at NaturoDoc and Cross-Posted at TrueHealthIsTrueWealth

NaturoDoc's Take: Many researchers and physicians have a problem with the recent dietary fad of low-calorie, low-fat dietary advice. Significant physical effects are created by different types of oil and fat. This article correctly identifies major problems with commercial handling of fats and oils. But most low-fat products are high in simple carbohydrates, and the quickly elevated blood sugar from eating these creates even more misery and disease than a high-fat diet.

More ...

Pass The Butter, Please!
--Author unknown, but good truthful information

Did you know that the hydrogenated fat they use in fast food restaurants in the deep-fat fryers was originally designed as candle wax? When it didn't work as planned, they looked for a new use for
it, and found it worked great for frying foods and never going bad.
Margarine was originally manufactured to fatten turkeys. When it killed the turkeys, the people who had put all the money into the research wanted a payback, so they put their heads together to figure out what to do with this product to get their money back.
It was a white substance with no food appeal, so they added the yellow coloring and sold it to people to use in place of butter. More recently, they have come out with some clever new flavorings.

DO YOU KNOW... the difference between margarine and butter?

Both have the same amount of calories. Butter is slightly higher in saturated fats, at 8 grams compared to 5 grams. Eating margarine can increase heart disease in women by 53% over eating the same amount of butter, according to a Harvard Medical School study.
Eating butter increases the absorption of many other nutrients in other foods. Butter has many nutritional benefits, where margarine has a only few, because they are added. Butter tastes much better than margarine, and it can enhance the flavors of other foods. Butter has been around for centuries, where margarine has been around for less than 100 years.

And now, for margarine, which...

  • Is very high in trans-fatty acids.
  • Triples the risk of coronary heart disease.
  • Increases total cholesterol and LDL (the bad cholesterol), and lowers HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol).
  • Increases the risk of cancers up to fivefold.
  • Lowers the quality of breast milk.
  • Decreases the immune response.
  • Decreases the insulin response.

And here's the most disturbing fact...

Margarine is but ONE MOLECULE away from being PLASTIC. This fact alone is enough to make you want to avoid margarine for life, as well as anything else that is hydrogenated. (This means that hydrogen is added, changing the molecular structure of the substance.)

You can try this yourself:

Purchase a tub of margarine and leave it in your garage or a shaded area. Within a couple of days, you will note a couple of things:
No flies, not even those pesky fruit flies, will go near it. (That should tell you something.) It will not rot or smell differently, because it has NO nutritional value. Nothing will grow on it. Even tiny microorganisms will not a find a home to grow on. Why? Because margarine is nearly plastic.

Would you melt your Tupperware and spread that on your toast?

You'd butter believe it: Margarine consumption is linked to lower IQs in children

It became popular as a healthier alternative to butter.

But children who ate margarine every day had lower IQs than those who did not, a study has found.

At the age of three-and-a-half, they scored three points lower on intelligence tests than other youngsters.

Margarine has been linked to lower IQs in children

Healthy alternative: But margarine has been linked to lower IQs in children

Importantly, the link held even when parental occupation and other factors affecting wealth and class were taken into account, the study of children born in the mid-1990s showed.

By the age of seven, scores were six points lower – but only in children that had been underweight when born, suggesting that diet is particularly important for brain development in the more vulnerable.

Writing in the journal Intelligence, the researchers from New Zealand’s Auckland University said it is unclear what lies behind the link.

However, trans fats may be to blame. The fats have been linked to memory problems in animal tests and may make it harder for the body to process healthier fats.

In the mid-1990s, trans fats formed up to 17 per cent of the mix of some margarines.

Today, however, levels are around 1 per cent – significantly lower than some butters.

The discovery in recent years that the fats clog up the arteries, raising the risk of heart disease, has led to concerted efforts to cut levels in food.

However, the high amounts in the past may have hampered the development of today’s adults.

The researchers, whose study showed that eating fish and cereal boosted intelligence, said: ‘We found a number of dietary factors to be significantly associated with intelligence measures.

The association between margarine consumption and IQ scores was the most consistent and novel finding.’

The researchers said that more work was needed to confirm if trans fats, which are formed when vegetable oil is solidified, were at fault, or if something else was to blame. They said: ‘Children who ate margarine daily had IQ scores that were up to six points lower compared to children who did not.

‘The impact of regular margarine consumption on intelligence now warrants further investigation in order to replicate these findings and to identify possible mechanisms that may underlie this association.’

Sian Porter, of the British Dietetic Association, said that margarine is generally healthier than butter but the high fat content means that both should be used sparingly.

A spokesman for the Food Standards Agency said that trans fat consumption in the UK is now below the recommended levels.

Source: Mail Online

Related:

Margarine Has Been Even Been Linked to Lower IQs in Kids

NewsMax Health: Margarine is touted as a healthful alternative to butter, but it may be dumbing down our kids, according to researchers in New Zealand.

