http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-04/dr-drew-asked-retract-hillary-health-comments-received-scary-creepy-phone-calls Submitted by Joseph Jankowski via PlanetFreeWill.com, Eight days afterBoard-certified medicine specialist and TV personality Dr. Drew Pinsky expressed his grave concern over Hillary Clinton’s health and the healthcare she was receiving, his popular show onHLN, the sister channel of CNN, was cancelled. Appearing on KABC’s McIntyre in the Morning, Pinskysaid he and his colleague Dr. Robert Huizenga became “gravely concerned……not just about her health but her health care” after analyzingwhat medical records on Hillary had been released. Pinsky pointed out that after Clinton fainted and fell in late 2012, shesuffered from a “transverse sinus thrombosis,” an “exceedingly rare clot” that “virtually guarantees somebody has something wrong with their coagulation system.” According to sources close to Pinsky, the medicine specialist had been asked to retract his statements on the democratic nominee’s health and also received a series of nasty phone calls and e-mails over the his comments. “CNN is so supportive of Clinton, network honchos acted like the Mafia when confronting Drew,” a source told Richard Johnson of Page Six . “First, they demanded he retract his comments, but he wouldn’t.” What followed, according to a source close to Pinsky, was aseries of nasty phone calls and e-mails which were described as “downright scary and creepy.” The fact that Dr. Pinsky was asked to retract his comments, and even received “scary” calls and emails over what he said, can lead one to believe that it was indeed his concern for Clinton’s health that lead to his show being cancelled. But according toa spokeswoman for Pinsky, the show’s cancellation had been decided weeks before Pinsky’s comments, as part of a HLN revamp that includes the end of Nancy Grace’s show. “I know the timing is suspicious, and I know it’s hard to believe, but the two things had nothing to do with each other,” Pinsky’s rep Valerie Allen told Page Six ‘s Richard Jones. What makes Dr. Pinksy’s cancellation even more suspiciousis that he is not the only one who has received repercussions for questioning Clinton’s health. Just last week the Huffington Post banned journalistDavid Seaman from posting on their website forpenning a commentary piece discussing questions surrounding Hillary’s health problems. “Both of my articles have been pulled without notice of any kind, just completely deleted from the Internet, and both of those articles mentioned Hillary’s health,” Seaman said in a video posted to his YouTube channel. “I’ve filed hundreds of stories over the years as a journalist and I’ve never had anything like this happen….I’ve never experienced this,” remarked Seaman, adding that he was now seeking legal counsel. “This is spooky, to me this is extremely spooky – I don’t like it,” he added.
The Sick Man Of Asia - China's Looming Health Disaster (待审核) 2015-6-10 10:05 | 个人分类: health The Sick Man Of Asia - China's Looming Health Disaster Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/09/2015 20:20 -0400 8.5% China ETC Global Economy India Yuan in Share Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog , That the China Story is going to implode is already baked into the public health catastrophe that will unfold with a vengeance in the coming decade. The financial pundits gushing over "The China Story" - that the Middle Kingdom's industrialization is a permanent boon to the global economy and China's poor - never calculate the human cost of that runaway industrialization and the vast inequalities it has unleashed. The human cost is staggering: at least half the population is suffering from chronic lifestyle/environmental-related illnesses and 225 million suffer from mental disorders. For context, the population of China is estimated to be 1.39 billion, roughly 4.4 times the U.S. population of 317 million, and about 20% of the total global population. Here are some estimates of China's public health problems: (source links below) -- Half the population is estimated to be prediabetic (suffering from metabolic syndrome/diabesity). -- 12% of the populace now has diabetes, roughly 115 million people. -- An estimated 70% of China's diabetics are undiagnosed; only 25% are receiving any treatment and of the 25%, the disease is only being controlled in 40% of those getting treatment. -- Noncommunicable diseases--cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory diseases and cancer, account for 85% of total deaths in China today -- much higher than the global average of 60%. -- Mental disorders rose by more than 50 percent between 2003 and 2008. An estimated 17.5% of the population (225 million) suffers from some form of mental problem, one of the highest rates in the world. -- More than 300 million people in China -- roughly equivalent to