Thursday, October 01, 2009

The Senate decided to let the States sponsor the health care with federal monies.


Senate panel backs amendment permitting state health-care plans (click title to entry - thank you)
Posted on Thu, Oct. 01, 2009 06:24 PM
By the narrowest of margins, the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday approved an amendment by Sen. Maria Cantwell that would allow other states to establish basic health care plans for low-income residents similar to the one in Washington state, but with the federal government providing the funding.
Cantwell, D-Wash., declined to liken her proposal to a controversial public option, which has become a major sticking point in health care reform. But it does allow the states, if they choose, to negotiate with insurance companies for lower rates on health coverage polices for those living barely above the poverty line and provides federal dollars to pay for it.
Cantwell said her proposal would cover about 75 percent of those who currently don't have health insurance.
The amendment to a health care bill written by Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the committee chairman, was approved 12-11. All of the committee's Democrats except for Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas supported Cantwell's amendment, while all of the Republican members opposed it....


My son is getting married on Saturday and the rehearsal dinner is tomorrow evening, so I am a little busy but I will do what I can and will keep one ear to the ground. I would like to be back on track by Monday.

The kids will be on their Honeymoon by then. Lucky, lucky, lucky. I sent them on a shopping spree for Honeymoon clothes as a Bridal Shower Gift. They thought it was a great idea. They only go around once, ya know? My son and I are great friends.

My country, under the leadership of President Obama and my countrymen are important to me, too. I really feel like we are making progress within our democracy again. I am very hopeful about the future in the USA. Barak is a good man.

I just feel with all the viciousness toward him within the country I can't completely take a couple days off. I don't trust the Republicans that far. I just don't. They have hurt this country a great deal and President Obama is making historical strides in solving so many problems. We are going to be okay.

I left off with page 750 of the House Health Care Insurance Reform Bill. I am going to back up a little bit, because there is a section on Medicaid I doubt I covered last time. Might have glossed over it, but, didn't really 'get into it.'

Page 746, beginning with line 5 through 11:

SEC. 1702. REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title XIX of the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘ REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS

This continues to discuss the 'public option' in the House Bill. It involves additional provisions to Medicaid. At least that what it appears like at first glance. I haven't read the Senate bill yet. I think it is about 650+ pages. But, perhaps the Senate and House are in agreement more than we thought.

Page 746, lines 12 through 25 and Page 747, lines 1 and 2;

‘‘SEC. 1943. (a) COORDINATION WITH NHI EXCHANGE THROUGH MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The State shall enter into a Medicaid memorandum of understanding described in section 204(e)(4) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 with the Health Choices Commissioner, acting in consultation with the Secretary, with respect to coordinating the implementation of the provisions of division A of such Act with the State plan under this title in order to ensure the enrollment of Medicaid eligible individuals in accept24
able coverage. Nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting such memorandum to modify or vitiate any requirement of a State plan under this title.

Evidently, the States are going to be conducting the Medicaid portion of the Public Option. They do that now. The State oversees the 'qualification' for Medicaid. That qualification is conducted at the county level usually. It is followed up by a Social Worker, I believe. But, the Federal Government pays for it. Or pays for the majority of it.

The provision goes on to state there are Traditional and Non-Traditional enrollees. The Non-Traditional enrollees receive "affordability credits."

Page 748, lines 15 through 18;

...by the Commissioner of eligibility for affordability credits under subtitle C of title II of division A of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as specified under such memorandum.

Page 479, lines 3 through 22;

‘‘(3) DETERMINATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.—If the Commissioner determines that a State Medicaid agency has the capacity to make determinations of eligibility for affordability credits under subtitle C of title II of division A of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, under such memorandum—
‘‘(A) the State Medicaid agency shall conduct such determinations for any Exchange-eligible individual who requests such a determination;
‘‘(B) in the case that a State Medicaid agency determines that an Exchange-eligible individual is not eligible for affordability credits, the agency shall forward the information on the basis of which such determination was made to the Commissioner; and
‘‘(C) the Commissioner shall reimburse the State Medicaid agency for the costs of con22
ducting such determinations.

