A new study links shale oil and gas development to a host of developmental and reproductive health risks, and says the processes involved – including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking – pose a particularly potent threat to what researchers called "our most vulnerable population."

“Children, developing fetuses, they’re especially vulnerable to environmental factors,” says Ellen Webb, the study's lead author and an energy program associate at the Center for Environmental Health. “We really need to be concerned about the impacts for these future generations.”

The risks from exposure to toxic chemicals, heavy metals and radioactive materials include a parent's worst nightmares: “infertility, miscarriage or spontaneous abortion, impaired fetal growth, and LBW,” the study found, referring to low birth weight. The report also sounded an alarm about possible birth defects and long-term chronic conditions the, symptoms for which may not emerge for years.

[READ: Toxic Chemicals and Carcinogens Skyrocket Near Fracking Sites, Study Says]

“Our heartfelt concern is that if the oil and gas industry continues to develop more wells, then the problem is going to be exacerbated greatly before we finally have answers,” says Dr. Sheila Bushkin-Bedient, one of the study’s co-authors and a member of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany-State University of New York. “In terms of chronic diseases and in terms of finding out the developmental problems of babies, we might not know that for a decade or two. We might not know about cancers for a couple of decades, and by that time, it would be too late.”



Story source: http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/energy-of-tomorrow/articles/2014/12/05/fracking-linked-to-infertility-miscarriages-birth-defects

Massachusetts is already following the Federal Government's example. Just as the Government gave up on universal national health insurance after President Clinton's plan failed in 1994, and moved toward piecemeal changes, Massachusetts lowered its sights last year.

Abandoning its grand hopes of health insurance for nearly all its residents, to be provided largely by employers, the state decided to seek some health insurance coverage for everyone under 18 -- financed by a 25-cent-a-pack increase in the cigarette tax. The increase raised the state tax on cigarettes to 76 cents a pack; the price of cigarettes is now $2.31 to $2.86 a pack.

It was a tough legislative fight, even in a state known for generous public services, with the proponents overcoming a veto by Gov. William F. Weld, who opposed any new taxes.

Now the state's United States Senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry, want to take the Massachusetts approach national, with a tax increase on cigarettes that could reach 75 cents a pack or more. They contend that smokers and the tobacco industry can afford the cost of health insurance for the 10 million children who now have none, and that teen-age smoking will be discouraged in the process.

Senator Kennedy said early in February that uninsured children were rarely treated for chronic problems like earaches and asthma.

''We should make sure the sons and daughters of working families get a healthy start,'' he said. ''The best way to fund this is a tax on tobacco, which causes five million premature deaths a year and weighs down our whole health system.''

Their approach is one of several being talked about in Congress, where the President's proposal to expand coverage gradually so that half of the 10 million children not covered now will be insured by 2000 has been widely criticized, especially by Democrats, as inadequate.

The children's health issue is gathering steam among Republicans, too. Mr. Kennedy, a Democrat whose career is marked with bipartisan successes despite his liberal reputation, said that a bill he was proposing drew ''very serious'' interest from four Senate Republicans and several young House Republicans.

Representative Bill Thomas, a California Republican who heads the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, said in early February that he would soon hold hearings to get a sense of the scope of the problem.

In Massachusetts, there was political appeal to taxing tobacco to help children. Judy Meredith, who led the lobbying effort for the bill, said it was a pleasure to promote ''a tax on an industry that everyone thought were bums, marketing a poisonous material.''

Still, as Geri Denterlein, who led the public relations effort, put it, Governor Weld, a Republican, fought hard and ''it wasn't a lay-down hand.''

Tobacco lobbyists were omnipresent at the Statehouse, and tobacco companies funneled thousands of telephone calls from protesting smokers to their legislators. Still, the obstacles were nothing like those in Washington.

Not only is the tobacco lobby one of the biggest donors in the nation's capital -- Philip Morris alone invested $3,162,939 in the Republican Party and its candidates in 1995 and 1996, and $739,216 in the Democratic Party -- but also, Republican resistance to any new taxes is intense.

In Boston, State Representative John E. McDonough, the Democrat who wrote last year's legislation, said: ''A cigarette tax, to most people, is not a tax. You won't find any other tax that people will come out and say, 'We like that tax; raise it some more.' ''

But in Washington, Representative Bill Archer, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said that while he would be happy to discourage smoking and help children if they need it, ''a tax increase as far as I am concerned is a tax increase, and we have taken a very firm position against tax increases.''

Using the tobacco money, Massachusetts expanded both its Medicaid program and the Children's Medical Security Plan, which began in 1993 by covering children under 7. Medicaid, paid for in significant part with Federal dollars, will now cover everyone up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or all families of four with incomes up to $20,748 a year.

The Children's Medical Security Plan is providing a somewhat less generous insurance package than Medicaid -- more limited mental health and prescription drugs and no tonsillectomies, in particular. For families with incomes of less than $31,200 a year -- 200 percent of poverty -- the coverage is free, and the co-payment $1 per doctor's visit.

For families with incomes of $31,200 to $62,400, the charge is $10.50 per child a month, and the co-payment $3. Above that level, the charges are $52.50 a month and $5 a visit.

The program, administered for the state by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company at a charge of $10.50 a month for each child, allows parents to take their children to any doctor in the state, although some doctors bill them for what the state does not pay.

David H. Mulligan, the Massachusetts Health Commissioner, said that while uninsured children had always got emergency room treatment, this program was adding ''routine medical visits, check on immunizations and tests for lead poisoning.''

And since the expansion raised the eligibility age to 18, doctors are providing a new range of guidance to patients on questions like ''drugs, alcohol, teen sexuality, violence -- that band of issues.''

Of this state's approximately 150,000 uninsured children, about 60,000 will be covered through the expansion of Medicaid. The expanded Children's Medical Security Plan program may reach 40,000 to 60,000 more. It has enrolled about 7,000 more children since the expansion took effect in November.

Mr. Mulligan said it was hard for the state to ''market'' what he acknowledged was a ''hodgepodge'' of health programs. In one innovation, applications for the Children's Medical Security Plan have been sent home with report cards.

While Mr. Mulligan tries to expand coverage, the coalition of supporters that prevailed here hope to replicate the campaign elsewhere.

In Massachusetts, Mr. McDonough said, data showing support for paying for children's health with cigarette tax increases ''gave legislators a comfort level so they would know that what they were facing on the phones was a very small minority of their voters.''

In Washington, Marian Wright Edelman, head of the Children's Defense Fund, said, ''We would really, really urge states not to wait for the Federal Government, but to go forward.''

At the same time, Ms. Edelman called for Congressional action and termed Mr. Clinton's proposal inadequate. ''This is a solvable problem,'' she said, ''and it is absolutely outrageous that the world's leader in health technology leaves 10 million children uncovered.''

Expanding Children's Health Care

By ADAM CLYMER
Published: February 28, 1997

BOSTON— Paula Lincoln of Rockland, Mass., lost her teaching job and her health insurance two years ago, but her sons, Christopher and Jeffrey, still get checkups and shots at a dollar a visit.

Mark Leary of Lawrence works for a supermarket that does not offer health insurance, but he is still able to take his 3-year-old daughter, Kaitlynn, to doctors for treatment of her ear infections.

Elaine Choquette of Blackstone is a self-employed day-care provider. And like Mrs. Lincoln and Mr. Leary, she participates in an insurance program that Massachusetts has greatly expanded in recent months to cover uninsured children. She uses the program to pay for doctor visits for her sons, Mike and Jason, and she said, ''I pay my taxes, and I never thought of it as being anything compared to welfare.''

They are all pleased with the program, the Massachusetts Children's Medical Security Plan, which is intended to insure children whose parents earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid, but who cannot afford private health insurance. The program is being paid for through an increase in the cigarette tax.

Its supporters, including doctors, the American Cancer Society and children's groups, are seeking to promote the Massachusetts idea as a model for other states and the Federal Government. They circulate national polling numbers showing up to 75 percent support for taxing cigarettes to pay for children's health, and cite referendums in states like Arizona and Oregon, in which voters approved higher tobacco tax to pay for health programs.

Massachusetts is already following the Federal Government's example. Just as the Government gave up on universal national health insurance after President Clinton's plan failed in 1994, and moved toward piecemeal changes, Massachusetts lowered its sights last year.

Abandoning its grand hopes of health insurance for nearly all its residents, to be provided largely by employers, the state decided to seek some health insurance coverage for everyone under 18 -- financed by a 25-cent-a-pack increase in the cigarette tax. The increase raised the state tax on cigarettes to 76 cents a pack; the price of cigarettes is now $2.31 to $2.86 a pack.

It was a tough legislative fight, even in a state known for generous public services, with the proponents overcoming a veto by Gov. William F. Weld, who opposed any new taxes.

Now the state's United States Senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry, want to take the Massachusetts approach national, with a tax increase on cigarettes that could reach 75 cents a pack or more. They contend that smokers and the tobacco industry can afford the cost of health insurance for the 10 million children who now have none, and that teen-age smoking will be discouraged in the process.

Senator Kennedy said early in February that uninsured children were rarely treated for chronic problems like earaches and asthma.

''We should make sure the sons and daughters of working families get a healthy start,'' he said. ''The best way to fund this is a tax on tobacco, which causes five million premature deaths a year and weighs down our whole health system.''

Their approach is one of several being talked about in Congress, where the President's proposal to expand coverage gradually so that half of the 10 million children not covered now will be insured by 2000 has been widely criticized, especially by Democrats, as inadequate.


The children's health issue is gathering steam among Republicans, too. Mr. Kennedy, a Democrat whose career is marked with bipartisan successes despite his liberal reputation, said that a bill he was proposing drew ''very serious'' interest from four Senate Republicans and several young House Republicans.

Representative Bill Thomas, a California Republican who heads the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, said in early February that he would soon hold hearings to get a sense of the scope of the problem.

In Massachusetts, there was political appeal to taxing tobacco to help children. Judy Meredith, who led the lobbying effort for the bill, said it was a pleasure to promote ''a tax on an industry that everyone thought were bums, marketing a poisonous material.''

Still, as Geri Denterlein, who led the public relations effort, put it, Governor Weld, a Republican, fought hard and ''it wasn't a lay-down hand.''

Tobacco lobbyists were omnipresent at the Statehouse, and tobacco companies funneled thousands of telephone calls from protesting smokers to their legislators. Still, the obstacles were nothing like those in Washington.

Not only is the tobacco lobby one of the biggest donors in the nation's capital -- Philip Morris alone invested $3,162,939 in the Republican Party and its candidates in 1995 and 1996, and $739,216 in the Democratic Party -- but also, Republican resistance to any new taxes is intense.

In Boston, State Representative John E. McDonough, the Democrat who wrote last year's legislation, said: ''A cigarette tax, to most people, is not a tax. You won't find any other tax that people will come out and say, 'We like that tax; raise it some more.' ''

But in Washington, Representative Bill Archer, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said that while he would be happy to discourage smoking and help children if they need it, ''a tax increase as far as I am concerned is a tax increase, and we have taken a very firm position against tax increases.''

Using the tobacco money, Massachusetts expanded both its Medicaid program and the Children's Medical Security Plan, which began in 1993 by covering children under 7. Medicaid, paid for in significant part with Federal dollars, will now cover everyone up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or all families of four with incomes up to $20,748 a year.

The Children's Medical Security Plan is providing a somewhat less generous insurance package than Medicaid -- more limited mental health and prescription drugs and no tonsillectomies, in particular. For families with incomes of less than $31,200 a year -- 200 percent of poverty -- the coverage is free, and the co-payment $1 per doctor's visit.

For families with incomes of $31,200 to $62,400, the charge is $10.50 per child a month, and the co-payment $3. Above that level, the charges are $52.50 a month and $5 a visit.

The program, administered for the state by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company at a charge of $10.50 a month for each child, allows parents to take their children to any doctor in the state, although some doctors bill them for what the state does not pay.

David H. Mulligan, the Massachusetts Health Commissioner, said that while uninsured children had always got emergency room treatment, this program was adding ''routine medical visits, check on immunizations and tests for lead poisoning.''

And since the expansion raised the eligibility age to 18, doctors are providing a new range of guidance to patients on questions like ''drugs, alcohol, teen sexuality, violence -- that band of issues.''

Of this state's approximately 150,000 uninsured children, about 60,000 will be covered through the expansion of Medicaid. The expanded Children's Medical Security Plan program may reach 40,000 to 60,000 more. It has enrolled about 7,000 more children since the expansion took effect in November.

Mr. Mulligan said it was hard for the state to ''market'' what he acknowledged was a ''hodgepodge'' of health programs. In one innovation, applications for the Children's Medical Security Plan have been sent home with report cards.

While Mr. Mulligan tries to expand coverage, the coalition of supporters that prevailed here hope to replicate the campaign elsewhere.

In Massachusetts, Mr. McDonough said, data showing support for paying for children's health with cigarette tax increases ''gave legislators a comfort level so they would know that what they were facing on the phones was a very small minority of their voters.''

In Washington, Marian Wright Edelman, head of the Children's Defense Fund, said, ''We would really, really urge states not to wait for the Federal Government, but to go forward.'

At the same time, Ms. Edelman called for Congressional action and termed Mr. Clinton's proposal inadequate. ''This is a solvable problem,'' she said, ''and it is absolutely outrageous that the world's leader in health technology leaves 10 million children uncovered.'''

Photo: A Massachusetts program provides health insurance to children like Jeffrey, 3, left, and Christopher Lincoln, 8. With them at their home in Rockland, Mass., last week were their parents, Paula and Ralph Lincoln. (Keith Meyers/The New York Times)

Democrats to Seek Expansion of Health Coverage for Children

By Spencer Rich
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 8, 1996; Page A19

The proposals, being drafted by Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and other key Democrats, essentially could create a new class of federal social support. Some of the initiatives would offer a tax credit to help a family buy their children a health care policy, while others would offer a direct federal subsidy of some type.

Although the details are still being worked out, most of the measures focus on children in families that fall between the cracks: They're not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but not affluent enough to pay for private insurance entirely out of their own pocket.

------ ... ----------

But many more ambitious plans are in the works. Among the most detailed thus far is a proposal being drafted by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) that would provide grants to the states to help families afford health insurance for their children.

The plan would target families in that no man's land — that is, those who are not poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid but who don't get insurance on the job and can't afford to pay for it themselves. Under the Kennedy-Kerry plan, families would be paid a federal subsidy that would gradually decrease as their income went up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/issues/kidinsur.htm

"The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the health care systems of the
Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Denmark by examining each system’s
approach to cost, quality, and access of care, before looking at how their approaches
could be adapted to the U.S. system. I picked these specific countries due to their
similarity in geographic location, demographics, religious affiliations, and
population size but have different styles of health care systems (public, mixed, and
private) that are set up in varying ways. Additionally, these populations have similar
health issues to one another, such as aging-populations, and to the U.S. as well like
the top causes of death (Flintoff, 2012). However, these four western European
countries have longer life expectancies and smaller percentages (or none) of their
populations are uninsured (Mossialos et. al., 2016). Populations who face the same
difficulties, for potentially the same reasons, can count on the same or similar
responses to help. This is why it is important for the U.S. to look at how other
nations approach healthcare as well as specific health problems that affect large
portions of the population such as obesity and cancer; the way others approach
healthcare could be more efficient and helpful than the U.S. system but that would
not be known until studying the health systems of other nations.


All industrialized nations wish to balance the three shared concerns of
modern health care which are cost, quality, and access (Mossialos et. al., 2016). This
is why the search for solutions has become global in scope, as public and private
healthcare officials in the U.S. look beyond our borders to examine how other
industrialized nations provide and finance health care. Such lessons from abroad are
made possible by cross-national comparisons and analyses of the extensive data and
information available through reports, such as the OECD and Commonwealth Fund
reports on multiple countries (Mossialos et. al., 2016). In this paper I compare the
systems of the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, and the United States. "

Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over, but we should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade proposals in the works that threaten to put most Americans on the wrong side of globalization.

The conflicting views about the agreements are actually tearing at the fabric of the Democratic Party, though you wouldn’t know it from President Obama’s rhetoric. In his State of the Union address, for example, he blandly referred to “new trade partnerships” that would “create more jobs.” Most immediately at issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which would bring together 12 countries along the Pacific Rim in what would be the largest free trade area in the world.

Negotiations for the TPP began in 2010, for the purpose, according to the United States Trade Representative, of increasing trade and investment, through lowering tariffs and other trade barriers among participating countries. But the TPP negotiations have been taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked drafts to guess at the proposed provisions. At the same time, Congress introduced a bill this year that would grant the White House filibuster-proof fast-track authority, under which Congress simply approves or rejects whatever trade agreement is put before it, without revisions or amendments.

Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks — and the history of arrangements in past trade pacts — it is easy to infer the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesn’t look good. There is a real risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and global elite at the expense of everyone else. The fact that such a plan is under consideration at all is testament to how deeply inequality reverberates through our economic policies.

Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem: our gross mismanagement of globalization...

"A solid economic foundation is the right of every American.

The recommendations in this report feed into ADA’s 10 point plan for a fairer world:

1. Redesign the fast track mechanism to give Congress more scrutiny over trade deals.

2. Put labor standards (from the International Labor Organization) and environmental
standards (from Multilateral Environmental Agreements) at the core of trade
agreements, and also meet these standards in the US.

3. Fully fund the international agencies with the power to enforce these standards.

4. Promote aid, debt relief and access to generic medicines to allow developing
countries to meet these standards and build government capacity.

5. Raise the US minimum wage to its buying power in the 1970s, and then index it to
increases in average wages.

6. Decouple health care and pensions from employment and reroute employer
contributions through governments. When individuals lose their jobs, they should not
lose their benefits.

7. Reform Trade Adjustment Assistance and unemployment insurance to help more
people get back on their feet, and promote development at state and local levels to
reduce the impacts of trade on local communities.

8. Reduce subsidies for big agribusiness to give family farmers in the US and abroad a
fair playing field.

9. Provide access to decent education, training and retraining for all.

10. Horizontally carve out key public services from the General Agreement on Trade in
Services.