Chipping Humans

Standard

To paraphrase Franklin, the person who would sacrifice liberty for safety will have neither.

We put microchips in pets so we can locate them. We can attach chips to keys so we ben_franklinknow where they are.

Now a company in Wisconsin is microchipping employees.

At this point, the employees are volunteers and the benefits for doing this  include:

  • Ease of accessing computers,
  • Ease of access to secure areas, and
  • Making purchases and vending machines using the chips.

The drawbacks?

  • The employer can know where the  employee is 24×7. Spend too long at lunch? The company will know. Privacy? Forgetaboutit.
  • The technology represents another level of electronic radiation exposure, and we don’t know about the long term effects of that.

The chips are tiny and can be injected under the skin with a syringe developed by a Swedish firm.

Obviously, the manufacturer wants to see this technology in widespread use.

“Eventually, this technology will become standardized allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities,” and more . . . . (2)

It’s easy to see where this is going. We can expect a push to implant chips in children, hospital patients and the elderly. That would make kidnapping obsolete and reduce medical errors. It also would make it easy to locate lost hikers and wandering dementia victims. However, it would also mean that with two generations, virtually the entire population would be chipped. Go to a political rally or demonstration? People will know where you are. Criminals will be able to know when a home is empty or when someone is visiting a bank or ATM. Of course, the police will be able to identify and locate the person who robs you.

Further, chips aren’t secure. Any technology can be reversed engineered — meaning that you could create a chip with someone else’s code and use it in a crime.

How do you feel about being chipped?


Sources:

  1. Megan Trimble, “Wisconsin tech company to implant microchips in employees,” USNews, 24 July 2017. https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2017/07/24/wisconsin-tech-company-to-implant-microchips-in-employees/23045620/?brand=finance&ncid=txtlnkusaolp00002412
  2. Angela Moscaritolo, “Wisconsin Company to Microchip Employees,” CNET, 24 July 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/news/355140/wisconsin-company-to-microchip-employees?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=dailynews&utm_medium=title

 

Stress and Health

Standard

Everybody has a story.

  • The unreasonable boss or lousy job,ben_franklin
  • The injury or illness
  • Money problems
  • The loved one with an addiction
  • Something.

Most of the stories are real — things with which the person has to deal every day. (A few people make up stories to get attention; that’s a different topic for another time.)

In the lexicon of research, all of these things are stimuli. They’re things that happen that require some kind of response. In physics, Newton’s Third Law makes it easy —

For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t apply to thought and emotions. Instead, human responses can be —

  • Proportional (optimal)
  • Inadequate (hypofunction/allostasis, or inadequate adaptation to a stimuli)
  • Excessive (hyperfunction).

In neurology, these stimuli are called “stressors.” How you respond to them is the “stress response” or “stress.” Stressors are perceived threats, and the human body reacts to them in ways not unlike when early humans stumbled into the path of a dinosaur. The body releases a variety of hormones that impact almost all major systems in the body.

The stress response is mediated by the stress system, partly located in the central nervous system and partly in peripheral organs. The central, greatly interconnected effectors of this system include the hypothalamic hormones arginine vasopressin, corticotropin-releasing hormone and pro-opiomelanocortin-derived peptides, and the locus ceruleus and autonomic norepinephrine centers in the brainstem. Targets of these effectors include the executive and/or cognitive, reward and fear systems, the wake–sleep centers of the brain, the growth, reproductive and thyroid hormone axes, and the gastrointestinal, cardiorespiratory, metabolic, and immune systems.  (1, emphasis added)

Inadequate or excessive stress reactions are linked to a massive array of both physical and behavioral problems.

  • Physical: Asthma, exzema, migraines, low or high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, indigestion, diarrhea, constipation, obesity and Type II diabetes, sleep disorders, panic attacks and psychotic episodes. In children, it may be related to stunted growth. In women, osteoporosis.
    • Recent research is placing greater emphasis on the role of stress in cardiovascular disease.(2)
  • Emotional: Anxiety, depression, mental errors, loss of sex drive, OCD, alcoholism, etc.

Dr. Chrousos argues that stress response hormones were designed for limited use (e.g., see dinosaur, release hormones; lose dinosaur, stop release). In the modern environment in which stressors operate continuously over a long period of time (e.g., the bad boss), long term release of these hormones can have profound negative effects on the functioning of the body.

The portion of the brain that controls emotions is the amygdala. Recent research has shows that severe stressors cause physical chances in the amygdala, most notably enlarging it. (3)

What’s Important to Know:

  1. Stress (or the stress response) is inside you. It’s not what someone does to you; it’s how you react.
  2. Some of the stress response is automatic. You don’t tell you body to release hormones. And when someone is chasing you down a dark alley, be grateful that’s true.
  3. However, you may have some ability to influence how long those hormones are released and the damage your body sustains.
    • You can take yourself out of a stressful situation.
    • You can “let go” of something that’s happened after it’s over.
    • You can use meditation, yoga, tai chi or other tools to moderate reaction to stressors.

Keeping the stress reaction alive when it’s not needed hurts you, not the stressor.

 


Sources:

  1. George P. Chrousos, “Stress and Disorders of the Stress System,” Medscape, 2009. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704866
    Dr. Crousos is professor and chair of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Athens, Greece. With 1,100 articles, he is one of the most quoted doctors and researchers on the planet.
  2. Marlene Busko, “Study Links Stress-Related Amygdala Activity to Future CVD Events,” Medscape, 13 January 2017. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/874435
  3. Megan Brooks, “PTSD May Be Physical, Not Just Psychological,” Medscape, 21 July 2017. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/883251

 

Be Safe

Standard

Fireworks are beautiful — and dangerous. According to Medscape, there were 11,900 people requiring treatment in ERs or urgent care facilities due to injuries from fireworks in 2015. Over half of these were under 24 years of age and most were male.

Damage to hands and eyes are the most common injuries.

However, as reported on the Weather Channel this morning, particulate matter from fireworks explosions can cause problems for persons with breathing issues (e.g., asthma and COPD).

The photos if injuries, including second degree burns and severe eye injuries, are simply grotesque, so I’m not going to show them here.

If you must do this, please be careful! If you have breathing problems, you might consider an air mask.

Data: US Consumer Product Safety Commission

ACA Repeal: The Latest

Standard

The Senate proposal is out. The proposed law is 142 pages of (perhaps unnecessary) complexity, and, given the rushed nature, probable errors. But it’s out.

It’s not out in time to prevent damage for 2018.

  • Withdrawal of insurers: Aetna notified agents that it will be withdrawing from individual markets in 18 states. Notices to policy holders will be sent on or about July 1st. Other firms have announced withdrawals from a few states, most particularly Iowa and Indiana.
  • Heavy rate increases: Insurers in the individual market in Virgina have asked for a 30% rate increase for 2018, based on uncertainty about whether the Federal government will continue subsidies for health insurance. Insurers in NY State have asked for a 16.6% increase. Most other states will be in that range.

The proposal represents a mixed signal for consumers.

  • Pre-existing conditions: The Senate version conforms with the House version in requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. HOWEVER . . .
  • Coverage: States can apply for waivers allowing insurers to reduce the coverage they provide. Services required by people with pre-existing conditions may not be covered.
  • Medicaid: The bill supports a contraction of Federal Medicaid funding, but delays the start of cutbacks until 2021. The House version started cuts in 2020, an election year. The Senate version of the cuts are later and deeper.
    • The Medicaid expansion was an increase of the income limit for eligibility from 100% of poverty level to 138%.
    • Under the Senate version people making more than 100% of poverty level would be prevented from enrolling in Medicaid starting in 2020.
    • All Federal funding for the expansion would be limited in 2023.
    • The impact on the Medicaid program for children, CHIP, is unclear at this time.
    • Inflation adjustments for Medicaid funding would be changed from an index based on medical costs to the overall Consumer Price Index (CPI), which would reduce annual increases in funding in all future years. (See graph.) (4) The focus of this change is strictly on reducing Federal spending, not helping consumers. Federal payments would lag behind increases in medical costs — who pays the difference?fredgraph
  • Tax credits to help pay for insurance: The House version based subsidies on age; the Senate version reverts to income as the basis, consistent with the existing ACA rules. However,
    • The Senate version reduces the maximum income eligible for these subsidies, making some people now receiving subsidies ineligible for them in the future. On low low end, the Senate version makes subsidies available for people earning below below poverty level who might not be eligible for Medicaid in their state. The Senate version maintains cost-sharing subsidies for insurers through 2019.
    • The Senate version reduces the amount of subsidy people receive, increasing out of pocket costs for everyone, and especially for those between age 50 and 64.
  • Planned Parenthood: Both House and Senate versions remove funding for Planned Parenthood.
  • Tax reductions for affluent households: The Senate and House versions are in agreement on this; the reductions remain intact.
  • Individual mandate: Penalties for not having insurance are eliminated.

Sticking points:

  • For conservatives: Treating healthcare as a human right. They would rather see the ACA eliminated without replacement.
  • For moderates and those in competitive districts

Collateral damage:

  • Insurance coverage: There’s a debate as to how many people will not have insurance coverage with this law.  Estimates vary between 13 and 23 million.  The reasons for the variance in estimates include:
    • Time frame — loss of coverage will build over time as insurance costs increase and subsidies don’t.
    • Medicaid — how many people will lose coverage under Medicaid. That impacts more people than you would expect. Most people don’t have Long Term Care insurance, and Medicaid has become the prime vehicle for paying for home health aides and nursing home costs. Since nursing home costs average nationally more than $9,000 per month and Medicare pays for only the first 100 days, there are a lot of middle income families that will be in trouble. Even some moderately affluent families will be affected, and the poor . . . forget about it.
  • Tax increases: Healthcare for the uninsured will fall back on emergency rooms, largely of public hospitals. That will drive costs and budget increases and increases in local taxes. Tax savings for the rich will mean tax increases for everyone else.
  • Economic stagnation: The US is a consumer economy. I’ve argued previously that money siphoned from consumers for education, housing and healthcare is money they can’t spend for anything else. One analyst sees 1.1 million jobs disappearing by 2020 with passage of the AHCA. (3)

 


Sources:

  1. M. J. Lee, Tami Luhby, Lauren Fox, Phil Mattingley, “Senate GOP finally unveils secret health care bill; currently lacks votes to pass,” CNN, 22 June 2017. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/senate-health-care-bill/index.html
  2. Stephanie Armour, Kristina Peterson and Louise Radnofsky, “Battle Lines Drawn on Health Care,” The Wall Street Journal, 23 June 2017, P. A1.
  3. Josh Bivens, “Millions of people have a lot to lose under the AHCA,” Economic Policy Institute, 21 June 2017. http://www.epi.org/publication/millions-of-people-have-a-lot-to-lose-under-the-ahca/?utm_source=Economic+Policy+Institute&utm_campaign=50e819bfcb-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_06_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e7c5826c50-50e819bfcb-58834721&mc_cid=50e819bfcb&mc_eid=0541ad0f29
  4. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Economic Research. Chart downloaded 25 June 2017. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=CPIMEDSL,
  5. Bob Bryan, “Unveiled: The Secret Senate Healthcare bill,” Business Insider, 22 June 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-healthcare-bill-trumpcare-ahca-details-2017-6

The [State] Politics of Health Insurance

Standard

In the rush to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Trump Administration has been repeating the mantra that the individual insurance marketplaces are “failing.” Like most statements made by politicians these days, the facts seem to be a little different.

Clearly, Iowa is in crisis. With the withdrawal of Aetna from the individual marketplace, there is a real risk they may have no insurers offering individual coverage through the marketplace in 2018.

My suspicion is that Aetna’s withdrawal has more to do with its stock price and financial liabilities after a failed merger attempt than with the ACA itself. Aetna has also stopped writing small group insurance in some states.

However, Pennsylvania has six carriers committed to the marketplace for 2018. The only concern is what the Trump administration might do the mess things up.

Further, another insurer, Centene, has announced that it is expanding individual marketplace coverage into three new states — Kansas, Missouri and Nevada.

So what’s the real story with Iowa? If the fault were with ACA, it would be impacting every state and every carrier, and that’s not the case. What have state officials done to mess things up?

If you know the story, please reply. I’d like to know, both about Iowa and about other states where local officials are whining about Obamacare. Let’s get the full story out into the open.

 

Parenting and Risky Sexual Behavior in Teens

Standard

It may sound obvious, but parents matter. Both parents matter.ben_franklin

However, when it comes to risky sexual behavior in teen daughters, the spotlight is on the father.

A new study from the University of Utah relates the “quality of fathering” with teen behavior.

  • High quality fathering is associated with setting standards for behavior and consistent monitoring of how the teen spends her time and money. It affects with whom the teen associates and reduces the likelihood of risky behavior.
  • Low quality fathering does just the opposite.

The study strongly suggests that having a low quality father out of the home may be better for daughters than keeping the family intact.

The study may in fact underestimate the negative effects of low quality fathering. In some cases, parents or other family members are the source of risky behavior.

According to an The Atlantic article from 2013,

One in three-to-four girls, and one in five-to-seven boys are sexually abused before they turn 18, an overwhelming incidence of which happens within the family. These statistics are well known among industry professionals, who are often quick to add, “and this is a notoriously underreported crime.” (2)

Another review of the research literature suggests a 40% rate of molestation among girls and 30% among boys in the US. (4) In all cases, the figures are subject to some disagreement about definitions.

For those of us who know victims  of family abuse, this incidence is quite plausible. In my own conversations, I’ve been flabbergasted by the people who reveal histories of abuse — people I would never have suspected. It comes out in conversations after a certain level of trust is in place. And it surfaces too many times with too many people.

Ultimately, the statistics we have are unreliable, because too many people won’t talk about this. The statistics are incomplete, as they tend to focus on father-daughter abuse and not on mother-son or sibling relations (or on abuse by authority figures other than priests).

Traditional studies have focused on “broken” families and the importance of having two parents in the home. The truth seems to be a bit more complex. There are many cases in which the “intact” family is broken and dysfunctional, and breakup represents improvement.


Sources:

  1. Danielle J. DelPriore, Gabriel L. Schlomer, Bruce J. Ellis. Impact of Fathers on Parental Monitoring of Daughters and Their Affiliation With Sexually Promiscuous Peers: A Genetically and Environmentally Controlled Sibling Study. Developmental Psychology, 2017; DOI: 10.1037/dev0000327
  2. Mia Fontaine, “America Has an Incest Problem,” The Atlantic, 24 January 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/america-has-an-incest-problem/272459/
  3. Margaret Ballantine and Lynne Soine, “Sibling Sexual Abuse — Uncovering the Secret,” Social Work Today Vol. 12 No. 6 P. 18. http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/111312p18.shtml
  4. Rational Skepticism.org. “Just how common is incest?” 11 July 2010. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/social-sciences/just-how-common-is-incest-t9841.html