KIBAKI-OBAMA HEALTHCARE PLANS…

With all the talk about Obama’s Health Care plan in the news lately, I’m still surprised that the nobody in the media talks about the actual plan – they just talk about the endless fighting that’s going on between politicians over the plan. So to inform the public, I’d thought I’d summarize the actual plan that’s being debated about, and the arguments for and against then plan.

First, why have heath care reform?

• Everybody agrees our health care system is broken.
• The U.S. has a complicated health care system of insurance, doctors, and patients. If you go to the doctor in America, you have to pay the doctor, the insurance company, and fight about who pays who and how much.
• American has the most expensive health care system in the world, yet ranks 37 in the world in health care performance and 72 in world in overall level of national health. (World Health Organization, 2000)
• Health care costs are rising three times the rate of wages, so people are unable to keep up with the cost of keeping healthy.
• The U.S. does not have universal health care, so people who cannot afford insurance cannot go to a doctor because they can’t afford it.
• The health insurance industry needs serious reform. Health insurance is a business in the U.S., so companies will raise prices on people who are expensive to insure and kick people off health insurance rolls if they become to expensive too keep healthy.

Obama’s Health Care Plan Summarized

• Cover all Americans with health insurance by requiring employers to provide health insurance to their employees. Mandating all children have health insurance.
• Allow workers to keep their employer-provided health insurance if they lose their job (or in between jobs).
• Outlaw the practice of insurance companies rejecting people because of pre-existing health conditions. And make insurance premiums the same for everybody regardless of health status.
• Provide a one-stop marketplace, called National Health Insurance Exchange, for customers to compare and shop for insurance plans.
• Have a government run “public” health insurance option to provide low-cost, affordable health insurance for everybody, spur competition.
• Read the full plan here: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

Arguments in favor of Obama’s Health Care Plan

• 46 millions of Americans, or 18% of the population under 65, are currently without health insurance and can not afford to see a doctor. The plan will insure almost all Americans.
• Health care costs will rise if we do nothing, putting health insurance out of reach for more and more Americans. The plan will bring down health care costs.
• Health care needs reform. This is the closest we’ve ever been to reforming health care in America.

Argument opposing Obama’s Health Care Plan

• It’s expensive. No one knows the true cost of a government-run health care plan. The costs will add to the deficit.
• Paying for the plan will include a tax increase on wealthy Americans (making anywhere from $350k-$1m + a year). Wealthy Americans will have to pay more taxes.
• Having a government-run health care plan can be a precursor to government taking over the entire health care system – limiting consumer choice in health care.

FOR ALL AMERICANS, THE OBAMA PLAN:

• Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront.
• Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized.
• Implements a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality.
• Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system.
• Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
• Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.

TO ALL KENYANS: THE KIBAKI PLAN…..

KENYA  OUTPATIENT MEDICAL INSURANCE COVER BY NATIONAL HOSPITAL INSURANCE FUND

Wananchi are set to benefit from a new scheme that makes it easier and cheaper to see a doctor.

This will reduce the number of people turning to quacks and herbalists. It will also mean fewer people detained or turned away from hospitals for failing to pay bills.

Affordable outpatient services will now be possible for more people through membership of the National Hospital Insurance Fund. The fund, which has only been paying in-patient bills for its members, recently rolled out an outpatient cover pilot project. This will initially be tested in Nairobi and Mumias to ensure it caters for urban and rural communities adequately. If the six-month pilot project runs successfully, all Kenyans will be able to join the scheme.

Medical Services Minister Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o, who officiated at the scheme’s rollout ceremony in Mumias town, said a national social insurance scheme was being developed to benefit patients at all levels.

Patients wait for treatment at a health facility. New NHIF health insurance scheme for outpatients will enable many to access healthcare.

With more than 400 accredited hospitals across the country including Government, faith-based and private hospitals, NHIF is the most widely available medical cover in the country. If its outpatient scheme were rolled out successfully, it would significantly alter the outpatient insurance landscape.

The successful roll out of the outpatient product will result in a major reawakening of the medical insurance business in Kenya, which has for long given low income people a wide berth.

Indeed, some medical insurance companies even decline to offer individual medical covers, opting exclusively for corporate business.

My Kenyan Brothers & Sisters ‘kati’ ya US na sisi nani munoma……..?

It isn’t anything funny

Humoral immunity is a type of immunity which is conferred through the release of antibodies which are used to target cells for destruction by the body when these cells are viewed as potentially dangerous. This type of immunity is a complement to cellular immunity, in which cells release toxins to kill unwanted invaders, or attack the invaders directly to kill them. Together, humoral and cellular immunity are designed to defend the body against a wide variety of threats which could compromise it.

Thought you should know.

