Morning Health

Healthy, Wealthy & Wise

You are here: Home / Archives for News

Older Women with Gum Disease at Higher Risk of Cancer

By Leave a Comment

From the time we were little kids, our parents were constantly on us about brushing our teeth at least once a day, usually before going to bed. Fifty to sixty years ago, it was all about brushing, brushing and brushing of our teeth.

Then about thirty to forty years ago, flossing became just as important as brushing. Many dentists started telling everyone to floss their teeth at least once or twice a day and many recommended brushing our teeth after every meal and before bed, to prevent the buildup of plaque and bacteria that harm the hard enamel layer on our teeth.

Then came the first visit to the dentist – a terrifying ordeal for many kids. They’ve all heard the horror stories of getting shots in their mouths, having dentists drill into our teeth and even pull them if necessary. If you are like me and have a genetic immunity to the vast majority of pain killers, visiting the dentist was truly something you wanted to avoid at all cost.

Tooth decay, fillings, root canals, caps, pulled teeth and dentures were the primary focus of things to avoid by brushing and flossing daily. However, gun disease also became a topic of importance to many dentists.

Today, the topic of gun disease carries more health importance as researchers learn more about it and its long-term effects, especially for older women, according to a new report:

“Now, a group of investigators at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo have just released data from a large cohort study, which showed that periodontal disease was associated with increased risk of several types of cancer in postmenopausal women, even in women who had never smoked. The findings from the new study were published today in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention in an article entitled ‘Periodontal Disease and Incident Cancer Risk among Postmenopausal Women: Results from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Cohort’.”

“The SUNY Buffalo team assembled a prospective cohort study of 65,869 women aged 54 to 86 who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study. Using questionnaires administered between 1999 and 2003, study participants self-reported on their periodontal disease history. The researchers evaluated cancer outcomes through September 2013. Using an average follow-up time of 8.32 years, the researchers had identified 7149 cases of cancer. Analysis of all the data showed that a history of periodontal disease was associated with a 14% higher risk of developing any cancer.”

“‘Our study findings serve to provide further evidence that periodontal disease is linked to cancer and support the need for further investigation into how periodontal disease contributes to increased cancer risk,’ remarked lead study investigator Ngozi Nwizu, Ph.D., assistant professor of oral and maxillofacial pathology at The University of Texas School of Dentistry.”

Jean Wactawski-Wende, Ph.D., a professor in the department of epidemiology and environmental health and dean of the School of Public Health and Health Professions at SUNY Buffalo and a senior study investigator added:

“The esophagus is in close proximity to the oral cavity, and so periodontal pathogens may more easily gain access to and infect the esophageal mucosa and promote cancer risk at that site.”

Ladies, remember to brush and floss daily and use a good mouthwash like Listerine that helps kill harmful bacteria left behind after brushing. Our lives, diets and environments are already filled with one cancer risk causing item after another, so don’t fall victim to your own mouth and gums.

Smart Medicine or Playing God?

By Leave a Comment

When scientists began cloning animals, there was a plethora of questions about the ethics of cloning humans. The main issue surrounding the cloning of humans was the number of embryos that were destroyed or died early in the process. To many conservative Christians, including myself, we believe that life begins at conception (fertilization), so an embryo is a human life. Destroying an embryo for any reason is murder, which is why most Christians are against abortion and contraceptives that kill a fertilized egg like the day-after pill.

I recall several discussions between individuals on both sides of the issue and it all boiled down to whether cloning humans was smart medicine or playing God.

That question is being asked again and about a new announcement, but the situation is different, no embryos should be destroyed.

The new issue involves editing defective DNA in a human embryo.

There are thousands of mutations that have accumulated in our DNA over our many years of existence. Most of these mutations make little to no difference, perhaps only changing the shape of an ear lobe, color of your eyes, hair color and texture, things like this. Some can be quite serious.

One source says there are around 6,000 known genetic disorders. Most of these are hereditary, meaning they have passed on from parents to children, and some are non-hereditary, meaning they are not passed on from one generation to the next, but occur during embryonic development.

