Original source:
See the original post –
“Safe” Alternatives to Chemicals in Plastics Linked to Health Problems
Continue at source:
Are You Using More Than 100 Gallons of Water a Day? (Infographic)
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Babies born to women who took certain antidepressants during pregnancy may have an elevated risk of birth defects, according to a study published Wednesday in the medical journal BMJ.
Over the past few years, researchers have come to conflicting conclusions about the health impacts of taking common antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, early in pregnancy. Some studies have found prenatal exposure to SSRIs to be associated with heart and brain defects, autism, and more, while others have found the risk to be minimal or nonexistent.
The BMJ study, led by researchers at the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shed light on the matter by analyzing federal data of 38,000 births between 1997 and 2009. Researchers interviewed the mothers of children with certain birth defects associated with SSRIs, asking if they took certain antidepressants during the first three months of pregnancy or the month prior to it. Unlike many previous studies, which looked at the effects of SSRIs as a group, the researchers looked at the health impacts of five specific drugs. They found that two drugs were associated with birth defects, while three of the drugs were not. Here are the details:
Sertraline (Zoloft): No increased risk of birth defects. (This was the most common of the five drugs, taken by forty percent of the women on antidepressants.)
Paroxetine (Paxil): Babies were between 2 and 3.5 more likely to be born with heart defects, brain defects, holes between heart chambers, and intestinal deformities.
Fluoxetine (Prozac): Babies were two times more likely to experience heart defects and skull and brain shape abnormalities.
Escitalopram (Lexapro): No increased risk of birth defects.
Citalopram (Celexa): No increased risk of birth defects.
Researchers are quick to note that even in the case of paroxetine and fluexetine, the absolute risk of these defects is still very small. If mothers take paroxetine early in pregnancy, for example, the chance of giving birth to a baby with anencephaly, a brain defect, rise from 2 in 10,000 to 7 in 10,000.
Some doctors worry that studies like this dissuade mothers who truly need mental health treatment from seeking it—particularly since the stress associated with depression in the mother can impact the health of the baby. Elizabeth Fitelson, a Columbia University psychiatrist who treats pregnant women with depression, described this tricky balance to the New York Times earlier this year: “For about 10 percent of my patients, I can readily say that they don’t need medication and should go off it,” she said. “I see a lot of high-risk women. Another 20 percent absolutely have to stay on medication—people who have made a suicide attempt every time they’ve been unmedicated. For the remaining 70 percent, it’s a venture into the unknowable.”
View original article –
These Antidepressants May Increase the Risk of Birth Defects
The inventor of the Segway, who is described as our era’s Thomas Edison, has been working for years on one of our biggest global challenges. The documentary SlingShot shines a light on Kamen and his work. Source article: SlingShot: Inventor Dean Kamen’s 15-year quest to solve the world’s safe water crisis ; ; ;
Read the article:
SlingShot: Inventor Dean Kamen’s 15-year quest to solve the world’s safe water crisis
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
The New York Times reports that insurers are asking for significant rate increases for 2016:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota….The rate requests, from some of the more popular health plans, suggest that insurance markets are still adjusting to shock waves set off by the Affordable Care Act.
It is far from certain how many of the rate increases will hold up on review, or how much they might change. But already the proposals, buttressed with reams of actuarial data, are fueling fierce debate about the effectiveness of the health law.
….Insurers with decades of experience and brand-new plans underestimated claims costs. “Our enrollees generated 24 percent more claims than we thought they would when we set our 2014 rates,” said Nathan T. Johns, the chief financial officer of Arches Health Plan, which covers about one-fourth of the people who bought insurance through the federal exchange in Utah. As a result, the company said, it collected premiums of $39.7 million and had claims of $56.3 million in 2014. It has requested rate increases averaging 45 percent for 2016.
The rate requests are the first to reflect a full year of experience with the new insurance exchanges and federal standards that require insurers to accept all applicants.
I’d continue to counsel caution until we get further into the process. Big rate increase requests have been the opening bids from insurance companies for years, and they usually get knocked down to something much more reasonable by the time the regulatory process is finished. It’s also the case that if lots of young people have been paying the tax penalty instead of getting insured, that might change as the penalty goes up. It was $95 in 2014, went up to $325 this year, and goes up to $695 in 2016. At some point, more and more of these folks are going to decide that they really ought to get something for their money instead of just paying a penalty to the IRS, and that will help broaden the insurance pool.
Still, the bottom line here is that credible evidence is growing that we might see biggish rate increases in 2016. They won’t be the monster increases that Fox News will be hyping endlessly, but they might be bigger than us liberal types expected. We’ll know in a few months.
Link to original:
Obamacare Rates May Be Going Up Significantly in 2016 — Or Maybe Not
Continued here:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Every five years, the US government revisits its Dietary Guidelines—suggestions for how Americans should eat. The guidelines won’t legally require you to, say, eat an apple a day, but they do affect things like agricultural subsidies and public school lunches, so they’re fairly influential.
When the committee tasked with making scientific recommendations for the 2015 Dietary Guidelines released its report this year, it ruffled some feathers. For the first time it included concerns about the environmental issues linked to certain dietary patterns and agricultural practices—for example, how eating less meat and more plant-based foods is “more health promoting and is associated with a lesser environmental impact.” Or that assuring food security might rely on creating agricultural practices that “reduce environmental impacts and conserve resources.”
Some lobbyists and politicians, especially those who pad their pockets with cash from Big Food and Big Ag, weren’t too happy about these suggestions. As I’ve written in the past, the suggestion that plant-based diets might be healthier for people and the planet messes with the meat industry’s bottom line, so why would they back it? In letters sent to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack over the past few months, industry groups have tried to argue that sustainability issues do not fall within the scope of the Dietary Guidelines. One letter from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association argued that the advisory committee “clearly does not have the background or expertise to evaluate the complex relationship between food production and the dietary needs of a growing American and international population.”
The House Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, which accepted at least $1.4 million from the food industry in 2013 and 2014, apparently caved to these complaints. It recently stuck a rider in its 2016 Agricultural Appropriations bill that would A) explicitly prohibit the upcoming Dietary Guidelines from mentioning anything other than diet and nutrient intake, and B) force the guidelines to only rely on scientific evidence that has been rated “Grade 1: Strong” by the Department of Agriculture. Politico reported on Thursday that a similar Senate agriculture appropriations rider would force any advice in the Dietary Guidelines to be “solely nutritional and dietary in nature.”
In an unprecedented move, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has shot back with a letter of its own. Health and food systems should be more closely related in the government’s eyes, the committee argued. “Future food insecurity is predictable without attention to the safety, quality, cost, and sustainability of the food supply,” the letter stated, adding that “the US health and public health systems are burdened with preventable health problems.” In other words, to narrow the reach of the Dietary Guidelines is to ignore the connection between things like exercise and obesity, for instance, or agricultural pesticide use and disease. To read more of the DGAC’s arguments, see the full letter here.
Expect the finalized Dietary Guidelines late this year. In the meantime, it looks like the DGAC isn’t giving up the battle for a more holistic national framework for how people eat. They certainly have Food Politics author Marion Nestle on their side; as she summarizes on her blog:
Members of the DGAC were asked to review and consider the science of diet and health and did so. They reported what they believe the science says. Some segments of the food industry didn’t like the science so they are using the political system to fight back. That some members of Congress would go along with this is shameful.
Read original article:
Congress Doesn’t Think Agricultural Sustainability Has Anything to Do With Your Health
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
In a 6-3 ruling, the US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans buying insurance on the federal health care exchange can receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act, essentially upholding one of the most critical aspects of the law. The ruling is a major blow to Republicans who have spent years trying to tear down the law, and a political win for Democrats and President Obama. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton seemed pleased:
Yes! SCOTUS affirms what we know is true in our hearts & under the law: Health insurance should be affordable & available to all. -H
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton)
The GOP candidates, meanwhile, took to Twitter to blast Obamacare and the Supreme Court’s ruling:
Jeb Bush:
I am disappointed in the Burwell decision, but this is not the end of the fight against ObamaCare. http://t.co/3yaEVF1TaW
— Jeb Bush (@JebBush)
Ted Cruz:
Any candidate not willing to make 2016 a referendum on Repealing Obamacare should step aside https://t.co/6i4WzLFzKR #FullRepeal
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz)
I remain fully committed to the repeal of Obamacare—every single word of it. And, in 2017, we will do exactly that https://t.co/6i4WzLFzKR
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz)
Marco Rubio:
I disagree with the Court’s ruling and believe they have once again erred in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama…
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio)
…and Congress in forcing ObamaCare on the American people.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio)
Despite the Court’s decision, ObamaCare is still a bad law that is having a negative impact on our country and on millions of Americans.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio)
I remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it…
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio)
…with my consumer-centered plan that puts patients and families back in control of their health care decisions.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio)
We need Consumer Care, not ObamaCare.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio)
Rick Perry:
Americans deserve better than what we’re getting with Obamacare. It’s time we repealed and replaced it! http://t.co/1EHfbVKBMa
— Rick Perry (@GovernorPerry)
Mike Huckabee:
There isn’t a ‘do-over’ provision in our Constitution that allows unelected, SCOTUS judges power to circumvent Congress & rewrite bad laws.
— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee)
#SCOTUS can’t legislate from the bench & pass trillion dollar ‘fix’ to ObamaCare because Congress misread the states. http://t.co/IsTiI6Lqbz
— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee)
#ObamaCare ruling is judicial tyranny. http://t.co/Di6WjxOc3y
— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee)
Carly Fiorina:
It is outrageous that the Supreme Court once again rewrote ObamaCare to save this deeply flawed law https://t.co/NBAnohFTW7
— Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina)
ObamaCare has not lived up to what we were promised. It has become clear that this law isn’t working http://t.co/qaAR7pNVQJ
— Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina)
Repeal Obamacare and let the free market—not more crony capitalism—improve access and care for all Americans. http://t.co/qaAR7pNVQJ
— Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina)
Scott Walker:
Today’s #SCOTUScare ruling means Republicans must redouble their efforts to repeal and replace this destructive & costly law. -SKW
— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker)
And then there’s Donald Trump, talking about Miss Universe:
Mexican gov doesn’t want me talking about terrible border situation & horrible trade deals. Forcing Univision to get me to stop- no way!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
Continue at source:
The GOP Candidates React to the Supreme Court’s Obamacare Ruling
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
The members of Congress may occasionally be sloppy boobs, but we must defer to them when their intent is clear. That’s the main message of the Supreme Court decision handed down this morning that protects Obamacare. The issue at hand was whether what was essentially a typo—a poorly worded sentence in the law—could be used to deny health care insurance subsidies to millions of Americans in states where the federal government (not the state government) set up an exchange in which consumers can purchase insurance. Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts told the conservative plaintiffs who had tried to exploit a drafting error (which mentioned only exchanges created by states and not the federal government) to get out of town.
The majority opinion is mostly dry, with Roberts devoting much attention to justifying the court’s decision to consider the full intent of the law and not just the meaning of a few words in a single sentence. Here are some of the best passages:
1. When analyzing an agency’s interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U. S. 837. Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 842–843. This approach “is premised on the theory that a statute’s ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159 (2000). “In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation.” Ibid.
This is one of those cases… If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms. Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U. S. 242, 251 (2010). But oftentimes the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 132. So when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words “in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Id., at 133 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our duty, after all, is “to construe statutes, not isolated provisions.” Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U. S. 280, 290 (2010).
2. If we give the phrase “the State that established the Exchange” its most natural meaning, there would be no “qualified individuals” on Federal Exchanges. But the Act clearly contemplates that there will be qualified individuals on every Exchange.
As we just mentioned, the Act requires all Exchanges to “make available qualified health plans to qualified individuals”—something an Exchange could not do if there were no such individuals. §18031(d)(2)(A). And the Act tells the Exchange, in deciding which health plans to offer, to consider “the interests of qualified individuals . . . in the State or States in which such Exchange operates”—again, something the Exchange could not do if qualified individuals did not exist. §18031(e)(1)(B). This problem arises repeatedly throughout the Act. See, e.g., §18031(b)(2) (allowing a State to create “one Exchange . . . for providing . . . services to both qualified individuals and qualified small employers,” rather than creating separate Exchanges for those two groups).
These provisions suggest that the Act may not always use the phrase “established by the State” in its most natural sense. Thus, the meaning of that phrase may not be as clear as it appears when read out of context.
3. The upshot of all this is that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under 42 U. S. C. §18031” is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal—at least for purposes of the tax credits.
4. The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.
5. Anyway, we “must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Utility Air Regulatory Group, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reading Section 36B along with other related provisions in the Act, we cannot conclude that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under Section 18031” is unambiguous.
6. Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under 42 U. S. C. §18031” may seem plain “when viewed in isolation,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of the statute as a whole.” Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.
7. In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—”to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.
8. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.
Source article:
The 8 Best Lines From the Supreme Court Decision That Saved Obamacare
Libros