Children who ate margarine every day scored 3 points lower on IQ tests at the age of 3 than children who did not, said the researchers at Auckland University in New Zealand.

(Photo: In the early days of margarine, the consumer would receive the while substance resembling lard with a yellow food coloring pill to knead into it before serving, making it more eye appealing and therefore more appetizing.)

By the age of 7, children who were underweight at birth had scores that were up to 6 points lower than those of children who did not eat margarine on a daily basis.

A difference of even 3 points in a child’s IQ easily could make a difference between being classified as “mentally retarded,” which is an IQ score of 70-79 on some charts, instead of “dull normal,” a score of 80 to 90.

“The impact of regular margarine consumption on intelligence now warrants further investigation in order to replicate these findings and to identify possible mechanisms that may underlie this association,” the researchers said.

What lies behind the link? The researchers are not sure — even when socioeconomic factors such as the occupations of the parents were considered, the link still held. They speculate, however, that trans fats may be the culprit.

Trans fats are formed when vegetable oil is solidified, as in the case of margarine, and they raise “bad” cholesterol and lower “good” cholesterol. They have been associated with memory problems in tests with animals, and they make it more difficult to process healthier fats.

Both genuine butter and margarine should be used sparingly because of their high fat content.

Margarine vs. Butter Fact: Margarine consumption in the United States overtook butter in the 1950s

Margarine is touted as a healthful alternative to butter, but it may be dumbing down our kids, according to researchers in New Zealand.

Children who ate margarine every day scored 3 points lower on IQ tests at the age of 3 than children who did not, said the researchers at Auckland University in New Zealand.

By the age of 7, children who were underweight at birth had scores that were up to 6 points lower than those of children who did not eat margarine on a daily basis.

A difference of even 3 points in a child’s IQ easily could make a difference between being classified as “mentally retarded,” which is an IQ score of 70-79 on some charts, instead of “dull normal,” a score of 80 to 90.

“The impact of regular margarine consumption on intelligence now warrants further investigation in order to replicate these findings and to identify possible mechanisms that may underlie this association,” the researchers said.

What lies behind the link? The researchers are not sure — even when socioeconomic factors such as the occupations of the parents were considered, the link still held. They speculate, however, that trans fats may be the culprit.

Trans fats are formed when vegetable oil is solidified, as in the case of margarine, and they raise “bad” cholesterol and lower “good” cholesterol. They have been associated with memory problems in tests with animals, and they make it more difficult to process healthier fats.

Both genuine butter and margarine should be used sparingly because of their high fat content.

Margarine vs. Butter Fact: Margarine consumption in the United States overtook butter in the 1950s

There are many things that have contributed to the dumbing down of America’s children over the past 30 to 40 years… this is just one!

Related Resources:

The Dumbing Down of America Part 1

The Dumbing Down of America Part 11

The Dumbing Down of America Part III

The Dumbing Down of America IV

Related:

Perils of Peanuts and Peanut Butter… Even Organic

The recent results of a Harvard Medical School butter verses margarine study confirm ... butter is better!!

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

GOP senators introduce amendment to defund Obamacare

Washington Examiner: Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced an amendment this morning to the continuing resolution, which would keep the government funded past March 27, that would defund Obamacare.

Obamacare has already damaged the economy by reducing employee hours, forcing employers to drop health insurance coverage and creating a drag on job creation, Cruz said.

“If Obamacare is fully implemented, it will create an even further drag on the economy, killing jobs and making it harder for those struggling to climb the economic ladder,” he said in a statement.

The amendment would delay funding for Obamacare until economic growth returns to historic averages.

“In my view, Obamacare should be fully repealed, and I have introduced legislation to do so,” he said. “At a minimum, however, it should not be implemented at time when our economy is struggling so mightily, at a time when its implementation could push us into a full recession.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, joined Cruz in calling for a delay in Obamacare funding.

“I will join Senator Cruz in objecting to Senate consideration of any Continuing Resolution without a vote on delaying funding of Obamacare,” he said in a statement. “Defunding Obamacare is essential to restoring economic growth. At this time of fiscal turmoil, Congress shouldn’t borrow more money to pay for something we cannot afford.”

Remember 'The Girls' - Views by Ann Hood

Views by Ann Hood: Remember 'The Girls'

Photo: Tim Klein/Gallery Stock

ParadeLoyal, loud, tough-talking—these were friends impossible to replace.

Every Friday night, they gathered at one of their houses in a cloud of cigarette smoke and Aqua Net. They came in twos or threes, dressed in velour sweat suits, skirts with matching sweaters, elastic-waist jeans, and shirts that said BEST MOM or DECK THE HALLS. In their hands: coffee cans filled with pennies that clanked as they walked. Some wore wigs, big bubbles of fake hair. Or wiglets or falls, bobby-pinned in place like the mantillas they wore to church on Sunday. There were 12 in all. The Dirty Dozen, they called themselves. But more often, they were just The Girls.

Most had grown up together in Natick, R.I., a small village in a small state. Their houses all sat within a mile of each other. Yet they arrived in station wagons, the ones they drove to and from school, the beach, and the park, overloaded with kids.

Their husbands were foremen in factories. Others worked on the army base or ran the produce department or the deli counter at the local store. One of The Girls—no one could remember how she came to join them—was married to a doctor. She wore a blond fall, cat-eye glasses, drank Chablis. She didn't fit in, really. The Girls married young and stayed married. This one had an affair and left town. Then they were 11 around the kitchen tables covered with plastic cloths.
My mother was part of this group. For as long as I can remember, Friday nights were sacred, hers. The hurried dinner—maybe tuna casserole, eggs in purgatory, fish and chips from the takeout place. Then her disappearance to get ready. She left my father in charge for the evening, which meant popcorn and Dr. Pepper and staying up late. But never late enough for me to hear her come home.

Best was when it was my mother's turn to host. She began cooking on Wednesday. Marinating. Peeling. Simmering. Friday we were banished to the TV room so she could set up metal trays with small bowls of chips and dip, platters of cold cuts or fried chicken or meat loaf. Always a salad. Always cake or pie.

On my mother's nights, it was impossible to fall asleep. The excitement of The Girls, so many of them! All squeezed around our small table, laughing and smoking and playing poker. I would creep down the stairs and sit on the harvest gold carpet, listening. They shared worries: about husbands and children and money, always money because there was never enough. They told each other "I hate you" and "I love you" with equal passion and frequency. They were not like mothers on television. No, they were rough around the edges, high school dropouts, secretaries, and assembly-line workers. They spoke with a hard accent that dropped r's and added s's. Kmahts, they said, instead of Kmart. "Your deals" instead of "your deal."

Years of Friday nights passed. Three of The Girls moved away. Then cancer struck. Colon. Lung, twice. The Girls dwindled from 11 to eight to five. Alzheimer's dropped them to four. They broke hips and had cataract surgeries, knee replacements, and lumpectomies. Still, they met every Friday night.

After their families were grown, they took trips. To Atlantic City. To Foxwoods casino in Connecticut. Overnights and weekends and afternoons. They met for coffee and counted their pennies and planned more trips to more casinos.

Then one day, one of them was driving home from my mother's when she was hit broadside by a teenager in his brand-new car. She died instantly. That Friday was the first Friday that The Girls didn't play. The next week, another one was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer; she lived only four months.

Unsure how to help my mother heal, I signed us up for bridge classes with my 19-year-old son. I imagined finding a fourth player, setting a new routine. I imagined I could convince her that things weren't as bad as they seemed, even though I knew they were.

The day before the last class, the teacher announced that we were all bridge players now. "You can go home and teach your friends," he said triumphantly.

"My friends are all dead," my mother said softly.

I glanced over at her. She had turned her head so that no one could see her crying. How foolish I was to think that a new foursome, could replace The Girls. I realized in that moment that there are some things for which there are no substitutes. There are some things that we must mourn and cherish and say goodbye to.

Every so often now, on a Friday night, I drive to my mother's. I bring her treats that make her smile: a bouquet of zinnias, an apple pie warm from the oven, a bunch of flat-leaf parsley. I drink coffee with her and talk about things that don't matter. She'll look around the empty table and say, in a voice filled with wonder, "Just yesterday, we were all here playing cards." I take her hand, bent with arthritis, rough from hard work, and I hold on tight. Or as tight as I can before I let go.

By Ann Hood  Her new novel: The Obituary Writer.

Related:

Great Grandmother Mary Allen Hardison: 101-Year-Old Woman Breaks Guinness World Record... Oldest Female to Paraglide Tandem

Death Panels are HERE

Obama Embraces ‘Death Panel’ Concept in Medicare Rule

ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It

Humana Given Gag Order Letter by Government for Telling Seniors the Truth About ObamaCare Cuts

Complete Lives System by Ezekial Emanuel

Soylent Green Anyone???

Seniors Left Behind?

2050: 1.1 Million Over 100 Years Old; Their Aging Brains

The 'kill granny' bill

Go Granny Go!!

Waltz Into Old Age

Ageless

Monday, March 4, 2013

Unreal 9-1-1 nightmare: Nurse refuses to save dying woman by doing CPR

'Is there anybody that's willing to help this lady and not let her die?'

911-dispatcher-600-340x205[1]WND: It’s nothing short of a 9-1-1 nightmare, as an emergency dispatcher begs a nurse to perform CPR on a woman who wasn’t breathing and eventually died.

What’s shocking is the nurse not only refused to perform the CPR, she also refused to hand the cell phone to anyone else to help the dying woman.

Authorities have just released the chilling audiotape of the 9-1-1 call, where the 87-year-old woman at the Glenwood Gardens Retirement Facility in Bakersfield, Calif., was passed out on the dining-room floor.

When the dispatcher asks, “Is she breathing?” the caller replies, “‘Is she breathing?’ Barely.”

