Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn health. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn health. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 5, 2013

Obama plays 'truth or dare' with your health care

At his impromptu news conference last Tuesday, President Obama demonstrated he is either so detached he doesn’t know what’s happened as the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) is being implemented or that he knows but intends to brazen his way through an emerging policy debacle.  Whichever it is, it’s likely to be a political disaster for the president and his party.

Saying that while there were big changes for those now uninsured, it was a different situation “for the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance,” Mr. Obama said. The only impact for them, he assured us, is that “their insurance is stronger, better, more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”

Yes they do. 

Start with their premiums. Rather than declining by $2,500 per family of four by the end of 2010 as Mr. Obama pledged, average family premiums have risen from a pre-ObamaCare cost of $13,375 in 2009 to $15,745 last year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2012 Employer Health Benefits Summary.  

Premiums are rising fast for precisely the reason ObamaCare critics predicted: the health care act includes so many mandates and requirements that make insurance much more costly.

That’s a $2,375 or 18% increase, not the $2,500 or 19% decrease Mr. Obama promised.  

Workers are picking up most of that increase as employers grapple with rising insurance costs by requiring bigger co-pays and deductibles.

Premiums are rising fast for precisely the reason ObamaCare critics predicted: the health care act includes so many mandates and requirements that make insurance much more costly.

Premium sticker shock is even worse for those who aren’t covered by a group or company policy.  There has been an “average increase of roughly 50% in premiums for some in the individual market for the same coverage,” according to last year’s “Medical Cost Trend: Behind the Numbers 2013” report from PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute.

Premiums will go up even more and faster for younger families because of the perverse provision of ObamaCare called “community rating.”  This causes younger, healthier policyholders to pay higher prices than they would otherwise in order to subsidize the premiums of older, less health policyholders.

Then there was Mr. Obama’s 2009 pledge that he’d never raise taxes on any family making less than $250,000 a year. But the Affordable Care Act includes $525 billion in new taxes during its first decade as law, with ever-higher taxes in the decades ahead.  Among these are new levies on medical devices, drug companies, hospitals and providers and insurance policies.  

Medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, health care companies and insurance companies will not pay these taxes.  

As Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf told a Senate hearing, these companies will simply pass the taxes onto their customers. 

In other words, sick people needing a medical device, a drug, a hospital stay, a doctor’s care or even the backstop of an insurance policy will pay the $525 billion in new taxes through higher prices for those goods and services. 

Last time I looked, there were plenty of sick people who made less than $250,000 a year.  And since these taxes are phased in, the tab will get bigger and bigger in the “out” years.

ObamaCare even raises revenue from those in college on a student loan. The Affordable Care Act nationalized student loans issued with a federal guarantee. Now students can only get these loans from the government, not private lenders.  

College students are being hit again because the federal government took over the student-loan business in 2010, eliminating the competition. This allows the Education Department to borrow money from Treasury at an interest rate of 2.8% and lend it to college students at a rate of 6.8%. A portion of the profits from overcharging students will be used to help pay for ObamaCare. 

Mr. Obama also said in 2010 that he didn’t “want a plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.  So we’re going to preserve that.”

But a massive survey of 14,000 doctors by the Physician’s Foundation, conducted in 2010, said that 40% of physicians said they would drop out of patient care in the next one to three years, either by retiring, seeking a non-clinical job within health care, or by seeking a non-healthcare related job.  

The majority of physicians (59%) said health reform will cause them to spend less time with patients, most of them saying Medicaid and Medicare patients would be most affected.

Who can blame the doctors?  The over 150 new federal commissions, bureaus, agencies, and panels — and the new rules they are charged with crafting to govern every minute action by physicians, nurses and other care givers — are already causing many health professions to contemplate doing something else or retiring early.

But perhaps the worst impact on American families are coping with all of this springs from Mr. Obama’s pledge that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”  

With $130 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, the 13 million seniors, or roughly 25% of the total, who use Medicare Advantage are seeing their plans dramatically altered or even cancelled.

But seniors aren’t the only ones impacted by Mr. Obama’s false promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”  More Americans are beginning to understand that ObamaCare will have grave implications for their families and their health coverage.

Insurance is getting more expensive for small businesses to their employees.  When insurance coverage gets too expensive, businesses can dump their employees into a government-run pool called an “exchange” and pay a $2,000 fine for each employee after the first 30 workers.   

Since most companies pay as much as 80% of the premium costs for their workers, ObamaCare has a perverse incentive for them to dump coverage and drop their workers into the exchange where taxpayers pick up most of the cost.

