Obamacare enrollees are reeling from high deductibles

Obamacare (c) Desert Rose Creations / Family Survival Protocol 2013

........................................................................................................

msn

First, the administration revealed that enrollments for Obamacare next year will barely hit 10 million, far below previous projections.

Then last week, the consulting firm of McKinsey & Company estimated that premiums for policies under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, were going up substantially in 2016. For instance, the median rate increase for the lowest priced, highly popular “Silver” plan will rise by 11 percent – compared to just a seven percent increase in 2015.

Related: Millions Face Premium and Deductible Sticker Shock under Obamacare

Now there are troubling reports  that consumers will be facing soaring out-of-pocket costs for deductibles next year – increases that in many cases will neutralize the benefits of their health care plans or discourage some from purchasing coverage.

“That these deductibles are so high is clearly one of the reasons people aren’t buying a plan—they simply don’t see themselves getting anything for the money,” Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy & Strategy Associates, a business and policy consultant, said in a newsletter on Monday.

Department of Health and Human Services officials insist that there are still plenty of plans available with low premiums for those willing to aggressively shop on the federal and state operated insurance exchanges. Americans have until the end of the year to enroll for the third season of Obamacare. But even in cases where consumers find good deals on premiums, they are likely to be stung on the back end by requirements to pay sizeable out of pocket costs before their Obamacare coverage actually kicks in.

The average annual out-of-pocket costs per worker increased nearly 230 percent between 2006 and 2015, according to an annual survey of employer health benefits coverage by the Kaiser Family Foundation.



Read More Here




................................................................................................

Americans Give Health Insurers a Big Thumbs Down

 

By Millie Dent

 

 

November 17, 2015

 

 

Americans haven’t been this fed up with health insurance companies in a decade, and their frustration likely won’t fade soon.

Consumer satisfaction with health insurance providers fell to the lowest level since 2005, largely due to the slow processing of claims and the rising costs of premiums, deductibles and copays, according to a new survey from the American Customer Satisfaction Index that dates to 2001.


Related: How Workers Are Getting Slammed With Higher Health Care Costs
 

Americans are extremely cost sensitive, especially in the health sector, and take notice of how fast their costs go up, says ACSI managing director David VanAmburg.

Obamacare also plays an indirect role. Providers are unable to keep up with customer service as more people purchase insurance, he says. And many insurers haven’t beefed up their staffing to deal with the increase in demand. As insurers become responsible for more consumers, they may need to recalibrate, VanAmburg says.

Read More Here

Feds keeping us in the dark : 11 co-ops “are either on a corrective action plan or enhanced oversight. More than $900 million of the original $2 billion in loans has been lost.

Feds Hide Secret List Of 11 Staggering Obamacare Insurers

 

 A man looks over the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare) signup page on the HealthCare.gov website in New York in this Oct. 2, 2013 photo illustration. (REUTERS/Mike Segar)

Richard Pollock

Federal officials have a secret list of 11 Obamacare health insurance co-ops they fear are on the verge of failure, but they refuse to disclose them to the public or to Congress, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation has learned.

Just in the last three weeks, five of the original 24 Obamacare co-ops announced plans to close, bringing the total of failures to eight barely two years after their launch with $2 billion in start-up capital from the taxpayers under the Affordable Care Act.

All 24 received 15-year loans in varying amounts to offer health insurance to poor and low income customers and provide publicly funded competition to private, for-profit insurers. The eight co-ops to announce closings served populations in ten states: Iowa, Nebraska, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisiana, Nevada, Tennessee, Vermont, New York and Colorado.

Nearly half a million failing co-op customers will have to find new coverage in 2016. More than $900 million of the original $2 billion in loans has been lost.

 

The 11 unidentified co-ops appear to be still operating but are now on “enhanced oversight” by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, which manages the Obamacare program. The 11 received letters from CMS demanding that they take urgent actions to avoid closing.

Aaron Albright, chief CMS spokesman, said 11 co-ops “are either on a corrective action plan or enhanced oversight. We have not released the letters or names.” He gave no grounds for withholding the information from either the public or Congress.