the entire U.S. population of 317 million -- smoke tobacco. -- 200 million workers are directly exposed to occupational hazards. -- Informal estimates suggest a large percentage of the urban population suffers from lung/pulmonary diseases. Over the last 30 years, deaths ascribed to lung cancer have risen by a factor of five in China. -- 160 million Chinese adults have hypertension (high blood pressure). -- In 2006, 80 percent of China’s health budget was spent on just 8.5 million government officials. -- Tthe rate of health-care coverage is high, but the level of benefits is still very low. 836 million rural residents who were officially covered by the government's plan still had to pay the lion’s share of their medical bills. The government coverage paid a mere 8.6% of rural residents' total healthcare expenditures. Sources: China’s Worrying Diabetes Epidemic The Sick Man of Asia: China's Health Crisis Toxic smog threatens millions of Chinese lives Reliable statistics are hard to come by for a number of reasons. Authorities in China avoid quantifying China's public health realities because it detracts from the glowing "China Story" they promote. The rural population (still 55% of the total populace) often has little access to health care and statistics are sketchy. Preconditions that lead to disease (for example, prediabetes and early-stage COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) are not accurately monitored. The standard Western proponent of the China Story spends a few days in a fancy Shanghai hotel and then repeats glowing (and dodgy) economic statistics, as if that's the whole story. Western pundits don't visit rural village stripped of working-age adults, where grandparents are struggling to raise the children who resent their factory-worker parents' absence. Proponents don't spend time with those on the bottom of the urban "growth story," the millions living in makeshift hovels who receive no state aid due to their status as "illegal residents" in urban zones. The mental health issues arising from dislocated families, uprooted workers and grinding poverty in the midst of a society dominated by an Elite that drives super-sports cars and owns lavish homes in the West are ignored by the mainstream Western media. The rapid ageing of the Chinese populace is exacerbating an already immense public health crisis. It's estimated that by 2040 there will be more people with Alzheimer’s disease in China than in all the developed countries combined. Ill health and chronic disease are undercutting the economic growth everyone is focusing on. Whatever the metric used--hours of labor lost to illness, years of labor lost to early retirement due to ill-health, etc.--the costs of China's environmental damage, disrupted social order and low investment in public health are weighing heavily on output. The rise in health-related costs going forward will not be linear but geometric. Linear increases in pollution, diabesity, etc. can yield a ten-fold increase in diseases that require costly treatments. Every nation, developed and developing alike, has public health challenges. What's different about China (and India) is the scale is just so enormous: 740 million Chinese are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke, for example, and ten of millions of urban dwellers are exposed to air pollution that is said to rival smoking three packs of cigarettes a day in its negative impact on pulmonary health. It's all well and good to toss around grandiose plans for new Silk Roads, aircraft carriers and islands constructed in disputed seas, but where is the money and labor going to come from when the health problems of hundreds of millions of workers and retirees come due and payable? How many more trillions of yuan can local governments borrow once the credit bubble in China deflates, as all financial bubbles eventually do? Apologists and cheerleaders will naturally claim these estimates are exaggerated, and that China is aggressively tackling its immense environmental and public-health problems. The Chinese excel at the Soviet model of showcase trials and projects staged for propaganda, and officials regularly present Potemkin-Village pollution clean-ups. But if you try to come back a year later and check on the progress, you will find it isn't possible--and insisting might get you arrested. What's being exaggerated is China's response to the unfolding environmental and public health catastrophe. The Chinese government's priorities are tightening control of its domestic society and extending hegemony in the South China Sea. Public health receives lip service and a marginal slice of state funding and focus. The money flows to care for the elites, and the peasantry gets next to nothing. That the China Story is going to implode is already baked into the public health catastrophe that will unfold with a vengeance in the coming decade.
