Healthcare shares rose on Monday as a bill to reform healthcare passed the first critical test in the Senate . . . Shares of Cigna rose 5.3 percent to $37.69. Shares of Aetna Inc rose 5.84 percent to $34.41. Humana Inc rose 3.79 percent to $45.17 and United Health Group Inc rose 5 percent to $33.14. Shares of Wellpoint Inc rose 3.8 percent to $60.51. —Reuters

A recent, much-quoted Harvard study estimated that 45,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance. Either the insurance they had turned out to be inadequate to cover their needed care, or their longterm lack of insurance caused them to miss early medical treatments that would have prevented subsequent fatal illnesses.

In the Democrats push to persuade people like Howard Dean to sign on to their awful bill, they’ve used this issue often: How can any good dem or progressive not want to help the 45,000 people who will die this year without reform?

Of course, the fact that most of the people pushing the bill have more than adequate insurance already, and that many who oppose it, like myself, are longterm uninsured should be a clue.

But here’s the real problem: the benefits from the proposed bill do not kick in until 2014. That’s four more years of the rapidly deteriorating status quo. Given the tanking economy and more people losing their jobs/insurance and the fact that the insurance companies will be continuing their profit-seeking ways, likely more than 45,000 per year will die while waiting for the miracle bill to take effect.

In four years, that’s 180,000 dead Americans. The President and Senate have decided that, sadly, nothing can be done for them. Wouldn’t want to upset the insurance industry.

And Wall Street is happy, happy, happy.

Michael Sky | CommonHealth

Now, the only beneficiaries from passing this healthcare reform bill will be the corporations that the democrats serve, who will in turn shovel vast sums of money into democrat coffers. It’s a nifty get-rich scheme that has nothing to do with the American people.

Jane Hamsher and the folks at FireDogLake have nicely summed things up:

Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill
1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations – whether you want to or not
2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS
3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums
4. Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court
5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays
6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits – like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions – until 2014 when the program begins.
7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others
8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years
10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year – meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

For documentation on all of these issues and more, go to FireDogLake.

For a healthcare system that works, go to Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain……….

Michael Sky | CommonHealth

In other words, it uses the power of government, the force of law, to give the greatest gift imaginable to this industry — tens of millions of coerced customers, many of whom will be truly burdened by having to turn their money over to these corporations — and is thus a truly extreme advancement of this corporatist model.

It’s undeniably true that the bill will also do some genuine good, as it will help many people who can’t get coverage now to get it (though it will also severely burden many people with compelled, uncontrolled premiums and will potentially weaken coverage for millions as well).  If one judges the bill purely from the narrow perspective of coverage, a rational and reasonable (though by no means conclusive) case can be made in its favor.  But if one finds this creeping corporatism to be a truly disturbing and nefarious trend, then the bill will seem far less benign.

Glenn Greenwald | Salon

The study at Karolinska focused on the white blood cells in the umbilical cords of Caesarean babies and found mutations in their genetic makeup. The researchers noted differences in DNA sequencing of babies delivered via Caesarean and those delivered normally. —The Swedish Local

For most of human history, the two primary causes of premature death have been traumatic injury and infectious disease. Mainstream American medicine, with its heavy emphasis on hardcare practices, grew out of the challenge to solve these two problems. To a great extent it succeeded, with at times miraculous results. Yet the development of hardcare — a combination of complex diagnostic technologies followed by treatments of drugs and/or surgery — has come with unintended consequences that have brought American society to a profound crisis.

Hardcare medicine creates a specialized class of experts to administer to the sick while diminishing individual responsibility for the health of one’s body and mind. Hardcare drugs and surgeries can cause serious side-effects, often worse than the symptoms they attempt to cure. Hardcare treatments prove inadequate against a host of modern illnesses, yet hardcare tends to deny and actively campaign against other healing approaches. Finally, hardcare medicine is extremely expensive and thus exacerbates all of our current economic difficulties.

The failings of hardcare medicine have arisen where it has over-reached its ability and over-stated its role within society. Though hardcare medicine provides excellent tools for dealing with the problems of traumatic injury and infectious disease, it fails terribly for most other health problems.

Curing Birth

Risky labor inductions for “convenience” and all the complications associated with them–increased risk of prematurity, C-section, bladder and bowel injury, and maternal death–are now on the rise all over the country. It troubles me that more women don’t realize that a Cesarean section is major surgery. And it carries with it a risk of maternal death that is five to seven times greater than a normal birth. —Christiane Norrthrup, OB/GYN

Nowhere is the hammer of hardcare medicine more recklessly applied, and with such dire consequences, than in the practice of modem American obstetrics. Though most obstetricians are well-intentioned and extensively trained, to the extent that they follow hardcare practices (not all obstetricians do) their chosen tools are inappropriate for 90-95% of the births they oversee.

Hardcare obstetricians approach pregnancy/birth as if it were a life-threatening illness demanding invasive, high-tech intervention. Thus, while birth can be the most natural and sacred of life processes, hardcare medicine turns it into a messy female problem to be fixed. While birth can unfold as awe-inspiring theater, co-authored by the mother, infant, midwife, father and other supporters, hardcare turns it into a futuristic thriller, starring the doctor, and featuring the very latest in techno-controls. And though birth can be a joyful initiation into the human family — Welcome, child, to a world of love and absolute nurturance — American obstetrics turns it into a mechanical, impersonal, and too often violent medical emergency.

Because hardcare medicine diminishes individual responsibility for bodily processes, hardcare-conditioned women typically turn birth over to their doctors. Such women can be sadly uninformed about the nature of pregnancy and about the purpose of and ways to a fulfilling labor. They tend to let the doctors take care of everything, including time of delivery, drugs for the pain, and surgery if labor goes on too long. Unfortunately, the more that women cede responsibility for their bodies and birthings, the more problematic birth becomes, and the more necessary are the “birth-improving” interventions of hardcare medicine.

Well-Intentioned Interventions

Using an obstetrician for normal birth is like using a pediatrician as a babysitter.—birthing specialist Marsden Wagner

Hardcare interventions into birth begin with the mistaken notion that we can expect, and even schedule, birth to happen at a certain time. If it’s late getting started, then the obstetrician may use drugs to induce labor.

If we expected a rose to bloom on a certain day and then tried to pry it open with pliers when it was “late,” it would not surprise us that the flower would turn out poorly. Nor should it surprise us that chemically-induced labors often progress poorly — the mother/infant was not ready. (The ultimate perversion is caesarian deliveries scheduled according to hospital and doctor needs.)

Once labor begins, most American hospitals now require high-tech fetal monitoring. This consists of a wide belt wrapped around the mother’s waist and attached to a bedside machine that makes irritating noise throughout the labor. The belt prevents the mother from easily moving around according to her needs; it also prevents mother, father and midwife from placing their hands directly upon the lower belly or from massaging the lower back. All of this interference comes from a machine that has been proven in several studies to be of little if any benefit in most births. The main reason we continue to use fetal monitors — instead of non-invasive monitoring with a fetoscope — is so that doctors and hospitals have a record to refer to in the event of malpractice suits.

Other common interferences with labor include: the use of the counter-intuitive supine posture (rather than squatting); the lack of a well-informed labor supporter (simply having one such lay person, or doula, who stays with the mother throughout labor is of great benefit); the use of sterile, medical environments for labor and delivery; and the use of statistical norms to judge and direct the mother’s progress. All such interventions and interferences ultimately lead to a poorly progressing labor and, in reaction, to more invasive interventions.

In such cases the obstetrician might perform an episiotomy — surgically cutting the perineum to widen the mother’s vagina. Or might use forceps to mechanically pull the infant down the birth canal. Or might forgo labor and perform a caesarian delivery. (Roughly 33% of American births are now caesarians. This compares with 9% in Japan and Scandinavian countries.)

However the baby makes it out of the womb, we can expect further interventions. Doctors may cut the umbilical cord prematurely — before the baby has initiated breathing — leading to the classic abuse of hanging the infant upside down and slapping it. The infant will most likely be needle-poked three or four times during the first hour of its life (one or two blood tests, a vitamin K shot, and a hepatitis vaccine). The infant might be separated from its mother and placed alone in a nursery (especially if the mother is less than conscious due to drugs and/or surgery). And the infant might be fed ersatz formula food (hospitals and obstetricians have financial incentives to discourage breastfeeding.)

