The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide

‘Capitalism’ the movie calls for consumer action

Having missed the opportunity to see Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story” when it briefly played at local movie theaters, I was pleased to see it’s being shown at our local alternative theater.

As a consumer specialist who’s written about consumer issues for three decades, I think the movie has a lot to offer.

When I studied consumer economics at Washington State University and The Evergreen State College, the role of the consumer in the economy was emphasized. Consumers have power in the economic system and a role to play that’s as important as the roles of business and the government.

However, consumers don’t often use their power. Instead, they identify with the producer interests of the companies they work for. Consumers don’t join groups and work for their economic interests. They’re influenced by advertising and capitalistic rhetoric.

While “Capitalism” did a good job of reporting on the abuses of the capitalistic system, especially what went wrong to create the Great Recession, it was outstanding in its call to consumer action.

We need to create new systems that help working people, the people on Main Street not Wall Street.

Look for groups that are working in your community on issues such as affordable housing, health care, the environment, economic justice, and simple living.

To find a Public Interest Research Group in your state, see the Web site of U.S.PIRG.

National groups that are worth working with are: Public Citizen, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the Environmental Working Group.

We can improve the economic situation of consumers in this country. But we need to get back the power that has been usurped by corporate interests.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

A Veterans Day 2009 look at what veterans need

America has 23.2 million veterans. About 10.9 million of them are baby boomers.

On this day that we stop to remember the contributions of our service men and women, what’s being said about veterans and their needs on Veterans Day?

President Barack Obama said that there have been times in the past when America didn’t stand by its veterans. Obama pledged that this wouldn’t happen again:

That is my message to all veterans today. That is my message to all who serve in harm's way. To the husbands and wives back home doing the parenting of two. To the parents who watch their sons and daughters go off to war, and the children who wonder when mom and dad is coming home. To all our wounded warriors, and to the families who laid a loved one to rest. America will not let you down. We will take care of our own.

And to those who are serving in far-flung places today, when your tour ends, when you see our flag, when you touch our soil, you will be home in an America that is forever here for you just as you've been there for us. That is my promise – our nation's promise – to you.

Veterans for Common Sense, a veterans’ advocacy organization, said that today’s observance offers the opportunity to raise awareness about the mental health needs of service members, veterans, and families:

Of the two million U.S. service members deployed to the two war zones since 2001, researchers at Stanford University estimated 500,000 or more Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are likely to return home with mental health conditions such as post traumatic stress disorder…

As more and more service members deploy to war and redeploy home, the scope of the health care crisis among our veterans continues to worsen…

Our list of concerns included the need for more military mental health care providers, the need for universal, mandatory medical exams before and after going to war, and the need for a stronger anti-stigma message to encourage our soldiers and veterans to seek care.

An article in the Christian Science Monitor, “Veterans Day Highlights New Efforts to Help Homeless Vets,” said veterans have a high rate of homelessness:

An estimated 131,000 former members of the armed services are homeless – with vets twice as likely as non-vets to be out on the streets. With high unemployment a nationwide problem, vets face higher-than-average jobless rates as well.

New initiatives by President Obama, by Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and by members of Congress focus on improving living standards for veterans.

On Veterans Day and throughout the year, we need to think through and take action on ways the federal government, local and state governments, veterans groups, community groups, foundations, religious organizations, educational institutions, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and Americans citizens can improve the lives veterans.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist 

Tougher action needed to halt criminal activities used by pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, is outraged that record criminal fines aren’t stopping drug companies in America from using selling practices that harm consumers.

"The recent $2.3 billion settlement between Pfizer and the U.S. Justice Department for unlawful prescription drug promotion may sound large, but it’s not enough to ensure drug companies will curb their bad behavior," said Sidney Wolfe, M.D., director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, in a statement about the settlement.

Pfizer broke the record set by Eli Lilly & Co. in January for what was then described by the Justice Department as the "largest individual corporate criminal fine" in U.S. history. The fine was more than $500 million in criminal penalties for off-label promotion of Zyprexa, a drug used to treat the symptoms of psychotic conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Pfizer record-breaking criminal fine of $1.2 billion is the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. The rest of the $2.3 billion represents civil penalties.

The settlement focused mainly on Pfizer's promotion of Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug pulled from the market in 2005 for safety reasons, reports the article "Pfizer Agrees to Record 2.3 Billion Fine" on The Washington Time’s Web site.

Authorities said Bextra had been approved in 2001 for only three ailments – uterus pain and two forms of arthritis. Pfizer had asked for Food and Drug Administration approval to have Bextra prescribed to treat all types of pain, but the FDA refused because of concerns about it causing blood clots in the heart.

But Pfizer marketed the drug as a general pain reliever anyway, though it remains unclear how many patients fell ill as a result, according to the article.