CMS officials have stonewalled multiple congressional inquiries into the co-op financial problems. The latest congressional inquiry came in a September 30 letter to CMS acting administrator Andy Slavitt demanding transparency over the troubled program.

“We have long been concerned about the financial solvency of CO-OPs,” three House Ways and Means committee members wrote to Slavitt. “Which plans have received these warnings or have been placed on corrective plans,” the congressmen asked. To date, they have received no reply.
Insurance commissioners in Vermont were the first to refuse to license the federally approved co-op there in 2013 because they feared those financial plans were unrealistic. But then the dominoes began to fall this year, resulting in at least eight co-op failures. And if CMS officials are to be believed, more failures may be on the way.

Sen. Charles Grassley , a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee who has been an outspoken critic of the troubled co-op program, said transparency should be a top priority for the faltering program.

“Since the public’s business generally ought to be public, CMS should have a good reason for not disclosing which co-ops are troubled,” he said.



Read More Here

Fears mount that the USDA's organic certification process is being hijacked by corporate interests

 

 

 Natural News

..

 

Wednesday, September 23, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes

 

 

(NaturalNews) Some organic food experts are worried that the term used to describe non-genetically modified crops and produce may soon become nearly meaningless, thanks in large part to undue (read corporate) influence on the Department of Agriculture.

According to Jerome Rigot, PhD, writing in a blog posted at the Cornucopia Institute, which promotes food safety backed by science, it may no longer be accurate to rely on the USDA's "organic" labeling as remaining "true to its mandate of assuring consumers that food under this label is truly healthy and grown or raised with minimal impact to the environment," as well as respecting "the health and well-being of the workers and animals involved."

Rigot notes that, among other concerns, Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, recently downgraded its rating of the Agriculture Department's organic seal and label. The director of the Consumer Safety and Sustainability Center for the magazine, Dr. Urvashi Rangan, testified to the National Organic Standards Board in late 2014: "Organic is slipping. And as a result, we have downgraded its rating from highly meaningful to meaningful." He further noted that the rule of the magazine "is to help educate people about what organic means as well as what it doesn't mean."
Regarding these concerns, Rigot wrote:

As an example, the Cornucopia Institute filed formal legal complaints with the USDA in December 2014 against 14 giant poultry and dairy CAFOs (read: concentrated animal feeding operations or "factory farms") for allegedly violating the USDA organic regulations requiring outdoor and pasture access. Each complaint was summarily dismissed, without an investigation, by the enforcement division of the National Organic Program (NOP), which stated, "The NOP has reviewed these complaints and has determined that investigation is unwarranted."

Inept, corporatists or lobbyists

The determination was odd, says Rigot, because literally hundreds of high-res photos, satellite imagery and state regulatory documents were submitted as evidence to the NOP which, together, should have produced more than enough doubt to motivate someone to launch an investigation.
A former NOSB board member who manages the country's first certified organic dairy farm, Kevin Englebert, was clearly disappointed by the NOP decision, seeing it as a lapse of the organization's responsibilities.

"For the NOP to not even investigate these facilities means one of three things: 1) the personnel who made that decision are inept, 2) they are too close and friendly with corporate lobbyists and multimillion-dollar certifiers that are involved in the process, or 3) the most likely scenario, corrupt politicians are preventing them from enforcing the law," he said, as quoted by Rigot, who intimated that elements of all three reasons might be at play.

He noted that the National Organic Program is a very small part of the Agriculture Department. However, many large corporations have a significant vested interest in organic foods, especially the processed foods industry (including General Mills, Smuckers, Coca-Cola, etc.), and similar to GMO corporations, they'll do whatever it takes to expand their bottom line.

"Circumstantial evidence makes it reasonable to conclude that the same type of undue industry influence that appears to have prevented Vilsack and the USDA from acting quickly to end the Salmonella outbreak [in 2014] and limit the health toll is behind efforts to dilute the federal organic standards, control the NOP leadership, and limit or obstruct the ability of the congressionally authorized National Organic Standard Board from doing its job efficiently and with integrity," Rigot wrote.