My oldest daughter has a non-hereditary genetic disorder known as McCune Albright Syndrome. It’s a rare genetic mutation that occurs during the early stages of embryonic development, but no one knows what causes it nor is there any cure. As for being rare, it only occurs in 1 of every 500,000 to 1,000,000 people. Figuring the entire US population is around 325,500,000, that means there are only about 326 to 651 cases of McCune Albright Syndrome in the entire country.

As for hereditary gene mutation disorders, some of the more well-known include: breast cancer; autism; Chrohn’s Disease; colon cancer; cystic fibrosis; Down syndrome; Gaucher Disease, hemophilia, Marfan syndrome (many believe Abraham Lincoln may have had Marfan syndrome); progeria; prostate cancer; sickle cell disease, Tay-Sachs; skin cancer and more.

The ethics question being asked now in the medical world is if there is a technology available that could identify a genetic disorder in the earliest stages of embryo development and then have the technology to edit out that mutation and replace it with a normal piece of DNA, is it ethical to do so or is that playing God?

The technology is there as displayed by Shoukhrat Mitalipov and fellow researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University. According to the report, they used the gene editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 to edit and repair disease causing DNA error in a number of human embryos in the early stages of development.

The mutation they fixed is found on a gene known as MYMPC3. It causes hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a deadly heart condition.

Mitalipov told the media:

“With this particular mutation, we’ve already done the groundwork, so we’re probably much closer to clinical applications. Clinical trials would mean actually implanting some of these embryos with the goal of establishing pregnancy and monitoring births of children and hopefully following up with children.”

Using this technology, if approved, could totally eradicate an inherited gene mutation disease from a family’s lineage. Imagine a family that has been plagued with breast cancer – like that of actress Angelina Jolie who opted to have both now healthy breasts removed because she carried the defective gene – knowing they are no longer passing this defective gene down to their offspring. Or many black families who suffer the painful effects of sickle cell anemia. Imagine knowing that this genetic disorder could be fixed and no longer passed down to future generations.

It sounds like really smart medicine that could save billions of dollars in medical costs, but the technology does require working on the DNA of a human embryo. If anything goes wrong, it’s possible the human embryo could die. If it goes right, no more of that genetic disorder. Smart medicine or playing God? Sounds like an easy answer, but is it?

Pregnancy, Sugar, Allergies and Asthma

By Leave a Comment

The entire nation has been fixated on the Trump-Russia probe and the Senate Republicans’ healthcare plan. Everyone wants to know what kind of healthcare coverage they can expect under whatever new healthcare plan will replace Obamacare. Many are also wondering what will happen to their existing healthcare plans if the new GOP plan is passed and even if it isn’t passed. With more and more insurance providers cancelling policies and pulling out of the Obamacare exchanges, they wonder how much longer their current policies will still be good and how much the rates will increase next year.

Parents of kids with asthma and/or allergies are living with the uncertainty of not knowing what kind of healthcare they’ll have the next time they have to take their kids to the doctor or hospital in the case of a bad asthma attack. Will they still have coverage in the near future? At the moment, no one can say for certain.

How many kids and families are we talking about?

According to PediatricAsthma.org, asthma affects more children than adults.

  • “Asthma is the most common chronic condition among children under the age of 18, affecting 6.3 million.
  • 24 percent of children between the ages of 5 and 17 have some limited activity due to asthma.
  • Asthma is the leading cause of missed school days among children ages 5 to 17.
  • Asthma in America survey indicated that misunderstandings about asthma symptoms and treatment were widespread among patients and that care often fell short of National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines.”

According to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology:

  • “Children with recurrent cough, wheezing, chest tightness or shortness of breath may have one or more forms of asthma.
  • Left untreated, asthmatic children often have less stamina than other children, or avoid physical activities to prevent coughing or wheezing. Sometimes they will complain that their chest hurts or that they can not catch their breath. Colds may go straight to their chest. Or, they may cough when sick, particularly at night.
  • Asthma has multiple causes, and it is not uncommon for two or more different causes to be present in one child. Asthma is more than wheezing. Coughing, recurrent bronchitis and shortness of breath, especially when exercising, are also ways that asthma appears.”

However, a new study may give prospective parents something to think about to help reduce the chances of their kids having asthma. Researchers at the University of Bristol, United Kingdom, began studying women who were pregnant in the 1990s and then followed up with their children. They found what direct link to the pregnant mothers’ intake of sugar to their kids developing allergies and allergic allergies

“The study’s findings showed that the 20% of mothers with the highest sugar intake had a 38% increased risk of their children developing allergies than the 20% of those with the lowest sugar intake. There was also a 101% increased risk of allergic asthma in the children of women who consumed large amounts of sugar.”

“The team of researchers said that the association between sugar and allergies and allergic asthma is allergic inflammation in the developing lungs due to a high intake of fructose by the mother.”

One of the lead researchers recommends that pregnant women try to decrease the amount of sugar they take in during their pregnancies, especially women in western countries like the United States, where sugar is a mainstay in many foods, snacks and beverages. Ladies – try to avoid those ice cream cravings, for the sake of your child

Living Drug for Common Form of Children’s Leukemia Passes 1st FDA Hurdle

By Leave a Comment

Millions of Americans get some form of cancer. The cost of treating and fighting cancer reaches into the billions of dollars. One source lists the cost of cancer care in 2010 at $157 billion. Imagine how much could be saved if researchers could find a successful way to fight cancer that didn’t require traditional chemotherapy or radiation therapy? Millions of lives could be saved and total healthcare costs in the United States could be lowered enough to almost make a national healthcare system affordable – ALMOST.

Researchers working for Novartis, a large drug company may have made what some are calling the most major breakthrough in cancer treatment in decades. Dr. David Lebwohl heads up the CAR-T Franchise Global Program that developed the breakthrough technology.

The process has been named CAR-T cell immunotherapy and the idea is brilliant. Important immune T cells are removed from a patient. The scientists then genetically modified them so that they would target and attack just cancer cells. Once the T cells have been genetically modified, they are injected back into the patient where they travel through the blood stream to the cancer and attack it. Using the patient’s own T cells to fight cancer eliminates many of the harsh and debilitating side-effects of most chemotherapies and/or radiation therapies.

Many cancer patients will tell you that many of the treatments they undergo are almost worse than the cancer itself. The nausea, weakness, headaches, aches and pains that go with most treatments, often leave cancer patients unable to function. They end up spending hours, days and even weeks feeling sicker than a dog before they feel better.

Dr. Lebwohl commented about the new CAR-T cell immunotherapy, saying:

“It’s truly a paradigm shift. It represents a new hope for patients.”

The FDA Advisory Panel has endorsed the use of the new immunotherapy, which was initially developed to treat children and young adults with B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, that either doesn’t respond to standard treatment of they have relapsed. This form of cancer is the most common cancer that affects children in the United States.

With standard treatment, many children become cancer free, but at some time down the road may suffer a relapse. Others don’t respond to the standard treatment or cannot tolerate it. When this form of leukemia relapses, quite often the standard treatment is not nearly as successful.

The initial study for the new treatment was conducted at 25 different locations on 88 patients in 11 different countries. The patients ran in age from 3 to 23 and all had experienced a relapse that did not respond to standard treatment or they failed to respond to standard treatment to begin with. The drug developed to help genetically modify the patient’s T cells is known as tisagenlecleucel or CTL019, or the ‘living drug’. In the studies, 83% of the patients that received CTL019 saw their leukemia go into total remission.

Dr. Stephen Hunger, a doctor at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia assisted in the study on the new immunotherapy. He commented about the need for such a treatment, saying:

“There is a major unmet medical need for treatment options.”

Other drug companies and researchers have tried to use similar forms of immunotherapy, but ran into a serious side-effect known as cytokine release syndrome. This is when the genetically modified T cells begin attacking some of the patient’s organs. In some cases, they attacked the brains, causing severe brain swelling and death.

So far in the study using CTL019, only a few patients developed the side effects, but none of those cases were fatal and all of the patients recovered. Dr. Timothy Cripe, an oncologist at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio commented about the drug, saying:

“This is the most exciting thing I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

Dr. Malcolm Smith, associate branch chief for the pediatric oncology at the Nation Cancer Institute, also commented about the study, saying:

“This is a major advance and is ushering in a new era in treating children.”

Since the researchers use a virus to help genetically modify the T cells, no one is sure if there are any long-term effects.

Getting the endorsement of the Advisory Panel, which voted 10-0 to endorse the new drug and treatment, is one of the first steps towards approval of the drug and treatment process. The FDA does not have to always take the endorsement of the Advisory Panel, but doctors and families of patients involved in the study are lobbying for approval.

While the new living drug, if approved, could save billions of dollars in cancer treatment, it’s probably not going to be cheap for patients to get. Novartis has not said how much the drug treatment will cost, but some analysts in the industry are estimating it could cost as much as $500,000 per infusion of the genetically modified T cells. Hopefully, it won’t cost nearly this much and is made readily available to the thousands of kids suffering from this form of leukemia.

Health and Financial Benefits of Banning Tobacco

By Leave a Comment

Image result for smoking

Liberals in America have been pushing hard to pass stricter gun control laws. They use the argument that guns kill and they want to save lives. They rarely admit that it’s not guns that kill, but it’s people that kill.

But when is the last time you heard any liberal push for stricter tobacco control laws or for the total banning of all tobacco products?

Compare the statistics that show that guns kill between 33,000 and 35,000 Americans a year and just smoking kills 480,000 Americans a year. That’s not to mention the 16 million Americans living with a tobacco related disease. Those diseases include heart disease, cancer, lung disease, stroke diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

Take a quick look at how many people in the US die every year from some of these tobacco causing conditions:

  • Heart Disease – kills around 614,000 Americans per year (23.4% of all deaths)
  • Cancer – kills around 591,699 Americans per year (22.5% of all deaths)
  • Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease – includes COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis and asthma – kills about 147,000 Americans a year.
  • Stroke – kills about 133,00 Americans a year
  • Diabetes – kills about 76,000 Americans a year

Compare these numbers with the 33,000 Americans that die from guns. I’m not trying to trivialize gun deaths as any death is tragic, but when compared to the effects of tobacco use, gun deaths pale in comparison.

Look at the medical costs involved with tobacco use? The CDC:

“Total economic cost of smoking is more than $300 billion a year, including

  • Nearly $170 billion in direct medical care for adults5
  • More than $156 billion in lost productivity due to premature death and exposure to secondhand smoke.”

Just think of the billions of dollars and millions of lives that could be saved if tobacco was banned.

Millions of Americans would quickly begin reversing some of the harmful effects of tobacco.

When someone smokes tobacco products, the tiny hair-like structures in the lungs known as cilia become somewhat paralyzed and unable to move the mucus that builds up, out of the lungs and the lining of the lungs become inflamed. The mucus begins to accumulate, leading to coughing and eventually worse. Additionally, the blood stream picks up carbon monoxide from the smoke. The carbon monoxide replaces oxygen in the blood stream, resulting in the loss of energy and muscle function causing fatigue. Prolonged use results in the accumulation of dangerous toxic chemicals in the lungs that often cause cancer. The lack of oxygen in the blood over a prolonged period leads to heart disease, stroke and diabetes as well lung diseases.

When someone stops smoking, it doesn’t take long for the inflammation in the lungs to begin to heal. The cilia again begin to function normally, moving mucus up and out of the lungs. They work to clean the lungs of dirt, mucus and even some of the toxic chemical residues. As the lungs clean out, it reduces the risk of lung cancer and more.

The overall benefit of banning tobacco products greatly outweighs the benefits of banning guns from law abiding citizens (criminals will always find a way to get a gun if they really want to). Therefore, there is a far greater reason to push stricter tobacco control laws than gun control laws. Besides saving 20 times more lives a year, it will reduce the cost of healthcare for everyone.

Study Reveals Senate Republicans Need a Nap to Fix Healthcare

By 2 Comments

Image result for businessman napping

Republicans in both the House and Senate have had 7-years to create their replacement for Obamacare. From the moment, the Affordable Care Act was passed and forced upon the American people, Republicans have been saying they wanted to repeal and replace it with a better plan, but evidently, no one worked on that better plan until after last November’s election. House Republicans have voted at least half a dozen times to repeal Obamacare, over the past 6 years, but their actions were in vain as there was no way Barack Obama would ever sign a bill that repealed his flagship legislation and Republicans never had enough votes to override Obama’s appeal. Their gesture to repeal was nothing more than a gesture for their constituents and nothing more.

Yet through it all, they never worked on a replacement program. The actions of congressional Republicans remind me of millions of school kids who wait until the night before a paper is due to start writing it. The end result of those last-minute papers are about the same as the apparent results of the Republican plans (House and Senate) that have been seen so far.

Senate Democrats have offered to work with Senate Republicans to come up with a workable and acceptable replacement, but Republican leaders say all Democrats want to do is to delete what they don’t like and insert their plans, which are different than what Republicans want.

Because the current Senate version was so hastily and poorly constructed, there is not enough support, even among Republicans, to pass the measure, so a vote has been postponed until after the July 4th holiday recess. It just seems that Republicans aren’t able to concentrate and think properly.

Perhaps what they need to do is take a short nap every day to help them come up with a workable and acceptable healthcare plan?

According to a recent study conducted by the University of Colorado Boulder, taking a 15-to-20-minute nap increases learning, memory, awareness and also helps a person think more clearly. All of these are desperately needed by congressional Republicans.

A report on the study reads in part:

Studies have shown that short naps can improve awareness and productivity. You don’t need much; just 15 to 20 minutes can make a world of difference.

“According to a study from the University of Colorado Boulder discovered that children who didn’t take their afternoon nap didn’t display much joy and interest, had a higher level of anxiety, and lower problem solving skills compared to other children who napped regularly. The same goes for adults as well. Researchers with Berkeley found that adults who regularly take advantage of an afternoon nap have a better learning ability and improved memory function. Why is napping so essential? Because it gives your brain a reboot, where the short-term memory is cleared out and our brain becomes refreshed with new defragged space.”

“How long should you nap?”

“According to experts, 10 to 20 minutes is quite enough to refresh your mind and increase your energy and alertness. The sleep isn’t as deep as longer naps and you’re able to get right back at your day immediately after waking up. If you nap for 30 minutes you may deal with a 30-minute grogginess period because you wake up just as your body started entering a deeper stage of sleep. The same can be said if you sleep for an hour, but on the other hand, these 60-minute naps provide an excellent memory boost. The longest naps— lasting about 90 minutes—are recommended for those people who just don’t get enough sleep at night. Since it’s a complete sleep cycle, it can improve emotional memory and creativity.”

If only American employers would realize the significance of an afternoon power nap.

Could the solution be so simple that all Senate Republicans need is to take a 15-20-minute nap at least once a day to help them develop their replacement for Obamacare?

CBO Report on GOPcare Nothing but Liberal Propaganda

By Leave a Comment

Image result for senate republicans

Once Senate Republicans unveiled their Obamacare replacement plan, they have come under a great deal of criticism. It didn’t help when the Congressional Budget Office came out with their appraisal of the Senate GOP plan, especially when they stated that 22 million Americans would lose their health coverage with the next 10 years. Notice that the liberal mainstream media is not adding the qualifier of the ‘next 10 years- when they report on the CBO analysis. All we hear from the media is that 22 million will lose their health care.

Of the 22 million reported by the CBO, about 15 million are those currently receiving coverage under Medicaid. Medicaid was created to help low-income people, children, disabled, elderly in nursing homes and pregnant women.

However, what the CBO report is NOT saying is that Obamacare greatly expanded Medicaid coverage so that millions more would qualify. Additionally, what they are NOT saying is that when Obama expanded Medicaid, the federal government would pay the states 50% of the cost, but over the past several years, many states have complained that they have not been receiving their full 50% federal reimbursement. Most states cannot afford to pick up the additional cost of the expanded Medicaid under Obamacare.

But how trustworthy is the CBO report?

According to one source, who is generally very liberal and Obama supportive:

“When the law originally passed in 2010, it estimated 21 million would gain coverage through them in 2016. Three years later, just before the exchanges opened, the agency upped the figure to 22 million.”

“That didn’t happen. About 10.4 million were actually enrolled last year, according to the Department of Health & Human Services data.”

Not only did the CBO report drastically over-estimate Obamacare coverage, but since Obamacare went into effect, millions more Americans have lost their healthcare coverage.

Obamacare created a series of taxpayer-funded state CO-OPs, designed to help with lower cost healthcare coverage. The Democratic-controlled Congress voted to fund $6 billion of taxpayer money to fund the CO-OPs. By April of 2016 12 of the 23 CO-OPs in 14 states had failed, leaving 740,000 people without coverage.

Then consider how many major healthcare insurance providers have dropped handling Obamacare exchange policies because they were losing millions of dollars on those policies. In September 2016, UnitedHealth Group cut back on their policies, costing nearly 150,000 people their coverage. In 2015, 367,000 people in Texas lost their healthcare coverage as direct result of Obamacare. Another report in 2015 reported that 10 million people were losing their employer provided healthcare, also due to Obamacare regulations.

So just how accurate and reliable is the current CBO report on the latest Senate GOPcare? If it’s anywhere near as accurate as their reports on Obamacare, you can take their report and chuck it in the trash because that’s all it is, liberal propaganda trash and nothing more.

What are the Obamacare Taxes GOP Considering Keeping?

By 1 Comment

Image result for healthcare

There has been a lot of talk over the past week about the possibility of the Senate Republicans keeping many or all of the taxes that were hidden in Obamacare. But what are those taxes and why were they in Obamacare to begin with?

When Barack Obama ran for the White House, he promised that he would not raise taxes on middle and lower-class Americans. Then he turned around and tried to hide 20 different tax increases in the Affordable Care Act, most of which directly and indirectly impact the middle and lower-class people. Publicly, it appeared that Obama was keeping his promise not to raise taxes on most of us, while secretly, he was raising taxes, enough to generate close $1 trillion a year.

And now, reports are indicating that the GOP Senators working on their healthcare plan to replace Obamacare, will likely keep most, if not all, of those hidden tax increases.

Obamacare contains at least 20 different provisions which either raise existing taxes or creates new ones and many of these affect Americans making less than $250,000 per year which is his definition of middle class. Worse yet is that five of these taxes will impact the elderly the most; who in most cases can least afford it.

First is an increase tax on dividends which began on January 2013. The prior tax rate for dividend income was 15%, but that increased to 39.6% for anyone receiving dividend income. Previously, taxpayers 55 years and older received nearly 70% of paid dividends according to an analysis of IRS data. Anyone making more than $250,000 per year now have to pay an additional 3.8% surtax on dividends which makes their dividend tax a whopping 43.4%.

The second tax also took effect in 2013 and that is the medical device excise tax. All medical device manufactures now pay an excise tax on all of the medial devices they produce such as wheelchairs, pacemakers, walkers, knee braces, back braces, insulin pumps, home hospital beds, etc. Seniors are the largest purchasers of these devices and will assuredly see the prices for them increase to offset the taxes paid by the manufacturers.

The third tax issue that is being felt by all Americans is the reduction in the allowable medical itemized deductions on your federal income taxes. Previously, taxpayers had to subtract 7.5% of their adjustable gross income from their itemized medical deductions. As of 2013, everyone has to subtract 10% of the adjustable gross income instead of 7.5%, thus reducing the amount of medical deductions one can claim on their federal income taxes. If a couples adjusted gross income was $50,000 a year, they have to subtract $5,000 from the medical expenses instead of the $3,750, a difference of $1,250, which is a lot for many families and seniors. Again, according to IRS figures, about 60% of those claiming itemized medical deductions are 55-years-old and older.

The fourth tax to impact the elderly the most was the excise tax penalty for those who were not in compliance with the individual mandate part of Obamacare. As of 2014 those individuals who do not have qualified health insurance will pay a penalty in the form of an excise tax when filing their federal income taxes. In 2016, that penalty was increase to 2.5% of your adjusted gross income or $1,390 for anyone making less than $55,600 per year. A number of younger retirees are not old enough for Medicare and no longer are covered by their former employer’s coverage. This group is going to get hit the hardest. Additionally, many elderly are trying to survive on very tight budgets and cannot afford any kind of health insurance. This excise tax will also hit them hard.

The fifth tax is commonly referred to as the Cadillac Plan excise tax which is scheduled to take effect in 2018. Believe it or not, this plan will impose a 40% excise tax on high –cost insurance plans. For senior couples, this means if you are paying more than $29,450 for a family plan, you will be imposed a 40% excise tax for your exorbitant health insurance. A single senior paying more than $11,500 a year will also be slapped with the 40% excise tax. Seniors with extra insurance to cover such things as cancer and chronic illnesses or disabilities will be the ones most likely to be gouged with the Cadillac Plan excise tax. In other words, if you are paying for extra coverage to cover life threatening illnesses and disabilities, you either need to lower your coverage so it will cost you more out of pocket or Obamacare will tax you more which will cost you more out of pocket.

Mind you that these five taxes are all on top of the other fifteen taxes that will affect everyone including seniors. It’s just that these five will hit seniors harder than they will the rest of Americans.

President Trump is promising a new healthcare plan that will be great for everyone, but if that’s the case, then why keep the hidden taxes which hurts seniors and many middle and lower-class Americans? It doesn’t make sense, but when you realize that any form of nationalized healthcare is a socialist plan, then you quickly realize that no replacement will be good for the people or the economy.

WARNING: Harmful Effects of Legalizing Marijuana

By 1 Comment

Image result for legalization of marijuana is bad

If you listen to the mainstream media, you would think that legalizing marijuana is a win-win situation for everyone. They claim that marijuana has many beneficial medicinal purposes by legalizing it, and those who need it for medical purposes should have greater access. It also brings in needed tax revenue to cities, counties and states. Legalizing marijuana prevents many people from facing jail time and criminal records for possession and use of marijuana. The media and marijuana advocates say that there are no negatives or harmful effects of legalizing marijuana.

Don’t forget that this is the same mainstream media that ignored the many crimes committed by Barack Obama and many within his administration, including Hillary Clinton. This is the same media that praised Bill Clinton for his adulterous affair in the Oval Office and crucified former Vice President Dan Quayle for misspelling a word.

Colorado legalized marijuana for medicinal and recreational use three and half years ago, so let’s take a quick look at the impact that has had.

On January 1, 2014, Colorado legalized the medical and recreational use of Marijuana. They claimed that it would add millions of dollars to the state’s revenue via state taxes which includes a 2.9% sales tax, 10% special sales tax and 15% excise tax, meaning the state would collect $27.90 for every $100 of recreational marijuana sold in the Rocky Mountain state.

In April 2014, 19-year-old foreign exchange student Levy Thamba plunged off a hotel balcony and died after eating legally purchased marijuana laced cookies. After eating just one cookie, Thamba became agitated and ran out onto the balcony and over the edge, falling to his death. The pot-laced cookies were legally purchased by a 21-year-old present at the gathering.

In September 2015, 47-year-old Richard Kirk purchased a Pre 98 Bubba Kush Pre-Roll joint and Karma Kandy Orange Ginger, a marijuana laced candy. Shortly after eating the pot laced candy, Kristine Kirk, 44, called 9-1-1 to report that her husband was hallucinating and frightening her and their three children. During her call, she told the police dispatcher that her husband had asked her to get the gun from their safe and shoot him. When she refused, she told the dispatcher that he was retrieving the gun. Twelve minutes into the emergency call, the dispatcher heard a gunshot over the phone and then the line went dead.

When police finally arrived at the house, Kristine was dead from a gunshot to the head and Richard was ranting and rambling to himself. In his ramblings, he admitted to killing his wife. Police said it appeared to them that Richard was definitely suffering the effects of some controlled substance and/or prescription drugs.

By October 2015, the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area  released their annual report which reveals the impact of legal marijuana use. Among the alarming report, marijuana related traffic deaths have increased by 32%. Not all of those that lost their lives were the users of marijuana. They were the innocent victims of someone else who was driving while under the influence of marijuana.

They also reported significant increases in emergency room and hospital visits linked to marijuana use. Additionally, they reported that school expulsions have increased by 40% with the majority of them being related to marijuana.

These are only a few of the instances of the negative health-related impacts of legalizing marijuana. There is another negative impact that not’s directly health related, but has presented a danger to the safety and health of many.

Have you ever been to Durango, Colorado? I went years ago, and remember that it was a picturesque city in a beautiful part of the state. Today, many parts of Durango have been transformed in ugliness and it’s all due to the legalization of marijuana.

Durango has become a haven for homeless, panhandlers, drug users, transients and vagrants, most between the ages of 20 and 30. They have filled the sidewalks and loiter in front of stores, blocking access of customers. One store owner, Caleb Preston says he has to constantly kick vagrants away from the door of store. He told the media:

“Just this year there has been a major influx of people between 20 to 30 who are just hanging out on the streets. The problem is while many are pretty mellow, there are many more who are violent.”

Legalizing marijuana is NOT a win-win situation. It kills people in homes and on the roads. It transforms entire communities and leads many younger people to become homeless, panhandling vagrants. Yes, it can bring millions of tax dollars to government coffers, but at what cost?

Replacing One Socialist Healthcare Program with Another Is Not the Solution

By Leave a Comment

Image result for paul ryan healthcare

When Bill Clinton was President, First Lady Hillary tried to push for a nationalized healthcare system. She pointed to the national healthcare programs in Canada and the Great Britain but her efforts fell short.

One of the campaign platforms Barack Obama first ran on in 2008 was passing a nationalize healthcare program. He, and congressional Democrats, continued to tell the American people that it was necessary to keep the costs of healthcare affordable for everyone.

In 2009, many public polls revealed that as much as 65% to 75% of the American people were opposed to any form of nationalized healthcare program. Many people believed that the federal government should stay out of private business as their track record was dismal at best.

However, Democrats didn’t care what the American people really wanted. They had an agenda to push a nationalized healthcare program and they were going to make sure that happened. In March 2010, Barack Obama signed the 2000+ page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. Many of the provisions took effect on January 1, 2014, with other provisions following. By 2020, most of the provisions of what is known as Obamacare are to be fully implemented.

Another campaign promise of Obama’s was to not raise taxes on middle and lower-class Americans. However, Obamacare contained 20 tax increases, most of which would directly or indirectly impact many senior citizens, people with serious or chronic conditions.

Putting all that aside, the underlying principle for the implementation of Obamacare had nothing to do with making healthcare affordable. What Obamacare was all about is forcing a national socialist program on the nation.

Around 1900, progressives set a plan in motion to change America to a socialist nation. they identified three key hurdles to overcome. One was the strong Christian foundation that permeated most all of America. Second was the strong family tradition which included marriage of one man with one woman. The third was free enterprise and American patriotism. At the time, they agreed that to change these three things had to be gradual and would take about 100 years.

Take a moment to look at where America is today. We are no longer a Christian nation. Traditional marriage has been legally destroyed by the Obama administration. Many of our public schools are teaching that America is the world’s enemy and that free enterprise is evil. The results of that education was revealed in a recent poll were 44% of millennials said they prefer socialism over free enterprise.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has openly professed to being a socialist. A few short decades ago, no one claiming to be a socialist would have come near as close as Sanders did to winning the nomination of a major political party.

In reality, most of the policies and agenda of the Democratic Party are socialist in nature. The term ‘social justice’ is the new politically correct way of saying socialism, and it’s something that most Democrats use on a regular basis.

Obamacare had everything to do with socialism and nothing to do with affordable healthcare. Therefore, whatever plan Republicans come up with, will just be another socialist program to replace the one that’s already in place. It’s replacing one evil with another evil.

Look at many of the other nations that have a nationalize (socialist) healthcare system. Great Britain’s system is having financial trouble and covering less and the people have to wait longer for any care. Canada’s system is also having financial problems. Venezuela is a socialist nation with a national socialized healthcare system and thousands of Venezuelans are traveling into Colombia to for medical treatment, especially pregnant women.

America and the American people cannot afford the cost of a nationalized healthcare program that would provide true affordable healthcare for everyone. It would bankrupt the nation and the American people. It’s a proven fact that government control of any private industry is the worst possible situation.

The best thing Republicans can do is to just let Obamacare continue to implode on itself and place 100% of the blame on the Democrats who forced it upon us. Tell the people that Obamacare and any replacement is nothing more than a socialist program and America is not a socialist nation. Allow Obamacare to completely collapse upon itself and then return the healthcare industry to private and free enterprise.

About Us

MORNING HEALTH

1808 W 103rd Street Chicago, IL 60643 Email: [email protected] Phone: