Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Two years ago, the federal government made a historic investment in turning the country’s sick care system into a true health care system by creating the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The fund needs to be fully supported to effectively impact the nation’s ability to control health care costs and ensure this generation is not the first to lead shorter, less healthy lives than their parents.

The Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and leaders from over 120 national organizations have sent a letter to President Barack Obama and Congress expressing deep disappointment on the reduced investment in the Prevention Fund, as a result of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act:

“As leaders of national organizations committed to the public’s health, we are writing to express our deep disappointment in your Administration’s support for reducing the investment in the Prevention and Public Health Fund (Fund). The proposed cut to the Fund in your FY2013 budget helped pave the way for the $6.25 billion cut that was included in HR 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which you signed into law in February. This represents an enormous step backward in our commitment to prevention and compromises our ability to make progress on cost containment, public health modernization, and wellness promotion. We urge you to publicly state your commitment to oppose any future cuts in the Fund.

Less than five percent of national health spending is devoted to public health. Prior to creation of the Fund, there was no reliable investment to promote wellness, prevent disease and protect against public health or bioterrorism emergencies. The consequences of years of neglect are clear – hundreds of billions of dollars in mandatory funding are spent each year through Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs to pay for health care services once patients develop an acute illness, disability, injury, or chronic disease and present for treatment in our health care system.

Reflective of the fact that evidence-based prevention programs are the key to reducing health costs, prevention was one of the three key pillars of health reform. The Prevention and Public Health Fund was created in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and designed as a guaranteed funding stream and an ongoing commitment to prevention. While the cost of the Fund represented just two percent of the outlays authorized by the ACA, states and communities are already using these prevention dollars to build epidemiology and laboratory capacity to track and respond to disease outbreaks, train the nation’s public health workforce, modernize vaccine systems, prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, reduce tobacco use, promote behavioral health, prevent injuries, help control the obesity epidemic, reduce health disparities, and build the evidence base to continually enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of these public health programs.

This small but vitally important investment is essential if we are to reduce the growth of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, which are the primary drivers in the increase in health costs. Research shows that if current trends continue, obesity rates could be expected to grow from 32 percent to 50-51 percent for men and 45-52 percent for women by 2030. Based on historic trends, by 2030 the United States would spend an additional $66 billion a year on treating obesity-related conditions, while experiencing a loss in economic productivity as high as $540 billion. According to a recent study in Health Affairs, current obesity-related medical costs total $147 billion a year, or nearly 10 percent of all annual medical spending, based on 2006 data. However, if we are able to reduce average body mass index by five percent the United States would save $29.8 billion in five years, $158.1 billion in ten years, and $611.7 billion in twenty years.”

The complete letter is available here. A full list of 760 local, state and national organizations that support the Prevention and Public Health fund is available here.

Comments(3)

|

E-mail

|

Print

He can’t etch-a-sketch away his full-throated support for extreme right wing positions:

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What

ConnCAN, the Connecticut charter school lobby group, has a new flyer (see link below) claiming that collective bargaining and unions “will not only make it impossible to enact reforms necessary to boost student performance, but it will likely prevent the most promising local and national leaders from choosing to run a [Commissioner’s] Network school.”

This week ConnCAN has eliminated any and all doubts about their real intentions.

Last year, the Wal-Mart’s “Walton Foundation” gave ConnCAN $1.3 million dollars to run a public relations campaign to promote “education reform.” With a new CEO in place, ConnCAN has become the number one cheerleader for Governor Malloy’s “reform” bill.

The Commissioner’s Network is about getting public schools out of public hands and over to private organizations.

When they changed the bill, legislators reduced the number of schools the Commissioner could simply take over and give to a third-party from 25 to 10 schools and they removed the inappropriate provisions that gave the education commissioner too much power.

ConnCAN’s response;

“Instead of giving the Commissioner the tools necessary to turn these schools around, the revised version of the bill renders the state virtually powerless to effect change. For example, the new bill requires that any matters in the turnaround plan that conflict with an existing collective bargaining agreement be negotiated with the exclusive representatives of the teachers and administrators.”

Yes Mr. Riccards, the bill has been modified to require that any changes to people’s contracts be negotiated and approved. Here in Connecticut we call that fairness!

In the private sector, a contract cannot be changed unless both parties agree to it and in Connecticut we have a system of collective bargaining that provides for that same vital protection.

I realize ConnCAN’s PR guy is new to Connecticut but there is no excuse for belittling our historic belief that Americans have a fundamental right to join together and collectively bargaining with their employers and that when a contract is agreed to by both parties, that contract cannot be changed without returning to the bargaining table and agreeing to those additional changes.

The message from ConnCAN is loud and clear. Even now, after all the debate, those that are pushing the “Commissioner’s Network” are still sidestepping the truth.

Governor Malloy’s version of the “Commissioner’s Network” allows the commissioner of education to pick 25 schools and give them to a third-party to run. All of the teachers and administrators will be fired, collective bargaining at the schools will be outlawed and the company or organization that is running the school will be exempt from the laws limiting the use of consultants and requiring competitive bidding.

And ConnCAN, Achievement First and the other charter school and “education reform” groups are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the bill passed.

Why? Because they and their friends are the very individuals and groups that are going to be given these schools to run.

Just read their statement… (If we force them to follow the law) “It will likely prevent the most promising local and national leaders from choosing to run a [Commissioner’s] Network school.”

Hey, quite frankly, if “the most promising local and national leaders” won’t take on the job of improving our schools unless they are exempted from following our laws then they aren’t the type of people who belong in Connecticut anyway.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

From Jim Himes:

Himes Votes for Only Bipartisan Budget

Continues support for a long-term budget that puts America on a path toward fiscal sustainability

WASHINGTON, DC—Congressman Jim Himes (CT-4) continued his push this week for a balanced, long-term federal budget plan with his support of the Cooper-LaTourette Budget Amendment. This plan was the only budget to garner bipartisan support as the House considered various spending plans for the 2013 fiscal year. Himes supported this budget plan, which drew votes from across the political spectrum, including from Members of both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Republican Study Committee, because it uses a balanced approach to stabilize the nation’s fiscal condition.

Himes and the authors of the amendment, Congressmen Jim Cooper (TN-5) and Steven LaTourette (OH-14), have worked with a small, bipartisan group of Members over the past several months to codify the budget recommendations of Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, who headed the President’s Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. This amendment realizes that legislation.

The plan Himes supported is based on principles key to any responsible fiscal plan:
· Establishing a 10-year framework to stabilize the debt;
· Protecting and improving programs to assist the most vulnerable citizens;
· Simplifying and reforming the tax code while lowering individual and corporate rates;
· Making smart, strategic cuts to spending; and
· Extending the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

“The longer we wait, the more difficult our budget problems become,” Himes said. “It’s time to move forward with a long-term deficit reduction plan that cuts the deficit through shared sacrifice and invests in what we know is essential to our future success—renewable energy, education, and transportation.”

The bipartisan budget amendment Himes supported mixes cuts and revenue increases to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years while improving the nation’s safety net. It also directs Congress to establish a tax reform plan that simplifies the tax code, broadens the base, eliminates the backdoor spending, and lowers individual and corporate income tax rates, all while producing about $100 billion a year to reduce the deficit. The amendment replaces the immediate, across-the-board spending cuts established in the Budget Control Act (August 2011 debt limit deal) with targeted, thoughtful cuts and reorders spending in a way that eliminates outdated and duplicate programs to instead invest in America’s future. These cuts include substantial reductions in defense spending and a decline in the percentage of federal spending required to service the debt.

Unlike other budget proposals offered this week, the bipartisan budget amendment Himes supported improves the sustainability of Medicare and Social Security while increasing benefits for the most vulnerable beneficiaries. The budget gives specific direction for provisions to reduce health care costs and improve care, including encouraging coordinated care based on quality, not quantity, and increasing prescription drug discounts. It also establishes a more progressive framework for Social Security benefits. Under this plan, low-wage workers would see their minimum benefits increase. In comparison, the budget offered by House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (WI-1) passes the burden of rising health care costs onto seniors and cuts Heat Start and Pell Grants.

But the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says “the Cooper-LaTourette Budget Significantly to the Right of Simpson-Bowles Plan” :

Proposes Much Smaller Tax Increases, Smaller Defense Cuts, and Deeper Domestic Cuts than Original Simpson-Bowles

Reps. Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Steven LaTourette (R-OH) unveiled a budget plan on March 27 that they call the “Simpson-Bowles Budget.” It departs significantly, however, from the Bowles-Simpson commission plan in key respects — raising taxes much less, cutting much more from non-security discretionary programs and less from defense and other security programs, and, as a result, providing a blueprint that’s significantly to the right of the Simpson-Bowles commission plan.

The Senate’s Gang of Six proposal last summer showed that policymakers can design a balanced, relatively well-designed deficit-reduction package using the framework of the Simpson-Bowles commission report. Unfortunately, the Cooper-LaTourette plans falls well short of the Gang of Six plan and does not represent the same type of balanced policy.

The key differences between the Cooper-LaTourette plan and the Simpson-Bowles commission plan are:

*Cooper-LaTourette contains $1 trillion less in revenue increases — it would raise revenues from tax reform by $1.2 trillion over the 2013-2022 period, compared to a “current policy” baseline that assumes all of the Bush tax cuts are made permanent. In contrast, the plan that a majority of the Simpson-Bowles commission approved would raise $2.2 trillion in revenues over the same period.

*It contains severe cuts in discretionary programs — cutting funding for those programs about $800 billion below the capsthatlast year’s Budget Control Act[1] established, and by over $100 billion more than the Simpson-Bowles commission plan would have done. Its ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases thus is significantly higher than under original Simpson-Bowles.

*Moreover, the Simpson-Bowles commission report’s deep reduction in total discretionary spending included substantial reductions in “security” spending. Yet while the Cooper-LaTourette proposal cuts overall discretionary spending more than $100 billion deeper than original Simpson-Bowles, it assumes that security programs would be cut about $200 billion less than Simpson-Bowles. In other words, it assumes cuts in non-security discretionary programs that are more than $300 billion larger than the already deep cut in these programs under Simpson-Bowles. Funding for non-security programs would, in fact, be cut slightly more under the Cooper-LaTourette plan over the next nine years than if full sequestration were allowed to take place.

The Cooper-LaTourette proposal also poses other serious concerns. The specifics of its provision to establish a target on how much health care spending and health-care tax expenditures can grow each year are highly problematic. The provision fails to include an adjustment for increases in the number of beneficiaries over time. Even the Medicare proposal in the Ryan budget contains such an adjustment, which will become increasingly important as the population ages. As a result, this proposal could cause draconian cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in future years.

Also of concern is the design of its proposal to establish a debt target and trigger certain actions if the target is missed. The provision to suspend the trigger when the economy falters suffers from severe design problems and would often force deep budget cuts or tax increases when the economy is weak, thereby likely making recessions deeper and more frequent. It would have failed to turn off the requirement to reduce the debt in a timely manner in eight of the last 11 recessions.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

More articles than those linked to here and complete reports on those linked to here are available here: Health News Report.

My last report is here.

Lots of interesting stuff in the last 3 weeks:

I’m ordering this today from Amazon (really, I am!)

Scientists today reported striking new evidence that green, or unroasted, coffee beans can produce a substantial decrease in body weight in a relatively short period of time. A group of overweight or obese people who consumed a fraction of an ounce of ground green coffee beans each day lost about 10 percent of their body weight. “Based on our results, taking multiple capsules of green coffee extract a day — while eating a low-fat, healthful diet and exercising regularly — appears to be a safe, effective, inexpensive way to lose weight,” The low dose consisted of 700 mg of the coffee extract, and the high dose was 1,050 mg.

I am really, really trying to fight this:

Standing up more often may reduce your chances of dying within three years, even if you are already physically active, a study of more than 200,000 people published in Archives of Internal Medicine shows. The study found that adults who sat 11 or more hours per day had a 40% increased risk of dying in the next three years compared with those who sat for fewer than four hours a day. This was after taking into account their physical activity, weight and health status.

I need to spice up my diet (and my life):

Past research suggested that spicing food with chilies can lower blood pressure in people with that condition, reduce blood cholesterol and ease the tendency for dangerous blood clots to form. The new research has reinforced and expanded knowledge about how these substances in chilies work in improving heart health. They lower cholesterol levels by reducing accumulation of cholesterol in the body and increasing its breakdown and excretion in the feces. They also block action of a gene that makes arteries contract, restricting the flow of blood to the heart and other organs. The blocking action allows more blood to flow through blood vessels.In addition to reducing total cholesterol levels in the blood, capsaicinoids reduced levels of the so-called “bad” cholesterol (which deposits into blood vessels), but did not affect levels of so-called “good” cholesterol. The team found indications that capsaicinoids may reduce the size of deposits that already have formed in blood vessels, narrowing arteries in ways that can lead to heart attacks or strokes.

Does eating chocolate make you thinner or do only thin people eat chocolate?

More frequently eating chocolate appears related to lower BMI

I started doing this as soon as I read about it:

Do you really want to avoid cavities in your teeth? Try massaging them with a high-fluoride toothpaste after lunch. Rubbing toothpaste onto your teeth increases the fluoride protection by 400.

Another reason to try the above:

Dental plaque bacteria may trigger blood clots

Not too much soy, but I’m good on tea and peanuts:

Eating foods that contain isoflavones – a key compound in soy milk, tofu, green tea and even peanuts – every day may help young adults lower their blood pressure.

I eat raisins almost every day with oatmeal for breakfast, snack on apples, blueberries, strawberries, nuts and/or dark chocolate during the day, but went out and bought 2 bags of low-fat air-popped popcorn after reading the second article below for my evening snacking. (Now you know why I need green coffee bean extract).

Snacking on raisins a heart-healthy way to lower blood pressure

Popcorn’s reputation as a snack food that’s actually good for health popped up a few notches as scientists reported that it contains more of the healthful antioxidant substances called “polyphenols” than fruits and vegetables.

Six out of seven isn’t bad:

I’m not as careful about this as I should be:

Lyme Disease Surge Predicted for Northeastern US

I need to clear my mind to think about this:

Meditation Strengthens the Brain

I’m in good shape on these:

Another benefit of alcohol, wine, coffee and fish (I’m now 4 for 4)

Sleeping too much or too little can be bad for your heart

White Rice Increases Risk of Type 2 Diabetes

Sugar-sweetened drinks= increased risk of heart disease in men

More red meat consumption= increased risk of death

Statins may prevent pneumonia

Statin use appears associated with modest reduction in Parkinson’s disease risk

High-Fat Diets Increase Colon Cancer Risk

Light-to-moderate alcohol consumption=lower stroke risk

Moderate wine consumption improves lung function

Healthy Looking Skin Tone Linked To Fruit And Veg Consumption

Eating Berries Benefits the Brain

Exercise and caffeine change your muscle DNA

Vitamin D deficiency linked to higher mortality

Vitamin D may help clear amyloid plaques found in Alzheimer’s

And finally, of no use to me personally: one of the many benefits of exercise:

Study: Exercise can lead to female orgasm, sexual pleasure

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What (links added)

Yesterday, one of country’s most radical “education reformers” told Governor Malloy that if he can’t get his “Education Reform” bill back to its original language, he should “just veto S.B. 24. Period. It’s not worth signing.”. RiShawn Biddle then went on to tell Malloy that he “should then work with reformers on running candidates to primary the legislature’s education committee co-chairs.” In the article Biddle identifies the “reformers” as ConnCAN.

Later in the day Governor Malloy announced that since the Education Committee had weakened his bill he would not sign it – in its present form. Play all the word games you want, not signing it means you are saying you wold veto it.

The bill does what Governor Malloy said was the single most important goal and he says he would veto the bill.

But the most incredible piece of all is that yesterday, once again, Malloy arrogantly suggested that “a lot of teachers were led to believe they had something to worry about, and that is absolutely not the case.”

And then, in what we now recognize as his classic – “my way is the only way” – approach, Malloy said that “the fact is, we’re going to have a major piece of legislation sometime this year on education reform [and] it’s going to be substantially more like what we proposed than what they voted on.”

Maybe Dan Malloy actually doesn’t understand how his proposal would work in towns across Connecticut.

Maybe in Stamford, with ts “strong mayor” system of government, things are actually different.

Or perhaps he believes that because he says it is so – it will be so.

In February Governor Malloy said he wanted a system in which teachers who aren’t up to the job are let go efficiently and effectively and that is exactly what the bill that passed the Education Committee will do.

So this is about something else.

One thing it is about is Malloy’s inappropriate and unreasonable demand that teacher tenure, the right to due process, “must end.”

Despite what he claims, if his approach was adopted,and tenure was repealed, towns all across Connecticut, when faced with budget problems and unwilling or unable to raise taxes, would consistently drop the older, more experienced teachers at the end of their certification periods – even if their evaluations were good.

Why? Because older teachers are “more expensive” and dozens of towns in Connecticut that lack the resources would decide that their budget constraints, rather than teacher’s evaluations, would have to be the deciding factor in whom to keep and whom to let go.

It seems impossible that Governor Malloy is so naive that he doesn’t understand what goes on once you leave the “Gold Coast” of Connecticut but certainly Nancy Wyman does and one would hope that by now, she would have explained what actually takes place on town boards of education.

In addition to the end of teacher tenure, I believe his opposition to the present bill is because he will not support anything that does not include his “Commissioner’s Network” plan.

Maloy’s original bill included a system in which his Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor, could unilaterally take over up to 25 schools around the state and turn them over to some other entity to run.

Malloy’s proposal was that once the state took over a school, the teachers would be fired, collective bargaining would be outlawed, the law limiting the use of consultants would be suspended and the school would no longer have to follow the state’s bidding and purchasing requirements.

The proposal was called the Commissioner’s Network and it had every charter school management company in the United States salivating.

Read what he has said since he proposed his bill in February. Never has he discussed the specifics of his “Commissioner’s Network” plan. He never explains how these 25 schools would be turned over entities that aren’t watched over by elected boards. He never reveals that all the teachers would be fired or that collective bargaining would be prohibited at these 25 schools and he never admits that without proper protections in place these schools would become “cash cows” for consultants and others who are looking to put taxpayer funds into their pockets.

If Dan Malloy was really serious about having a “stronger” reform law he would announce that he is dropping the idea of his “Commissioner’s Network” and specifically outline what he doesn’t actually like about the legislative language that now ensues that bad teachers can be removed.

No Governor, in fact, teachers and parents and students and taxpayers have something very serious to worry about. Even now, after months of “selling your proposal”, you still aren’t being honest about what your plan does.

The burden is not on the legislature to change a bill that does what you said was the top priority. The responsibility is on you to clearly and specifically explain what changes you want and why. The people of Connecticut, including our teachers, deserve nothing less.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What

National “Education Reform” Leader instructs Malloy that if he can’t get SB24 back to its original language he should;

“…just veto S.B. 24. Period. It’s not worth signing. Malloy should then work with reformers on running candidates to primary the legislature’s education committee co-chairs.” – RiShawn Biddle 3/27/12

As much as Dan Malloy would like to claim that Senate Bill 24 is simply about education policy in Connecticut, the truth is that it is part of a much broader effort to undermine public education in the United States.