When asked to perform CPR, the nurse can be heard saying, “Yeah, we can’t do CPR at this facility.”

The dispatcher then says, “OK, then hand the phone to the passerby. If you can’t do it, I need, hand it to the passerby, I’ll have her do it. Or if you’ve got any citizens there, I’ll have them do it.”

“No, no, it’s not,” the nurse says. 

Complete audio of the 9-1-1 call can be heard here:

Raw Audio:  911 Call of Dying Woman Refused CPR…

The dispatcher said, “Anybody there can do CPR. Give them the phone, please. … This woman’s not breathing enough. She’s going to die if we don’t get this started.”

With time a crucial factor, the female dispatcher tries desperately to convince the nurse to take action, lamenting, “I don’t understand why you’re not willing to help this patient. Is there anybody that works there that’s willing to do it?”

“We can’t do that,” the nurse says. “That’s what I’m trying to say.”

“Are we just going to let this lady die?” the dispatcher says.

“Well, that’s why we’re calling 9-1-1,” the nurse replies.

“Is there a gardener … any staff? Anybody that doesn’t work for you, anywhere?” the dispatcher asks.”Can we flag someone down in the street and get them to help this lady? As a human being, I don’t, you know, is there anybody that’s willing to help this lady and not let her die?”

The nurse replies, “Um, not at this time.”

It was too late to save the woman by the time paramedics arrived.

“Our practice is to immediately call emergency medical personnel for assistance and to wait with the individual needing attention until such personnel arrives,” Jeffrey Toomer, executive director of Glenwood Gardens, said in a statement to NBC’s “Today” show. “That is the protocol we followed.”

Maribeth Bersani, of the Assisted Living Federation of America, told CBS News: “There’s no requirement that the people in the building be trained to perform CPR, so a company could state in a policy they don’t want anyone to initiate CPR.”

Jack Ford, a legal analyst for CBS, called the scenario “morally reprehensible,” and said the question involves, “a legal responsibility and legal liability.”

Raw Video: 911 Recording:  Did Liability Fears Lead to Woman’s Death?

Ford said: “What’s the agreement that this woman and her family had with this home, and … it was a residential facility, not a nursing home, assisted living. Very different if it was that. So if in their agreement they say specifically, ‘We do not provide emergency medical care. We will get somebody for you,’ then that could shield them from some problems. Then other question is, what are your reasonable expectations. When they sold this as a sales pitch, did they say, ‘Look, we have wonderful workout facilities, wonderful dining facilities and we have medical people on site here.’ Well, you know then, despite what might be in the agreement there, you have a reasonable expectation.”

As for the woman who refused to help, Ford said she was apparently told something as an employee.

“She may well be in a tough position,” he noted . “If she was told by her employers, ‘You cannot do this, if you do, you’re in violation, and you’ll lose your job.’ Now you have a woman being told, do I try to save someone’s life and by doing so, do I risk my own job for doing it. That’s why you have to look to the employers. The reality is, some states, you are starting to pass Good Samaritan laws that say you can’t be sued if you try to stop and help somebody, the reason is people sue you sometimes if you try to stop and help somebody. You have to look at the culture of society here, the litigious nature of society. It just – it’s a terrible tragedy.”

Sunday, March 3, 2013

15-Year-Old Invents New Test for Early, Reliable Detection of Pancreatic Cancer

Story at-a-glance
  • Pancreatic cancer is a devastatingly fatal form of cancer, and is typically regarded as the most deadly and universally rapid-killing form of cancer
  • A 15-year-old freshman high school student, Jack Andraka, invented a dipstick-type sensor to detect pancreatic, ovarian, and lung cancer that is 168 times faster, 26,000 times less expensive, and 400 times more sensitive than the current standard of detection. The test costs three cents, takes five minutes, and has a 90 percent accuracy rate
  • His primary research tools were Google, Wikipedia, and freely available research studies—online resources available to virtually anyone on the planet with an internet connection
  • Three lifestyle issues known to contribute to pancreatic cancer are sugar/fructose consumption, lack of exercise, and vitamin D deficiency

By Dr. Mercola

Pancreatic cancer is a devastatingly fatal form of cancer, and is typically regarded as the most deadly and universally rapid-killing form of cancer. According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute,1 an estimated 45,220 Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year, of which 38,460 are expected to die.

Part of the problem is that this cancer is usually diagnosed quite late, contributing to the abysmal five-year survival rate. It also shows you just how ineffective conventional detection methods and treatments are.

All of that may soon change however — all due to the persistence and dedication of a high school kid who decided there must be a better way to detect this lethal cancer sooner...

Yes, a 15-year-old boy named Jack Andraka has done what scientists with millions of dollars-worth of research grants at their disposal have failed to do. He invented a dipstick-type sensor to detect pancreatic, ovarian, and lung cancer that is:

  • 168 times faster
  • 26,000 times less expensive, and
  • 400 times more sensitive than the current standard of detection

And he did it using Google and Wikipedia as his primary research tools — online resources that are available to virtually anyone on the planet with an internet connection. What’s more, the test costs three cents, takes five minutes, and has a 90 percent accuracy rate. Compare that to the current standard, which employs 60-year-old technology, costs about $800, and misses 30 percent of all pancreatic cancers.

How Could a High School Kid Make Such an Amazing Discovery?

You are in for a real treat. Please find the time to watch this awesomely inspiring video of a high school freshman who accomplished a major feat that most of us will never surpass in our lifetime. It is clearly one of the most inspiring videos I have ever seen. You are left with the impression if this high school freshman can do this, why can’t I achieve my goals?

Last year, Jack was awarded first place in the Intel International Science & Engineering Fair for his invention.2 To me the most impressive part of his story are the thousands of failures he went through that did not deter him in the pursuit of his goal. Absolutely magnificent story.

When Jack first began his research, he didn’t even know he had a pancreas, but when pancreatic cancer suddenly claimed the life of a close family friend who was like “an uncle” to him he got to thinking... and researching, using readily available online tools and freely available studies, he determined that the reason we haven’t done a better job at detecting pancreatic cancer is because we’re looking for a particular protein present in the blood, called mesothelin.

This protein is always present, but in ovarian, pancreatic, or lung cancer patients, this protein is elevated. The problem is, detecting elevated levels is like “finding a needle in a stack of identical needles.”

After determining the parameters for an ideal detection sensor — noninvasive, rapid, inexpensive, simple, sensitive, and selective — he set to work trying to figure out how to detect elevated levels of mesothelin. The idea for his dipstick sensor came during a high school biology class on the subject of antibodies, during which he was secretly reviewing a paper on analytical methods using the 21st century technology of carbon nanotubes. (His approach would be absolutely impossible when I was in high school as carbon nanotubes would not be discovered for many decades.)

Antibodies fit like a lock and key into an antigen binding site. In this case, that would be the mesothelin protein. His idea involved lacing the nanotubes with the antibody, which would subsequently only attract the mesothelin protein. The nanotube strip would then generate an electrical response large enough to detect with a simple ohm meter.

Once he had locked down his theory, he needed a lab space. He applied to 200 laboratories working with pancreatic cancer and promptly received 199 rejections. But there was one “maybe.” He “hunted down” the professor and eventually landed a meeting. And a place to work. Seven months later, after countless trials and errors, he had created his first paper sensor. The sensor has now been tested in blind studies on humans, and has been found to have a 90 percent accuracy rate. Another key is that this protein becomes elevated during the earliest stages of cancer, allowing for a greatly increased survival rate.

“Through the internet anything is possible,” Jack says.

I couldn’t agree more. Not only is this story amazing because of his youth, it’s also an incredible testament to the power of the internet. Anyone can now, quite literally, change the world by putting the available information to good use! That is really the primary reason why I am able to provide all these news stories for you in the newsletter. Virtually all of them are carefully researched on the internet. We supplement these stories with my 20-plus years of clinical experience treating 25,000 patients and interviews with some of the leading health experts in the world.

What Causes Pancreatic Cancer?

Three lifestyle issues keep popping up on the radar when you look at what’s contributing to pancreatic cancer:

  • Sugar/fructose consumption
  • Lack of physical exercise
  • Vitamin D deficiency

Obesity and physical inactivity makes your body less sensitive to the glucose-lowering effects of insulin. Diminished sensitivity to insulin leads to higher blood levels of insulin, which in turn can increase your risk of pancreatic cancer. One previous study found that men and women with high Body Mass Index (BMI) faced a pancreatic cancer risk 1.5 to 2 times higher than those with low BMI. And for women who are both overweight and sedentary, your risk is 2.5 times higher. When they reduced their weight and exercised, they lowered their risk. In fact, the men who exercised strenuously at least 8 hours a month were found to have only 59% of the pancreatic cancer risk of men who exercised less. Insulin seems to be one of the main drivers for cancer in general, and for pancreatic cancer in particular.

Why?

Because insulin production is one of your pancreas' main functions, used by your body to process blood sugar, and, in the laboratory, insulin actually promotes the growth of pancreatic cancer cells. Researchers suspect that if your body maintains high levels of insulin, you increase the pancreatic cancer's ability to survive and grow. In fact, researchers now believe that up to a third of all cancers may be caused by diet and lifestyle. So if you want to prevent cancer, or want to treat cancer, it is imperative that you keep your insulin levels as low as possible. Furthermore, pancreatic tumor cells have been found to use fructose, specifically, to divide and proliferate — again attesting to the fact that there are significant metabolic differences between fructose and other sugars.

According to the authors:3

"Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different... These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation."

The study confirms the old adage that sugar feeds cancer because they found that tumor cells do thrive on sugar (glucose). However, the cells used fructose for cell division, speeding up the growth and spread of the cancer. If this difference isn't of major consequence, then I don't know what is, especially when you consider how quickly pancreatic cancer can kill you. As Jack stated in his talk, his friend was asymptomatic, and went from “healthy” to “a walking skeleton” in just three months.

It may surprise you, but the theory that sugar feeds cancer was born nearly 80 years ago. In 1931 the Nobel Prize was awarded to German researcher Dr. Otto Warburg, who first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. Yet most conventional cancer programs STILL do not adequately address diet and the need to avoid sugars.

Additionally, carbohydrates from glucose and sucrose significantly decreases the capacity of neutrophils to do their job. Neutrophils are a type of white blood cell that help cells to envelop and destroy invaders, such as cancer. In a nutshell, ALL forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer, but in slightly different ways, and to a different extent. Fructose, however, clearly seems to be one of the overall most harmful.

Fructose — Uric Acid — Cancer

The study above also mentions that fructose metabolism leads to increased uric acid production along with cancer cell proliferation. This is another gigantic clue that fructose is directly associated with cancer.

In my first interview with Dr. Johnson back in 2010 (the same year that study was published), he explained the detrimental impact fructose has on your uric acid level. Interestingly, ONLY fructose, NOT glucose, drives up uric acid as part of its normal metabolic pathways. The connection between fructose, uric acid, hypertension, insulin resistance/diabetes and kidney disease is so clear that your uric acid level can actually be used as a marker for toxicity from fructose -- meaning that if your levels are high, you're at increased risk of all the health hazards associated with fructose consumption and you really need to reduce your fructose intake.

Dr. Richard Johnson has authored two of the best books on the market on the health dangers of fructose. The first one, The Sugar Fix, explains how fructose causes high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, diabetes and kidney disease. The second, The Fat Switch, explains how fructose triggers a specific 'switch' located in the powerhouse of each of your cells — the mitochondria — causing your body to activate enzymes that tell your cells to accumulate fat. This is an ancient adaptive mechanism found in a variety of animals that need to gain fat in anticipation of food scarcity or hibernation.

Now it's safe to say that cancer, at least pancreatic cancer, is also definitely on the list of diseases that are directly linked to excessive fructose consumption.

Reducing (or preferably eliminating) fructose and other added sugars, as well as limiting grain carbohydrates from your diet should be part of any comprehensive cancer treatment plan. By doing so, you’ll help stave off any potential cancer growth, and "starve" any tumors you currently have. It also bolsters your overall immune function, because sugar decreases the function of your immune system almost immediately.

Unfortunately, few cancer patients undergoing conventional cancer care in the US are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy beyond being told to "just eat healthy foods." I believe many cancer patients would see major improvement in their outcome if they controlled the supply of cancer's preferred fuel, glucose, and stayed clear of fructose to significantly reduce tumor proliferation.

The following video features Dr. Dominic D'Agostino who, along with a team of researchers at the University of South Florida studies metabolic therapy. They found that when lab animals were fed a carb-free diet, they survived highly aggressive metastatic cancer better than those treated with chemotherapy. CBN reports:4

“'We have dramatically increased survival with metabolic therapy,' [Dr. D’Agostino] said. 'So we think it's important to get this information out.' It's not just lab mice. Dr. D'Agostino has also seen similar success in people - lots of them. 'I've been in correspondence with a number of people,' he said. 'At least a dozen over the last year-and-a-half to two years, and all of them are still alive, despite the odds. So this is very encouraging.'"

This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.

Top 13 Tips to Prevent Cancer

There’s a lot you can do to lower your chances of getting cancer -- you and your family CAN take control of your health. Don’t wait for diagnosis, take the reins and be a proactive participant in your own health care, before you end up in need for disease management. I believe you can virtually eliminate your risk of cancer and chronic disease, and radically improve your chances of recovering from cancer if you currently have it, by following these relatively simple risk reduction strategies.

  1. Reduce or eliminate your processed food, sugar/fructose and grain carbohydrate intake. This applies to whole unprocessed organic grains as well, as they tend to rapidly break down and drive your insulin and leptin levels up, which is the last thing you need to have happening if you are seeking to resolve or prevent cancer.
  2. Consider seriously reducing your protein levels. I believe most people consume twice as much protein as they need. I personally have reduced my protein to one gram per kilogram of lean body weight. I believe it would be unusual for most adults to need more than 100 grams of protein and most likely close to half that. Excess protein is one of the primary drivers of the mTOR pathway, which is an ancient and profoundly important recently discovered cancer pathway and emerging evidence suggests limiting protein may even be more important than limiting sugar to prevent cancer.
  3. Control your fasting insulin and leptin levels. This is the end result you’ll get when you remove sugars and grains from your diet and start to exercise regularly. Your levels can be easily monitored with the use of simple and relatively inexpensive blood tests.
  4. Normalize your ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats by taking a high-quality krill oil and reducing your intake of most processed vegetable oils.
  5. Get regular exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.

    The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. If you have limited time Peak Fitness exercises are your best bet but ideally you should have a good strength training program as well.

  6. Normalize your vitamin D levels by getting appropriate sun exposure, and consider careful supplementation when this is not possible. However, if you’re taking oral vitamin D, you also need to make sure you’re taking vitamin K2 as well, as K2 deficiency is actually what produces the symptoms of vitamin D toxicity, which includes inappropriate calcification that can lead to hardening of your arteries. To learn more, please see my previous article: What You Need to Know About Vitamin K2, D and Calcium. If you take oral vitamin D and have a cancer, it would be very prudent to monitor your vitamin D blood levels regularly.
  7. Get regular, high quality sleep. Using a Zeo will help you objectively determine if your current sleeping strategy is providing you with the amount of deep and REM sleep that you need to heal and repair properly.
  8. Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
  9. Limit your exposure and provide protection for yourself from radiation produced by cell phones, towers, base stations, and WiFi stations.
  10. Avoid frying or charbroiling your food. Boil, poach or steam your foods instead.
  11. Have a tool to permanently reprogram the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. My particular favorite tool for resolving emotional challenges, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
  12. Eat at least one-third of your food raw.
  13. Consider adding cancer-fighting whole foods, herbs, spices and supplements to your diet, such as broccoli, curcumin and resveratrol. To learn more about how these anti-angiogenetic foods, and many others, work to fight cancer, please see my previous article: Dramatically Effective New Natural Way to Starve Cancer and Obesity.

Knowledge is Power

While most of us may lack the genius to invent a paradigm-breaking medical device while browsing the internet, all of us have the power to research matters relating to our own health, and more. Like Jack, I urge you to take full advantage of the internet, and even if your findings won’t change the world, rest assured it can change yours.

Jack’s story is an absolutely incredible testament to the power of applying yourself using common tools that are available to each and every one of us. He also reminds us of the importance of not letting failure and rejection deter you from your passion and purpose.

When it comes to your health, conventional medicine has precious little to offer. But that does not mean you have no options! On the contrary, there are many alternatives available, no matter what your health condition might be. Unfortunately, with pharmaceutical companies ruling the roost over medicine, you won’t get that information from your doctor. You have to find it on your own. My website can help you get started. I have literally tens of thousands of free articles available, covering countless health issues. Just use the search engine at the top of every page and enter a topic you would like to learn more about. You will typically find dozens if not hundreds of articles on any given subject.

Remember, good health rests on just a few basic principles, and if you get those right, the rest will be much easier. Your diet accounts for about 80 percent of all the health benefits you’ll reap from a healthy lifestyle, so start there. My free optimized nutrition plan can get you off on the right foot.

Pets Reduce Stress at Work… More Companies, Citing Benefits, Allowing Pets at Work

Recent study shows pets in the workplace can reduce employee stress… Hmmm, most pet owners knew that years ago without studies!

gan-pets-at-workUSAToday: INDIANAPOLIS -- Employers and employees are acknowledging the advantages and benefits of a growing office trend that allows pets in the workplace. And now there's research to support what some have known for years.

According to a Virginia Commonwealth University study, employees who bring their dogs to work produced lower levels of the stress-causing hormone cortisol.

Published in spring 2012, the study, led by Randolph Barker, a professor of management, was conducted at a dinnerware company in North Carolina, which sees 20 to 30 dogs a day on its premises. As the workday went on, research found average stress level scores fell about 11% among workers who had brought their dogs to work, while they increased 70% for those who did not.

"When I'm stressed, I usually call Zoe (a chocolate Labrador retriever) over and rub her ear. That's my therapy," said Ann Marie DeLa Rosa, 26, who works at software design company Inverse-Square in downtown Indianapolis and appreciated the company's pet-friendly policy.

Not only does Zoe, who could be mistaken for a small grizzly bear with a smile, alleviate her stress, DeLa Rosa said, the dog also forces her owner to take a lunch break.

"Zoe gets me out," she said. "Otherwise, I tend to power through lunch when I want to get something done. Taking a 15-minute walk with her refreshes me, and I can focus easier."

According to a 2008 national poll of working Americans 18 and older by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, 17% reported their company permits pets at work. In 2012, the group reported in a separate study that workers surveyed brought their dogs with them to work 22 times in 2012, compared with 17 times in 2008.

Deb Havill, a clinical social worker and therapist, conducts client sessions along with her two rescue dogs. But David and Jai aren't trained therapy dogs; they just accompany their owner during therapy sessions.

"Dogs were domesticated to be attentive to us," said Havill, who keeps two couches in her Indianapolis office — one for clients and one for the dogs. "It is natural for us to be around them, so to not be around them would be unnatural. We would be in an unnatural state."

Havill explained that touching or petting an animal has been shown to lower the galvanic skin response much like the science behind the polygraph test, when measuring feelings such as fear, stress or anxiety.

"Reaching down and petting a dog is an easy way to ratchet things down when you need to."

None

Ann Marie DeLa Rosa is shown with her dog, Zoe, a chocolate Labrador retriever as Hoagey, a yellow lab that belongs to fellow worker, noses in for a little TLC. (Photo: Frank Espich, The Indiapolis Star)

Janet Myers travels all over the country with her Bernese mountain dog, advocating the benefits of pet therapy and animal-assisted activities in health care.

A nurse as well as the director of risk management at Schneck Medical Center in Seymour, Ind., Myers founded the hospital's pet-therapy program and next year will speak at the National Pediatric Nurses conference.

Bentley, her dog, is a popular therapy dog with his own children's book and schedule of special appearances. But his main job is still to be with his owner in her office at least three times a week.

"It's been proven that people are always more productive when they are happy," Myers said. "If Bentley is by my side, I am not thinking of needing to be home to care for him or that he's lonely. I often stay late at work with him snoozing away under my desk. He is a big part of my life."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites dozens of animal experts who report that pets can decrease blood pressure and cholesterol levels as well as increase opportunities for exercise and socialization.

Commercial developer Turner Woodard knows this better than anyone. He's the man who made it possible for employers at The Stutz business center in Indianapolis to have pet-friendly office policies — and about 25% of the tenants take advantage of the perk.

"We know it's a positive," he said. "We need to see more of it in the world."

However, if you're looking to implement a formal policy, there are several factors to consider, Barker said.

"You have to think about employee health (allergies), minimizing disruptions and keeping pets safe," he said.

Amazon and Purina, cited as two of the most pet-friendly companies in the country, don't allow pets because many factories and distribution centers can be dangerous workspaces.

Bob Baird, who brings his two dogs, Ruby and Hoagey to work, knows that when he makes a new hire at Inverse-Square, he might be excluding or discouraging potential applicants who might not like dogs.

"But having dogs here is indicative of our culture," said Baird, whose dog Hoagey, a 110-pound yellow Labrador retriever, is notorious for snoring too loudly during conference calls.

"For us, having dogs in the office is out of necessity," Baird said. "We love having them around because this is (a) home away from home. We work long hours, and it's nice to have them with us."

Related:

Dogs at Work Can Alleviate Employee Stress, Study Shows

Pets reduce stress at work

Video:  Study – Pets in the Work Place Reduce Stress

12 companies that let you bring your dog to work

Chapman University Hosts ‘Furry Friends For Finals’

Londonderry School Uses Therapy Dog in Classroom

Collar to Keep Track of Dogs’ Temperature is in the Works

Pet Therapy

Pets are way better than Therapy!

Can the U.S. Become a No-Kill Nation?

The Difference Between No Kill Nation & Other Animal Advocacy Groups

Cross-Posted at Just One More Pet

Friday, March 1, 2013

Defund Obamacare Now!

Red State - Cross-posted from The Madison Project:

Next week House Republicans plan to bring a Continuing Resolution to the floor, which will fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year. If nothing is done to stop them, GOP leaders plan to put forth a clean CR that funds Obamacare. This is unacceptable.

With health insurance premiums skyrocketing, employers dumping workers from health plans, and new reports predicting trillions in new debt as a result of Obamacare, we must defund this behemoth before it fully takes effect next year. Many of the new members pledged to defund Obamacare, yet they have dithered for two years in the hopes that it would be struck down by the Supreme Court or that Republicans would win the White House. In fact, 105 current members of the House GOP Conference signed a letter last August committing to defund Obamacare.

Let’s not be fooled, if Obamacare is allowed to take effect for one year, it will be impossible to reform Medicare, roll back dependency, and balance the budget. This is the GOP Waterloo. There’s nothing worth fighting for if we allow the motherload of entitlements to take effect. Before we make empty promises about reforming popular entitlements that are over 50 years old, let’s muster the courage to draw a line in the sand on a new entitlement that is still unpopular with the public.

Reps. Jim Bridenstine (OK) and Tim Huelskamp (KS) have the courage of their convictions to abide by their campaign promises. They are circulating a letter to their colleagues requesting leadership to defund Obamacare through the CR. Remember that this will not be a clean CR anyway. The White House has already requested dozens of spending “anomalies” to increase funds for pet projects. Well, defunding Obamacare at the HHS and IRS should be our request.

What does the HHS do with this extra discretionary funding? They have just finalized 700 pages of new healthcare regulations. There is no way our nation will ever recover from that. Healthcare is the biggest part of the private economy and the federal budget. This is the one thing that is worth fighting for. This will be our last chance to block Obamacare.

Take action: Please call the Republican members of the House, particularly the 105 members mentioned in this article, and request that they sign onto the Bridenstine-Huelskamp letter and commit to voting against any budget bill that funds Obamacare.

Democrats were willing to pass this 2700-page abomination despite the political risks. Our members should have the courage to defund and disrupt its implementation while the public is feeling the pain of rising costs as a result of the law. We must all watch this upcoming vote carefully and be prepared to replace some of the ineffective members in upcoming primaries.

When it comes to Obamacare, we must remember Ronald Reagan’s indelible warning, “if not us, then who? And if not now, when?”