Obviously, all such interventions have been developed with the best of intentions — birth is risky, it sometimes goes poorly, and hardcare practitioners work hard to keep the mother and baby alive and relatively healthy. Yet studies of births in other countries, combined with studies of midwife-directed births in America, show that for more than 90% of births, obstetrical interventions do more harm than good.

The Damage Done

In 1979, [California] appropriated $750,000 for the first scientific study ever made of the root causes of violence. Two years later a first paper was issued, listing the ten principle causes of crime and violence in our nation. At the top of the list was the violent way we bring our children into the world. —Joseph Chilton Pearce

Harm to the mother can include various side-effects from drugs and surgery, and a further diminishing of her sense of responsibility for body and life. Harm to parents and child includes the medicalizing and mechanical-demeaning of what could have been a profound life experience. Harm to society includes vast amounts of unnecessary anguish and expense.

But it is the babies who suffer most, though hardcare practitioners say otherwise. They claim that babies are unaffected by the events of birth and early childhood. Babies don’t remember, we are assured. The infant born into a cold, brightly-lit room staffed with masked technicians; the infant who is slapped while choking for breath; the infant who is poked, jabbed, weighed, measured and then separated from its mother; the infant boy with the foreskin of his penis sliced off: it doesn’t matter, the experts assure us, babies don’t remember.

It is the grossest of misunderstandings, a terrible foolishness, for which we pay dearly. Humans are conscious, growing, learning and developing from day one. Babies are influenced, positively or poorly, by each and every human interaction. To cause unnecessary physical or emotional pain to an infant is child abuse, plain and simple. To do so under the rubric of “good medicine” is a continuing nightmare from which America must awaken soon.

Power to the Midwives

Studies have repeatedly shown that in healthy mothers with no risk factors, home birth is as safe as hospital birth. Increasingly, savvy women who trust their ability to birth normally are opting to avoid the hospital altogether (or at least have the foresight to hire a midwife or doula). —Christiane Norrthrup, OB/GYN

Fixing birth is so simple: pass a federal law mandating power, status and privilege to the softcare practices of well-trained midwives. Hardcare obstetricians can carry on as they have, for parents who want such deliveries, and for the small percentage of pregnancies that present as high-risk situations. But for those who desire safe, natural, and joyful births, let midwifery become a socially-supported option. Take away the legal and financial barriers that now impede midwives throughout America, and let pregnant women choose.

The return of midwifery will give us healthier children and mothers and will save us a lot of money in the process. Moreover, if the first step in our healthcare system is positively transformed, the rest might naturally follow.

Yet when it comes to the care and feeding of my own body, I have become something of a chemistry expert.

Brief background: I was born with digestive problems that persisted chronically throughout childhood. I was constantly sick growing up, with two or three bad colds a year. I missed most of 5th grade with mono. I was hospitalized when I was 14 with ulcerative colitis so severe that the doctors told my parents that nothing could be done and they should prepare for my death.

Two weeks of hospital food and removal from the stresses of my life and I improved enough to be released from the hospital. I had learned two important lessons: first, the doctors didn’t know why I was sick or why I improved; second, my condition changed from day to day depending for the most part on diet.

Even while I was struggling in chemistry class, I had begun a long-range chemistry experiment with the simplest of protocols: pay attention to what I was eating and drinking each day and then, starting with the next morning’s trip to the bathroom, pay attention to my results, including the condition of my hair and skin. If the results were less than ideal, I would consider changing something in my diet.

Or: input chemicals; observe outputs; reassess and make adjustments to inputs. Repeat daily.

This was in the 60s. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring had just begun to alert us to the dangers of synthetic chemicals in the environment. The natural food movement was only getting started. Advertisements still featured doctors recommending certain cigarettes for the health benefits. No one was talking about nutrition or “good” and “bad” foods.

So my experiment started slow. Coca cola, the beverage of choice in our family, was the first to go. Then alcohol. In both cases, what I came to think of as the “morning reports” could not have been clearer. Avoiding each had immediate benefits, while sporadic attempts to “just have a little” never went well.

And so it has gone for more than forty years. The process has not always been fast — I had such deep attachment to some foods, especially wheat, that I continued eating them for years despite evidence that they were a problem for me. We have an amazing ability to deny the obvious in order to sustain the status quo.

In Search of the One True Diet

American medicine long ignored the obvious fact that diet and nutrition play a major role in human health. But even as doctors and medical researchers have come to accept that diet does matter, they have viewed nutrition through a reductionist lens that badly skews their findings and conclusions.

They begin by reducing every food to its nutritional constituents: a bowl of cereal has this much protein, this much fiber, this much Vitamin A and so on. At the same time, they reduce our nutritional needs to a list of Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA): every day we need to eat this much protein, this much fiber and so on. A healthy diet then becomes a matter of choosing enough of the right foods to meet your RDAs.

Sounds simple enough, but problems arise. Almost daily a new study is announced  that calls into question the previously presumed effects (from earlier studies) of a given nutrient. Likewise, we see a never-ending parade of diet books and nutritional experts explaining why their regimen is the answer for everybody, the one true diet.

Been there, done that, and here’s what I know:

• no single nutrient can be completely understood apart from the food in which it’s found. That’s the point of “whole foods”: nutrients are interactive and the nutritional impact of a specific nutrient changes when studied in isolation.
• no one diet will work for everybody.
• individually, our nutritional needs are ever in flux, depending on season, age, state of physical, mental, and emotional health, daily stressors, and other unseen factors.

Which is not to say that we shouldn’t pay attention to the studies, or read the books, or listen to people when they talk about what works or doesn’t work for them. Any information that can help us to better understand our bodies is welcome, but everything must ultimately be run through the “morning report” to confirm whether it holds true for the individual or not.

Physician, Feed Thyself

The CDC recently estimated that some two-thirds of American illness is caused by a combination of poor diet and sedentary lifestyles. In the past they’ve made similar statements about the role of stress in illness.

Yet despite the fact that most of what goes wrong with us is within our direct power to change, we remain a pharmaceutical-gulping, scary-disease-obsessed culture. We go to great lengths and expense to avoid this or that disease while neglecting our individual responsibilities as human body-minds.

What should be fantastic news — there are time-tested ways to achieve and maintain good health without spending a lot of time and money in doctors’ offices — is taken as some sort of offense, like cursing in church.

Rather than health insurance, which sets aside money so that you can see a doctor when something goes wrong, we need to practice health assurance, taking steps now to assure that doctors are rarely needed.

It all begins with Chemistry 101. Do the experiments. Become an expert.

Michael Sky | CommonHealth

Let’s say that, after giving a fiery speech on the floor assailing the evils of government-run health care, a lawmaker gets gaseous or has a tongue cramp. He or she can pop right into the OAP for — yes! — some government-run health care. No appointment needed, no pesky insurance forms to fill out, no co-pay — just care.

For this, members pay a flat fee of $503 a year. A year! You and I are taxed to cover the real costs of this elite service. And that’s not the end of public health benefits for lawmakers — if they need a specialist, an operation, therapy, rehab or other pricey procedure, it’s all free at the government’s Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval hospitals.

If it’s good enough for them, why not us? The public deserves what the Congress has, and any member who opposes extending it to us should automatically be stripped of their privileges.

Jim Hightower | Creators Syndicate

Researchers from the University of Missouri have uncovered evidence that taking over-the-counter pain relievers, like aspirin and Tylenol, can reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine because they inhibit the normal function of enzymes that help regulate the immune system. —Scientificblogging

This has always been the problem with testing vaccines and other pharmaceuticals: they can not possibly test for all the variations that any population presents. Much as researchers try to account for differences in lifestyle and diet, humans are too complex with too many constantly shifting variables to be able to say that a specific chemical reaction in Joe will perfectly replicate in Mary.

So now, after millions of people have already been vaccinated, we find that it may not have helped any of those taking aspirin, Tylenol and other common pain relievers, which, in over-dosed America, amounts to just about everyone.

“If you’re taking aspirin regularly, which many people do for cardiovascular treatment, or acetaminophen (Tylenol) for pain and fever and get a flu shot, there is a good chance that you won’t have a good antibody response,” said Charles Brown, associate professor of veterinary pathobiology in the MU College of Veterinary Medicine.

“These drugs block the enzyme COX-1, which works in tissues throughout the body. We have found that if you block COX-1, you might be decreasing the amount of antibodies your body is producing, and you need high amounts of antibodies to be protected.”

The only real testing of this and any other vaccine is in live populations. Give it to the people and see what happens.

If that’s the medicine folks want, go for it. Just don’t force anyone to participate.

Michael Sky | CommonHealth

The panel basically said that for women below the age of fifty, regular mammographies do not provide enough benefit to outweigh the risks involved. They made clear that they were not talking about women who were deemed to be at high-risk for the disease, and they strongly advised that such women continue with regular screening, along with all women over the age of fifty.

But for those who are not high-risk and are now asymptomatic — most women — they found that screening detected one aggressive cancer for every 1,900 women tested, while some 190 (10%) would receive false positives. Those women would undergo biopsies and some undetermined number would go on to receive cancer treatment that they never really needed.

As Breast Cancer Action explains:

But the complex biology of breast cancer means that women diagnosed with “early” breast cancer fall into one of three groups.

• One group has very aggressive disease that, no matter how small it is when it is found, cannot be effectively treated with the therapies that are currently available. These women will die of breast cancer eventually, no matter what treatment they are given, unless they die of something else first.
• Another group of women diagnosed with breast cancer has a type of either non-aggressive invasive disease or some presentations of DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) that will never be life-threatening.
• The third group has a type of breast cancer that responds to currently available treatments. Finding breast cancer earlier does increase the likelihood that treatment will work for women in this group.

We do not know how many women historically have fallen into each of these three groups. And, while these divisions and the treatments currently available mean that “early detection” only matters for women in the third group, we cannot determine at the time of diagnosis the type of tumor a woman has. The result is that we mistreat or over-treat many women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Since treatment involves some combination of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, mistreatment and over-treatment amounts to serious harm. Some women are sickened by the chemo and radiation, some receive unnecessary mastectomies, some ultimately die from the would-be cure.

First, Do No Harm

On one side of this debate are the medical researchers who make clear that they are not anti-testing and that their recommendations were not based on costs. They are simply calling for an evidence-based adjustment of the screening protocols.

On the other side are the medical professionals who play an active role in the testing, along with the strong voices of breast cancer survivors who benefited from early detection. The latter make an especially compelling case: if these recommendations had been in effect some years ago, they say, they’d probably be dead.

However, we don’t know how many of those women actually had non-aggressive growths; such women were more harmed than helped by the screening and resulting mistreatment.

Moreover, absent from the debate are any women who were harmed. Some have died, while others have had their health seriously degraded by toxic and invasive treatments. But it is impossible to document any of these cases because once a woman has received a false positive and enters a treatment regimen there is no way to know what is occurring on its own and what is being caused by the chemo and radiation.

So we have a debate about risks versus benefits that fails to investigate  or even acknowledge the risks.

Fighting Symptoms or Preventing Causes

Some insist that early detection is the only thing preventing them from getting cancer. But of course even when early detection works (finds an aggressive but treatable cancer), it is not prevention. What we really need to do is prevent breast cancer from ever occurring, or at least greatly reduce the at-risk population.

To do that we will need to know what causes cancer in the first place. Yet little of our mega-bucks, 50-year War on Cancer has been devoted to finding and resolving causes. Instead, we’ve spent billions and billions on variations of the breast cancer strategy: high-tech screening to find existing cancers and then more high-tech treatments/weapons to kill it.

Even if such weapons worked — they eliminated cancer without causing any collateral damage — they would still inflict great stress on patients and they would still be extremely expensive.

Instead of teaching women to passively show up for their regular screenings and then, when the news is bad, to passively undergo the latest treatments, we should be teaching women (and men) to actively practice cancer-preventing lifestyles.

The fundamentals are known and well-documented: a whole food, chemical-free diet; avoidance of environmental toxins; and, learning to deal with stress.

If everyone simply practiced the fundamentals, and if as a nation we mandated clean air, water, and soil and required strict industry compliance, including comprehensive testing of all industrial chemicals, we would do better than win the war on cancer: we would discover our innate abilities of self-regulation and self-healing. And we’d save a lot of money.

Michael Sky | CommonHealth

I can remember as a child watching a movie about that time and being struck by one scene in particular: a big man, all dressed in black, drives a cart from house to house, picking up the dead and carrying them off for burial. I remember thinking, “How is he getting away with this?” Here is an incredibly bad bug, killing one out of every two people, and this guy is going into infected households, and handling infected bodies, and somehow still managing to put in a sixteen hour day!

Since the fourteenth century, we have learned a lot about bubonic plague. We fully understand the bug that causes it: what it looks like, how it lives, how it travels, how it affects the human body, and how to kill it, which we have proven successful at doing. Yet we know little about the man driving that cart and how and why he lived on. While we have conscientiously studied the half of Europe that died we have ignored the half that survived.

Doctors now say, “The survivors just had greater resistance; they had natural immunity.” But what does that mean? How did they get it? Was it God’s will? Were they born with it? Were they just lucky? Or could it have been something in their diet, or their manner of thinking, or the way they processed their emotions, or how they prayed, or perhaps some combination of any or all of these factors? More importantly, as we come to better understand the survivor’s experience, can we successfully transfer it to others?

In fundamental ways, Western medical science over the past few hundred years has avoided addressing these questions. We have enthusiastically dissected the dead while showing little interest in the living. We have stayed away from questions of individual immunity and natural healing while focusing our intellectual energies and research on defeating specific disease symptoms, battle by battle, with an increasingly complex array of hardcare weaponry. Rather than a softcare investigation into the nature of wellness—How do some people manage to stay healthy without resorting to doctors or medicines?—we have chosen to wage a hardcare war on the real and imagined agents of disease.

The hardcare medical model posits that every ailment has a specific causative agent (the bad germ) and for every such agent we can and will eventually find a specific remedy (the magic bullet). It is a model that totally ignores the individual involved — is she under stress, is she a happy person, is she motivated to go on living, does she express her emotions, how is her family life, what was it like growing up, is she loved — these questions are dismissed as irrelevant. All that matters is figuring out which bug is causing the problem and then administering the proper remedy.

And yet, we harbor flu viruses for most of our lives without catching colds, and we are exposed to carcinogens on a regular basis without developing cancer. Half of the population of 14th century Europe contacted the plague but did not die. There is more to it than “you catch the bug and it makes you sick,” and much more to it than relying on a “magic bullet” to make things better.

The more to it resides somehow and somewhere within all human beings. Though it can not be captured in a bottle and measured out in clear dosages, nor carefully produced in a laboratory and shot into the body with pointed precision, it is more potent than any such remedies, and can surely heal any and all wounds.

While it is reassuring to know that we now have a cure for the bubonic plague, remember that the man driving the cart had a solution six hundred years ago.

Michael Sky | CommonHealth

In an historic vote, the democrat-controlled House of Representatives managed (barely) to pass sweeping healthcare reform that will in no way affect the god-given profit margins of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies nor the fat dividends of their Wall Street investors.

Phew. America seemed perilously close to enacting policies that evinced compassion, effectiveness, and common sense.

But not to worry.

Thirty percent of every healthcare dollar will continue to be sucked up by the heathcare profiteers.

Even better, LESS healthcare will go women and their reproductive bothers, thanks to the dick-brained efforts of a bunch of democrat representatives.

Importantly, they kept the whole thing employer-based, so as unemployment keeps rising so will the ranks of the uninsured, making the loss of one’s job a veritable death sentence, to be served soon after one’s personal bankruptcy.

All of these glorious changes will take another year or two to take effect, so, as with the foreclosure problem, we’ve made it clear that when the rich are troubled they get instant mega-bucks solutions, but when it’s the rest of us, sorry, but these things take time, and money is tight.

And the best news of all? Now it has to go through the Senate, giving the corporate lobbyists, religious nuts, tea-baggers, and spineless legislators more time to do their tawdry best.

Said it before, I’ll say it again: American, heal thyself.

Michael Sky | CommonHealth