|
|
It’s been well documented through the years that vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat. Vegetarians are less likely to be obese, or to have high blood pressure, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, or colon cancer. They are also less likely to die from heart disease.
The first major advantage of a vegetarian diet is increased heart health. Vegetarians, on average, consume more nuts (often as a supplemental form of protein). Nuts contain “good” fats, such as omega-3 and omega-6. This promotes good heart health by reducing “bad” cholesterol and unclogging arteries.
Vegetarians have lower blood pressure even when they eat the same amount of salt as meat eaters and exercise less. Many studies show that vegetarians have less instances of colon cancer, due in large part to the differences in the bacterial flora that is present in the colon.
There are many factors in the vegetarian diet that contribute to better health. Vegetarians consume two to three times as much fiber as do meat-eaters, which has been shown to reduce cholesterol and blood glucose levels, and protect against colon cancer. They also consume more antioxidants, which are found in a wide variety of plant foods and protect cells from oxygen-induced damage and reduce the risk for heart disease, arthritis, cancer, and other diseases.
Vegetarians eat more isoflavones than do meat eaters. These compounds, found mostly in soy foods, are a type of phytochemical. Research shows that isoflavones may reduce the risk for prostate cancer and may improve bone health. Vegetarians also consume much less saturated fat and cholesterol than do meat eaters, resulting in significantly lower levels of blood cholesterol, decreased instances of heart disease and possibly for diabetes and cancer. And, since vegetarians do not eat meat, they are not exposed to heme iron, a type of iron found in meat that may increase the risk of heart disease and cancer.
Vegetarian diets are naturally low in saturated fat, high in fiber, and replete with cancer-protective phytochemicals helps to prevent cancer. Large studies in England and Germany have shown that vegetarians are about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat-eaters. In the U.S., studies of Seventh-Day Adventists, who are largely lacto-ovo vegetarians, have shown significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.
And lastly, vegetarianism is not only optimally healthy for your body, but your environment and the planet’s animals. It allows you to live more harmoniously with the world around you, which improves mental and emotional health accordingly.
Medical tourism first began to get popular in the 1990’s, when people began traveling in large numbers to Brazil for cosmetic surgery. But as costs have continued to rise, thousands of Americans have been traveling overseas for real medical conditions, such as knee replacements, by-pass operations, heart valve replacements, and other serious issues. Many countries are seeing medical tourism as a good way to bring in foreign money.
In many cases the quality of medicine available overseas is equal to the top hospitals in the U.S. Patients are showing up at places like the Apollo Hospital in Hyderabad, India, part of a 36-hospital chain founded by a cardiologist from Massachusetts General. A heart valve replacement may cost $50,000 to $100,000 in the U.S., and only $12,000 in India, including travel costs.
Escorts Heart Institute and Research Center, in Delhi, India, is another popular medical tourist destination. It was founded by Dr. Naresh Trehan, an authority on robotic cardiac surgery formerly based at New York University.
Blue Cross Blue Shield has just announced that they will pay for treatment at Bumrungrad International Hospital, in Bangkok, Thailand for individuals from South Carolina. Over 80,000 Americans received treatment there last year. The hospital boasts that over 200 of its doctors are board-certified in the U.S, and will perform a knee replacement operation for 20 percent of what it would cost in the U.S.
Who Does This?
Dodie Gilmore is a 60 year-old rodeo barrel-racing champ from Oklahoma. She runs a 180 acre ranch, but could no longer ride a horse because she needed a hip replacement. Her health insurance plan had an exclusion that wouldn’t cover her operation, and she really didn’t feel like paying the $35,000 it would cost her. Instead she and her partner flew to India where she had the surgery at the Max Institute of Orthopedics and Joint Replacement.
Her physician was Dr. S.K.S. Marya, who averages one American hip-replacement patient every week. Dodie’s total coast, including travel, was only $11,000. She even managed to take in a tour of the Taj Mahal.
Forty to Sixty percent of those surveyed say they would consider surgery abroad if it could save them $5,000 or more. Going out of the U.S. (perhaps even just to Mexico), could be a worthwhile strategy if you have an exclusionary waiver on your policy, if you’ll be having elective surgery not covered by your health insurance policy, or if you have a high deductible plan.
What is the Risk?
According to the Institute of Medicine, over 100,000 accidental deaths occur in hospitals every year. And that’s here in the U.S. Hospitals are a dangerous place to be, and you want to spend as little of your life in one as possible. So there are risks everywhere, and probably greater risks outside the U.S.
But the magic of the free-market does give you some protection. There is a lot of money flowing to countries and international hospitals that practice high-quality medicine. If a hospital does not provide quality service, you can bet its customers will go elsewhere, particularly if they are choosing among anywhere in the world.
The influx of foreign patients (and money) is enticing more western-trained doctors to return home, so the choices are actually increasing, and the quality and prices continue to improve. I believe that if you use care in choosing your provider and structuring your treatment, the risks are no greater than having surgery here in the U.S.
How to Research Your Options
Keep in mind that most health insurance plans still will not cover for treatment outside the U.S., particularly if you are traveling specifically to receive medical care. So check with your insurer if the cost of the treatment is going to exceed your deductible.
The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations certifies hospitals here in the U.S. Their international division, Joint Commission International, certifies hospitals throughout the rest of the world. Make sure the facility that you are considering has been certified by them.
Then check out your doctor. Confirm that he or she is English speaking, and was trained in the U.S., U.K., Australia, or Germany.
Finally, consider hiring a consultant to help you choose the best hospital and surgeon for your needs. A good service will not only set up the treatment, but can also arrange all travel plans, meet you at the airport, and act as your liaison while you are being treated.
If you spend money from your Health Savings Account to pay for international medical care, the amount you withdraw is tax-free. Health Savings Account regulations also allow you to cover the cost of your travel if the reason you are traveling to get medical care is not “for purely personal reasons.”
When choosing how to manage your health, you should carefully consider all your options. International travel is a great option for people with Health Savings Accounts.
Michael Moore’s new movie SICKO is a humorous and at times emotionally moving look at the state of U.S. healthcare, but it promotes a solution (government healthcare) that would only make matters worse. Instead of more bureaucracy and government control, we should be encouraging competition among healthcare providers and personal responsibility among consumers. Health savings accounts, or HSAs, do just that, and are the future of healthcare in America.
Many well-meaning people believe that a government take-over of healthcare coverage, called a “single-payer” system, is the answer. But if one simply looks at the countries that currently have single-payer systems, it is quite apparent that they are failed systems, with the citizens of these countries clamoring for change.
Because demand goes up when prices go down, the only way a government that provides “free” healthcare can control cost is by limiting access. So citizens in countries with single-payer systems always suffer long waits and lack of access to medical care and technologies.
For instance, in Canada there are currently over 800,000 people on waiting lists for medical procedures. The average wait time for people who are referred for surgery is over four months! If it weren’t for the fact that thousands of Canadians come to the U.S. each year for treatment, the average wait times would be even longer.
Per capita, Canada only has 20% the number of MRIs that the U.S. has, and only 14% as many CAT Scans. There are hundreds of prescription drugs available in the U.S. that are not yet available in Canada as they try to control costs.
The situation in Britain is no better, with over 1 million people currently on waiting lists. In June Britain’s Health Department found that 1 in 8 patients waits over a year for scheduled surgery, and shortages are forcing more than 50,000 operations to be cancelled each year.
Waiting for surgery is not just an inconvenience; it can mean the difference between living and dying. For instance, in the U.S. the survival rate for stage 1 colon cancer is 90%; in Britain it is 70%. American women diagnosed with Stage I breast cancer have a 97% survival rate after 5 years; in Britain it’s only 78%.
As Americans contemplate copying these failed systems, citizens in Europe and Canada are headed in the opposite direction. Germany just recently passed laws to enhance insurance competition, Sweden has begun privatizing some of its healthcare, and millions of Europeans are finding ways to opt-out of their government healthcare systems.
In Britain there are now over 6.5 million people who carry private insurance, despite the availability of “free” coverage from their NHS. Another 250,000 self-fund each year for acute private surgery, because they don’t want to or cannot afford to wait. Even the Labour party now favors privatization of healthcare in Britain.
In 2005 the Canadian Supreme court issued a ruling which stated, “The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance… is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services.” Private healthcare clinics are now opening in Canada at the rate of one per week.
Unfortunately, under a socialized system, your body and your life are no longer under your control.
Isn’t it amazing that some of the same people who criticize government ineptness – including Katrina, the many screw-ups in the war on terror, No Child Left Behind, and more – actually think the government would do a good job managing the nation’s healthcare?
Freedom, choice, and innovation are what have given us the highest quality healthcare in the world. We absolutely do need change, but the answer is less government intervention, not more. By encouraging consumer-driven solutions, competition, and price transparency, we can help avoid the healthcare disaster that government control would bring.
One big part of the solution that is already beginning is the adoption of Health Savings Accounts. Over five million Americans already have an HSA set up, and over five billion dollars is already invested in these special bank accounts.
People who have an HSA can set aside money to pay for future medical expenses, and get a tax deduction to do so. Because you must have a high-deductible health plan to contribute to an HSA, these plans encourage people to more carefully spend their healthcare dollars, since money they don’t spend stays in the HSA.
The result is that medical providers once again are competing for customers by lowering prices, and increasing quality and convenience. Already we are seeing plummeting prices on prescription drugs, and low-cost medical clinics spring up in Wal-Mart and other retail locations.
As more and more people obtain HSAs, we will not only see a benefit for the consumers, but we will also begin to see more people who take a proactive attitude when it comes to their health. A Health Savings Account owner who exercises and eats right will likely have a much larger balance in their account by the time they retire.
These changes will result in a healthier and wealthier group of retirees and a smaller burden on our tax system in the future.
Michael Moore’s new movie SICKO is a humorous and at times emotionally moving look at the state of U.S. healthcare, but it promotes a solution (government healthcare) that would only make matters worse. Instead of more bureaucracy and government control, we should be encouraging competition among healthcare providers and personal responsibility among consumers. Health savings accounts, or HSAs, do just that, and are the future of healthcare in America.
Many people believe that a government take-over of healthcare coverage, called a “single-payer” system, is the answer. But if one simply looks at the countries that currently have single-payer systems, it is quite apparent that they are failed systems, with the citizens of these countries clamoring for change.
Because demand goes up when prices go down, the only way a government that provides “free” healthcare can control cost is by limiting access. So citizens in countries with single-payer systems always suffer long waits and lack of access to medical care and technologies.
For instance, in Canada there are currently over 800,000 people on waiting lists for medical procedures. The wait time for people who are referred for surgery is very long and can sometimes take over six months! If it weren’t for the fact that thousands of Canadians come to the U.S. each year for treatment, the average wait times would be even longer.
Per capita, Canada only has 20% the number of MRIs that the U.S. has, and only 14% as many CAT Scans. There are hundreds of prescription drugs available in the U.S. that are not yet available in Canada as they try to control costs.
The situation in Britain is no better, with over 1 million people currently on waiting lists. In June Britain’s Health Department found that 13% of patients wait over a year for scheduled surgery, and shortages are forcing more than 50,000 operations to be cancelled each year.
Waiting for surgery is not just an inconvenience; it can mean the difference between living and dying. For instance, in the U.S. the survival rate for stage 1 colon cancer is 90%; in Britain it is 70%. American women diagnosed with Stage I breast cancer have a 97% survival rate after 5 years; in Britain it’s only 78%.
As Americans contemplate copying these failed systems, citizens in Europe and Canada are headed in the opposite direction. Germany just recently passed laws to enhance insurance competition, Sweden has begun privatizing some of its healthcare, and millions of Europeans are finding ways to opt-out of their government healthcare systems.
In Britain there are now over 6.5 million people who carry private insurance, despite the availability of “free” coverage from their NHS. Another 250,000 self-fund each year for acute private surgery, because they don’t want to or cannot afford to wait. Even the Labour party now favors privatization of healthcare in Britain.
In 2005 the Canadian Supreme court issued a ruling which stated, “The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance… is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services.” Private healthcare clinics are now opening in Canada at the rate of five per month.
Unfortunately, under a socialized system, your body and your life are no longer under your control.
Isn’t it amazing that some of the same people who criticize government ineptness – including Katrina, the many screw-ups in the war on terror, No Child Left Behind, and more – actually think the government would do a good job managing the nation’s healthcare?
Freedom, choice, and innovation are what have given us the highest quality healthcare in the world. We absolutely do need change, but the answer is less government intervention, not more. By encouraging consumer-driven solutions, competition, and price transparency, we can help avoid the healthcare disaster that government control would bring.
One big part of the solution that is already beginning is the adoption of Health Savings Accounts. Over five million Americans already have an HSA set up, and over five billion dollars is already invested in these special bank accounts.
People who have an HSA can set aside money to pay for future medical expenses, and get a tax deduction to do so. Because you must have a high-deductible health plan to contribute to an HSA, these plans encourage people to more carefully spend their healthcare dollars, since money they don’t spend stays in the HSA.
The result is that medical providers once again are competing for customers by lowering prices, and increasing quality and convenience. Already we are seeing plummeting prices on prescription drugs, and low-cost medical clinics spring up in Wal-Mart and other retail locations.
As more and more people obtain HSAs, we will not only see a benefit for the consumers, but we will also begin to see more people who take a proactive attitude when it comes to their health. A Health Savings Account owner who exercises and eats right will likely have a much larger balance in their account by the time they retire.
These changes will result in a healthier and wealthier group of retirees and a smaller burden on our tax system in the future.
The Global Health Trax income opportunity market is a big up and coming market with many opportunities. There has been a recent big boom in the nutrition market due to the influx of new exercise and health methods on the market. Many individuals in the United States of America are trying to get fitter to look better and to compete with our European counterparts. These counterparts are nations such as England, France, Germany, Poland, etc., etc. All these nations however are very physically fit and look very healthy, compared to the average United States American.
In an average survival of the fittest scheme-a Darwinian scheme-we would be at the lower end of the food chain. However, real world-life situations do not require us to be physically fit but average Americans should want that for themselves. With this sudden awakening and wanting to be more attractive and physically fit, America has opened the Global Health Trax market to the United States. Supplements are also big in the United States as well.
New supplements can help growth, which has been used for many years. There are also a billion drugs out there to use for muscle growth which is commonly scene in the sports scene. The supplement market is split into two arenas: the legal market and the illegal market. While the illegal market is legal in certain areas of play and is often recommended, it is highly frowned upon. Both markets are very prosperous and have opened the Global Health Trax market even wider than before.
Many people turn to these shortcut solutions to make them selves into something different easier, faster, and without the burn of a lifetime’s work. It can be easily seen how the market how the Global Health Trax market has grown in the recent years and how much it has changed from the past.
The rise and boom of the Global Health Trax market has helped society and American society in many ways. The American society has benefited by the ability to create new home based businesses from the computer and the world- wide web, the internet. Now many Global Health Trax businesses are online opening up many more options than before and allowing just about anybody to start a Global Health Trax business.
All a person needs to start a business at home is a computer, the work ethic, and the drive to do so. Thus far, the Global Health Trax has made a income opportunity for many people and the whole world-arguably the United States of America. Pretty soon the society of America will see a larger influx of American business and some of these businesses may very well be related to Global Health Trax.
Although it is still new and many people are wary of buying goods or even trading goods from a online person that they have never seen in their whole life, one day this may all change and even bigger opportunities will grow from a simple home based stay at home business.
Learn the Lemons from the Straight MLM Winners and read about Global Health Trax from Brian Garvin and Jeff West at MLM Review Kings. This article may be used royalty free provided Bio & Links remain intact. Copyright
Medical science is actually telling us to eat dark chocolate for heart health. How is this possible? Up until now, we’ve always thought chocolate was bad for us!
It turns out that dark chocolate made from unprocessed cocoa, contains high amounts of flavonoids and phytochemicals. These are antioxidants found in nutritious foods like raisins, prunes, acai berries, and blueberries. Cocoa has from its origin an incredible high amount of these antioxidants and science has found a way by cold pressing the cocoa. And that’s responsible for the benefits of dark chocolate for heart health.
It’s not just hype by the chocolate manufacturers. Here are the results of just four scientific, placebo-controlled studies recently conducted by medical doctors and universities all over the world, to prove that we can eat dark chocolate for heart health without any guilt.
A study by the American College of Cardiology found that blood flow increased significantly in individuals who consumed cocoa for six weeks. They concluded that more studies need to be done to determine how much cocoa makes a difference. This is only one study that supports the idea that it’s okay to eat dark chocolate for heart health.
In another study, forty-five borderline obese but otherwise healthy adults were given either cocoa or a placebo. Doctors measured their blood pressure both before and after, and found that those who ate the dark chocolate had better blood pressure. The benefits of dark chocolate for heart health are immediate.
The Journal of the American Medical Association has said that eating a reasonable amount of dark chocolate can lower your blood pressure enough to reduce your risk of heart disease and stroke by up to eight percent. When you add dark chocolate for heart health to all the other things you do, like getting enough exercise and eating a careful diet, it makes a difference.
A study conducted at the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany, looked at men and women with mildly elevated blood pressure. At the end of the study, those who consumed a small amount of healthy dark chocolate every day had lower blood pressure readings. Those who consumed white chocolate showed no change.
If you’re pregnant or know someone who is, keep in mind that blood pressure rises during pregnancy. A little piece of dark chocolate during pregnancy is a good thing, because it can help regulate blood pressure.
Drinking cocoa had the same effect as eating it, opening up a whole world of possibilities. You can get your healthy cocoa in many ways, dark chocolate for heart health is available in drinks, snacks and chunk form.
Dark chocolate for heart health has just one of the many health benefits and perhaps some that we aren’t aware of at this time. The brand and reputation continues to grow with the scientific researches done nowadays. Helping friends and family better their health and improve their way of life can be achieved by eating dark chocolate for heart health.
Copyright (c) 2009 Kentaro Konika
Often referred to as universal health care, national health care is a system of health care provided and run by a country’s government. The system grants free health care access to every citizen of the country. The exact healthcare services offered to citizens for free may vary from country to country, meaning that there will be some services which require personal expense to be able to access them. However, the vast majority of health services will be provided for free and paid for by national taxation. Many countries offer universal health care today, one of the first to do so successfully being Germany. The first country to ever implement such a system however, was Great Britain.
Amongst the other countries to offer such a system are France, Australia, and Italy. Almost all of the more economically developed countries around the world offer some kind of universal health care system with the exception of the United States of America. In the USA the only way to access medical care is to have medical insurance. Whilst most industrialized countries offer some kind of free medical service to their citizens the structure of this system can vary quite a bit between nations. One example of this is policies regarding private medical care. In the UK it is common practice for doctors to offer private medical services outside of the free public system, but other countries have greater restrictions on such private medical practice.
Universal health care is a very broad term that has many possible applications. However, the key feature is the provision of a free health service to citizens of a nation. Systems of this sort require huge sums of money to run. As such countries usually pay for such a system through national taxes which all citizens pay. In exchange for paying these taxes citizens are then granted free access to the national health system. It is the government’s decision as to who is entitled to health care and what sort of treatments are to be made available on the system. In some systems patients may have to pay for some part of the treatment whilst receiving the rest for free. This is a form of heavily subsidized treatment.
Systems such as these have been proven to work extremely well in a number of countries around the world. Whilst these systems are inevitably very difficult to manage, the benefits largely outweigh the costs. Owing to this fact, many American citizens and politicians have suggested that such a system may be of benefit to the USA. Rising rates of medical insurance in the USA have driven many to see a national health system as a good solution. In recent times medical insurance costs have risen out of reach of the average citizen meaning that many choose to go without insurance every year. The difficulty with this is that if medical treatment does become necessary the costs of such treatment are enough to make a family bankrupt. Opposition to this view states that taxes are levied on those who least need such care.
Americans pay more than one and a half trillion dollars for medical care each year and costs related to all manner of health care, such as prescription drugs, continue to skyrocket. While some of reasons behind this booming bill are understandable, Americans caught in a cash crunch might be surprised to find out some of the lesser-known causes of high health care costs.
The words health care might invoke images of doctors, nurses and hospitals, but the reality is that the medical field is a business and a ruthless one at that. Individual practitioners, researchers and participants may have wonderful intentions and a true desire to help people, but the structure of the American health care system ensures profit is the number one issue of importance.
Here are some facts that may help explain the high costs of American health care:
Pharmaceutical research and development companies spend roughly $20 billion each year on R&D, and about the same amount on advertising and self-promotional marketing activities.
There is sure to be a grin on your face once you get to read this article on health insurance. This is because you are sure to realize that all this matter is so obvious, you wonder how come you never got to know about it!
Additionally, drug companies have as many sales people as there are doctors in the United States. One of the responsibilities of this sales force is to convince doctors to attend pharmaceutical company-sponsored seminars where drugs are showcased.
According to some economists, the purchase of new technology is responsible for more than 50 percent of new health care spending over the last three years.
Much of the money Americans pay for health care finds its way into the rising profits on health care-related products and services such as the provision of medical insurance. Even higher costs have been forecasted for the future, especially for prescription drugs.
For many Americans who are unable to afford the health care they need, rising costs represent an ever-increasing barrier to medical services and products. The financial burden is also felt on the larger national scale with about 15 percent of gross domestic product going toward health care costs. That is equal to about one quarter of the annual federal budget.
Comparatively, Canada invests around 10 percent of its GDP on its public health care program. Unlike the United States, Canada’s health care program is universally available to all citizens and permanent residents without cost. Other countries, such as Germany, where there is a public/private delivery system model for health care, manage to serve their populations for even less while still having better longevity than Americans. This proves that the quality of health care does not rise proportionally with the amount of money spent to attain it.
While many Canadians supplement their universal health care with added insurance to cover the cost of medication and perks such as semi-private or private hospital rooms, health care insurance is much more essential in the United States. Unfortunately, costs have been rising dramatically, making health care insurance out of reach for many Americans. Currently, more than forty million Americans do not receive any kind of health care benefit.
Developing a vision on health insurance, we saw the need of providing some enlightenment in health insurance for others to learn more about health insurance.
For employers, providing health care insurance for employees is also becoming more expensive, with increases dramatically outpacing inflation rates. Some years, the difference is four or six fold. Even if premiums were to remain static, offering health care insurance to employees still costs several thousand dollars per worker. For smaller companies, or for those who employ a large number of people, these costs can be prohibitive.
Measures to reduce health care costs are always under consideration, though many are not popular choices. Suggestions that have been put forward by various sources have included:
Increased drug awareness and education. Millions could be saved if health care insurance covered only generic versions of drugs that have been proven just as effective as their more expensive brand name counterparts.
Terminate expensive treatment options will only add a short amount of time to a patient’s life, particularly if it will not be quality time (i.e. patient is in a coma).
Promote preventative care such as smart lifestyle choices, proper nutrition and exercise.
Examine to ways to control drug advertising to consumers. There is speculation that advertising has led to prescriptions of non-necessary drugs.
Limit malpractice liability so doctors and medical professionals do not feel pressured to cover themselves by ordering unnecessary tests to substantiate conditions they already know to be present.
To view our recommended sources for health insurance, or to read more articles about health insurance, visit: http://www.insurance-quote-puppy.com
How many people do you know who think their Congressperson has the answers to providing health care in America? Or, their Senator? George W. Bush? Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Or, for that matter, any politician? Do they really have the answers?
If they can’t do it, then how about the politicians in Canada, or Great Britain? Have they solved the problem in their societies? Some people believe they have. However, in England, where the private practice of medicine was outlawed when socialized medicine was first established there, they were eventually forced to reverse their policy and permit the public to go outside the government’s system to obtain health care from private physicians.
In Canada today, the story is much the same. Many Canadians come to the U.S. for emergent needs, such as bypass surgery, because the waiting time in Canada is interminable, often many months before their citizens can get life-saving treatment when they need it.
State-Run Health Care
All state-run health care systems have one thing in common: rationing. Not necessarily involving the use of ration cards, but rationing nonetheless. Rationing of resources. The cause is a devilishly simple principle that’s present in all nationalized health care programs. That is, it’s free, or so low cost that it’s almost free. Basic economics clearly demonstrates that whenever something is free, the demand quickly becomes unlimited. The lower the price, the greater the demand. Give something away and you can “sell” everything you have and more.
However, the flip side of unlimited demand is a shortage of supply. And, not having enough doctors, nurses, or expensive equipment, such as CAT Scans and MRIs, eventually leads to rationing. Without enough health care to go around, rationing becomes a necessity. That has been the failing with nationalized health care in England, Canada, Germany, Japan, the former USSR, everywhere it has been tried.
So, if there are no politicians who really know what should be done to solve our health care problems why do we keep expecting them to come up with the answers?
Just exactly what are the problems? Too many uninsured? Too high cost? Poor quality? Lack of availability? All of the above? Do you know or think you know?
What have been the government’s (read politicians’) solutions to date?
Health Care Policy
National health care (socialized medicine) in one form or another is the primary health care policy that is gradually being adopted in America. And it is slowly but surely lowering the quality of the health care we are getting. Talk to any doctor you trust and see if they don’t agree. They will tell you that they are working much longer hours for far less money, that many physicians are retiring early or converting to “concierge” practices because they are fed up with the government and insurance company bureaucrats telling them how to practice medicine. Consequently, there is a growing shortage of doctors and nurses.
But, you may say, we don’t have socialized medicine in America! Perhaps not yet, but we’ve been moving in that direction for some time, and we seem to be going further down that path as the years progress. It’s a slippery slope. For example, consider Medicare.
But, Medicare is not socialized medicine, you may insist.
Unfortunately, it is, or is headed that way. Why? For one thing, it’s a system that’s based on price controls.
Price Controls
Price controls have never worked, ever, in any society at any time in history. They were tried as early as 301 A.D. by a Roman emperor, Diocletian (243-316 A.D.) who implemented price controls under penalty of death. But, even that didn’t work, and it hasn’t worked since. What price controls do is cause shortages, increased costs and disrupted markets.
Look at what has happened to the Medicare program since 1984, the year the government changed its method of paying for hospital services from a “cost plus” to a system called DRGs (Diagnostic Related Groupings). DRGs are a method of classifying illnesses and assigning a comparative value and a specific authorized payment to each. At that point, many hospitals began to lose money because the government started dictating the prices that are paid for inpatient care.
As much as 70% of many hospitals’ patients are seniors, whose bills are paid by Medicare. The Federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) determines, in its sole discretion, the prices that can be charged for seniors’ inpatient hospital care, and then pays only 80% of those amounts. The differences between a hospital’s standard fees for service and the amounts that Medicare pays must be written off. They cannot be collected from the patient. That’s price control.
Furthermore, because Medicare payments are determined solely by the government, annual cost of living increases are limited, generally to between 1-1/2% and 2-1/2%, in spite of the fact that hospital costs have been rising for years at an annual rate of anywhere from 6% to 14%.
Another little known fact about Medicare is that seniors are prevented from seeking care outside the Medicare system, even if they are willing to pay the bill themselves. Any doctor who accepts payment directly from a senior who is covered by Medicare is automatically disqualified from providing care to all Medicare patients for a period of two years. This is especially important in situations where a patient wants a second opinion and would like to see another doctor. That type of regulation is certainly an element of socialized medicine.
Many Hospitals Lose Money
Between health insurance contracts (HMOs) and Medicare limits on their charges, hospitals generally collect only about 50% of their total billings. The rest is written off. The result of all this is predictable: many of them are losing money. About one-third of all hospitals in California are currently operating at a loss. With a national health care plan, at some point, many hospitals would either be closed or services curtailed. That’s been the pattern in every country that has nationalized its health care. Nonetheless, that seems to be where we are headed, in spite of compelling evidence that it doesn’t work.
Like the proverbial frog being cooked in a pot of cold water, Americans are gradually becoming aware that the quality of their health care is declining, even as costs continue to rise. It just hasn’t sunk in yet. When it does, they will undoubtedly be led into believing the government has the answers and demand more government control, regulation and oversight. And, our politicians will be only too willing to oblige.
Nationalized Health Care
Nationalized health care in America is gradually overtaking the free market, and we are all being slowly cooked in the pot of government intervention. So, don’t be surprised at the type of health care program we get as time progresses. Whatever your own conclusions, remember one thing: that our politicians won’t have to rely on whatever health care plan they establish for everyone else. As usual, they will have their own, superior plan. And, it will not be a part of the nationalized health care system that the rest of us will be required to use. If you doubt that assertion, just look at the health care plan that our Federal legislators and government employees have now.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m one of those seniors who has Medicare health insurance coverage and I ran a hospital for about seven years.
© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Imbalance of Ecosystems and Its effect on Public and Livestock health
Dr.Kedar Karki M.V.St. (Preventive veterinary Medicine)
Central Veterinary Laboratory Tripureshwor
The health of humans, like all living organisms, is dependent on an ecosystem that sustains life. Healthy ecosystems are the sine qua non for healthy organisms. Yet there is abundant evidence that many life-support systems are far from healthy, placing an increased burden on human health. In some areas of the world, gains in life expectancy and quality of life made during the twentieth century are at risk of being reversed in the twenty-first century. The consequences of ecosystem degradation to human health are numerous, and include health risks from unsafe drinking water, polluted air, climate change, emerging new diseases, and the resurgence of old diseases owing to ecological imbalances. Reversing this damage is possible in some cases, but not in others. Prevention of ecological damage is by far the most efficient strategy.
DEFINING ECOSYSTEMS
An ecological system may be defined as a community of plants and animals interacting with each other and their abiotic, or natural, environment. Typically, ecosystems are differentiated on the basis of dominant vegetation, topography, climate, or some other criteria. Boreal forests, for example, are characterized by the predominance of coniferous trees; prairies are characterized by the predominance of grasses; the Arctic tundra is determined partly by the harsh climatic zone. In most areas of the world, the human community is an important and often dominant component of the ecosystem. Ecosystems include not only natural areas (e.g., forests, lakes, marine coastal systems) but also human-constructed systems (e.g., urban ecosystems, agro-ecosystems, impoundments). Human populations are increasingly concentrated in urban ecosystems, and it is estimated that, by the year 2010, 50 percent of the world’s population will be living in urban areas.
A landscape comprises a mosaic of ecosystems, including towns, rivers, lakes, agricultural systems, and so on. Precise boundaries between ecosystems are often difficult to establish. Often regions slide into one another gradually, over a protracted “transition” zone, as for example between the boreal forest and the Taiga regions of Canada.
ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
It is important to recognize the inherent difficulties in defining “health,” whether at the level of the individual, population, or ecosystem. The concept of health is somewhat of an enigma, being easier to define in its absence (sickness) than in its presence. Perhaps partially for that reason, ecologists have resisted applying the notion of “health” to ecosystems. Yet, ecosystems can become dysfunctional, particularly under chronic stress from human activity.Example for this can be cited the discharge of nutrients from sewage, industrial waste, or agricultural runoff into lakes or rivers affects the normal functioning of the ecosystem, and can result in severe impairment. Excessive nutrient inputs from human activity was one of the major factors that severely compromised the health of the lower Laurentian Great Lakes (Lake Erie and Lake Ontario) and regions of the upper Great Lakes (Lake Michigan). Unfortunately, degraded ecosystems are becoming more the rule than the exception.
The study of the features of degraded systems, and comparisons with systems that have not been altered by human activity, makes it possible to identify the characteristics of healthy ecosystems. Healthy ecosystems may be characterized not only by the absence of signs of pathology, but also by signs of health, including measures of vigor (productivity), organization, and resilience.
Vigor can be assessed in terms of the metabolism (activity and productivity) of the system. Ecosystems differ greatly in their normal ranges of productivity. Estuaries are far more productive than open oceans, and marshes have higher productivity than deserts. Health is not evaluated by applying one standard to all systems. Organization can be assessed by the structure of the biotic community that forms an ecosystem and by the nature of the interactions between the species (both plants and animals). Invariably, healthy ecosystems have more diversity of biota than ecologically compromised systems. Resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to maintain its structure and functions in the face of natural disturbances. Systems with a history of chronic stress are less likely to recover from normal perturbations such as drought than those systems that have been relatively less stressed.
Healthy ecosystems can also be characterized in economic, social, and human health terms. Healthy ecosystems support a certain level of economic activity. This is not to say that the ecosystem is necessarily self-sufficient, but rather that it supports economic productivity to enable the human community to meet reasonable needs. Inevitably, ecosystem degradation impinges on the long-term sustainability of the human economy that is associated with it, although in the short-term this may not be evident, as natural capital (e.g., soils, renewable resources) may be overexploited and temporarily enhance economic returns. Similarly, with respect to social well-being, healthy ecosystems provide a basis for and encourage community integration. Historically, for example, native Hawaiian groups managed their ecosystem through a well-developed social cohesiveness that provided a high degree of cooperation in fishing and farming activity.
Another reflection of ecosystem health lies directly in the public health domain. In spring 2000, a deadly strain of the bacterium E-coli (0157:H7) entered the public water supply in Walkerton, Ontario, Canada, causing seven deaths and making thousands sick. This small town, with a population of five thousand, is in a farming community. Inadequate manure management from cattle operations was the likely source of this tragedy.
HOW HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS BECOME PATHOLOGICAL
Stress from human activity is a major factor in transforming healthy ecosystems to sick ecosystems. Chronic stress from human activity differs from natural disturbances. Natural disturbances (fires, floods, periodic insect infestations) are part of the dynamics of most ecosystems. These processes help to “reset” ecosystems by recycling nutrients and clearing space for recolonization by biota that may be better adapted to changing environments. Thus, natural perturbations help keep ecosystems healthy. In contrast, chronic and acute stress on ecosystems resulting from human activity (e.g., construction of large dams, release of nutrients and toxic substances into the air, water, and land) generally results in long-term ecological dysfunction.
Five major sources of human-induced (anthropogenic) stresses have been identified by D. J. Rapport and A. M. Friend (1979): physical restructuring, overharvesting, waste residuals, introduction of exotic species, and global change.
Physical Restructuring. Activities such as wetland drainage, removal of shoals in lakes, damming of rivers, and road construction fragment the landscape and alter and damage critical habitat. These activities also disrupt nutrient cycling, and cause the loss of biodiversity.
Overharvesting. Overexploitation is commonplace when it comes to harvesting of wildlife, fisheries, and forests. Over long periods of time, stocks of preferred species are reduced. For example, the giant redwoods that once thrived along the California coast now exist only in remnant patches because of overharvesting. When dominant species like the giant redwoods (arguably the world’s tallest tree—one specimen was recorded at 110 meters tall with a circumference of 13.4 meters) are lost, the entire ecosystem becomes transformed. Overharvesting often results in reduced biodiversity of endemic species, while facilitating the invasion of opportunistic species.
Waste Residuals. Discharges from municipal, industrial, and agricultural sources into the air, water, and land have severely compromised many of the earth’s ecosystems. The effects are particularly apparent in aquatic ecosystems. In some lakes that lack a natural buffering capacity, acid precipitation has eliminated most of the fish and other organisms. While the visual effect appears beneficial (water clarity goes up) the impact on ecosystem health is devastating. Systems that once contained a variety of organisms and were highly productive (biologically) become devoid of most lifeforms except for a few acid-tolerant bacteria and sediment-dwelling organisms.
Introduction of Exotic Species. The spread of exotics has become a problem in almost every ecosystem of the world. Transporting species from their native habitat to entirely new ecosystems can wreck havoc, as the new environments are often without natural checks and balances for the new species. In the Great Lakes Basin, the accidental introduction of two small pelagic fishes, the alewife and the rainbow smelt, combined with the simultaneous overharvesting of natural predators, such as the lake trout, led to a significant decline in native fish species. The introduction of the sea lamprey, an eel-like predacious fish that attacks larger fish, into Lake Erie and the upper Great Lakes further destabilized the native fish community. The sea lamprey contributed to the demise of the deepwater benthic fish community by preying on lake trout, whitefish, and burbot. This contributed to a shift in the fish community from one that had been dominated by large benthics to one dominated by small pelagics (fish found in the upper layers of the lake profile). This shift from bottom-dwelling fish (benthic) to surface-dwelling fish (pelagic) has now been partially reversed by yet another accidental introduction of an exotic: the zebra mussel. As the zebra mussel is a highly efficient filter of both phtyoplankton and zooplankton, its presence has reduced the available food in the surface waters for pelagic fish. However, while the benthic fish community has gained back its dominance, the preferred benthic fish species have not yet recovered owing to the degree of initial degradation. Overall, the increasing dominance by exotics not only altered the ecology, but also reduced significantly the commercial value of the fisheries.
Global Change. Rapid climate change (or climate warming) is an emerging potential global stress on all of the earth’s ecosystems. In evolutionary time, there have of course been large fluctuations in climate. However, for the most part these fluctuations have occurred gradually over long periods of time. Rapid climate change is an entirely different matter. By altering both averages and extremes in precipitation, temperature, and storm events, and by destabilizing the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which controls weather patterns over much of the southern Pacific region, many ecosystem processes can become significantly altered. Excessive periods of drought or unusually heavy rains and flooding will exceed the tolerance for many species, thus changing the biotic composition. Flooding and unusually high winds contribute to soil erosion, and at the same time add to nutrient load in rivers and coastal waters.
These anthropogenic stresses have compromised ecosystem function in most regions of the world, resulting in ecosystem distress syndrome (EDS). EDS is characterized by a group of signs, including abnormalities in nutrient cycling, productivity, species diversity and richness, biotic structure, disease prevalence, soil fertility, and so on. The consequences of these changes for human health are not inconsiderable. Impoverished biotic communities are natural harbors for pathogens that affect humans and other species.
ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND HUMAN HEALTH
An important aspect of ecosystem degradation is the associated increased risk to human health. Traditionally, the concern has been with contaminants, particularly industrial chemicals that can have adverse impacts on human development, neurological functions, reproductive functions, and that appear to be causative agents in a variety of carcinomas. In addition to these serious environmental concerns (where the remedies are often technological, including engineering solutions to reduce the release of contaminants), there are a large number of other risks to human health stemming from ecological imbalance.
Ecosystem distress syndrome results in the loss of valued ecosystem services, including flood control, water quality, air quality, fish and wildlife diversity, and recreation. One of the major signs of EDS is increased disease incidence, both in humans and other species. Human population health should thus be viewed within an ecological context as an expression of the integrity and health of the life-supporting capacity of the environment.
Ecological imbalances triggered by global climate change and other causes are responsible for increased human health risks.
Climate Change and Vector-Borne Diseases. The global infectious disease burden is on the order of several hundred million cases per year. Many vector-borne diseases are climate sensitive. Malaria, dengue fever, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, and various forms of viral encephalitis are all in this category. All these diseases are the result of arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) which are transmitted to humans as a result of bites from blood-sucking arthropods.
Global climate change—particularly as it impacts both temperatures and precipitation—is highly correlated with the prevalence of vector-borne diseases. For example, viruses carried by mosquitoes, ticks, and other blood-sucking arthropods generally have increased transmission rates with rising temperatures. St. Louis encephalitis (SLE) serves as an example. The mosquito Culex tarsalis carries this virus. The percentage of bites that results in transmission of SLE is dependent on temperature, with greater transmission at higher temperatures.
The temperature dependence of vector-borne diseases is also well illustrated with malaria. Malaria is endemic throughout the tropics, with a high prevalence in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, and parts of South and Central America and Mexico. Approximately 2.4 billion people live in areas of risk, with some 350 million new infections occurring annually, resulting in approximately 2 million deaths, predominantly in young children. Untreated malaria can become a life-long affliction—general symptoms include fever, headache, and malaise.
The climate sensitivity of malaria arises owing to the nature of the interactions of parasites, vectors, and hosts, all of which impact the ultimate transmission rates to humans. The gestation time required for the parasite to become fully developed within the mosquito host (a process termed sporogony) is from eight to thirty-five days. When temperatures are in the range of 20°C to 27°C, the gestation time is reduced. Rainfall and humidity also have an influence. Both drought and heavy rains tend to reduce the population of mosquitoes that serve as vectors for malaria. In drier regions of the tropics, low rainfall and humidity restricts the survival of mosquitoes. Severe flooding can result in scouring of rivers and destruction of the breeding habitats for the mosquito vector, while intermediate rainfall enhances vector production.
Ecological Imbalances. Cholera is a serious and potentially fatal disease that is caused by the bacterium Vibrio cholerae. While not nearly so prevalent as malaria, cases are nonetheless numerous. In 1993, there were 296,206 new cases of cholera reported in South America; 9,280 cases were reported in Mexico; 62,964 cases in Africa; and 64,599 cases in Asia. Most outbreaks in Asia, Africa, and South America have originated in coastal areas. Symptoms of cholera include explosive watery diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. The most recent pandemic of cholera involved more regions than at any previous time in the twentieth century. The disease remains endemic in India, Bangladesh, and Africa. Vibrio cholerae has also been found in the United States—in the Gulf Coast region of Texas, Louisiana, and Florida; the Chesapeake Bay area; and the California coast.
The increase in prevalence of V. cholerae has been strongly linked to degraded coastal marine environments. Nutrient-enriched warmer coastal waters, resulting from a combination of climate change and the use of fertilizers, provides an ideal environment for reproduction and dissemination of V. cholerae. Recent outbreaks of cholera in Bangladesh, for example, are closely correlated with higher sea surface temperatures. V. cholerae attach to the surface of both freshwater and marine copepods (crustaceans), as well as to roots and exposed surfaces of macrophytes (aquatic plants) such as the water hyacinth, the most abundant aquatic plant in Bangladesh. Nutrient enrichment and warmer temperatures give rise to algae blooms and an abundance of macrophytes. The algae blooms provide abundant food for copepods, and the increasing copepod and macrophyte populations provide V. cholerae with habitat. Subsequent dispersal of V. cholerae into estuaries and fresh water bodies allows contact with humans who use these waters for drinking and bathing. Global distribution of marine pathogens such as V. cholerae is further facilitated by ballast water discharged from vessels. Ballast water contains a virtual cocktail of pathogens, including V. cholerae.
Two other examples of how ecological imbalances lead to human health burdens concern the increased prevalence of Lyme disease and hantavirus pulmonary disease. Lyme disease, sonamed because it was first positively identified in Lyme, Connecticut, is a crippling arthritic-type disease that is transmitted by spirochete-infected Ixodes ticks (deer ticks). Ticks acquire the infection from rodents, and spend part of their life cycle on deer. Three factors have combined to increase the risk to humans of contracting Lyme disease, particularly in North America: (1) the elimination of natural deer predators, particularly wolves; (2) reforestation of abandoned farmland has created more favorable habitat for deer; and (3) the creation of suburban estates, which the deer find ideal habitat for browsing. The net result is a rising deer population, which increases the chances of humans coming into more contact with ticks.
By 1995, in the southwestern United States, hantavirus infection was confirmed in ninety-four persons in twenty states, with 48 percent mortality. Variants of the strain that causes hantavirus pulmonary syndrome have also been found in other areas of the country, as well as in Asia and Europe. The virus is apparently asymptomatic in rodents, and it is transmitted in their saliva and excreta. In humans it has a flu-like presentation, which is followed by acute respiratory distress syndrome. The primary reservoir in the Four Corners area of the southwestern United States is the deer mouse. Climatic disturbances, which in recent years are thought to be exacerbated by human activity (e.g., global warming), appear to set up conditions that trigger outbreaks. In the early 1990s, ENSO events initially caused drought conditions to develop in the southwestern United States. This led to a decline in plant and animal populations, including natural predators of the deer mouse. Heavy rains followed the drought in 1993, resulting in a bumper crop of piñon nuts, a major food supply for the deer mouse. Subsequently the deer mouse population greatly increased, bringing about increased contact with humans and triggering the outbreak of hantavirus.
Antibiotic Resistance and Agricultural Practice Antibiotic resistance is a growing threat to public health. Antibiotic resistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae, a common bacterial pathogen in humans and a leading cause of many infections, including chronic bronchitis, pneumonia, and meningitis, have greatly increased in prevalence since the mid-1970s. In some regions of the world, up to 70 percent of bacterial isolates taken from patients proved resistant to penicillin and other b-lactam antibiotics. The use of large quantities of antibiotics in agriculture and aquaculture appears to have been a key factor in the development of antibiotic resistance by pathogens in farm animals that subsequently may also infect humans. One of the most serious risks to human health from such practices is vancomycin-resistant enterococci. The use of avoparcin, an animal growth promoter, appears to have compromised the utility of vancomycin, the last antibiotic effective against multi-drug-resistant bacteria. In areas where avoparcin has been used, such as on farms in Denmark and Germany, vancomycin-resistant bacteria have been detected in meat sold in supermarkets. Avoparcin was subsequently banned by the European Union. Another example is the use of ofloxacin to protect chickens from infection and thereby enhance their growth. This drug is closely related to ciprofloxacin, one of the most widely used antibiotics in the year 2000. There have been cases of resistance to ciprofloxacin directly related to its veterinary use. In the United Kingdom, ciprofloxacin resistance developed in strains of campylobacter, a common cause of diarrhea. Multi-drug-resistant strains of salmonella have been traced to European egg production.
Food and Water Security. Agricultural practices are also responsible for a growing number of threats to public health. Some of these are related to inadequate waste management, which has resulted in parasites and bacteria entering water supplies. Others are of entirely different origins and involve apparent transfer across species of pathogens that affect both animals and humans. The most recent and spectacular example is mad cow disease, known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans, a neuro-degenerative condition that, in humans, is ultimately fatal. The first case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), the animal form of the disease, was identified in Southern England in November 1981. By the fall of 2000, an outbreak had also occurred in France, and isolated cases appeared in Germany, Switzerland, and Spain. More than one hundred deaths in Europe were attributed to what has come to be commonly called mad cow disease.
Improper manure management was the likely source of the outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7 in Walkerton, Ontario, Canada. Other health risks associated with malfunctioning agroecosystems include periodic outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis, a parasitic disease that is spread by surface runoff contaminated by feces of infected cattle. This parasite causes fever and diarrhea in immunocompetent individuals and severe diarrhea and even death in immunocompromised individuals.
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
Ecosystem pathology in some cases can be reversed simply by removing the source of stress. In cases, for example, where ecosystem degradation is the result of point-source additions of nutrients or toxic chemicals, removal of these stresses may result in considerable recovery of ecosystem health. A classic case is Lake Washington (near Seattle, Washington). This lake had become highly anoxic (oxygen-depleted) owing to a sewage outfall entering the lake. Redirecting the sewage outfall away from the lake reversed many of the signs of pathology.
In cases where it is not feasible to remove the source of stress, more innovative engineering solutions have been tried. For example, in the Kyrönjoki and Lestijoki Rivers in western Finland, spring and fall runoff leads to sharp pulses of acidity. Spring runoff from snowmelt, which releases acid from tilled or dug soils, has been particularly damaging to fish, during the critical time of year for spawning. Fish reproduction is severely curtailed, if not all together eliminated in highly acidic water. Further there have been massive fish kills resulting from the highly acidic waters. One possible remedy is to replace the original drains which take runoff from the land to the rivers with new limed drains that can neutralize the acidity. This solution has been implemented on an experimental basis and appears to substantially reduce acidic runoff.
More radical treatments for damaged ecosystems involve “ecosystem surgery.” In some cases, invading exotic vegetation (such as mangroves in Hawaii) have been removed from regions, and native vegetation has been replanted. In areas of North America where wetlands have been severely depleted owing to farming, urbanization, and industrial activity, efforts have been made to establish new wetlands.
More often than not, however, reversing ecosystem pathology is not possible. Efforts to restore the indigenous grasslands in the Jornada Experimental Range in the southwestern United States provide an example. Overgrazing by cattle has severely degraded the landscape and has lead to replacement of the native grasses by largely inedible shrubs, dominated by mesquite. Erosion by wind and episodic heavy rains have left areas between shrubs largely bare, and subsequently underlying sands have developed in dune-like fashion over a large part of the area. The resulting mesquite dunes have proven highly resistant to efforts to restore the native grasslands, although almost every intervention has been tried, including highly toxic defoliants (Agent Orange), fire, and bulldozing.
Even where it has been possible to restore some of the ecological functions of degraded ecosystems, and thus improve ecosystem health, the restoration seldom results in reestablishment of the pristine biotic community. The best that can be achieved in most cases is reestablishment of the key ecological functions that provide the required ecosystem services, such as the regulation of water, primary and secondary productivity, nutrient cycling, and pollination. In all such efforts, key indicators of ecosystem health (vigor, productivity, and resilience) are essential to monitor progress. Standard ecological indicators can be used for this purpose (e.g., measures of productivity, species composition, nutrient flows, soil fertility) along with socioeconomic and human health indicators.
Experience in efforts to restore highly damaged ecosystems suggests that ecosystem-health prevention is far more effective than restoration. For marine ecosystems, setting aside protective zones that afford a sanctuary for fish and wildlife has considerable promise. Many countries are adopting policies to establish such areas with the prospect that these healthy regions can serve as a reservoir for biota that have become depleted in the unprotected areas. Yet this remedy is not without its limits. Restoring ecosystem health is not simply a matter of replenishing lost or damaged biota. It is also a matter of reestablishing the complex interactions among ecosystem lifeforms. Having a ready source of healthy biota that could potentially recolonize damaged ecosystems is important, but it is only part of the solution.
PREVENTION OF ECOSYSTEM DISRUPTIONS
Given the difficulties in reversing ecosystem degradation, and the many associated human health risks that arise with the loss of ecosystem health, the most effective approach is simply the prevention of ecosystem disruption. However, like many common-sense approaches, this is easier said than done. In both developed and developing countries there is a strong inclination to continue economic growth, even at the cost of severe environmental damage. Apart from selfish motivations, the argument is made that economic growth has many obvious health benefits, such as providing more efficient means of distributing food supplies, providing more plentiful food, and providing better health services and funding for research to improve standards of living. These are indeed benefits of economic development, and have led to substantial increases in health status worldwide.
However, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the past is not necessarily the best guide to the future. The human population is at an all-time high, and associated pressures of human activity have led to increasing degradation of the earth’s ecosystems. As ultimately healthy ecosystems are essential for life of all biota, including humans, current global and regional trends are ominous. Under these circumstances, a tradeoff between immediate material gains and long-term sustainability of humans on the planet may be the only option. If so, the solution to sustaining human health and ecosystem health becomes one of devising a new politic that places sustaining life support systems as a precondition for betterment of the human condition.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aldhous, P. (2000). “Inquiry Blames Missed Warnings for Scale of Britain’s BSE Crisis.” Nature 408:3–5.
Baquero, R., and Blazquez, J. (1997). “Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:482–487.
Bright, C. (1998). Life Out of Bounds: Bioinvasion in a Borderless World. New York: W. W. Norton.
Colwell, R. R. (1996). “Global Climate and Infectious Disease: The Cholera Paradigm.” Science 274:2025–2031.
Colwell, R. R., and Patz, J. A. (1998). Climate, Infectious Disease and Health: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Washington, DC: American Academy of Microbiology.
Epstein, P. R. (1995). “Emerging Diseases and Ecosystem Instability: New Threats to Public Health.” American Journal of Public Health 85(2):168–172.
Huq, A., and Colwell, R. R. (1996). “Vibrios in the Marine and Estuarine Environment: Tracking Vibrio Cholerae.” Ecosystem Health 2:198–214.
Mageau, M. T.; Costanza, R.; and Ulanowicz, R. E. (1995). “The Development and Initial Testing of a Quantitative Assessment of Ecosystem Health.” Ecosystem Health 1:201–213.
Rapport, D. J. (1989). “What Constitutes Ecosystem Health?” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 33:120–132.
Rapport, D. J., and Friend, A. M. (1979). Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Statistics: A Stress-Response Approach. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Rapport, D. J., and Regier, H. A. (1980). “An Ecological Approach to Environmental Information.” Ambio 9:22–27.
—— (1995). “Disturbance and Stress Effects on Ecological Systems.” In Complex Ecology: The Part-Whole Relation in Ecosystems, ed. B. C. Patten and S. E. Jorgensen. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rapport, D. J.; Costanza, R.; and McMichael, A. J. (1998). “Assessing Ecosystem Health: Challenges at the Interface of Social, Natural, and Health Sciences.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13(10):397–401.
Rapport, D. J.; Christensen, N.; Karr, J. R.; and Patil, G. P. (1998). “The Centrality of Ecosystem Health in Achieving Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century: Concepts and Approaches to Environmental Management.” In Human Survivability in the Twenty-First Century, ed. D. M. Hayne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Rapport, D. J.; Costanza, R.; Epstein, P. R.; Gaudet, R.; and Levins, R., eds. (1998). Ecosystem Health. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science.
Rapport, D. J., and Whitford, W. (1999). “How Ecosystems Respond to Stress: Common Properties of Arid and Aquatic Systems.” Bio Science 49(3):193–203.
Rapport, D. J.; Regier, H. A.; and Hutchinson, T. C. (1985). “Ecosystem Behavior under Stress.” American Naturalist 125:617–640.
Reeves, W. C.; Hardy, J. L.; Reisen, W. K.; and Milby, M. M. (1994). “The Potential Effect of Global Warming on Mosquito-Borne Arboviruses.” Journal of Medical Entomology 31(3):323–332.
Ruiz, G. M.; Rawlings, T. K.; Dobbs, F. C.; Drake, L. A.; Mullady, T.; Huq, A.; and Colwell, R. R.. (2000). “Global Spread of Microorganisms by Ships.” Nature 408:49–50.
Watson R. T.; Zinyowera, M. C.; and Moss, R. H., eds. (1996). Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