A Folk Tale; The Analysis

Dear all, it been a while. I can’t quite say that I have missed you but I do hope that you have missed me (okay, this salutation does not make any sense but then again, does any?). Now that we are through with the formalities, I will go straight to my story. It is a story about stories. Those old stories that we heard from our parents and grandparents (or atleast from people who claimed to have heard them from their parents or grandparents). I figured that before we retell them to our children, yes ours, we need to critique them a bit. So here goes the detailed analysis.

A long, long time ago, in a place far, far away…. From my few years on earth, I have come to know one thing and that is that the most interesting stories are not from far away or from long ago. Ever since I began hearing stories from people other than my relatives and teachers (and indeed even from them), I have realised that the most intriguing stories are those of or about neighbours, workmates, prominent personalities and other associates. I have also learnt that the more recent the story, the juicier it is. I therefore wonder why our forefathers and more importantly foremothers, decided not to share these interesting stories from our formative years. I find it hard to believe that neighbours and friends only started to do interesting stuff in the last twenty years or so. Surely there must have been men back then who ended up in the wrong bedroom or women who ‘consulted’ persons with first line access to the dark spirits!

There lived a hare, lion, elephant, tortoise, hyena… Okay, fair enough, all these wonderful creatures must have lived in those far, far away lands. But then again, so must have women, men and children. I therefore find it a tad unfair that the stories opted to pick on creatures that could not defend themselves while leaving out the humans (and here I must say that I am not one of those ‘green’ people or even a vegetarian). Why couldn’t the creators of these tales pick certain people to give some of the qualities that were given to these innocent creatures? Surely in each village there must have been at least one person that was cunning, one that was greedy, a slow guy e.t.c. Probably the only difficulty may have been picking examples of those who were wise or leaders but then, in the very least, the story teller should have presented themselves as the epitome of leadership, the fountain of wisdom etcetera.

The animals used to wake up very early in the morning everyday to work together in their farm. Am sure any person not resident in a communist country will pick up at least ten things wrong with this statement without even having to think (well don’t worry if you can’t pick them up, not all of us were designed for picking, or is it thinking). I believe a more accurate and genuine statement should have in the very least indicated who was waking up the animals, what torture methods they were using, why the animals never had anything more interesting to do (examples here being dating, hiking, skiing, general travel etc), why they never subdivided the land, why they never considered mechanisation, why they worked on Sundays and public holidays, how come the work never ended, was there sick leave, did they have a title deed or how was the land theirs e.t.c.

The animals would work together and joyfully all day tending their crops.. If this here is not a statement aimed at brainwashing, then I do not know what is. The contradictions and untruthfulness in this line alone make me doubt the moral fabric of the peddlers of these stories. In my experience, if the words ‘work’ and ‘together’ follow each other in a statement, they can then not be followed immediately by the word ‘joyful’. More appropriate words would include acrimoniously, discordantly, dissonantly, cacophonously and jarringly (all of which mean inharmoniously, but do I say). Plus, from my farming experience, you do not tend crops all day.

From the fore going, I would suggest that we tell our children stories beginning as follows in future; Last night, in our neighbours, Mr. and Mrs. So and So’s house, the same house where they live with Mrs. So’s younger sister, (you know her?  The one who refuses to wake up anytime before midday), there was a fight. Hopefully by exposing our offspring to the truth from earlier on, they will turn out better than most of you did. Just a thought.

Obama’s Nobel Prize: Philosophical Objections

Barack Obama Peace Laureate 2009

Posted by Fenrir on Politics of Sanity

A Nobel prize is, presumably, awarded for accomplishment. It is not awarded for intentions, aspirations, or fine sentiments. I have yet to hear of a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded to a physicist for intending to discover a universally accepted unified field theory, or of a Nobel Prize in Literature being awarded to somebody for aspiring to write a brilliant novel. I think most people would agree that a prize awarded purely on the basis of intentions or aspirations is absurd. Anyone can have fine sentiments; what’s truly admirable is having the courage to act on those sentiments, and the knowledge and skills to make them a reality.

But in awarding President Obama the Nobel Prize for Peace, the Nobel Committee has behaved no less absurdly than if they were to award me the Nobel Prize for Medicine because I gave a stirring speech about how wonderful it would be to find a cure for cancer. No speech, however well-chosen the words and however charismatic the delivery, is going to provide a cure for cancer. Likewise, while Obama may have promised a new era of “hope” and “change”, it is not at all clear nine months into his presidency that he has been able (or even willing) to deliver on any of his promises. And given that he was nominated as a potential recipient a mere two weeks into his office (nominations were due on February 1st) makes the award all the more preposterous.

Even a child is able to tell the difference between saying you are going to do something and actually doing it. But it seems the Nobel Committee, and much of the international community, have totally taken leave of their senses and forgotten this basic distinction.

This may seem like a minor issue, with all that’s going on in the world. But I think it’s symptomatic of a larger problem endemic within society — a problem where we regularly mistake words for deeds, symbols for actions, and abstractions for reality. Something to consider as the Nobel laureate for Peace plans to continue his war.

