||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PUBLIC RANKS HEALTHCARE AS SECOND MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE
KAISER FOUNDATION - Health care remains the top domestic issue that the
public wants presidential candidates to address, trailing only Iraq on
the public's overall priority list, according to the latest Kaiser
Family Foundation Health tracking poll. The June poll finds that 43% of
adults cite Iraq as one of the most important issues for presidential
candidates to talk about, followed by health care (21%). Iraq ranks
first among Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.
Health care ranks second among Democrats and independents, while
Republicans rank immigration slightly ahead of health (20% vs. 18%).
Immigration rose sharply as an issue since March and ranks third overall
with 18% in the new poll, which was taken as media attention focused on
the Senate debate about immigration reform legislation. The economy
(13%) and gas prices (12%) follow.
The poll also measures the public's perceptions of the presidential
candidates on health issues. To date, most people don't know or can't
name the candidate who they feel is placing the biggest emphasis on
health or the candidate who most matches their own views. Across party
identification, Sen. Hillary Clinton remains the candidate that people
are most likely to name as placing the biggest emphasis on health care
(23%) and as agreeing with their views (17%). Sen. Barack Obama is in
second place (9% on each question).
Looking only at Democrats, one in three name Sen. Clinton (33%, compared
to 27% in March) as the candidate who comes closest to their personal
views on health care, compared to 15% who name Sen. Obama (up from 8% in
March) and 4% who name former Sen. John Edwards (no change since March).
Few people name any of the Republican candidates as placing the biggest
emphasis on health care, with 2% overall naming former New York Mayor
Rudy Giuliani.
When asked what concerns them about rising health care costs, the poll
found people are twice as likely to cite having to pay higher premiums
and increased out-of-pocket costs (38%) as they are to say increases in
spending on government health insurance programs like Medicare and
Medicaid (18%) or increases in what the nation as a whole spends on
health (18%). A smaller share (13%) cite increases in the health
insurance premiums that employers pay to cover their workers. These
views vary little based on party identification.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NEW OVER THE COUNTER DIET PILL IS VARIATION OF DRUG DOCTORS FOUND DIDN'T
WORK WELL
JULIAN KESNER, NY DAILY NEWS - The first-ever FDA-approved
over-the-counter diet pill hits shelves with much fanfare - but
consumers can expect the same old poop. Overweight New Yorkers lured by
a citywide, multimillion-dollar advertising blitz, might just find
themselves $50 poorer, lacking in vitamins ... and suffering a bout of
diarrhea. That is when reality will set in, and they'll realize that
Alli (pronounced AL-lie) is far from a magic cure for obesity - like
every other diet pill - and they'll want their $50 back.
To be fair, Alli's maker, Glaxo Smith Kline, isn't making any promises
it can't keep. Phrases and words like "hard work," "not a quick fix,"
"commitment" and "dedication" are in big, bold letters in Alli's
hard-nosed user pamphlets.
The Alli literature also repeatedly includes this mantra: "Alli requires
eating reduced-calorie, low-fat meals and physical activity."
Funny - isn't that what you're already supposed to do to lose weight?
What Alli does is prevent absorption of up to 25% of dietary fat in the
gut. It's really just a lower dose of the drug orlistat (sold by
prescription as Xenical, made by Roche), which was FDA-approved in 1999.
The problem is that more and more doctors are deciding orlistat isn't
worth prescribing. IMS Health, a health-care information company, says
Xenical sales were $93 million last year - down 31% in the last five
years.
Yes, that $50 bottle is just a new name and look for a drug that has
already been rejected by countless doctors and patients. Going OTC is an
attempt to boost profits for a lackluster drug. . .
Dr. Larry Gellman, bariatric surgery co-director for the North Shore-LIJ
Health System, has seen "hundreds" of patients walk into his office
after having little to no success using Xenical/orlistat. . .
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2007/06/13/2007-06-13_
dont_swallow_the_hype.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE MYTH OF DIETING
NY TIMES - The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in
peoples' weights may be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that
means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other
condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease.
The results did not mean that people are completely helpless to control
their weight, Dr. Stunkard said. But, he said, it did mean that those
who tend to be fat will have to constantly battle their genetic
inheritance if they want to reach and maintain a significantly lower
weight.
The findings also provided evidence for a phenomenon that scientists
like Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel were certain was true - each person has a
comfortable weight range to which the body gravitates. The range might
span 10 or 20 pounds: someone might be able to weigh 120 to 140 pounds
without too much effort. Going much above or much below the natural
weight range is difficult, however; the body resists by increasing or
decreasing the appetite and changing the metabolism to push the weight
back to the range it seeks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?ex=1182398400&en=
229da81e2fdb565c&ei=5070
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PUBLIC RANKS HEALTHCARE AS SECOND MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE
KAISER FOUNDATION - Health care remains the top domestic issue that the
public wants presidential candidates to address, trailing only Iraq on
the public's overall priority list, according to the latest Kaiser
Family Foundation Health tracking poll. The June poll finds that 43% of
adults cite Iraq as one of the most important issues for presidential
candidates to talk about, followed by health care (21%). Iraq ranks
first among Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.
Health care ranks second among Democrats and independents, while
Republicans rank immigration slightly ahead of health (20% vs. 18%).
Immigration rose sharply as an issue since March and ranks third overall
with 18% in the new poll, which was taken as media attention focused on
the Senate debate about immigration reform legislation. The economy
(13%) and gas prices (12%) follow.
The poll also measures the public's perceptions of the presidential
candidates on health issues. To date, most people don't know or can't
name the candidate who they feel is placing the biggest emphasis on
health or the candidate who most matches their own views. Across party
identification, Sen. Hillary Clinton remains the candidate that people
are most likely to name as placing the biggest emphasis on health care
(23%) and as agreeing with their views (17%). Sen. Barack Obama is in
second place (9% on each question).
Looking only at Democrats, one in three name Sen. Clinton (33%, compared
to 27% in March) as the candidate who comes closest to their personal
views on health care, compared to 15% who name Sen. Obama (up from 8% in
March) and 4% who name former Sen. John Edwards (no change since March).
Few people name any of the Republican candidates as placing the biggest
emphasis on health care, with 2% overall naming former New York Mayor
Rudy Giuliani.
When asked what concerns them about rising health care costs, the poll
found people are twice as likely to cite having to pay higher premiums
and increased out-of-pocket costs (38%) as they are to say increases in
spending on government health insurance programs like Medicare and
Medicaid (18%) or increases in what the nation as a whole spends on
health (18%). A smaller share (13%) cite increases in the health
insurance premiums that employers pay to cover their workers. These
views vary little based on party identification.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NEW OVER THE COUNTER DIET PILL IS VARIATION OF DRUG DOCTORS FOUND DIDN'T
WORK WELL
JULIAN KESNER, NY DAILY NEWS - The first-ever FDA-approved
over-the-counter diet pill hits shelves with much fanfare - but
consumers can expect the same old poop. Overweight New Yorkers lured by
a citywide, multimillion-dollar advertising blitz, might just find
themselves $50 poorer, lacking in vitamins ... and suffering a bout of
diarrhea. That is when reality will set in, and they'll realize that
Alli (pronounced AL-lie) is far from a magic cure for obesity - like
every other diet pill - and they'll want their $50 back.
To be fair, Alli's maker, Glaxo Smith Kline, isn't making any promises
it can't keep. Phrases and words like "hard work," "not a quick fix,"
"commitment" and "dedication" are in big, bold letters in Alli's
hard-nosed user pamphlets.
The Alli literature also repeatedly includes this mantra: "Alli requires
eating reduced-calorie, low-fat meals and physical activity."
Funny - isn't that what you're already supposed to do to lose weight?
What Alli does is prevent absorption of up to 25% of dietary fat in the
gut. It's really just a lower dose of the drug orlistat (sold by
prescription as Xenical, made by Roche), which was FDA-approved in 1999.
The problem is that more and more doctors are deciding orlistat isn't
worth prescribing. IMS Health, a health-care information company, says
Xenical sales were $93 million last year - down 31% in the last five
years.
Yes, that $50 bottle is just a new name and look for a drug that has
already been rejected by countless doctors and patients. Going OTC is an
attempt to boost profits for a lackluster drug. . .
Dr. Larry Gellman, bariatric surgery co-director for the North Shore-LIJ
Health System, has seen "hundreds" of patients walk into his office
after having little to no success using Xenical/orlistat. . .
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2007/06/13/2007-06-13_
dont_swallow_the_hype.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE MYTH OF DIETING
NY TIMES - The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in
peoples' weights may be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that
means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other
condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease.
The results did not mean that people are completely helpless to control
their weight, Dr. Stunkard said. But, he said, it did mean that those
who tend to be fat will have to constantly battle their genetic
inheritance if they want to reach and maintain a significantly lower
weight.
The findings also provided evidence for a phenomenon that scientists
like Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel were certain was true - each person has a
comfortable weight range to which the body gravitates. The range might
span 10 or 20 pounds: someone might be able to weigh 120 to 140 pounds
without too much effort. Going much above or much below the natural
weight range is difficult, however; the body resists by increasing or
decreasing the appetite and changing the metabolism to push the weight
back to the range it seeks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?ex=1182398400&en=
229da81e2fdb565c&ei=5070
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment