news：http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-07-voa63.cfm
record：http://www.wretch.cc/blog/KO525252&article_id=11610783
summary：A new research tells us that it may be good to someone with a five to ten overweight when it comes to certain cancers and heart disease. Besides, researchers also found that the men who are overweight may also be protected from other diseases not commonly associated with excess weight. However, it also tells that people who are more than fifteen kilos above their ideal weight will die very easily due to a variety of illnesses. Therefore, according to Dr. Flegal, we should still take care of our own bodies not to be too overly overweight.
2007年10月7日 星期日
News Summary2
Bush calls for compromise on children's healthcare
President Bush indicated Saturday that he would be willing to accept a larger increase for a children's health insurance program than the one he has proposed, but defended his veto of the expansion of coverage approved by Congress.
Bush's long-promised veto Wednesday set off an ideological battle about who holds responsibility for extending healthcare benefits to uninsured children: the government or the private sector.
The congressional bill would spend $60 billion over five years to expand health coverage for children of the working poor and middle class, and pay for it with higher tobacco taxes. Bush has offered $30 billion, a 20% increase from the current levels but not enough to maintain the existing enrollment in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, budget analysts say.
The program is managed by states within federal guidelines and serves about 6 million children, including about 800,000 in California. An estimated 9 million children are uninsured in the U.S., and the number has been rising as the nation's employers cut back coverage.
Bush's veto led one Democratic lawmaker to call the president "Ebenezer Scrooge" last week, while a GOP pollster noted that "it will take some superb communications to persuade voters that the White House really is on the side of children's health."
During his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush called for a compromise, though he offered no specifics.
"If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20% increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money," he said.
Bush has hinted he is open to a compromise but still has not made clear what he is willing to accept. He continued to describe the measure that he vetoed as "deeply flawed," contending that the congressional plan is "an incremental step toward their goal of government-run healthcare for every American," which he believes is "the wrong direction for our country."
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said most children enrolled in SCHIP got their coverage through private insurers who had state contracts, even though the government subsidized the benefits.
"The truth is, America's largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill -- as do America's doctors, nurses, children's advocates and, most importantly, 72% of Americans," Hoyer said in the Democrats' response to Bush's radio address.
The current law, which remains in effect while the debate about reauthorizing it continues, covers children in families earning up to $40,000 a year, about twice the federal poverty level. But some states received permission to extend eligibility to families with higher incomes, and the bill would authorize states to allow households with an income of about $60,000 a year to enroll their children in SCHIP.
Bush also said that six states project that they will spend more SCHIP money on adults than they do on children in this fiscal year. However, those states got federal permission, in many instances during the time Bush has been in office, to cover adults. The president urged both parties to come together to support a bill "that moves adults off this children's program."
Democrats have promised to try to override the president's veto later this month.
(URL：http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-children7oct07,1,4439599.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Questions and Answers
Q1：What is SCHIP?
A1：It's the abbreviation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Q2：What is GOP?
A2：It's the abbreviation of a political group in the U.S.
Q3：What is the bad effect of the proposal?
A3：It might make SCHIP difficult to work because its cover may be not large enough for the children.
Q4：How about the good side of the proposal?
A4：If it does work successfully, then some poor children would get health insurance.
Q5：What would you do if you were Bush?
A5： I would do the same decision as Bush made. Because it's not sure the project would be the best to the people.
Key Words
1.veto：(n.)否決(權)；否決權的行使
2.ideological：(adj.)觀念學的;意識形態的;思想體系的
3.sector：(n.)部分;部門
4.federal：(adj.)聯邦(制)的,聯邦政府的
5.pollster：(n.)民意測驗專家
6.compromise：(n.)妥協,和解[(+between)]
7.contend：(v.)爭奪,競爭
8.incremental：(adj.)增加的;增值的
9.subsidize：(v.)給...津貼,補助,資助
10.fiscal：(adj.)財政的;會計的
Summary
President Bush indicated Saturday that he would be willing to accept a larger increase for a children's health insurance program than the one he has proposed, but defended his veto of the expansion of coverage approved by Congress. Bush has offered $30 billion, a 20% increase from the current levels but not enough to maintain the existing enrollment in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, budget analysts say. The program is managed by states within federal guidelines and serves about 6 million children, including about 800,000 in California. Bush also said that six states project that they will spend more SCHIP money on adults than they do on children in this fiscal year. However, democrats have promised to try to override the president's veto later this month.
President Bush indicated Saturday that he would be willing to accept a larger increase for a children's health insurance program than the one he has proposed, but defended his veto of the expansion of coverage approved by Congress.
Bush's long-promised veto Wednesday set off an ideological battle about who holds responsibility for extending healthcare benefits to uninsured children: the government or the private sector.
The congressional bill would spend $60 billion over five years to expand health coverage for children of the working poor and middle class, and pay for it with higher tobacco taxes. Bush has offered $30 billion, a 20% increase from the current levels but not enough to maintain the existing enrollment in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, budget analysts say.
The program is managed by states within federal guidelines and serves about 6 million children, including about 800,000 in California. An estimated 9 million children are uninsured in the U.S., and the number has been rising as the nation's employers cut back coverage.
Bush's veto led one Democratic lawmaker to call the president "Ebenezer Scrooge" last week, while a GOP pollster noted that "it will take some superb communications to persuade voters that the White House really is on the side of children's health."
During his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush called for a compromise, though he offered no specifics.
"If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20% increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money," he said.
Bush has hinted he is open to a compromise but still has not made clear what he is willing to accept. He continued to describe the measure that he vetoed as "deeply flawed," contending that the congressional plan is "an incremental step toward their goal of government-run healthcare for every American," which he believes is "the wrong direction for our country."
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said most children enrolled in SCHIP got their coverage through private insurers who had state contracts, even though the government subsidized the benefits.
"The truth is, America's largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill -- as do America's doctors, nurses, children's advocates and, most importantly, 72% of Americans," Hoyer said in the Democrats' response to Bush's radio address.
The current law, which remains in effect while the debate about reauthorizing it continues, covers children in families earning up to $40,000 a year, about twice the federal poverty level. But some states received permission to extend eligibility to families with higher incomes, and the bill would authorize states to allow households with an income of about $60,000 a year to enroll their children in SCHIP.
Bush also said that six states project that they will spend more SCHIP money on adults than they do on children in this fiscal year. However, those states got federal permission, in many instances during the time Bush has been in office, to cover adults. The president urged both parties to come together to support a bill "that moves adults off this children's program."
Democrats have promised to try to override the president's veto later this month.
(URL：http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-children7oct07,1,4439599.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Questions and Answers
Q1：What is SCHIP?
A1：It's the abbreviation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Q2：What is GOP?
A2：It's the abbreviation of a political group in the U.S.
Q3：What is the bad effect of the proposal?
A3：It might make SCHIP difficult to work because its cover may be not large enough for the children.
Q4：How about the good side of the proposal?
A4：If it does work successfully, then some poor children would get health insurance.
Q5：What would you do if you were Bush?
A5： I would do the same decision as Bush made. Because it's not sure the project would be the best to the people.
Key Words
1.veto：(n.)否決(權)；否決權的行使
2.ideological：(adj.)觀念學的;意識形態的;思想體系的
3.sector：(n.)部分;部門
4.federal：(adj.)聯邦(制)的,聯邦政府的
5.pollster：(n.)民意測驗專家
6.compromise：(n.)妥協,和解[(+between)]
7.contend：(v.)爭奪,競爭
8.incremental：(adj.)增加的;增值的
9.subsidize：(v.)給...津貼,補助,資助
10.fiscal：(adj.)財政的;會計的
Summary
President Bush indicated Saturday that he would be willing to accept a larger increase for a children's health insurance program than the one he has proposed, but defended his veto of the expansion of coverage approved by Congress. Bush has offered $30 billion, a 20% increase from the current levels but not enough to maintain the existing enrollment in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, budget analysts say. The program is managed by states within federal guidelines and serves about 6 million children, including about 800,000 in California. Bush also said that six states project that they will spend more SCHIP money on adults than they do on children in this fiscal year. However, democrats have promised to try to override the president's veto later this month.
2007年9月30日 星期日
Doctor Found Guilty of Elder Abuse
A jury in Northern California has found a physician liable for elder abuse because he failed to administer enough pain medication for a terminally ill patient. The jury awarded one-and-a-half million dollars to the patient's family.William Bergman's children say they knew the odds were against them in court, but a jury found the doctor who treated their father in his dying days was reckless and liable for elderly abuse because he didn't prescribe enough pain medication.Robert Bergman, the patient's son says, "We knew that if we told our story, we told the truth, and um put it in front of people, that uh hopefully they would see where we were coming from and that this did not need to happen."85-year-old William Bergman, a terminal cancer patient, died in February 1998 after spending six days at Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley, California. Bergman's children say he suffered needlessly because Dr. Wing Chin didn't administer enough painkillers. Beverly Bergman, the patient's daughter, says, "When you're reckless [and] you're treating a person with chronic pain or intractable pain, there are consequences. think that's what the jury said today."During the month-long trial, Dr Chin testified that he followed established pain management protocols.Bob Slattery, Dr. Chin's defense lawyer says, "Quite frankly I think that the doctor complied with the standard of care, [and] that the evidence that we produced showed that." Family members acknowledged on the stand [that] they didn't directly ask the doctor for more medication.Alice Edlinger, Bergman's daughter, says, "We trusted that they knew what they were doing to relieve my father's pain."Advocates for terminally ill patients say undermedication for pain is a widespread problem.Jim Geagan a family attorney says, "I think the effect of this is gonna be a tremendous increase in consciousness in California and, I hope, throughout the country that physicians have to make pain management a priority."Bergman's family chose to sue for elderly abuse because California malpractice laws don't allow pain and suffering awards for the deceased. The jury award, one-point-five million dollars, is likely to be reduced to 250-thousand dollars to comply with a state cap on awards.
Summery
A jury in Northern California has found a doctor caused elder abuse. The 85-year-old patient died of cancer patient in February 1998. His children say he had too much pain because Dr. Wing Chin didn't give enough painkillers. The jury's award of one-point-five million dollars is likely to be reduced to 250-thousand dollars because the state has a cap on awards.
My Thoughts and Reflections
On my opinion, it seems that it is the doctor's fault. But it is actually a quite complex situation. Since the doctor complied with the standard of care, it seems that the issue should't be blamed on the doctor fully. However, the pain of the family does exist. What the jury shold do is make up to them as much as possible.
A jury in Northern California has found a physician liable for elder abuse because he failed to administer enough pain medication for a terminally ill patient. The jury awarded one-and-a-half million dollars to the patient's family.William Bergman's children say they knew the odds were against them in court, but a jury found the doctor who treated their father in his dying days was reckless and liable for elderly abuse because he didn't prescribe enough pain medication.Robert Bergman, the patient's son says, "We knew that if we told our story, we told the truth, and um put it in front of people, that uh hopefully they would see where we were coming from and that this did not need to happen."85-year-old William Bergman, a terminal cancer patient, died in February 1998 after spending six days at Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley, California. Bergman's children say he suffered needlessly because Dr. Wing Chin didn't administer enough painkillers. Beverly Bergman, the patient's daughter, says, "When you're reckless [and] you're treating a person with chronic pain or intractable pain, there are consequences. think that's what the jury said today."During the month-long trial, Dr Chin testified that he followed established pain management protocols.Bob Slattery, Dr. Chin's defense lawyer says, "Quite frankly I think that the doctor complied with the standard of care, [and] that the evidence that we produced showed that." Family members acknowledged on the stand [that] they didn't directly ask the doctor for more medication.Alice Edlinger, Bergman's daughter, says, "We trusted that they knew what they were doing to relieve my father's pain."Advocates for terminally ill patients say undermedication for pain is a widespread problem.Jim Geagan a family attorney says, "I think the effect of this is gonna be a tremendous increase in consciousness in California and, I hope, throughout the country that physicians have to make pain management a priority."Bergman's family chose to sue for elderly abuse because California malpractice laws don't allow pain and suffering awards for the deceased. The jury award, one-point-five million dollars, is likely to be reduced to 250-thousand dollars to comply with a state cap on awards.
Summery
A jury in Northern California has found a doctor caused elder abuse. The 85-year-old patient died of cancer patient in February 1998. His children say he had too much pain because Dr. Wing Chin didn't give enough painkillers. The jury's award of one-point-five million dollars is likely to be reduced to 250-thousand dollars because the state has a cap on awards.
My Thoughts and Reflections
On my opinion, it seems that it is the doctor's fault. But it is actually a quite complex situation. Since the doctor complied with the standard of care, it seems that the issue should't be blamed on the doctor fully. However, the pain of the family does exist. What the jury shold do is make up to them as much as possible.
2007年9月26日 星期三
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)