I respect and admire Obama but him getting a Nobel price at this time is quit premature, although I suspect the Nobel committee aim is to add pressure on the American president to avoid being trigger happy when dealing with international conflicts’ such the Iran one…… ama?

TIME Examines Debate Over Using Female Condom To Fight HIV/AIDS In Uganda

women incharge....

TIME examines the debate over the Ugandan government’s recent decision to use money from the U.N. Population Fund to purchase and distribute 100,000 female condoms to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. Supporters of the government’s plan say female condoms increase a woman’s ability to negotiate with her partner. “The main issue was the desire for women to be able to say, ‘OK, you’re not going to use yours, then let’s use mine,’” Serra Sippel, president of the Center for Health and Gender Equity, said.

“Many experts, however, disagree,” fearing instead, “that by offering yet another choice, the government’s move may only distract from other drug and condom programs,” the magazine writes. Also, as the article notes, the female condom, which is more expensive than the male condom, has been slow to catch on since its introduction in the 1990s.

“Uganda sees the female condom as one way to regain the success the nation had in the fight against HIV/AIDS in the 1990s. After slashing its AIDS rate from more than 20% in the late ’80s to about 6% in 2000, Uganda saw a leveling off of AIDS cases and then a slight rise,” according to the magazine.

Beginning this year, the government will distribute the condoms in two regions in Uganda and will consider extending the program with the support of donors, according to TIME. However, the magazine writes, “[m]ajor donors including PEPFAR say they are not likely to back the female condom in Uganda.” Mike Strong, coordinator for PEPFAR in Uganda, suggested the government focus on the programs already in progress rather than starting from scratch with new programs (Wadhams, 8/30).

This information was reprinted from globalhealth.kff.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Global Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at globalhealth.kff.org.

© Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Should Kenya follow suit?  Does the ‘A’ in  the -ABC- approach work? How does this female condom work? There is a new Germicide/ anti-HIV gel in the market for our ladies! how does it compare to the female condom?

Ladies & Gentlemen  we need to hear form you……

Cell phone-cancer link found by Tel Aviv University scientist

(Adapted from eurekalert.org)

An Israeli scientist, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, has found a link between cell phone usage and the development of tumors.

Dr. Sadetzki, a physician, epidemiologist and lecturer at Tel Aviv University, published the results of a study recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology, in which she and her colleagues found that heavy cell phone users were subject to a higher risk of benign and malignant tumors of the salivary gland.

Those who used a cell phone heavily on the side of the head where the tumor developed were found to have an increased risk of about 50% for developing a tumor of the main salivary gland (parotid), compared to those who did not use cell phones.

The fact that the study was done on an Israeli population is significant. Says Sadetzki, “Unlike people in other countries, Israelis were quick to adopt cell phone technology and have continued to be exceptionally heavy users. Therefore, the amount of exposure to radiofrequency radiation found in this study has been higher than in previous cell phone studies.

“This unique population has given us an indication that cell phone use is associated with cancer,” adds Sadetzki, whose study investigated nearly 500 people who had been diagnosed with benign and malignant tumors of the salivary gland.

Controlled Study Reveals Link

The study’s subjects were asked to detail their cell phone use patterns in terms of how frequently they used one, and the average length of calls. They were compared to a sample of about 1,300 healthy control subjects.

The study also found an increased risk of cancer for heavy users who lived in rural areas. Due to fewer antennas, cell phones in rural areas need to emit more radiation to communicate effectively.

Sadetzki predicts that, over time, the greatest effects will be found in heavy users and children.

While anecdotal evidence has been substantial, the consistency of the results of this study support an association between cell phone use and these tumors. The risks have been hard to prove, mainly due to the long latency period involved in cancer development, explains Sadetzki.

Keep Calling but Call Smarter

Today it is estimated that more than 90% percent of the Western world uses cell phones. As the technology becomes cheaper and more accessible, its usage by a greater number of people, including children, is bound to increase.

“While I think this technology is here to stay,” Sadetzki says, “I believe precautions should be taken in order to diminish the exposure and lower the risk for health hazards.” She recommends that people use hands-free devices at all times, and when talking, hold the phone away from one’s body. Less frequent calls, shorter in duration, should also have some preventative effect.

While she appreciates the ease of communication that cell phones allow between parents and their children, Sadetzki says that parents need to consider at what age their children start using them. Parents should be vigilant about their children’s using speakers or hands-free devices, and about limiting the number of calls and amount of time their children spend on the phone.

“Some technology that we use today carries a risk. The question is not if we use it, but how we use it,” concludes Sadetzki.

Sadetzki’s main research on this new study was carried out at the Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research at the Sheba Medical Center. Her research is part of the international Interphone Study, which attempts to determine an association between cell phones and several types of brain and parotid gland tumors.