1.Growth:Quantity vs Quality of Labor 2.Growth:The Role of Human Capital-quality dimensions 3.Human Capital:Education and Health 4.Health Human Capital:Theory 5.Health Capital:Productivity Effect 6.Health Capital:Incentive Effect 7.Health Effect on Income:USA 8.Health Effect on Income:China 9.Health Effect on Income:Rural 10.Health Effect on Income:Gender 11.Nutrition-Led Health and Growth:UK 12.APEC Study on Health and Economy 13.Health and Income:Two-way Traffic——Health and Income are endogenous 14.Preston Curve——Population Studies,1975 15.Health and Income:Two View 16.Health and Income:What Matters? The Health-Poverty Trap 17.Human Capital: Form of Education 18.Education and Wage Premium 19.Education Distribution by Population 20.Class Struggle: Workers vs Capitalists? 21.Modeling Human Capital: Production 22.Education Effect on Income Difference 23.Human Capital Effect to Slowdown
How Much Does Basic Health Insurance Cost Around The World Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/14/2014 11:11 -0400 Deutsche Bank ETC in Share How does one definemost basic health insurance? If one is Deutsche Bank, as follows: "Health insurance annual premium is for a basic policy for a local resident between 25-35 years. Since the definition of a standard package varies between countries, we have tried to stick to an insurance policy which covers inpatient events and no extra covers like dental, etc.... The data has been sourced mainly from local providers of heath insurances, reports of organizations engaged in research of health care and news clippings." And how much does "most basic health insurance" cost around the world? According to Deutsche Bank the answer, when presented in dollar terms, is as follows: Clearly what the US, with its highest in the world costs, needs is for the government to step in and really fix the problem. Average: 4.72222 Your rating:None Average:4.7 (18votes)
Bitter Pill: The Exorbitant Prices Of Health Care Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/22/2013 17:18 -0500 General Electric McKinsey Medicare Obamacare Student Loans Instead of asking the endless question of "who should pay for healthcare?" Time magazine's cover story this week by Steve Brill asks a much more sensible - and disturbing question - "why does healthcare cost so much?" While it will not come as a surprise to any ZeroHedge reader - as we most recently noted here - this brief clip on the outrageous pricing and egregious profits that are destroying our health care quickly summarizes just how disastrous the situation really is. A simplified perspective here is simple, as with higher education costs and student loans: since all the expenses incurred are covered by debt/entitlements, there is no price discrimination which allows vendors to hike prices to whatever levels they want. From the $21,000 heartburn to "giving our CT scans like candy," Brill concludes "put simply, with Obamacare we’ve changed the rules related to who pays for what, but we haven’t done much to change the prices we pay ." Via Time, The $21,000 Heartburn Bill One night last summer at her home near Stamford, Conn., a 64-year-old former sales clerk whom I’ll call Janice S. felt chest pains. She was taken four miles by ambulance to the emergency room at Stamford Hospital, officially a nonprofit institution. After about three hours of tests and some brief encounters with a doctor, she was told she had indigestion and sent home. That was the good news. The bad news was the bill: $995 for the ambulance ride, $3,000 for the doctors and $17,000 for the hospital — in sum, $21,000 for a false alarm. "Giving out CT Scans like candy..." The costs associated with high-tech tests are likely to accelerate. McKinsey found that the more CT and MRI scanners are out there, the more doctors use them. In 1997 there were fewer than 3,000 machines available, and they completed an average of 3,800 scans per year. By 2006 there were more than 10,000 in use, and they completed an average of 6,100 per year. According to a study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, the use of CT scans in America’s emergency rooms “has more than quadrupled in recent decades.” As one former emergency-room doctor puts it, “Giving out CT scans like candy in the ER is the equivalent of putting a 90-year-old grandmother through a pat-down at the airport: Hey, you never know.” Selling this equipment to hospitals — which has become a key profit center for industrial conglomerates like General Electric and Siemens — is one of the U.S. economy’s bright spots. I recently subscribed to an online headhunter’s listings for medical-equipment salesmen and quickly found an opening in Connecticut that would pay a salary of $85,000 and sales commissions of up to $95,000 more, plus a car allowance . The only requirement was that applicants have “at least one year of experience selling some form of capital equipment.” When you follow the money, you see the choices we’ve made, knowingly or unknowingly. Over the past few decades, we’ve enriched the labs, drug companies, medical device makers, hospital administrators and purveyors of CT scans, MRIs, canes