All that is self explanatory. An individual or family applies for 'affordability credits as an 'exchange-eligible individual' and then the application is reviewed and either granted or denied. At any rate, if there is a denial by the State, that denial will go to the Federal government.

I already wrote about the baby thing, whereby, they are presumed eligible at birth to insure their medical care until they can be evaluated, or their parents are evaluated for eligibility. That goes on to at least page 750.

Oh, I'll read the Senate bill. The truth is the truth. Whether it passes or not, understanding the legislation is vital. If the Senate bill is research and written as well as the House bill it will be a good read.

Okay. Under this provision, the State will have jurisdiction over qualifying for enrollment, but, the Federal government sets the 'standard.' The word standard is my word, not theirs.

Page 753, lines 1 through 11;

...quarters beginning after the date of the enactment of this subsection and before CHIP MOE termination date specified in paragraph (3), a State shall not have in effect eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures under its State child health plan under title XXI (including any waiver under such title or under section 1115 that is permitted to continue effect) that are more restrictive than the eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures, respectively, under such plan (or waiver) as in effect on June 16, 2009.

Part of what is happening with these bills is an absorption of other health care titles still in enforcement. I thought that would happen. I speculated about that before.

Page 754, lines 1 through 14;

‘‘(A) The Health Choices Commissioner has determined that the Health Insurance Exchange has the capacity to support the participation of CHIP enrollees who are Exchange-eligible individuals (as defined in section 202(b) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009),
‘‘(B) The Secretary has determined that such Exchange, the State, and employers have procedures in effect to ensure the timely transition without interruption of coverage of CHIP enrollees from assistance under title XXI to acceptable coverage (as defined for purposes of such Act).

So, basically the States will be paid as long as they abide by the federal standards for this provision.

The next provision is controversial. It is about cutting the expenses within the Medicaid and Medicare program. It is about reducing the monies paid to the DSH (Disproportionate Share Hospital). I am going to provide a reason why this is not as bad as it seems. But, first the provision, then an article and then I'll follow up with an explanation.

Page 759, lines 8 through 14;

(b) MEDICAID DSH REDUCTIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall reduce Medicaid DSH so as to reduce total Federal payments to all States for such purpose by $1,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2017, $2,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2018, and $6,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2019.

This is an article from the website for the AHA (American Hospital Association). The AHA is concerned with administrators of hosptials and the monies they receive for operation of hospitals. The AHA is a good organization. It sets all kinds of rules and regs for hospitals, their personnel, etc. The article below outlines the controversy.


Safety-net hospital leaders see DSH cuts as roadblock to health reform (click here)
June 22, 2009
Safety-net hospital leaders say President Obama's proposal to cut $106 billion in Medicare and Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments over the next 10 years marks a wrong turn on the road to health care reform.
"Those cuts would affect our viability … the lifeline of our institution," says John Bluford, president and CEO of Truman Medical Centers (TMC) in Kansas City, MO.
The DSH proposal would reduce TMC's Medicaid reimbursements by nearly $50 million a year. About half of the patients who enter TMC's doors are Medicaid beneficiaries; nearly 30% of its patients are covered by Medicare.
There are not enough efficiencies for us to make up for the loss in that level of funding," Bluford says. "This is about protecting the safety net and providers who represent the medical homes for hundreds of thousands of patients."
The president on June 13 called for the DSH cuts – a 75% reduction in funding for the programs – as part of a proposal to cut health care spending by $313 billion over 10 years to help finance health reform. Of that amount, some $220 billion would be chopped from hospital funding, including $110 billion in across-the-board "productivity adjustments" to Medicare payment increases....

First, what is a DSH? A DSH is a hospital that receives higher than average numbers of indigent people. The DSH receives additional funding for supplying health care to these folks. It is a cut in that extra funding the AHA is complaining about. And, of course, where there is cut in the funding they are concerned they will not be able to provide care to the people they normally treat. Reasonable thought. A little surprising, because, this is not as bad as it seems.

The DSHs of the country are the ones that get a lot of uninsured. Okay? What is this bill going to do? It is going to insure the uninsured. Are you following me here?

Over the next ten years, these bills will provide insurance for the uninsured and the cost to DSH hospitals for the uninsured will come down. As more and more citizens are insured, the hospitals will be getting compensated for their 'actual' costs within the Medicaid and Medicare program. So, if the 'subsidies' to the DSHs continued as well as the uninsured being insured, the hospitals would actually be 'double dipping.'

As much as 25% of the subsides to the DSHs will continue because they also treat people whom are not citizens. The hospitals of the USA are not supposed to turn anyone away at their emergency rooms. So, if illegal aliens come to the ER they are going to receive treatment. That is all uncompensated treatment. So, 25% of the subsides will remain to pick up the slack for those people that still go to the DSHs without insurance.

I am confident, that over time, if the DSHs can provide concrete proof they are still losing more monies than they are being reimbursed, the legislature can readdress the problem, but, I don't believe that will be the case. The AHA needs to regroup in their assessment of these bills and ask their member hospitals to keep good records in regard to this group of people whom receive treatment at these hospitals. I commend the AHA for being as concerned about DSHs as they are all other hosptials.

The provisions of this aspect of this bill are very logical. The largest reductions will be in States with the lowest percentages of uninsured. These States will be better prepared for the reduction when it happens and will be able to control any of the outcomes should they be different than what is expected. I caution here. At the point where reductions to DSHs occur, they will probably be seeing larger revenues from insurances. The reductions will be nearly invisible to the hospital in question.

Each year, in keeping with transparency, the allotment of DSH payments will be published in the Federal Register to insure equity in decision making. The provision goes on to be sure the programs administered by the DSHs are non-discriminatory and July 1, 2010 is the date when this provision would begin to take effect, unless, all safeguards are not in place.

There is a change in subject beginning with Page 765.

Subtitle B—Prevention
SEC. 1711. REQUIRED COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE SERVICES.

Same page, lines 18 through 25;

‘‘(1)(A) recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force for Clinical Preventive Services;
or
‘‘(B) vaccines recommended for use as appropriate by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and

‘‘(2) appropriate for individuals entitled to medical assistance under this title.’’.

It appears Smoking Cessation medications aren't going to be paid for anymore. There will be home care visits allowed for mothers of newborns and children of abuse/neglect.

Page 768, lines 20 through 24 and page 1 through 14;

‘‘(aa) The term ‘nurse home visitation services’ means home visits by trained nurses to families with a first-time pregnant woman, or a child (under 2 years of age), who is eligible for medical assistance under this title, but only, to the extent determined by the Secretary based upon evidence, that such services are effective in one of more of the following:

‘‘(1) Improving maternal or child health and pregnancy outcomes or increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.
‘‘(2) Reducing the incidence of child abuse, neglect, and injury, improving family stability (including reduction in the incidence of intimate partner violence), or reducing maternal and child involvement in the criminal justice system.

‘‘(3) Increasing economic self-sufficiency, employment advancement, school-readiness, and educational achievement, or reducing dependence on public assistance.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to services furnished on or after January 1, 2010.

Page 770, lines 3 through 6; The Right Wingers won't like this. This is an opportunity to introduce a concept that provides insight to economical reasons for family planning. Don't prejudge this;

SEC. 1714. STATE ELIGIBILITY OPTION FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES.
(a) COVERAGE AS OPTIONAL CATEGORICALLY NEEDY GROUP.—

Page 771, lines 3 through 11;

(B) by inserting ‘‘, and (XV) the medical assistance made available to an individual described in subsection (hh) shall be limited to family planning services and supplies described in section 1905(a)(4)(C) including medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided pursuant to a family planning service in a family planning setting’’ after ‘‘cervical cancer’’.