For more breaking news regarding organic agriculture, check out Organics.news, powered by FETCH.news.

Compromised board members

In September 2014, we reported that the Cornucopia Institute had conducted a study to examine the voting records and backgrounds of the 15 members of the NOSB.

The board is an advisory body created by the secretary of agriculture to make recommendations aimed at preserving and protecting the organic farming industry. What's more, the board is also required to maintain and update the National List of Approved and Prohibited Substances – a list that identifies substances and other compounds that cannot be used in organic crop and livestock production.

The NOSB's seats are supposed to be filled with members representing farmers, environmentalists, public interest advocates, handlers, retailers, scientists and a USDA certifying agent. However, Cornucopia found in its study that corporate representatives were filling seats intended for farmers and other independent organic industry stakeholders, often leading to decisions that were not beneficial to the organic food and livestock industry.

Details surrounding that study are posted here.

Sources:
Cornucopia.org
NaturalNews.com
AMS.USDA.gov

Fears mount that the USDA's organic certification process is being hijacked by corporate interests

 

 

 Natural News

..

 

Wednesday, September 23, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes

 

 

(NaturalNews) Some organic food experts are worried that the term used to describe non-genetically modified crops and produce may soon become nearly meaningless, thanks in large part to undue (read corporate) influence on the Department of Agriculture.

According to Jerome Rigot, PhD, writing in a blog posted at the Cornucopia Institute, which promotes food safety backed by science, it may no longer be accurate to rely on the USDA's "organic" labeling as remaining "true to its mandate of assuring consumers that food under this label is truly healthy and grown or raised with minimal impact to the environment," as well as respecting "the health and well-being of the workers and animals involved."

Rigot notes that, among other concerns, Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, recently downgraded its rating of the Agriculture Department's organic seal and label. The director of the Consumer Safety and Sustainability Center for the magazine, Dr. Urvashi Rangan, testified to the National Organic Standards Board in late 2014: "Organic is slipping. And as a result, we have downgraded its rating from highly meaningful to meaningful." He further noted that the rule of the magazine "is to help educate people about what organic means as well as what it doesn't mean."
Regarding these concerns, Rigot wrote:

As an example, the Cornucopia Institute filed formal legal complaints with the USDA in December 2014 against 14 giant poultry and dairy CAFOs (read: concentrated animal feeding operations or "factory farms") for allegedly violating the USDA organic regulations requiring outdoor and pasture access. Each complaint was summarily dismissed, without an investigation, by the enforcement division of the National Organic Program (NOP), which stated, "The NOP has reviewed these complaints and has determined that investigation is unwarranted."

Inept, corporatists or lobbyists

The determination was odd, says Rigot, because literally hundreds of high-res photos, satellite imagery and state regulatory documents were submitted as evidence to the NOP which, together, should have produced more than enough doubt to motivate someone to launch an investigation.
A former NOSB board member who manages the country's first certified organic dairy farm, Kevin Englebert, was clearly disappointed by the NOP decision, seeing it as a lapse of the organization's responsibilities.

"For the NOP to not even investigate these facilities means one of three things: 1) the personnel who made that decision are inept, 2) they are too close and friendly with corporate lobbyists and multimillion-dollar certifiers that are involved in the process, or 3) the most likely scenario, corrupt politicians are preventing them from enforcing the law," he said, as quoted by Rigot, who intimated that elements of all three reasons might be at play.

He noted that the National Organic Program is a very small part of the Agriculture Department. However, many large corporations have a significant vested interest in organic foods, especially the processed foods industry (including General Mills, Smuckers, Coca-Cola, etc.), and similar to GMO corporations, they'll do whatever it takes to expand their bottom line.

"Circumstantial evidence makes it reasonable to conclude that the same type of undue industry influence that appears to have prevented Vilsack and the USDA from acting quickly to end the Salmonella outbreak [in 2014] and limit the health toll is behind efforts to dilute the federal organic standards, control the NOP leadership, and limit or obstruct the ability of the congressionally authorized National Organic Standard Board from doing its job efficiently and with integrity," Rigot wrote.

For more breaking news regarding organic agriculture, check out Organics.news, powered by FETCH.news.

