The Wellness Benefits of Meditation

The Huffington Post reports a scientific study which credibly demonstrates the many benefits of meditation. In the course of three month, meditators had improved vision, cognition, and psychological well-being. Even more impressively, the meditation led to anti-aging benefits, with resistance to aging at the cellular level.

The scientists emphasize that meditation does not lead directly to cellular health and longevity. Instead, the practice appears to give people an increased sense of meaning and purpose in life, which in turn leads to an increased sense of control over their lives and to less negative emotion. This cascade of emotional and psychological changes is what regulates the levels of telomerase, the anti-aging enzyme.

It's well known that stress -- and distress -- lead to poor health, including a decline of telomerase and its healing properties. What hasn't been known -- and what these studies are beginning to document -- is the exact order of psychological and physiological events in this chain and, what's more, that this chain of events can be reversed.

According to Wray Herbert, the author of this piece, "Positivity appears to be the link between meditative practice and a variety of health benefits."

What Makes You Happy?

"Live long and prosper" is a phrase all Star Trek fans know as a Vulcan greeting. 

So, does this mean you have to prosper in order to live long? Recent studies seem to support this idea. For instance, 

According to the findings, patients with the highest incomes had only 35% of the risk of dying during the study period as those in the lowest income group. In addition, those in the highest education group had only 26% of the risk of death during the study period, compared with those in the lowest education bracket.

Read more: http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2011/2/9/universal-access-to-care-does-not-fully-eliminate-disparities-study-finds.aspx#ixzz1DbwUD7N9

 How does happiness fit in? Are rich people happier as well as healthier? According to a recent Gallup report, they are.

But is it the chicken or the egg? Are rich people happier because they're healthier? Do poor people get sick because they can't afford to eat well and work out at costly gyms?

We invite you to share your thoughts!

Another Approach to the Mandate?

Noted healthcare blogger Alan  Katz, a long time insurance broker and consultant, has made a proposal that seems pragmatic and will allow insurers to be protected from higher claims while making it incentivizing the public to buy in to private health insurance before they need it.


Writing on February 7, Katz proposes:

The PPACA imposes a fee (or a tax, depending on whom you ask and when) if an individual fails to obtain health insurance. This is the constitutional weak-link in the law. Those asking the courts to overturn the law describe this approach as Congress forcing Americans to engage in an economic activity or pay the equivalent of a fine to the government.

Instead of this government-centric approach, I proposed replacing the fine with alternatives enabling carriers to protect themselves from consumers who have waited until they are on their way to a hospital before seeking coverage. As has happened in New York and New Jersey, without such protections premiums skyrocket even faster and higher than medical inflation would normally require. Creating an open enrollment period (perhaps the applicant’s birth month) would counteract this dynamic. Allowing carriers to set premiums higher for those who have gone without coverage and to exclude pre-existing condition for some period of time, would help keep the cost of insurance lower, too. (These are financial disincentives imposed on individuals who fail to maintain medical insurance. Fairness would dictate that these disincentives should be commensurate with how long the individual went without coverage, thus the limited time during which a premium surcharge or benefit exclusion would be permitted).

Carriers would not be obliged to impose these penalties. If they were commanded to do so by law some would argue they are simply agents of the government and the Administration would be back defending the constitutionality of a government-imposed individual mandate. By allowing, but not forcing, carriers to use an open enrollment period, increase premiums, or exclude coverage for existing conditions, the government is out of the equation. And so are constitutional challenges – at least to this provision.

The impact of this approach on other provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is minimal. In fact, by shifting the enforcement of personal responsibility from the IRS to private carriers this alternative might even save money overall.

Florida Cheers Healthcare Ruling

Will everyone getting healthcare make people healthier? Or are people healthier because of the way they live? Studies have shown that lifestyle improvement makes a huge difference in cost of care, longevity and even happiness.

Even if Florida Judge Vinson's ruling stands and destroys Obamacare, will that somehow make people sick (literally speaking)?

We want to invite your comments on this question!

Free Care Does Not Guarantee Health

Is it enough to have health insurance, no matter how much it costs, even if it's free? Is good health guaranteed when you have access to health care- doctors, drugs, and hospitals?

According to a study in Health Affairs, it's not enough.

People of high income and education live healthier and longer than people of low socioeconomic status. What do you think is the reason for that?

This should make Judge Vinson and all the anti-mandate folks happy.