Whether he is leading or simply joining this national effort remains unanswered but the stark reality of the path he is trying to take us down became all the more apparent as more of the “national players” weighed in.

Take for example today’s post by RiShawn Riddle, the editor of the “Education Reform” Blog, “Dropout Nation.”

Biddle authored a piece entitled “Dan Malloy’s Moment of Truth.” (see link below)

You might recognize the name RiShawn Biddle. On February 16th I wrote about him in conjunction with Governor Malloy’s decision to attend the Capitol Rally at which Michelle Rhee was also scheduled to speak. (Malloy backed out the following day). Wait, What 2-16-12

At the time I noted that RiShawn Biddle, the consultant to the group hosting the rally, had only weeks before been the keynote speaker at the Minnesota Tea Party’s “Excellence in Education” Forum.” In addition, Biddle was “a regular contributor to The American Spectator, the right-wing magazine that played a leading role in the efforts to impeach President Clinton.”

Now RiShawn Biddle has spoken out on behalf of Dan Malloy’s proposals and against the Legislature’s efforts to bring some sanity to Malloy’s plan.

Biddle writes “Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy has talked a good game about undertaking systemic reform — and for the most part, he’s walked it too. From appointing reform advocate Stefan Pryor as his education superintendent, to succinctly summing up the problems with tenure and other aspects of traditional teacher compensation…Malloy has made Connecticut one of Dropout Nation‘s Five States to Watch on the school reform front.”

Biddle goes on to applaud Senate Bill 24 saying that it would “end near-lifetime employment, require the use of student test performance data in evaluating teachers, allowing the results of evaluations to be used in awarding tenure and dismissing laggard teachers, and provide charter school operators with funding equivalent to traditional district counterparts.”

And then he shifts his focus to those that stand in Malloy’s way saying “But now, the co-chairs of Connecticut’s joint education committee –after meeting behind closed doors with NEA and AFT bosses…have essentially eviscerated Malloy’s plan.”

Biddle opines that if Malloy doesn’t get the bill back to its original form he “should just veto S.B. 24. Period. It’s not worth signing. Malloy should then work with reformers on running candidates to primary the legislature’s education committee co-chairs. Some would call it hardball. It is. But political leaders don’t deserve allegiance if they don’t do the right thing by their constituents…right now, Malloy has an opportunity to win the long-term war for reforming public education in the Nutmeg State. It is time to take advantage of it.”

Connecticut has become one of the most important battle grounds in the national “Education Reform” movement.

And make no mistake – it is a “movement” – with people like Michelle Rhee leading the charge and hundreds of millions of dollars being pumped into the national effort.

Over the last three years, The Walton Family Foundation (funded by the Wal-Mart family) has poured $450 million into efforts to change education policy and develop charter schools in this country. They are very open about their “Investment Strategy.” Their goal is to promote charter schools, private school choice and education reforms. As they put it, “the need to continue improving the public policy environment is central to our education reform strategy.

To that end, the Walton Foundation has donated $1.3 million to the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now Inc. (ConnCAN) and $2.6 million to 50CAN to fund their advocacy efforts. The Gates Foundation, another major player in the “education reform” battle, has donated another $2.4 million to 50CAN and close to a million to Achievement First, the charter school management company.

Enhancing the quality of our education is the single greatest priority facing our society but the proposals being put forward by these people will take us in exactly the wrong direction and, for whatever reason, Dan Malloy has decided to side with those forces and continue to push their agenda.

There is one point I agree with RiShawn Biddle about. The only thing protecting our public schools are the Democratic members of the Connecticut General Assembly. Let’s hope they have the courage and conviction to support our children and protect our public schools.

Read RiShawn Biddle’s commentary piece here: http://dropoutnation.net/2012/03/27/dan-malloys-moment-of-truth/