Compromised board members

In September 2014, we reported that the Cornucopia Institute had conducted a study to examine the voting records and backgrounds of the 15 members of the NOSB.

The board is an advisory body created by the secretary of agriculture to make recommendations aimed at preserving and protecting the organic farming industry. What's more, the board is also required to maintain and update the National List of Approved and Prohibited Substances – a list that identifies substances and other compounds that cannot be used in organic crop and livestock production.

The NOSB's seats are supposed to be filled with members representing farmers, environmentalists, public interest advocates, handlers, retailers, scientists and a USDA certifying agent. However, Cornucopia found in its study that corporate representatives were filling seats intended for farmers and other independent organic industry stakeholders, often leading to decisions that were not beneficial to the organic food and livestock industry.

Details surrounding that study are posted here.

Sources:
Cornucopia.org
NaturalNews.com
AMS.USDA.gov

Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

Published time: April 04, 2014 04:00

(AFP Photo / Dieter Nagl)

Rep. Mike Pompeo will introduce legislation backed by powerful trade groups to prevent states from passing laws requiring the labeling of genetically-modified foods, according to reports. The bill is linked to biotech giant Monsanto and Koch Industries.
Pompeo will offer the bill in the US House before Congress leaves for Easter recess later this month, The Hill newspaper reported, citing industry sources. Politico also reported on the impending proposal. Pompeo’s office would not comment on the congressman’s intentions for a labeling restriction.
The bill includes a “prohibition against mandatory labeling,” according to The Hill, echoing powerful interest groups that have already declared war against such “right to know” labeling laws around the nation.
It was revealed in recent months that powerful farming and biotechnology interest groups like Monsanto were joining forces – under the name 'Coalition for Safe Affordable Food' – to push a federal voluntary labeling standard for food made with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in an effort to stem the tide of state legislation seeking to mandate labeling.
In recent years, voters in states such as California and Washington have narrowly defeated ballot initiatives proposing mandatory GMO labeling, though not without dragging members of the new Coalition into expensive campaigns to defeat the measures. Many other states are now considering their own proposals to label GMO food.
A top member of the Coalition – the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a major food industry lobbying group – raised and spent the bulk of the overall $22 million that opponents of labeling sank into defeating Washington State’s ballot initiative on GMO labeling last year. That total number was three times the amount that proponents of labeling spent in the state. GMA was joined in its effort by allies such as biotech giants Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont.
The Coalition said in February that it would seek to empower the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “to establish federal standards for companies that want to voluntarily label their product for the absence-of or presence-of GMO food ingredients.” In addition, the Coalition proposes the FDA mandate labels for GMO food or ingredients that the agency deems a “health, safety or nutrition issue,” though no consumables currently fall in such a category.
“The legislation we’re proposing would preclude state legislation that conflicts with the federal standards,” GMA president Pamela Bailey said of the Coalition’s aim, The Hill reported.

Read More Here

Related articles

• Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws
• Rep. Pompeo to Introduce Koch-Funded, Monsanto-Backed, Voluntary GMO Food Labeling Bill
• Biotech Bullies Spend Nearly 500k To Combat Two Oregon GMO Measures
• Food, biotech groups banding together to influence GMO labeling efforts

USDA: Selling Out Organic to Protect Five Factory Farms

Bruce Friedrich 

Senior Policy Director, Farm Sanctuary

Posted: 04/02/2014 9:55 am EDT Updated: 04/02/2014 5:59 pm EDT

ASSOCIATED PRESS

When most Americans think about organic meat or eggs, they picture animals on small farms, allowed to root in the soil, feel sun on their backs, and engage in their natural behaviors. What they don't picture is tens of thousands of hens crammed into massive sheds with no access to soil and extremely limited outdoor access.
Unfortunately, the USDA stamped its seal of approval on the latter scenario by refusing to implement its own advisory board's animal welfare recommendations, which would have created a level playing field for the hundreds of small organic farms that were the basis for the standards. These recommendations would not have required "good" conditions, but they would have set a reasonable floor by requiring improvements from the five massive "organic" egg farms that provide the worst hen welfare.
The USDA's decision doesn't just violate our moral intuitions and the expectations of organic consumers; it also violates the Department's legal mandate in at least two distinct ways.
First, USDA is statutorily required "to establish national [organic guidelines that] meet a consistent standard." In 2005 and again in 2010, USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that animal welfare standards were applied inconsistently, in violation of the Act's legal requirement that USDA ensure "that [organic] products meet consistent, uniform standards."
By requiring improvements from the five mega-farms such that their hen welfare standards would align with that of the hundreds of smaller farms, adopting the advisory board's recommendations would create this statutorily-mandated consistency. Ignoring those recommendations places USDA in violation of its legal mandate.

Read More Here

Related articles

• Organic sellout: USDA guts organic rules to protect mega-farms
• Organic Sellout: USDA Guts Organic Rules To Protect Mega-Farms

Cannabinoids Help with Symptoms and More-Bell's Palsy

Medical Marijuana

Published by Jan

Bell’s Palsy-

Bell's palsy, or idiopathic facial paralysis, is a form of facial paralysis resulting from dysfunction cranial nerve VII (the facial nerve) that results in the inability to control facial muscles on the affected side.  Several conditions can cause facial paralysis, e.g., brain tumor, stroke, and Lyme disease.  However, if no specific cause can be identified, the condition is known as Bell's palsy.  Named after Scottish anatomist Charles Bell, who first described it.  Bell's palsy is the most common acutemononeuropathy (disease involving only one nerve) and is the most common cause of acute facial nerve paralysis.
Bell's palsy is defined as an idiopathic unilateral facial nerve paralysis, usually self-limiting.  The hallmark of this condition is a rapid onset of partial or complete palsy that often occurs overnight.  In rare cases (1%), it can occur bilaterally resulting in total facial paralysis.
It is thought that an inflammatory condition leads to swelling of the facial nerve.  The nerve travels through the skull in a narrow bone canal beneath the ear. Nerve swelling and compression in the narrow bone canal are thought to lead to nerve inhibition, damage or death.  No readily identifiable cause for Bell's palsy has been found.
Corticosteroids have been found to improve outcomes while anti-viral drugs have not.   Early treatment is necessary for steroids to be effective.  Most people recover spontaneously and achieve near-normal to normal functions.  Many show signs of improvement as early as 10 days after the onset, even without treatment.
Often the eye in the affected side cannot be closed.  The eye must be protected from drying up, or the cornea may be permanently damaged resulting in impaired vision. Causes, incidence, and risk factors
Bell's palsy affects about 30,000 - 40,000 people a year in the United States.
Bell's palsy involves damage to the seventh cranial (facial) nerve. This nerve controls the movement of the muscles of the face.
Bell's palsy is thought to be due to swelling (inflammation) of this nerve in the area where it travels through the bones of the skull.
The cause is often not clear.  A type of herpes infection called herpes zoster might be involved.  Other conditions that may cause Bell's palsy include:
? HIV infection
? Lyme disease
? Middle ear infection
? Sarcoidosis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

.
Symptoms

Sometimes you may have a cold shortly before the symptoms of Bell's palsy begin.
Symptoms most often start suddenly, but may take 2 - 3 days to show up.  They do not become more severe after that.  Sudden weakness or paralysis on one side of the face that causes it to droop.
Symptoms are almost always on one side only.  They may range from mild to severe.
The face will feel stiff or pulled to one side, and may look different.  Other symptoms can include:
? Difficulty eating and drinking; food falls out of one side of the mouth
? Drooling due to lack of control over the muscles of the face
? Drooping of the face, such as the eyelid or corner of the mouth
? Hard to close one eye
? Problems smiling, grimacing, or making facial expressions
? Twitching or weakness of the muscles in the face
Other symptoms that may occur:
? Dry eye or mouth
? Headache
? Loss of sense of taste
? Sound that is louder in one ear (hyperacusis)
? Twitching in face

Treatment

Often, no treatment is needed.  Symptoms often begin to improve right away.  However, it may take weeks or even months for the muscles to get stronger, and this may be frustrating.
Your health care provider may give you lubricating eye drops or eye ointments to keep the surface of the eye moist if you cannot close it completely.  You may need to wear an eye patch while you sleep.
Sometimes medicines may be used, but it is not clear how much they help.  If medicines are used, they should be started right away.
• Corticosteroids may reduce swelling around the facial nerve
• Medications can fight the virus that may be causing Bell's palsy
Surgery to relieve pressure on the nerve (decompression surgery) is controversial and has not been shown to routinely benefit people with Bell's palsy.
The goal of the treatment is to eliminate the source of the nerve damage.  Patients with less nerve damage have better chances of recovery.
Medications are often used as part of the treatment:
• If  infection is the cause, then an antibiotic to fight bacteria (as in middle ear infections) or antiviral agents (to fight syndromes caused by viruses like Ramsay Hunt) may be used.
• If swelling is believed to be responsible for the facial nerve disorder, steroids are often prescribed.
• In certain circumstances, surgical removal of the bone around the nerve (decompression surgery) may be appropriate.
Physiotherapy
Physiotherapy can be beneficial to some individuals with Bell’s palsy as it helps to maintain muscle tone of the affected facial muscles and stimulate the facial nerve.   It is important that muscle re-education exercises and soft tissue techniques be implemented prior to recovery in order to help prevent permanent contractures of the paralyzed facial muscles.   Muscle re-education exercises are also useful in restoring normal movement.   To reduce pain, heat can be applied to the affected side of the face.   In individuals with unresolved facial nerve paralysis, transcutaneous electrical stimulation can be an effective treatment strategy(TENS).
• Exercise the facial muscles in front of a mirror.
• Massage the face.
• Apply gentle heat to reduce pain.
• Using a finger, regularly close the eye to keep it moist.
• Tape the eye closed for sleeping.
• Use protective glasses or clear eye patches to keep the eye moist and to keep foreign materials
from entering the eye.
• Use doctor-recommended artificial tears or an ointment to keep the eye moist.


Read More Here



.....

Medical Marijuana - Cerebral Palsy (Jacqueline Patterson)

Luke Slisz


   

Published on Jul 2, 2011

Cerebal Palsy is an umbrella term encompassing a group of non-progressive, non-contagious motor conditions that cause physical disability in human development, chiefly in the various areas of body movement - Wikipedia

At some point very early in life, either while a baby is still growing in the womb, during birth or shortly after, something happens to interfere with the normal development of the brain or to injure the brain tissues. This abnormal development or injury disrupts the nerve signals between the brain and the muscles, leading to problems with movement, posture and coordination as the child grows up. While some people are severely affected, others have only minor disruption, depending on which parts of the brain are not functioning properly. It's estimated that as many as 1 in every 400 children may have cerebral palsy. - BBC Health

After Jacqueline was reported for cannabis possession, she moved to California after succeeding in a court case that the consumption was strictly for medicinal purposes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y--pjK...

These clips are taken from the documentary 'In Pot We Trust' which displays a range of medical, social and political views and the medical purposes of marijuana in relation to Glaucoma, Leukaemia, Multiple Sclerosis, Multiple Exostoses and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qTsS6...

 .....

Dr Sanjay Gupta Apologizes For 'Systematically Misleading Americans' About Marijuana Cannabis

MrCensorMe3


Published on Aug 7, 2013
Aired May ,2013

.....

In Pot We Trust - Marijuana Cannabis

thepotroast


 


 .........

Critics Slam Adding Fluoride To State's Public Water Supplies

Image Source

***************************************************************

The Courant

Dentists insist substance is natural, helps teeth

By WES DUPLANTIER, wduplantier@courant.com The Hartford Courant

7:12 p.m. EDT, June 26, 2013

Saying the practice takes away the right of consumers to make medical choices and possibly inflicts serious harm on children, opponents of adding fluoride to public water argued Wednesday that a glass of water should contain water — and nothing else.
At an informal hearing at the state Capitol called by state Sen. Joe Markley, chemist Paul Connett called on state lawmakers to abolish the state's flouridation law and forbid communities from putting additives in water supplies to improve public health.
"We should never use the public water supply to deliver medicine," said Connett, a retired Dartmouth professor and leading fluoridation critic. "No doctor could do to us what the state of Connecticut is doing."
Since the early 1960s, the federal government has recommended that municipal water supplies contain a certain amount of flouride to help prevent tooth decay and cavities among those who drink from it, especially low-income families who might not be able to afford regular dental care.
Connecticut passed a law in 1965 mandating that public water supplies serving more than 20,000 people have a fluoride concentration of at least 8 milligrams per liter. This tiny concentration has virtually no effect on the smell, taste or appearance of tap water.
But Markley, a Republican from Southington, put forth legislation this year to abolish Connecticut's policy, saying that it unfairly adds an extra expense to cash-strapped town budgets. The bill failed, but Markley said he'll bring it back next year. On Wednesday, he said he wanted both sides of the fluoridation debate to make their case.
"As a principle, politically, I try to listen to everybody as much as possible," Markley said. "I like to hear people who know what they're talking about differ on a topic."
Speaking for more than an hour, Connett presented several studies that he said prove fluoridation is actually harmful, that it can have adverse effects on tooth enamel, as well as damaging impacts on bones and brains of young children.
Even if fluoride were medically beneficial, he said, it shouldn't be put in the water by government. Instead, people should choose whether they want to buy and use fluoride themselves, as they would any other medication.
But absent from Wednesday's discussion were dentists, who widely support the fluoridation policy.


Read More  Here


********************************************************************

How many types of fluoride are there?

A lot. A whole lot. When the element of fluoride is combined with something else, it becomes a fluoride compound. There is a vast range of fluorine-containing compounds because fluorine has the capability of forming compounds with nearly all the elements. Here are some common forms:


...............Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) is compound of calcium and fluorine which occurs naturally as the mineral fluorite – also called fluorspar. Most of the world’s fluorine comes from calcium fluoride. Fluorides in general are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered the least toxic, and even relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. Moreover, calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote exists in combination with a poison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Calcium fluoride is the form of fluoride commonly found in natural, untreated waters.


Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is commonly used for water fluoridation.  This form of fluoride is a toxic liquid by-product, acquired by scrubbing the chimney stacks of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. Other names for it are hexafluorosilicic, hexafluosilicic, hydrofluosilicic, and silicofluoric acid.  The CDC approximates that 95% of our water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid. (http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#1)


Sodium Fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) is primarily added to public drinking water as a fluoridation agent. This same compound is also used as an insecticide and a wood preservative.  It is a classified hazardous waste by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture which, if not put into our drinking water, must be disposed of at hazardous waste facilities.  Other names for it are Sodium Fluosilicate and Sodium Silica Fluoride...............



Read More  Here



 ********************************************************************

Bizarre USA Fluoride History - Full Documentary - The Flouride Deception

TheyOwnItAll



*********************************************************************

Dr. Paul Connett on the Dangers of Fluoride in the Water

 

PhilosopherSeed

Published on Sep 14, 2012

 

Excellent power point presentation by Dr. Paul Connett, Director of Fluoride Action Network. With a brief introduction by Kim Kaminski of Clean Water Portland and final words by Frances Quaempts-Miller. Dr. Connett details the dangers of adding fluoride to water systems, as the Portland City Council just voted unanimously to do this week. Believing that adding medicine to the water should be up to the vote of the people, Clean Water Portland is mounting a Referendum campaign as well as a possible Initiative for the May 2012 primary.

**********************************************************************

Related articles

• Why is the water being fluoridated?
• Critics Slam Adding Fluoride To State's Public Water Supplies
• MEDICAL CORNER ..... Facts about fluoridation!
• Types of Fluoride Additives
• 10 Facts About Fluoride
• Is Fluoride "Brain-Drain" Damaging Generations of Children?
• Petition to MN House & Senate to stop mandatory fluoridation
• The Hartford Courant editorial: Anti-Fluoridation Movement Still Misguided
• Fluoridation - are we dumping toxic metals into our water supplies?
• Hamilton to end water fluoridation