and wheelchairs . Meanwhile, we’ve squeezed the doctors who don’t own their own clinics, don’t work as drug or device consultants or don’t otherwise game a system that is so gameable. And of course, we’ve squeezed everyone outside the system who gets stuck with the bills. We’ve created a secure, prosperous island in an economy that is suffering under the weight of the riches those on the island extract. And we’ve allowed those on the island and their lobbyists and allies to control the debate, diverting us from what Gerard Anderson, a health care economist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says is the obvious and only issue: “All the prices are too damn high.” The health care market is not a market at all. It’s a crapshoot. Everyone fares differently based on circumstances they can neither control nor predict. They may have no insurance. They may have insurance, but their employer chooses their insurance plan and it may have a payout limit or not cover a drug or treatment they need. They may or may not be old enough to be on Medicare or, given the different standards of the 50 states, be poor enough to be on Medicaid. If they’re not protected by Medicare or protected only partially by private insurance with high co-pays, they have little visibility into pricing, let alone control of it. They have little choice of hospitals or the services they are billed for , even if they somehow knew the prices before they got billed for the services. They have no idea what their bills mean, and those who maintain the chargemasters couldn’t explain them if they wanted to. How much of the bills they end up paying may depend on the generosity of the hospital or on whether they happen to get the help of a billing advocate. They have no choice of the drugs that they have to buy or the lab tests or CT scans that they have to get , and they would not know what to do if they did have a choice. They are powerless buyers in a sellers’ market where the only consistent fact is the profit of the sellers. Average: 5 Your rating: None Average: 5 ( 16 votes)
Review From reviews of the previous edition: `The book has some important characteristics that differentiate it from others in the field. Another unique feature is the presentation of tutorials that are highlighted in boxes.' Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics `This book is a new second edition of what became the standard text for Health Economists and can be heartily recommended to anyone who is interested in this vitally important area of research.' Amazon.com `An important contribution to studies on the economic evaluation of medical care.' British Medical Journal `This is essential reading. Only if all managers are aware of the powers of economic techniques will they be used sensibly.' Health Service Journal `This book suited my needs to perfection and is an ideal accompaniment to a course that combines methodology with critical appraisal and hands-on practical training in using these techniques. The methodological chapters on cost analysis and cost utility are gems... should become the standard text on the subject at the intermediate level at which it is aimed.' Medical Decision Making `This book is a must for every student in health services sciences.' Acta Hospitalia `The book is well designed and clearly written.' Canadian Public Policy `It leaves nothing important in economic evaluation analysis untouched.' Health Policy and Planning Book Description This highly successful textbook is now available in its third edition. Over the years it has become the standard textbook in the field world-wide. It mirrors the huge expansion of the field of economic evaluation in health care, since the last edition was published in 1997. This new edition builds on the strengths of previous editions, being clearly written in a style accessible to a wide readership. Key methodological principles are outlined using a critical appraisal checklist that can be applied to any published study. The methodological features of the basic forms of analysis are then explained in more detail with special emphasis of the latest views on productivity costs, the characterisation of uncertainty and the concept of net benefit. The book has been greatly revised and expanded especially concerning analysing patient-level data and decision-analytic modelling. There is discussion of new methodological approaches, including cost effectiveness acceptability curves, net benefit regression, probalistic sensitivity analysis and value of information analysis. There is an expanded chapter on the use of economic evaluation, including discussion of the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds, equity considerations and the transferability of economic data. This new edition is required reading for anyone commissioning, undertaking or using economic evaluations in health care, and will be popular with health service professionals, health economists, pharmacand health care decision makers. It is especially relevant for those taking pharmacoeconomics courses.
标签: Health经管大学堂：名校名师名课
京公网安备 11010802022788号
论坛法律顾问：王进律师
知识产权保护声明
免责及隐私声明