Companies can also avoid providing insurance by limiting non-salaried employees’ hours to 30 or less a week.  Then they escape any penalty for failing to provide coverage.  

Already, restaurants, fast food joints, hotels and others in the hospitality sector are moving to limit non-salaried workers to 30 hours or less a week.

This will cause real hardship.  Many servers, hotel workers, or fast food employees need to 34 or 35 hours a week plus tips just to make ends meet.  They are hearing they’ll get 30 hours and no more from their current employer and have to find the other hours they need somewhere else.  Not an easy task in today’s economy.

This trend is likely to affect some retail and other service industries as well. I recently talked with an executive in the auto parts industry who says franchise owners are moving in this direction.  

On a more personal note, a family friend recently lost his sales job despite being the leading performer two years running for his company.  He’s being replaced by a 30-hour a week non-salaried employee.

Last year, the annual Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health Employer Survey on Purchasing Value in Health Care found that more than two in five employers are at least somewhat likely to direct part-time and temporary workers into exchanges.

For these workers and their families, it doesn’t matter if they like their health care plans.  They won’t be able to keep them.  And that has consequences for ObamaCare’s price tag.

When the Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that 24 million Americans would get coverage through the exchange, 21 million of them previous uninsured and 3 million who would lose their employer provided coverage.  

In its March 18, 2010 score the CBO said the cost for this would be $466 billion, offset by $52 billion in employer penalty payments, with the exchange started in 2014 and being fully operational by 2016.  Ninety-five percent of the outlays for the exchange would be paid in the last four years of ObamaCare’s first decade, 2016 to 2019.

This February, the Congressional Budget Office revised its estimates.  Now it believes 8 million Americans, not its original estimate of 3 million, will lose their employers provided coverage. That would mean a total of 29 million people, not 24 million, would be covered through the exchange.  That would point to the real cost of the exchange being about 17% higher than originally forecast.

The CBO also issued a new projection for the cost of the exchange between 2014 and 2023.  This would include the cost for the two years spent phasing in the exchange (2014 and 2015) and the cost for eight years of their operation.  That number is now $949 billion.

And the CBO’s new estimate is on the low side.

The actuary’s office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) at the Department of Health and Human Services says 14 million Americans will lose their employers provided coverage, raising to 35 million the total number who would be covered through the exchange.  That would suggest costs being roughly 46% higher than projected.

The Lewin Group, a respected healthcare policy research and management-consulting firm, estimates 17.2 million Americans will lose employer provided insurance so that 38.2 million are covered through the exchange.  If the Lewin Group is correct and those in the exchanges number 38.2 million, then ObamaCare’s tab is approximately 59% more than the original estimate.  

And economists at the American Action Forum (AAF) suggest 35 million will lose employers provided coverage, putting 56 million into the exchange.  If AAF’s estimate of 56 million is accurate, then the cost of ObamaCare’s exchange could be as much as 133% of CBO’s estimate, more than twice the cost Mr. Obama told Americans it would be.

But the Affordable Care Act’s price tag could be even larger. A survey by McKinsey & Company suggests 30% of employers will stop offering health insurance coverage.  

Around 61% of firms offer insurance plans per Kaiser’s 2012 Employer Health Benefit report with roughly 170 million Americans having heath insurance tied to their jobs, according to the latest U.S. Census data. 

So a 30% decrease in employer provided insurance would mean as many as 53 million lose coverage, bringing the total in the exchange to 71 million.  You work the math.

Whatever the final price tag for the exchange, virtually all of the new cost will be deficit financed. It’s hard to see much of the cost being covered by the $2,000 a person fine since it appears most of the workers dumped into the exchange will come from small businesses or workers who are now part-time, non-salaried employees.

The bottom line, then, is that huge problems related to ObamaCare are emerging. Companies – especially small businesses -- are holding back hiring in order to avoid the rising costs of providing health insurance that are being imposed by ObamaCare.  

Employers are trying to find ways to limit the hours of non-salaried workers to 30 hours or less a week to avoid ObamaCare’s requirements altogether.  And the administration’s estimate of how many people will receive taxpayer subsidized insurance coverage through the exchange may be terribly low, grossly understating ObamaCare’s cost.  All these trends are likely to be accelerating as the November 2014 midterm elections approach.

During his press conference last week the president said, “even if we do everything perfectly, there will still be glitches and bumps.” 

The problem is that the president constructed an unworkable plan and he’s implementing it incompetently. The result is not “glitches and bumps;” it’s “sinkholes and craters.” And the result is that ObamaCare will become even greater political deadweight for the president and his party.