Public Citizen reports that American drug companies have a long history of criminal activities in selling drugs:

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry, long one of the most profitable in the country, with profits last year of close to $50 billion, has engaged in an unprecedented amount of criminal activity in the past decade, all aimed at increasing sales, often by illegally promoting drugs for diseases for which evidence that benefits outweigh harm is lacking – also known as illegal off-label promotion.

When doctors are induced, either by being bribed or misled by drug companies, to prescribe drugs for such purposes, there is a reasonable chance that the drugs will do more harm than good and patients may be seriously injured or killed by such promotion.

In addition to Pfizer and Eli Lilly (Pfizer also pleaded guilty to criminal charges for off-label promotion of Neurontin in 2004), other drug companies found to have engaged in criminal activity in the past 10 years include Abbott, Schering-Plough, Astra-Zeneca, Purdue, and Bayer, Public Citizen reports.

"Unfortunately, the ever-escalating fines are unlikely to stop drug companies from continuing to bribe doctors because they represent just a fraction of drug company profits and no one has gone to jail," Wolfe said.

"Until corporate titans are forced to fork over a much larger proportion of their illegally gotten profits and are put behind bars, nothing will change," he said.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

What does spirituality mean in America?

 

A new survey by Parade magazine reports 69 percent of Americans believe in God, 77 percent pray outside of religious services, and 75 percent believe it’s a parent’s responsibility to give children a religious upbringing.

However, even though 45 percent of respondents called themselves religious, 50 percent said they rarely or never attend worship services.

The Parade survey offers an interesting look at spirituality in America.

In analyzing the data, Christine Wicker, author of the book "The Fall of the Evangelical Nation," said what Americans are doing today is separating spirituality from religion, with many people disavowing organized practice altogether while privately maintaining some form of worship.

The old terms – "atheist" and "agnostic" – are no longer catch-alls for everyone outside traditional belief, Wicker said. For example, 24 percent of respondents put themselves into a whole new category: "spiritual but not religious."

That phrase means different things to different people, she said. Some may be members of traditional religions but want to signal that they aren’t legalistic or rigid. At the other end of the spectrum, "spiritual but not religious" can apply to someone who has combined diverse beliefs and practices into a personal faith that fits no standard definition.

As Americans’ ideas of spirituality have become more expansive, so have their attitudes toward people of different faiths, Wicker said. Only 12 percent of respondents said that their own religion was the only true faith, 12 percent said no religion has validity, and 59 percent said all religions are valid.

Take a look at the survey results. It makes for interesting reading.

For example, only 15 percent of respondents thought religion should be a key factor in political decisions, while 58 percent said religion and politics should not mix at all.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Preventing breast cancer: 20 risk factors

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

The Breast Cancer Fund is an organization that works to identify – and advocate for elimination of – the environmental and other preventable causes of breast cancer. It says:

Research has taught us that many widely understood risk factors play a role, including our genetic makeup and whether or not we've had kids or breast-fed.

But these risk factors don't explain it all. A substantial body of scientific evidence indicates that exposures to common chemicals and radiation, alone and in combination, may contribute to the unacceptably high incidence of breast cancer.

Here are risk factors the Breast Cancer Fund offers in its article “How to Prevent Breast Cancer: 20 Risk Factors”:

1. Cook with stainless steel. Aluminum may be a risk factor for breast cancer. To be cautious, avoid aluminum pots and pans and aluminum-based deodorants.

2. Use natural sunscreens. Many sunscreens contain chemicals that may be breast cancer risk factors.

3. Check your old foam furniture. Old foam mattresses and furniture can contain PBDEs, flame retardants that may be a breast cancer risk factor.

4. Minimize car exhaust. PAHs in vehicle exhaust are a breast cancer risk factor, particularly at certain vulnerable moments in life. Minimize your exposure.

5. Eat soy, but not too much. Natural plant-based estrogens in soy may provide healthy benefits in low doses, but may be a risk factor for breast cancer in higher doses.

6. Avoid CT scans and x-rays. Some common medical procedures may come with a high dose of radiation, a known breast cancer risk factor. There are alternatives.

7. Check older toys. Exposure to phthalates in plastics, present in many older – and not so old – toys and children's products, could be a breast cancer risk factor.

8. Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy. If you use HRT, use estrogen-only formulations to avoid a well-documented breast cancer risk factor.

9. Recycle batteries. Some batteries and other consumer products contain cadmium, which has been linked to early-onset puberty, a risk factor for breast cancer.

10. Eat clean fish. Some fish can be contaminated with PCBs and dioxins, both breast cancer risk factors. Learn how to choose safe, nontoxic fish.

11. Be wary of dry cleaning chemicals. PERC, a chemical used by many dry cleaners, and in some carpet cleaners and spot removers, may be a breast cancer risk factor.

12. Use natural cosmetics. Some beauty products contain toxic and endocrine disrupting chemicals that may be breast cancer risk factors.

13. Avoid bleach and chlorine. Bleached products, including some tampons and household disinfectant bleaches, may be harmful.

14. Use natural pesticides. Some chemical pesticides contain endocrine disrupting chemicals that can harm human health, as well as kill insects and rodents.

15. Avoid weed killers. Herbicides do more than kill weeds. Some may mimic hormones, a breast cancer risk factor.

16. Use nontoxic cleaning supplies. Warning labels on cleaning products are there for a reason: Some contain breast cancer risk factors. Use alternative green cleansers or do-it-yourself cleansers instead.

17. Avoid canned food. The lining in canned food can leach chemicals. Choosing farmers' market-fresh vegetables is a better choice.

18. Choose truly “microwave safe” containers. Even so-called "microwave safe" plastic can leach chemicals into your food. Choose glass or ceramic bowls instead.

19. Drink safe water. Bottled water may contain Bisphenol A or other contaminants, while filtered public tap water is closely monitored for safety.

20. Choose BPA-free baby and water bottles. Bisphenol A has been linked to a variety of health problems, and may be a risk factor for breast cancer. Start early – for your daughter’s sake.

See the article for details on each risk factor.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Federal agency’s effort to revamp the nation’s chemical management program laudable, but doesn’t go far enough

 

With cancer rates skyrocketing and continual questions about how chemicals affect the health of consumers, the Obama Administration has announced its goals for reforming of this country’s chemical management law, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA.

In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency also made known its plans for a major effort to strengthen the agency’s current chemical management program and increase the pace of the agency’s efforts to address chemicals that pose a risk to the public.

  
 
U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a recent talk at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

As more and more chemicals are found in our bodies and the environment, the public is understandably anxious and confused. Many are turning to government for assurance that chemicals have been assessed using the best available science, and that unacceptable risks haven’t been ignored.

Our oversight of the 21st century chemical industry is based on the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act....over the years, not only has TSCA fallen behind the industry it’s supposed to regulate – it’s been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.

Today I’m announcing clear administration principles to guide Congress in writing a new chemical risk management law that will fix the weaknesses in TSCA.

Legislation strengthening TSCA is expected to be introduced shortly. The Obama administration’s goals for the revision are:

• Chemicals should be reviewed against risk-based safety standards based on sound science and protective of human health and the environment.

• Manufacturers should provide EPA with the necessary information to conclude that new and existing chemicals are safe and don’t endanger public health or the environment.

• EPA should have clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals don’t meet the safety standard, with flexibility to take into account sensitive subpopulations, costs, social benefits, equity, and other relevant considerations.

• Manufacturers and EPA should assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing and new, in a timely manner.

• Green chemistry should be encouraged and provisions assuring transparency and public access to Information should be strengthened.

• EPA should be given a sustained source of funding for implementation.

EPA will strengthen the performance of its current chemical management program while Congress considers new legislation.

However, representatives of the Environmental Working Group, Earthjustice, and the Breast Cancer Action Fund question how the new regulatory program might work, reports the article "EPA Announced Plan to Review Six Controversial Chemicals" on the Web site Scientific American.

Many experts say the United States has fallen far behind in regulating toxic substances, according to the article. In 2007, the European Union began implementing the world's most restrictive chemicals law. It requires manufacturers to provide basic data on the properties of thousands of chemical substances. The European Chemicals Agency then will review the chemicals, and require substitution of the most dangerous ones.

The EPA will begin its chemical reforms by analyzing and regulating six high-profile chemicals that have raised health concerns: bisphenol A, or BPA, found in hard, clear polycarbonate bottles; phthalates, used in vinyl and cosmetics; brominated flame retardants, added to electronics and other goods; perfluorinated compounds, used in manufacturing nonstick coatings and food packaging; some parafins used in lubricants, and benzidine dyes and pigments.

Many scientists say these chemicals can mimic hormones and obstruct development of fetuses and children, as well as possibly cause reproductive problems, cancer, or other health effects, reports the article.

To strengthen EPA’s chemical management program, chemical action plans will be developed, which will outline the agency’s risk management efforts on the chemicals of greatest concern.

EPA plans to post an initial set of four action plans in December and additional action plans every four month after that.

Efforts also will be accelerated to gather the critical information from industry that the agency needs to make chemical risk determinations. EPA is also reviewing ways to increase consumers’ access to information about chemicals.

Information on EPA’s chemical management program can be found at: www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/index.html.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Top 10 states with the worst drinking water

Concerned about a series in The New York Times on "Toxic Waters," AOL Health decided to take a closer look at tap water.

The series reported on a half a million violations of water pollution laws by manufacturers and other workplaces over the last five years, including dumping toxins thought to cause cancer.

AOL Health developed this list of states with the most toxic tap water:

1. California

2. Wisconsin

3. North Carolina

4. Florida

5. Texas

6. New York

7. Nevada

8. Pennsylvania

9. Ohio

10. New Mexico

See "States With the Most Toxic Tap Water" for information on why each state made the list.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

What America can learn from other nations on how to provide affordable, universal health care

The United States not only spends more money on health care than any other nation but also leaves 45 million consumers uninsured, allowing about 22,000 to die annually from easily treatable diseases.

Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid, author of "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care," was recently interviewed on National Public Radio about his travels around the world investigating the health care systems in other wealthy countries.

To gather information on health care systems, he went to doctors in the U.S., Japan, Germany, France, and Britain to see what they would suggest for treatment for an old shoulder injury.

Reid said that although he did receive a recommendation to have surgery, he declined. However, he did receive help by massage treatments.

The interview with Fresh Air’s Terry Gross on WHYY, "T.R. Reid: Looking Overseas for 'Healing of America,'" is worth taking the time to listen to.

Reid also wrote an article "Five Myths About Health Care Around the World" on The Washington Post.

He said in the article that other industrialized democracies have faced problems like the U.S., and they've found ways to cover everybody – and still spend far less than is spent in America.

Here are some highlights on Reid’s five myths:

Myth 1. It's all socialized medicine out there.

Many wealthy countries – including Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, and Switzerland – provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals, and private insurance plans.

Myth 2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines.

Studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations – Germany, Britain, and Austria – outperform the U.S. on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries.

Myth 3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.

U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims, and marketing. France's health insurance industry covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government employees, spends 6 percent on administration.

Myth 4. Cost controls stifle innovation.

The U.S. is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Hip and knee replacements are a French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the drugs promoted on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss, or Japanese labs.

Myth 5. Health insurance has to be cruel.

American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition." They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the consumer is still in the hospital. Foreign health insurance companies must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums.

Reid’s research helps clear up the misconceptions that have been circulating about the health care systems in other nations.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

What are the top 10 things that bring you joy?

 

In my last post, I wrote about “What Are the Top 10 Things That Irritate You?"

So today’s post focuses on the positive. What is it in life that brings joy?

Here are the top 10 things, in no special order, that bring me joy:

• Visiting and playing with my grandchildren.

• Reading novels.

• Writing and research to support it.

• Participating in citizen action projects.

• Resolving consumer complaints successfully.

• Helping people be informed, effective consumers.

• Walking in my neighborhood, in the forest, or on the beach.

• Being part of a spiritual community.

• Experiencing my candidate winning a political campaign.

• Seeing my family and friends be successful and happy.

What brings you great joy as a boomer consumer? Please click on “Comments” below and give me your top 10 list of joyous experiences.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

What are the largest health insurance companies in America?

Several times in recent weeks during the health care debate, I’ve heard or read that a few companies provide most of the health care insurance in the nation.

Who are these companies?

UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana, and Cigna.

Why, with the health care debate in full swing, haven’t we heard more about these firms and how they operate?

While the 10 biggest health insurance companies were seeing their profits rise by more than 400 percent between 2000 and 2007, the number of Americans without health insurance grew by 19 percent, reports the article “Rachel Maddow Show: Wendell Potter on the Health Care Industry Putting Soaring Profits Before People.”

Potter, the former director of communications for Signa, also appeared on the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio Wednesday.

Potter described the intensive lobbying efforts that began before the 2008 election to defeat any type of health care reform effort. He said extra lobbyists and public relations firms were hired.

The insurance companies, through their lobbyists and public relations staff, have ties to conservatives in the media and conservative groups. This way, they’ve been able to “stir up” people and get them to protest against health care reform.

Potter also said Signa is undertaking a significant change in the way it does business. They’re planning to greatly increase the deductibles consumers pay with “consumer-oriented” policies. These types of policies means consumers would pay much more for their health care and insurance companies would make even more profits.
 
It’s noteworthy that two of these large companies, WellPoint and United Health, had action taken against them early this year by government regulators.

Slate.com had a informative article, “Cost of Living: Sarah Palin Is Afraid Obamacare Will Put a Price on Human Life – But We Already Do,” which sheds light on how insurance companies make decisions and deny consumers coverage, even for those who are extremely ill.

Although Sarah Palin and others talk about health care being rationed by “death panels,” rationing already is occurring through the denial of health care by insurance companies, reports the Slate article.

I think the media needs to investigate these firms and tell the public how they’re making such huge profits and how they treat consumers who need health care.

I’d like to see big headlines in newspapers and on Web sites about UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana, and Cigna.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist