HealthyConcerns.com

Nightime leg cramps...ouch!

Last night I awoke from sleep with a cramp in my right calf. I don't typically suffer such cramps, I can think of only once or twice in my life I've been awoken with such a thing. And man! That hurt. Hurt to the point where I couldn't help crying out (very creatively) "Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow!!!!" waking up my S.O.

I could feel the muscle all balled up and after a few seconds of massaging it and straightening the leg and flexing the foot it subsided, and i could go back to sleep. It is still a bit sore this morning though. made me want to look it up...on the Internets of course!

So, the Mayo Clinic tells me:

The exact cause of night leg cramps isn't known. Some experts believe they may be due to abnormal processing of electrolytes — essential elements and chemical substances your body needs for basic functions — by muscles.

But then, oddly enough, they go on to list "common causes". If they don't know the "exact cause", how can they know the "common" causes? :)

About.com's Orthopedics section has much of the same information. They do point out that: "Leg cramps are more common in young (adolescent age) and older (over 65) patients." So I guess I'm uncommon!

I was probably a little bit dehydrated when I went to bed last night. i usually drink a lot more water all throughout the day than I happened to yesterday. I certainly didn't do anything new and unusual from a physical activity point of view, so dehydration is my story, and I'm sticking to it.

But I'll never make fun of those commercials again with the guy sitting up in bed grabbing his leg with an agonized expression on his face. I'm sure that's exactly what I looked like!

Why employers have a vested interest in contributing to health care

Joseph Paduda over at Managed Care Matters has an interesting take on health insurance and employers.

In the rush to get us to the holy grail of universal healthcare it's true that many plans and proposals see taking responsibility for providing health insurance off the shoulders of employers and instead on the shoulders of individuals, the government and/or insurance companies. But Joe makes some great points about why employers should care that their employees get the best care possible, and why employers will still probably end up participating: Productivity and Competition.

As an employer who does offer health care to full-time employees and their dependents at very very attractive levels I can say that the health care cost, on its own, is somewhat high, but as a percentage of our operating expenses, or even as a percentage of overall employee compensation, it is low.

Meanwhile, it means a LOT to each individual employee. It's not just the money, although they appreciate that, it's also the thought.

My inclination would be that even in a world of universal accessibility of health insurance, it would give me an edge to continue to provide coverage to employees. It means more to their bottom line than mine, but being able to hire and retain great people is EVERYTHING to my bottom line.

Know what I mean?

Google Health-what folks are saying

So, I'm on a trip and can't check out Google Health myself this week (with the Internet as bad as it is in this hotel I hope I can publish this post!)

So, instead I give you the next best thing: What other people are saying about it:

Hospital Impact not only does its own review, but links to six other articles on the new site.

The Health Care Blog also weighs in.

Tom Foremski writes it up for zdnet, but it's based on being at their launch, not an actual review.

And if you care what traditional media thinks, you can see in Wired, the Chron and Forbes.

If you mostly care what someone who really has spent time on the site thinks, go no further than the first link above and Tony's review.

BlogHer snags exclusive interview with Barack Obama!

BlogHer's community has put together a Voter Manifesto of 12 non-partisan questions across 4 hot topics (Iraq, the Environment, Our Economic Future and Healthcare.) For months we have been inviting the presidential candidates to answer some or all of these questions. We've offered to travel to where they are, provide an interviewer from their own side of the aisle, and basically do whatever it takes to get their participation.

Finally, one candidate has come through, and this weekend our Politics and News editor Erin Kotecki Vest traveled to Oregon to meet with Obama one on one and conduct this 10 minute interview, exclusively focused on asking our Voter Manifesto questions.

Yes there are questions about healthcare, both about his health care plan, but also references to how we are taking care of returning troops, health-wise, which I appreciated.

Visit BlogHer for more of the story or simply watch the video!

Another analysis of McCain's health care program

Matthew Holt of Spot On analyzes McCain's health care program, and pretty much tells us two things:

1. If this program were enacted it would be a big mess, and fairly catastrophic for anyone who is, say, sick.

2. It will never be enacted.

I find it most telling that the McCain plan, supposedly the plan of the party who thinks any government-based health care program is a sign of the apocalypse, is prepared to relegate anyone who is actually sick to such a government-based program.

In other words: go to hell, sick people.

So, you know, I think McCain should probably have a hard time getting the vote of anyone who has ever been sick, is sick, or is afraid of getting sick with this plan, don't you?

A Perfect Storm?

Nick Jacobs from hospital impact write a brief but provocative post about two intersecting trends that don't play well together:

1. The emerging generation of medical professionals are demanding more balance, but are abetted by new rules that try to prevent over-working (which can increase error and liability.)

2. We, the Behemoth Generation, the Baby Boomers are getting older, and presumably more in need of medical care than ever.

Who will be there to give it?

Of course, didn't doctors always take Wednesdays off to golf? So, really, will things be that different? ;)

More side-by-side analysis of this candidates' health plans

This time over at The Health Care Blog.

THCB also provides links to some side-by-side analyses created by Kaiser (including one comparison of the guys who dropped out.)

Is there a Secretary of Health and Human Services in that drop-out list anywhere?

Final stretch for BlogHers Act fundraising drive...Myanmar added to the list of projects

I've written before about BlogHer's Mother's Day fundraising initiative in partnership with Global Giving.

Today we announced two incentives to participate in this the final week before Mother's Day:

1. We've added a sixth donation option on top of the five worthy projects we're supporting: Provide Emergency Relief - Myanmar Cyclone Victims. The devastation is horrifying in the aftermath of the world's worst natural disaster since the 2004 tsunami. And the cries of governmental lack of transparency or fast action is reminding some of us, very uncomfortably, of Hurricane Katrina.

2. BlogHer and GlobalGiving are offering matching funds. Lisa lays it out as follows:

Whichever of the now six projects recommended via the BlogHers Act fundraising widget receives the most donations between now and the end of the week will get a $1,000 donation from BlogHer, which Global Giving has agreed to match. The other five worthy projects will also get a donation of $200 each from BlogHer.

Now, you know you can give a donation to one of these worthy projects in someone's honor, like, say, I don't know...your mother!!!

So, grab the widget, grab your wallet, let's get that number higher, knowing another $3,000 will be added on top of it, from BlogHer and Global Giving.

McCain's health care problem: pre-existing conditions

After Catherine Morgan asked "Did You Know John McCain's Health Care Plan Does Not Include Preexisting Conditions?" over at BlogHer, I thought to myself "huh, really? Wow." and moved along. You know, I've got coverage right now; I don't have any serious pre-existing conditions (knock on wood) and gee, does anyone expect the Republican candidate to really care about health care?

But then a fairly brief post by Joseph Paduda over at Managed Care Matters made the point that McCain's plan "manages to cost more than the Obama or Clinton plans, while insuring far fewer people", and I thought "huh, that sounds like a mess, ad some pretty bad government that should really concern me even if I don't see its immediate impact on my own health and life."

OK, maybe I didn't think it exactly like that...but I was motivated to click over to the analysis that Joseph recommended, over at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review.

Here's Bob with the smackdown:

First, he is simply shunting the problem off to the states.

Second, he implies that one or more states have figured out what to do with people who can't get health insurance because of preexisting conditions. Just which state is that? I don't know of a single state that has been able to provide widely available access to health insurance for people who cannot get it.

Third, just who would finance this pool? States have tried so called high risk pools before. Time and again they are swamped by people trying to get in and there is never enough money. Since they have never worked before, how would they work this time? There were vague references to coming up with $7 billion in federal money here. Is that their proposal?

I really haven't been reading this blog enough to know whether his claims of a non-partisan approach are valid or not, but he does examine each candidate's plan, and I intend to subscribe and find out!

Here are links to his analyses of the candidate plans, so you can judge for yourself:

Clinton
McCain
Obama

Where politics, health and Mother's Day intersect

This Mother's Day two bloggers are organizing a BlogSwarm that I would like to bring to your attention. Bridget Magnus (aka ShortWoman) and The Arch Crone are sponsoring a Mother's Day event to bring attention to the women who are victims of not being able to get an abortion. You can read more
about it here.

If you read ShortWoman's post you'll see that this BlogSwarm is in response to a pro-life publicity stunt, a "funeral procession" in honor of aborted fetuses.

See, there's a lot of talk about those fetuses, and there's a lot of talk about maternal health...BlogHers Act particularly focuses on it, as one example.

But ShortWoman and ArchCrone wanted to draw attention to maternal death. (Which is still shockingly prevalent I might add.)

If you want to learn more about what they're planning, visit this post.

Me? I'm happy to see people focus on the persons who are already actual persons.