No wonder Democrats from Senator Max Baucus to liberal favorites like Elizabeth Colbert Busch are running from what Mr. Baucus calls an impending “train wreck.” And there’s not a thing in the world they can do to avoid it.

Karl Rove is a Fox News political analyst and a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush. He is the author of "Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight" (Threshold Editions, 2010) and helped organize the political action committee American Crossroads.

 


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 1 tháng 5, 2013

ObamaCare vs. neglect --what's better for your health?

Most Americans -- even those who are legislators -- know very little about the details of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, so-called "ObamaCare." Next year, when it goes into effect, we will learn the hard way.

Many people lazily assume that the law will do roughly what it promises: give insurance to the uninsured and lower the cost of health care by limiting spending on dubious procedures.

Don’t count on it.

Consider just the complexity: The act itself is more than 906 pages long, and again and again in those 906 pages are the words, “the Secretary shall promulgate regulations ...”

If only government would neglect the rest of health care! Then we’d have better service and better care at lower cost.

“Secretary” refers to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. Her minions have been busy. They’ve already added 20,000 pages of rules. They form a stack 7 feet high, and more are to come.

Our old health care system was already a bureaucratic and regulatory nightmare. It had 16,000 different codes for different ailments. Under our new, “improved” system, there will be more than a 100,000.

Government likes to think regulations can account for every possibility. Injured at a chicken coop? The code for that will be Y9272. Fall at an art gallery? That means you are a Y92250.

There are three different codes for walking into a lamppost -- depending on how often you’ve walked into lampposts. This is supposed to give government a more precise way to reimburse doctors for treating people and alert us to surges in injuries that might inspire further regulation.

On Government-Planned World, this makes sense. But it will be no more successful than Soviet central planning.

Compare all that to a tiny part of American medicine that is still free-market: Lasik eye surgery.
Its quality has improved, while its costs have dropped 25 percent. Lasik (and cosmetic surgery) are specialties that provide a better consumer experience because they are a market. Patients pay directly, so doctors innovate constantly to please them. Lasik doctors even give patients their cell phone numbers.

President Obama didn’t kill American free-market health care. It began dying during World War II, when government imposed wage and price controls. 

At first, companies said, “Great, stability!” But then they realized that they could not attract better workers without raises. So companies got around the rules, as companies do. They gave “benefits,” like health insurance.

Government then distorted the market further by giving employer-based health insurance better tax treatment than coverage you buy yourself.

But employer-based insurance is nuts. Many workers feel locked into their jobs. Company insurance largely destroyed the health care free market, since employees rarely shop for the best service at the lowest price.

Now ObamaCare may kill what’s left of that market.

Maybe we will soon be like Canada, where some people wait years for treatment. A producer from my TV show went to a Canadian town where the town clerk pulls names out of a box and then phones people to say: “Congratulations! You get to see a doctor this month!”

But there is at least one area where Canada offers cutting-edge, life-saving technologies. Unfortunately, to get this care, you have to meow or bark. Veterinary care is still handled by the market. Providers innovate or go out of business.

Markets find ways to make things better and cheaper. ObamaCare often forbids that. For example, it requires that every insurance policy cover preventive care and “breastfeeding support.” It insists that mammograms and colonoscopies be provided without any deductible.

It’s tempting to believe that such rules prevent illness and save money, but there is little evidence they will. 

Some people will undergo invasive procedures that shorten lives instead of extending them. Some of us want those tests; some don’t. 

Government controlled medicine means we  all get them and pay for them, regardless of whether we want them. Government control kills consumer choice.

Lucky Lasik and cosmetic surgery patients! Their treatments are better in part because government doesn’t consider them important enough to subsidize and regulate. If only government would neglect the rest of health care! Then we’d have better service and better care at lower cost.

And we’d have choices.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 24 tháng 4, 2013

House GOP withdraws health care proposal, but vow to bring it back

In a rare move, House Republicans pulled their own health care bill from the floor Wednesday after failing to secure enough votes to ensure its passage.

The bill offered a lifeline to a main feature of President Obama’s health care overhaul - affordable coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions -- after it ran into strong opposition from both conservatives and Democrats.

The legislation is a departure from past GOP efforts to kill the Affordable Health Care Act outright, and faced a White House veto threat.

Democrats are against it because it would bail out the struggling program to help those with pre-existing conditions get insurance by raiding a disease prevention provision the administration says is essential.

Conservative groups also urged Republicans to vote against it, saying it perpetuated the federal role in health care. Some said they felt the bill “embraced” Obamacare.

The measure was a pet project of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia whose office pledged to keep working on the bill.

“We had positive conversations today and made good progress,” Cantor spokesman Doug Heye told Fox News later in the day. “We remain focused on stopping the biggest entitlement expansion in a generation.”

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy’s office said they had made “a lot of solid progress.”
“There's still work to do and with Members leaving town for the Bush Library dedication in Texas, we'll continue the conversations after the district work period,” Erica Elliott said.

Fox News' Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 17 tháng 4, 2013

Top Dem Sen. Baucus warns of 'train wreck' for Obama health law

A senior Democratic senator who helped write President Obama's health care law stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a "train wreck." 

"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama's health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense. 

Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance that start next year. 

The six-term Democrat is also expected to face a tough re-election in 2014. Baucus is still trying to recover from approval ratings that nosedived amid displeasure with the health care law in his home state. 

Normally low-key and supportive, Baucus challenged Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at Wednesday's hearing. 

He said he's "very concerned" that new health insurance marketplaces for consumers and small businesses will not open on time in every state, and that if they do, they might just flop because residents don't have the information they need to make choices. 

"The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade," he told Sebelius. "You need to fix this." 

Responding to Baucus, Sebelius pointedly noted that Republicans in Congress last year blocked funding for carrying out the health care law, and she had to resort to raiding other departmental funds that were legally available to her. 

The administration is asking for $1.5 billion in next year's budget, and Republicans don't seem willing to grant that either. 

"I don't know what he's looking at," Sebelius told reporters following her out of the room after Baucus adjourned the hearing. "But we are on track to fully implement marketplaces in Jan. 2014, and to be open for open enrollment." 

That open-enrollment launch is only months away, Oct. 1. It's when millions of middle-class consumers who don't get coverage through their jobs will be able to start shopping for a private plan in the new marketplaces, or exchanges. They'll also be able to find out if they qualify for tax credits that will lower their premiums. At the same time, low-income people will be steered to government programs, mainly an expanded version of Medicaid. 

But half the states, most of them Republican-led, have refused to cooperate in setting up the infrastructure of Obama's law. Others, like Montana, are politically divided. The overhaul law provided that the federal government would step in and run the new markets if a state failed to do so. Envisioned as a fallback, federal control now looks like it will be the norm in about half the country, straining the resources of the department Sebelius leads.


View the original article here

Top Dem Sen. Baucus warns of 'train wreck' for Obama health law

A senior Democratic senator who helped write President Obama's health care law stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a "train wreck." 

"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama's health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense. 

Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance that start next year. 

The six-term Democrat is also expected to face a tough re-election in 2014. Baucus is still trying to recover from approval ratings that nosedived amid displeasure with the health care law in his home state. 

Normally low-key and supportive, Baucus challenged Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at Wednesday's hearing. 

He said he's "very concerned" that new health insurance marketplaces for consumers and small businesses will not open on time in every state, and that if they do, they might just flop because residents don't have the information they need to make choices. 

"The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade," he told Sebelius. "You need to fix this." 

Responding to Baucus, Sebelius pointedly noted that Republicans in Congress last year blocked funding for carrying out the health care law, and she had to resort to raiding other departmental funds that were legally available to her. 

The administration is asking for $1.5 billion in next year's budget, and Republicans don't seem willing to grant that either. 

"I don't know what he's looking at," Sebelius told reporters following her out of the room after Baucus adjourned the hearing. "But we are on track to fully implement marketplaces in Jan. 2014, and to be open for open enrollment." 

That open-enrollment launch is only months away, Oct. 1. It's when millions of middle-class consumers who don't get coverage through their jobs will be able to start shopping for a private plan in the new marketplaces, or exchanges. They'll also be able to find out if they qualify for tax credits that will lower their premiums. At the same time, low-income people will be steered to government programs, mainly an expanded version of Medicaid. 

But half the states, most of them Republican-led, have refused to cooperate in setting up the infrastructure of Obama's law. Others, like Montana, are politically divided. The overhaul law provided that the federal government would step in and run the new markets if a state failed to do so. Envisioned as a fallback, federal control now looks like it will be the norm in about half the country, straining the resources of the department Sebelius leads.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

Study: Health care overhaul to increase claims costs by 32 percent

Medical claims costs -- the biggest driver of health insurance premiums -- will jump an average 32 percent for Americans' individual policies under President Obama's overhaul, according to a study by the nation's leading group of financial risk analysts. 

The report could turn into a big headache for the Obama administration at a time when many parts of the country remain skeptical about the Affordable Care Act. The estimates were recently released by the Society of Actuaries to its members. 

While some states will see medical claims costs per person decline, the report concluded the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets, where people purchase coverage directly from insurers. 

The disparities are striking. By 2017, the estimated increase would be 62 percent for California, about 80 percent for Ohio, more than 20 percent for Florida and 67 percent for Maryland. Much of the reason for the higher claims costs is that sicker people are expected to join the pool, the report said. 

The report did not make similar estimates for employer plans, the mainstay for workers and their families. That's because the primary impact of Obama's law is on people who don't have coverage through their jobs. 

The administration questions the design of the study, saying it focused only on one piece of the puzzle and ignored cost relief strategies in the law such as tax credits to help people afford premiums and special payments to insurers who attract an outsize share of the sick. The study also doesn't take into account the potential price-cutting effect of competition in new state insurance markets that will go live on Oct. 1, administration officials said. 

"It's misleading to look at only some of the provisions of the law because, taken together, the law will reduce costs," said Health and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields Britt. 

But a prominent national expert, recently retired Medicare chief actuary Rick Foster, said the report does "a credible job" of estimating potential enrollment and costs under the law, "without trying to tilt the answers in any particular direction." 

"Having said that," Foster added, "actuaries tend to be financially conservative, so the various assumptions might be more inclined to consider what might go wrong than to anticipate that everything will work beautifully." Actuaries use statistics and economic theory to make long-range cost projections for insurance and pension programs sponsored by businesses and government. The society is headquartered near Chicago. 

Kristi Bohn, an actuary who worked on the study, acknowledged it did not attempt to estimate the effect of subsidies, insurer competition and other factors that could mitigate cost increases. She said the goal was to look at the underlying cost of medical care. 

"Claims cost is the most important driver of health care premiums," she said. 

"We don't see ourselves as a political organization," Bohn added. "We are trying to figure out what the situation at hand is." 

On the plus side, the report found the law will cover more than 32 million currently uninsured Americans when fully phased in. And some states -- including New York and Massachusetts -- will see double-digit declines in costs for claims in the individual market. 

Uncertainty over costs has been a major issue since the law passed three years ago, and remains so just months before a big push to cover the uninsured gets rolling Oct. 1. Middle-class households will be able to purchase subsidized private insurance in new marketplaces, while low-income people will be steered to Medicaid and other safety net programs. States are free to accept or reject a Medicaid expansion also offered under the law. 

Obama has promised that the new law will bring costs down. That seems a stretch now. While the nation has been enjoying a lull in health care inflation the past few years, even some former administration advisers say a new round of cost-curbing legislation will be needed. 

Bohn said the study overall presents a mixed picture. 

Millions of now-uninsured people will be covered as the market for directly purchased insurance more than doubles with the help of government subsidies. The study found that market will grow to more than 25 million people. But costs will rise because spending on sicker people and other high-cost groups will overwhelm an influx of younger, healthier people into the program. 

Some of the higher-cost cases will come from existing state high-risk insurance pools. Those people will now be able to get coverage in the individual insurance market, since insurance companies will no longer be able to turn them down. Other people will end up buying their own plans because their employers cancel coverage. While some of these individuals might save money for themselves, they will end up raising costs for others. 

Part the reason for the wide disparities in the study is that states have different populations and insurance rules. In the relatively small number of states where insurers were already restricted from charging higher rates to older, sicker people, the cost impact is less. 

"States are starting from different starting points, and they are all getting closer to one another," said Bohn. 

The study also did not model the likely patchwork results from some states accepting the law's Medicaid expansion while others reject it. It presented estimates for two hypothetical scenarios in which all states either accept or reject the expansion. 

Larry Levitt, an insurance expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, reviewed the report and said the actuaries need to answer more questions. 

"I'd generally characterize it as providing useful background information, but I don't think it's complete enough to be treated as a projection," Levitt said. The conclusion that employers with sicker workers would drop coverage is "speculative," he said. 

Another caveat: The Society of Actuaries contracted Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, to do the number-crunching that drives the report. United also owns the nation's largest health insurance company. Bohn said the study reflects the professional conclusions of the society, not Optum or its parent company.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 17 tháng 3, 2013

The most notorious health myths

We are bombarded with health tips every day, but some of those messages may be harmful if you don’t get the facts straight.

Dr. Jacob Teitelbaum, author of Real Cause Real Cure, spoke with Dr. Manny Alvarez, senior managing health editor for FoxNews.com, about some of the most notorious health myths.

Myth #1: Arthritis medication is the best treatment for arthritis.

According Teitelbaum, more than 30,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year from arthritis medications.  

“If you take a look at things like ibuprofen or the standard arthritis medication, 16,500 bleeding ulcer deaths a year in the United States from those medications – and the doubling and tripling of heart attack and stroke risk.”

While Teitelbaum says it’s better to be on medication than to be in pain, there are natural remedies for arthritis that are much safer.  End Pain, which is a mix of willow bark and boswellia, has shown to be twice as effective as ibuprofen in studies, Teitelbaum noted.  Also, Curamin and boswellia were found to be more effective than Celebrex.  And rather than getting side effects, the natural remedies provide side benefits – such as decreasing the risk of Alzheimer’s disease and the risk of cancer.

Myth #2: You need to take calcium to treat osteoporosis.

A very controversial claim Teitelbaum makes is that taking calcium is for osteoporosis can actually do more harm than good.

“Osteoporosis is not calcium deficiency, and the calcium has very little benefit,” he said.  “But recent studies show that it can increase heart attack deaths up to 31 percent – which is massive.”

Instead of taking unnecessary calcium, Teitelbaum says to simply drink more milk and other natural sources of the element.  But more importantly, since the calcium isn’t exactly needed, individuals with osteoporosis can take minerals, such as Strontium – which has been shown to be almost twice as effective as medications.  Magnesium, vitamin D, boron and other nutrients help increase bone density and the production of healthy new bone.

Myth #3: Antacids are necessary to treat indigestion.

Many Americans suffer from indigestion, and numerous medications purport to relieve symptoms from the embarrassing condition.  However, Teitelbaum says that antacids don’t exactly treat the source of the problem.

“Indigestion is not too much stomach acid; it’s poor digestion,” Teitelbaum said.  “If you don’t have what you need to digest your food, you eat this big mega-meal, and an hour later, it’s still sitting in your stomach.”

In order to aid digestion, Teitelbaum suggests taking digestive enzymes, such as Digest Gold.  Whatever brand you use, make sure they are 100 percent plant-based enzymes.  Probiotic culture found in yogurts and supplement are also helpful in the lower abdomen, relieving gas, bloating, diarrhea and constipation.

Myth #4:  Avoid the sun.

Teitelbaum said the myth that people should avoid the sun at all costs probably results in tens of thousands of unnecessary cancer deaths each year.

“Most of the deadly skin cancers, called melanomas, are not in sun-exposed areas,” he said.  “They’re increasing because of poor immune function, from poor sleep, poor nutrition and other factors.”

The skin cancers caused by sunshine are usually not the dangerous kinds, Teitelbaum said.  Instead, sunshine is critical for vitamin D, an important hormone and vitamin.  Without vitamin D, individuals can have an increased risk of breast cancer, autoimmune disease, multiple sclerosis and diabetes.

Also, Teitelbaum has simple advice to balance damage versus benefit when it comes to the sun: “Avoid sunburn, not sunshine,” Teitelbaum said.

Myth #5: Heart failure is a death sentence.

One of the biggest causes of death for many Americans is heart failure, but the condition does not necessarily mean a person’s time is up.

“It’s very easy to improve heart muscle function using natural remedies that play very well with the medication,” Teitelbaum said.  “Certainly blood thinners that you want to get through doctors are okay before you add anything to those, but things like Coenzyme Q10, 200 mg a day will markedly improve heart function.”

Ribose, a simple energy nutrient, can help heart function, along with Acetyl Carnitine, magnesium and B-vitamins.  Ultimately these supplements help improve muscle function.

“The heart beats more efficiently, and therefore the symptoms often go away,” Teitelbaum said.

Myth #6: Thyroid screenings are accurate.

When it comes to the thyroid screening methodology doctors use today, Teitelbaum says doctors don’t understand what ‘normal’ means.  He says it means you’re not in the highest or lowest 2 percent of the population.

“You have to treat the person, not just the blood test,” Teitelbaum said. “People whose thyroid levels are in the low-normal range, versus high-normal, have a 69 percent increased risk of dying of heart attack.  People with mild, low thyroid – where many doctors say we don’t need to treat it – if you do treat it, their heart attack risk goes down by more than 30 percent.”

Patients who are treated for mild to low thyroid often see increased energy levels, weight loss, and healthier skin and hair – among other benefits, Teitelbaum added.


View the original article here