Thursday, November 19, 2015
Monday, November 16, 2015
Friday, November 13, 2015
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Would you be shocked to learn what Obamacare is doing to state budgets? [feedly]
----
Would you be shocked to learn what Obamacare is doing to state budgets?
// Personal Liberty Digest™
Remember all those Republican governors who held out on joining Obamacare and expanding Medicaid? They claimed no amount of matching federal money could offset the immense state-level costs.
To no one's surprise, it's turning out they were right — more right than even they might have predicted.
Not only would Obamacare, even if it had followed its ideal-scenario sales pitch, have been too expensive for state revenues to offset; it's even worse now that the numbers aren't adding up. Obamacare's projected sign-up rate has gone way off script; and in the Medicaid-expanded states, the subsidized enrollments are crippling.
"New ObamaCare enrollees and costs have exceeded estimates and threaten to swamp budgets," a headline in The Wall Street Journal warns:
The AP says that California expected 800,000 new enrollees after the state's 2013 Medicaid expansion, but wound up with 2.3 million. Enrollment outstripped estimates in New Mexico by 44%, Oregon by 73%, and Washington state by more than 100%.
This has blown holes in state budgets. Illinois once projected that its Medicaid expansion would cost the state $573 million for 2017 through 2020. Yet 200,000 more people have enrolled than were expected, and the state has increased its estimated cost for covering each. The new price tag? About $2 billion, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Enrollment overruns in Kentucky forced officials to more than double the anticipated cost of the state's Medicaid expansion for 2017, the AP reports, to $74 million from $33 million. That figure could rise to $363 million a year by 2021.
In Rhode Island, where one-quarter of the state's population is now on Medicaid, the program consumes roughly 30% of all state spending, the Providence Journal reports. To plug this growing hole, Rhode Island has levied a 3.5% tax on insurance policies sold through the state's ObamaCare exchange.
Rhode Island approved a 2015 budget of $8.67 billion. How much did it spend on Medicaid in 2014? Nearly $2.5 billion. And that was with the federal government's help.
If you live in one of the holdout states, did your newspaper of record blast your governor for declining to sign on with Obamacare? Did you see editorial after editorial ignoring the fiscal crisis that Obamacare promises to state budgets, only to make moral judgments on how deeply your red-state governor hates the poor?
And now that the cat's out of the bag, is that same paper of record vindicating your governor's decision? The federal contribution to state Medicaid funding is a time-released product with an expiration date. And if states are having funding trouble now, when part of the money's still free, just wait until they're floating the entire bill on their own.
The post Would you be shocked to learn what Obamacare is doing to state budgets? appeared first on Personal Liberty®.
----
Shared via my feedly reader
Monday, November 9, 2015
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Friday, October 23, 2015
Friday, October 16, 2015
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Monday, October 12, 2015
A Visual Guide to the Most Common Biting and Stinging Bugs [feedly]
----
A Visual Guide to the Most Common Biting and Stinging Bugs
// Lifehacker
There are a lot of creepy crawlies out there that can't help but bite or sting you when you get too close. This infographic shows the 28 arthropods most likely to cause you harm, and explains whether their bite or sting is medically significant.
----
Shared via my feedly reader
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Friday, September 25, 2015
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Glasses Let The Colorblind See Pigments For The First Time [feedly]
----
Glasses Let The Colorblind See Pigments For The First Time
// Popular Science
EnChroma glasses
EnChroma
They may look like typical sunglasses, but these are making waves for people who are colorblind. Since they first went on sale in 2012, glasses from the company EnChroma Labs have allowed people to see colors as they've never seen them before, according to an article published this weekend in the New York Times.
You can see colors because you have receptors in you eyes called cones. If you have normal color vision, you have three sets of them that pick up red, green, and blue pigments. Most people who are colorblind have trouble distinguishing red and green because their cones pick up colors with spectra that overlap. Usually everything else in the visual system—the wiring that connects the retina (where the cones are found) to the brain, the brain itself—is intact, so EnChroma or similar glasses just have to change how the color is perceived.
Venice with colorblindness
EnChroma
Left, how a person with color vision would see Venice, with their visual spectra below. Right, how a colorblind person would see it, with visual spectra. Note the spectral overlap where the arrow points on the right.
The EnChroma glasses were initially designed to protect surgeons' eyes from lasers during procedures, but now the company primarily markets them to people who are colorblind. The glasses contain a filter that absorbs light where the spectra overlap the most, effectively pushing a wedge between the frequencies of light that the two cones pick up. The result is a "color boost" that allows a colorblind person to distinguish the colors more clearly. Thousands of people have posted videos online of them putting on the glasses and seeing colors for the first time, following suit of a paint advertisement for which EnChroma was a partner.
Video of Valspar Color For The Colorblind
It's important to note that the EnChroma glasses aren't a cure for colorblindness—just as wearing glasses isn't a cure for nearsightedness. But for people living with colorblindness, the effect may just be worth it.
Effect of EnChroma glasses
EnChroma
Left, what a colorblind person would see. Right, what they would see with EnChroma glasses.
----
Shared via my feedly reader
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Obesity breakthrough: Metabolic master switch prompts fat cells to store or burn fat [feedly]
----
Obesity breakthrough: Metabolic master switch prompts fat cells to store or burn fat
// ScienceDaily: Latest Science News
Obesity is one of the biggest public health challenges of the 21st century. Affecting more than 500 million people worldwide, obesity costs at least $200 billion each year in the United States alone, and contributes to potentially fatal disorders such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer. Scientists have now revealed the mechanism underlying the genomic region most strongly associated with obesity. The findings uncover a genetic circuit that controls whether our bodies burn or store fat. Manipulating that genetic circuit may offer a new approach for obesity treatments.
----
Shared via my feedly reader
Friday, August 14, 2015
Is science pretending both sexes have the same brain? [feedly]
----
Is science pretending both sexes have the same brain?
// Futurity.org
Neuroscientists have found a key molecular difference between males and females in how synapses are regulated in the hippocampus. The findings suggest that female and male brains may respond differently to drugs, such as endocannabinoids, that target synaptic pathways.
"The importance of studying sex differences in the brain is about making biology and medicine relevant to everyone, to both men and women," says Catherine S. Woolley, senior author of the study published in the Journal of Neuroscience and a neurobiology professor at Northwestern University. "It is not about things such as who is better at reading a map or why more men than women choose to enter certain professions."
Currently, about 85 percent of basic neuroscience studies are done in male animals, tissues, or cells.
A drug called URB-597, which regulates a molecule important in neurotransmitter release, had an effect in females that it did not have in males, the research shows. While the study was done in rats, it has broad implications for humans because this drug and others like it are currently being tested in clinical trials in humans.
"Our study starts to put some specifics on what types of molecular differences there are in male and female brains," Woolley says.
"We don't know whether this finding will translate to humans or not," Woolley says, "but right now people who are investigating endocannabinoids in humans probably are not aware that manipulating these molecules could have different effects in males and females."
Same drug, different effect
Specifically, Woolley and her research team found that in female brains the drug URB-597 increased the inhibitory effect of a key endocannabinoid in the brain, called anandamide, causing a decrease in the release of neurotransmitters. In male brains, the drug had no effect. (The difference is not related to circulating reproductive hormones.)
The subject of many clinical trials, endocannabinoids are molecules that help regulate the amount of certain neurotransmitters released at synapses, the gap between neurons. Their name comes from the fact that endocannabinoids activate the same neural receptors as the active ingredient in marijuana.
These molecules are involved in a variety of physiological processes, including memory, motivational state, appetite, and pain as well as in epilepsy.
Understanding what controls the synthesis, release, and breakdown of endocannabinoids has broad implications both for normal and pathological brain function, Woolley says.
'We are not doing women's health any favors'
For 20 years, Woolley actively avoided studying sex differences in the brain until her own data showed her that differences between females and males were real. Her discovery, reported in 2012, that estrogens decreased inhibitory synaptic transmission in the brains of female rats but not in males, changed her thinking.
"Being a scientist is about changing your mind in the face of new evidence," Woolley says. "I had to change my mind in the face of this evidence."
Building on these earlier findings, Woolley and her team used a series of electrophysiological and biochemical studies to pinpoint what causes this effect. The researchers found the difference between males and females lies in the interaction between the molecules ERalpha and mGluR1. Details of the molecular pathway are reported in the new study.
To find out what is the same and what is different between males and females, scientists need to study both sexes, Woolley maintains. Currently, about 85 percent of basic neuroscience studies are done in male animals, tissues, or cells.
"We are not doing women—and specifically women's health—any favors by pretending that things are the same if they are not," Woolley says. "If the results of research would be different in female animals, tissues, and cells, then we need to know. This is essential so that we can find appropriate diagnoses, treatments, and, ultimately, cures for disease in both sexes."
The National Institutes of Health supported the research.
Source: Northwestern University
The post Is science pretending both sexes have the same brain? appeared first on Futurity.
----
Shared via my feedly reader