Ever hear of the name Thomas Robert Malthus? He was a British scholar. His works were said to inspire Wallace and Darwin. But, his speciality was not evolution so much as political eonomy and demographics.

Thomas Malthus focused a great deal on population growth. He stated as society improved conditions for life, there was a counter balance such as famine or disease that would stabilize the population. Thomas Malthus was a clergyman. He was called Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus.

He wrote a book in 1798, entitled "An Essay on the Principle of Population." It was a very influential book for its time. It was the 6th edition that was believed to have been read by the collegues Darwin and Wallace. Now, don't close your mind to what he wrote. He was a holy man and just because Darwin and Wallace read his book and found inspiration doesn't mean that Reverend Malthus was a man to be disregarded. Quite the contrary. His writings made too much sense.

Within the book on the Principle of Population there was a section that became known as, Malthus' Iron Law of Population. It theorized that growing population rates would contribute to a rising supply of labour that would inevitably lower wages. In essence, Malthus feared that continued population growth would lend itself to poverty.

See, Malthus was a holy man. He didn't worry about HAVING cheap labor to facilitate profit, he worried about 'the state of living.' The quality of life. He didn't want his flock ending up impoverished because their population had so many members that they became DIRT CHEAP labor.

He's right, you know. The more people there are to provide labor, the less the wages will be. There are examples of that all over the world. Outsourcing of American jobs have went to countries with high population rates, impoverishment and cheap labor. Don't say they haven't, because it is a known fact. So, Reverend Malthus is correct. On all counts.

When I reflected on Reverend Malthus teachings in attempts to stem poverty; I also reflected on the 'state' of the priorities of the Republican Party. See, the Republicans are 'religious' right wingers that believe in uncontrolled population growth while allowing illegal immigration into the USA, unchecked. We know in this country, that for a long time, the porous Texas border was a welcome commodity to the people that would employ the illegal aliens to enhance their profit.

When I reflected on Reverend Malthus and his concern for quality of life with high population rates, I attempted to understand why in the year 2009, after eight years of religious fervor that would like see the end of birth control and abortion while removing sex education from schools; the USA was becoming more and more demoralized within the concept of 'responsible' population growth. After all. An economy is as strong as its participants that purchase the goods of supply and demand.

Why then. With theorists, like Reverend Malthus, whom anyone majoring in economics, especially at Harvard, would there be such wide spread religious fervor unchecked? Why was it not only unchecked, but, emphasized?

Why in an era of a warming planet, food shortages, droughts and water shortages would an entire American political party be so willing to encourage 'irresponsible' child bearing when they knew full well it would lead to wider spread poverty, impoverishment and less ability for any one consumer to purchase items in a 'capitalistic' supply and demand society?

It couldn't possibly be that the Republicans knew Reverend Malthus was more than correct, but, more a pure genius that would show them how to insure having any country rich with cheap labor. That couldn't be, now could it? Why cut off funding for Family Planning clinics in impoverished areas of the world on the first day of office in the year 2000? Why, indeed.

Got a little off the beaten path. So, where was I?

The provision continues that the family planning aspect of the bill is presumptively eligible initially.

That takes me to page 775 and a time of 11:24 PM.

Until later...have a good day.

A Saint He Ain't. Senator John Ensign allowed his parents to pay off his mistress.

And he is voting on health reform? Why? All three of these men committed extra-marital affairs, with every indication they still are and they are still in office. This is the party of the Religious Right, huh? I see.

Where are all the angry tea baggers now? If they aren't in bed with their bankers, than they are in bed with their mistresses. I betcha sometimes that is the same thing. Ahhhhhhh, what a life.

Yes, indeed, just one big happy family. The New York Times has a time line and story. Republicans seem to like their 'extramarital affairs' while in office. It is probably the only way they can afford them. Why elect them and tempt them with the opportunity?

Senator’s Aid After Affair Raises Flags Over Ethics (click title to entry - thank you)

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and ERIC LIPTON
Published: October 1, 2009
WASHINGTON — Early last year, Senator John Ensign contacted a small circle of political and corporate supporters back home in Nevada — a casino designer, an airline executive, the head of a utility and several political consultants — seeking work for a close friend and top Washington aide, Douglas Hampton....

...The job pitch left out one salient fact: the senator was having an affair with Mr. Hampton’s wife, Cynthia, a member of his campaign staff. The tumult that the liaison was causing both families prompted Mr. Ensign, a two-term Republican, to try to contain the damage and find a landing spot for Mr. Hampton.
In the coming months, the senator arranged for Mr. Hampton to join a political consulting firm and lined up several donors as his lobbying clients, according to interviews, e-mail messages and other records. Mr. Ensign and his staff then repeatedly intervened on the companies’ behalf with federal agencies in Washington, often after urging from Mr. Hampton.
While the affair made national news in June, the role that Mr. Ensign played in assisting Mr. Hampton and helping the clients he represented has not been previously disclosed. Several legal experts say those activities may have violated an ethics law that bans senior aides from lobbying the Senate for a year after leaving their posts....




big happy family living on government money. Yep.



Main Content
John Ensign's parents paid $96K to his mistress (click here)
By MANU RAJU 7/9/09 3:11 PM EDT
Updated: 7/10/09 12:19 PM EDT

Sen. John Ensign's parents shelled out big bucks to pay off their son's mistress, the latest twist in an unfolding scandal that has upended the political career of the one-time rising GOP star.


The scandal has also touched Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), another prominent conservative, who revealed that he had confronted Ensign about the affair and urged him to end it, but says he will refuse to divulge any conversations with Ensign — even under inquiry from ethics investigators.

On Thursday, Ensign's attorney said that the senator's parents gave Doug Hampton, Cynthia Hampton and their two children gifts worth $96,000 in the form of a check. The attorney, Paul Coggins, said that each gift was limited to $12,000 and "complied with tax rules governing gifts."

The disclosure of the April 2008 payment seemed intended to head off growing questions about whether Ensign violated federal law by failing to report what Doug Hampton called a severance package worth more than $25,000 to his wife Cynthia, who left Ensign's campaign staff on April 30, 2008....



Then there is the 'dirty little joke' in California. Messy indeed. Sharing leisure time with female lobbiests in their pantyhose or less.




GOP Lawmaker's Graphic Sex-Bragging Caught On Tape (click here)
Zachary Roth
September 9, 2009, 11:45AM
"She wears little eye-patch underwear. So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And
 so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot! And so she'll, she's all, 'I am going 
up and down the stairs, and you're dripping out of me!' So messy!"



Then there is good ole' Governor Sanford of South Carolina. Estranged spouse of soon to be author, Jenny Sanford, still first lady of South Carolina.



Gov. Sanford's use of state planes raises tax questions (click here)
Experts say using state planes for personal and political trips might be unreported income.
By Jim DavenportAssociated Press
Posted: Wednesday, Sep. 30, 2009

COLUMBIA S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford's use of state planes for personal and political trips could open him and the state to federal tax penalties because the flights never were recorded as taxable fringe benefits.
Tax experts who reviewed an Associated Press analysis of more than 100 flights since 2003 said numerous trips could have triggered Internal Revenue Service rules that require adding the value of flights to the governor's wages, making them subject to taxes. The analysis shows nine flights since 2008 alone could be worth $19,019 in taxable benefits.
"The state appears to take the position that they assume that all of these are business flights," said Marianna Dyson, a former IRS fringe benefits lawyer and one of the nation's leading experts on the topic. By doing that, the state "ignored the rules applicable to the use of an employer's aircraft."...




Don't know why Jenny doesn't have a boyfriend yet, the Governor already made up his mind.

Published: Tuesday, Sep. 22, 2009
Updated: Tuesday, Sep. 22, 2009 12:34 PM
Jenny Sanford plans memoir (click here)
Associated Press
COLUMBIA -- The estranged wife of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is writing a memoir.
Ballantine Books, an imprint of Random House Inc., said Tuesday it will publish Jenny Sanford's "inspirational memoir" in May 2010.
The publisher says Sanford "will grapple with the universal issue of maintaining integrity and a sense of self during life's difficult times."...

Long before President Obama was elected, Chicago bid for the Olympics.

The final selection will be made on October 2, 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Currently, Chicago's rival cities for the hosting of the Games are Madrid, Spain; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Tokyo, Japan.

If Chicago is chosen, the games would be held from July 22 to August 7, with the Paralympics held between August 12 and August 28.

The United States Olympic Committee chose Chicago April 15, 2007. It is only right President Obama advocate for the Olympics to come to the USA and to realize it is doubly sweet as Chicago is the venue.

There is every hope that if Chicago is the hosting city for the 2016 Summer Olympics, there will be more jobs. More jobs and good pay will help lower an escalating crime rate in Chicago.

Chicago won the bid...What's next? (click title to entry - thank you)
Tribune staff report
6:54 p.m. CDT, April 15, 2007
First on the agenda is a lunchtime celebration Monday in Daley Plaza.

Mayor Richard Daley, Chicago 2016 chairman Patrick Ryan and former Olympians are expected to take the stage at noon, celebrating Saturday's news that the Windy City will represent the United States in the worldwide bid for the Games.
Videos produced as part of Chicago's 2016 Olympic application will air on a large television on the northeast corner of the plaza.
And then down to business. The U.S. Olympic Committee must submit Chicago to the International Olympic Committee as a formal applicant for the 2016 Summer Games by Sept. 15. The IOC will select the 2016 host city in October 2009 in Copenhagen.
There is no precise timetable for the various stages of the bid process between those two dates. According to IOC spokesman Emmanuelle Moreau, a timetable will be established after the IOC members pick the 2014 Winter Olympics host city July 4 in Guatemala City....

Updated: October 1, 2009, 6:25 PM ET
Chicago, state get ready for IOC decision (click here)

Associated Press
CHICAGO -- The Picasso is already wearing a medal and a laurel wreath.
Chicagoans plan to show up at the base of the famous Daley Plaza sculpture on Friday to watch the International Olympic Committee decide if their city will get to host the 2016 games.
Surita Mansukhani of Chicago and her mother, Beverly Jordan, plan to be there to score some of the thousands of free T-shirts local organizers plan to hand out.
"We don't have to go halfway around the world to come here," said Jordan, a writer who lives within walking distance of Daley Plaza.
Jumbo television screens will be set up so people can watch live from Copenhagen when the International Olympic Committee announces the 2016 host city. Chicago is a finalist along with Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro.
Donna Dukat said she won't be at the downtown rally, but the Chicago native will be pulling for her city to land the games.
"I love the Olympics," said Dukat, a dental hygienist who confessed to recording previous games on television so she wouldn't miss any of the action....

The EPA finally acts on the knowledge Scientists have known for decades.

The chart below is PROOF that the 'tailpipe soot and smokestake soot' won't even begin to curtail the warming of Earth by casting a 'particulate' shadow.


Click to enlarge image, thank you.
The above figure indicates global average forcing of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols (click here). While the forcing of heating factors such as GHGs is estimated with low uncertainties, those of aerosols are considered to provide direct and indirect cooling effects; altering the effect of cloud albedo through cloud microphysical process is considered an indirect effect. However, uncertainties in the estimate of the cooling effect are still large. In addition, some theoretical studies tell us that cloud distributions in the warmed world will change and cause heating, not cooling, but predictions of the cloud radiative forcing by current climate models are scattered in both cooling and heating directions. GCOM-C aims to observe long-term trends of horizontal distributions of aerosols and clouds on a global scale over 13 years and to estimate the cooling effects of aerosols with high accuracy in order to contribute to enhancing the accuracy of climate models.

Additionally... Anthropogenic carbon dioxide causing the heating of Earth is also increasing the level of pollens from plants into the air. That means CO2 is directly responsible of increasing the risks from asthma and other lung diseases.

The journal in which this article appears is cited below and can be obtained at any local library with the help from The Reference Librarian through 'Interlibrary Loan." That can probably be accomplished with a phone call or e-mail and a return electronic record to any computer or picked up at the library as a paper copy. Depending on the services provided by the library, a person may not have to even leave the office or home to obtain it.:

Is the Global Rise of Asthma an Early Impact of Anthropogenic Climate Change?
Paul John Beggs 1 and Hilary Jane Bambrick 2
1Department of Physical Geography, Division of Environmental and Life Sciences, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia; 2National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia


The increase in asthma incidence, prevalence, and morbidity over recent decades presents a significant challenge to public health. Pollen is an important trigger of some types of asthma, and both pollen quantity and season depend on climatic and meteorologic variables. Over the same period as the global rise in asthma, there have been considerable increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global average surface temperature. We hypothesize anthropogenic climate change as a plausible contributor to the rise in asthma. Greater concentrations of carbon dioxide and higher temperatures may increase pollen quantity and induce longer pollen seasons. Pollen allergenicity can also increase as a result of these changes in climate. Exposure in early life to a more allergenic environment may also provoke the development of other atopic conditions, such as eczema and allergic rhinitis. Although the etiology of asthma is complex, the recent global rise in asthma could be an early health effect of anthropogenic climate change. Key words: aero- allergens, anthropogenic cimate change, asthma, carbon dioxide, phenology, pollen, temperature.

Environmental Health Perspectives; Number 113: Pages 915-919 (2005).

doi:10.1289/ehp.7724 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 20 April 2005]


Global Trends in Asthma
...Evidence for the global increase in the burden of asthma has come from studies of incidence, prevalence, and morbidity. Asthma prevalence appears to have increased since the early 1960s (Beasley 2002), with the rise in asthma prevalence occurring among both chil- dren and adults (Beasley et al. 2000) and in a wide range of countries with differing lifestyles (Beasley 2002). Over a similar period, the prevalence of other atopic disorders, such as allergic rhinitis, atopic eczema, and urticaria, has also increased, once again throughout the world (Bach 2002; Beasley 2002). Figure 1 shows increasing prevalence of asthma in several locations. Although different diagnostic definitions have been used in different loca- tions, each location shown is internally consis- tent, and each shows an increase in asthma prevalence.


It has been known for over five decades. Five decades of research. It is hideous to continue to deny the warming of the planet due to the high levels of CO2.


The USA has made some stupid decisions regarding land use under the prior administration as well. It’s pathetic already.

Droughts and destroyed ice fields are everywhere including Greenland which is deteriorating at an accelertating rate. The problem with people that are "The Deniers" is that they actually believe they can live through climage change, and denying the anthropogenic reasons for global warming is to maintain ’status quo’ economics. Life on Earth as we know it will end if the CO2 content of Earth's troposphere is not brought under control. Earth is a planet. It is NOT a toy or some market strategy. I promise you the changes that happen on a dynamic that huge won’t allow humans to survive.

There are no winners in Climate Change. It is a Lose-Lose situation. "Survival of the Fittest" does not apply to Climate Change. Look at it this way, human live in a VERY NARROW window of temperature tolerance. They live with a specific demand for oxygen. Those windows close quickly when the 'biotic content' of Earth is unbalanced.

...The proposed regulations would apply to large-scale industrial sources (click title to entry - thank you) of heat-trapping gases, including power plants, factories and refineries, but not to smaller sources such as new schools, as some critics of EPA action had feared. The rules would force new or substantially modified industrial plants emitting at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year to employ "best available control technologies and energy-efficiency measures" to minimize emissions. That would cover the sources responsible for 70% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., the EPA said -- primarily carbon dioxide created by burning fossil fuels....