The 12 Days of Christmas Would Now Cost Almost $100,000

If a person was to buy all 364 items listed in the twelve days of Christmas, it would now cost almost $100,00. This is an increase of 10.8% compared to last year, according to the Christmas Price Index. Even if you bought one of everything in the song, it would still cost $23,439, which is 9.2% more than last year. This is according to the 27th annual holiday index, and in the past it has always mirrored the national Consumer Price Index, however, this year it does not. The Christmas Price Index grew about 9.2% this year and there was just a 1.1% increase in Consumer Price Index. This large difference is probably because the Christmas Price Index looks at a relatively small and "whimsical" group of services, compared to the much larger Consumer Price Index. Even in the index, there are goods that have seen small increase and goods that have seen large increases. Gold prices are also high with an increase of 30%, which makes the golden rings about $650 each. The price of food and the availability of birds has also drastically increased-turtle doves by 78.6% and french hens by 233%. Four items didn't see an increase though, those including a pear tree, four calling birds, six geese, and eight maids-a-milkings. Nine ladies dancing was the most expensive at about $6,300 with a 15% increase, and the cheapest was a partridge for $12 with a 20% increase. The good news is that these higher prices are not necessarily a bad thing. They mean the economy is improving.

Personally, I found this whole study a bit frivolous. I mean, who would really buy all those things in the 12 days of Christmas anyway? And almost every object is so absurd, that no one would would buy any of the items, aside from maybe a golden ring. It's funny that they do a study each year to find out how much it would cost to buy everything, that in my opinion are not very good examples of goods in our market, and compare it to other years. I suppose it's a constant 12 random items that they can keep track of and compare easily, so I guess it could be viewed as a controlled scientific study. If the results are truly reliable and predict real trends in society and our economy, then I would view the study as worth it. It will be interesting to see if the dramatic increase in prices from last year to this year will actually show in the statistics that prove the health of our economy. I have my doubts on this, because although I do think the economy is better, I don't think it has drastically improved in 2010, nor will it in 2011. It's suprising to me how the Christmas Price Index has grown over 9%, while the Consumer Price Index has grown only about 1%. I would guess this would mean that although Christmas prices and buying are up, the overall consumer buying and economy has not greatly grown. That would be the only way I could make sense of those numbers. It will be interesting to see if these predictions hold true with all the other statistics that come out at the end of the year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40418705/ns/business-us_business/

Could Wild Tigers Be Extinct in 12 Years?

Wild tigers could become extinct in as little as 12 years if countries don't soon take action to protect their habitat and crack down on poaching. The World Wildlife Fund says that fewer than 3,200 tigers remain in the wild, while a century ago there was over 100,000. This huge drop is because their habitat is being destroyed by forest cutting and construction, and their skins and body parts are used in Chinese traditional medicine and therefore fetch a huge prize for poachers. The summit that is going on to bring awareness to this issue is hosted by Russian Prime Minister Vladmir Putin who has used tigers and other animals to support his image. A wide-ranging program with the goal of doubling the world's tiger population by 2022 was approved by the summit. It's backed by 13 countries that still have wild tiger populations. These nations include Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam and Russia. Specialized reserves are also being set up for the tigers with the effort to restore and conserve the forests around them to help the tiger population to expand. One way these nations are funding this is by donor commitments. The Global Tiger Recovery Program that was approved at the summit estimates that $350 million is needed in outside funding in the first five years of the 12 year plan in order for it to work. Many supporters of this plan say that saving tigers have a much higher effect the idea of preserving a graceful and majestic animal. In the words of the Global Tiger Initiative, "Wild tigers are not only a symbol of all that is splendid, mystical and powerful about nature. The loss of tigers and degradation of their ecosystems would inevitably result in a historic, cultural, spiritual, and environmental catastrophe for the tiger range countries." The subspecies of the Bali, Javan, and Caspian have already become extinct in the last 70 years. The hope is that these new efforts will be more succesful than the highly diverse efforts of the past.

I am hopeful that these new programs to help save the tigers will work. Even though I'm not much of a fan of tigers, I think it's sad whenever any kind of species is in danger of becoming extinct, especially when it's the fault of human civilization. These tigers were here before us, and now we have destroyed their land for our purposes and poachers have killed them for the sake of making money. How much more selfish can we get? Now obviously, we need some land to build buildings and homes on, but I don't think we should do it to the point of causing animals to become extinct. I'm very glad that his new plan sets up some reserves for them and efforts will be made to conserve their forests and new poaching laws will be enforced. Also, when one animal become extinct, it isn't like they're gone and everything else goes back to normal. Living things are all part of a food chain, and when an animal like the tiger goes extinct, it will have a dramatic effect on the rest on the chain. Tigers are at the top, so when they aren't there to prey on other animals, there will be an overpolulation of numerous species. That is never a good thing. Then for those animals that had previously been the tiger's prey, they might run out of their own prey because with an increase in their population there will be more competition to find their own food. Their prey might become extinct. This all becomes one problematic cycle because one link is broken, which in this case would be the tigers. I really hope these efforts work and that tigers will not become extinct in 2022.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40298964/ns/world_news-world_environment/

Issue #1-Comprehensive vs. Incremental Health Care Reform

Summary: The United States health care system has some of the best doctors in the entire world. The problem is that many Americans can't afford health insurance and therefore can't visit these doctors. Solutions to this problem have been disscussed for over a century and the debate is mostly over if the government should fund insurance programs to help the poorest of Americans, or keep insurance companies privatized. Today there are two health insurance programs for senior citizens. These include Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare users pay a certain amount, and then rest of the medical hospital expenses are paid by medicare and 80% of their doctors' fees, laboratory tests, and other medical expenses are also covered. This is funded by a payroll tax that everyone pays out of their paycheck. Medicaid helps low-income people pay for their health insurance. It continues to drain out more and more of states' budgets as medical costs continue to increase. Both Medicare and Medicaid will go bankrupt or severely damage the economy if something isn't done about them. The reason for the rapid increase in health care costs has been the expansion of the system where the government and insurance companies pay medical bills instead of patients, expensive new medical technology and drugs being invented, and the rapid growth of America's older generation ("the baby boomers"). Most Americans get their health insurance through employers by paying monthy premiums and deductibles for medical visits and procedures. This system also uses "after the fact" payment results, which means a person isn't able to see the total costs of their medical care and treatment until it's already done. This causes people to not be able to comparison shop and then providers don't have to compete for lower prices. Instead, they can raise their prices because people can't do anything about it. Then starting in 1990 employers began moving their employees from fee-for-service plans to PPO's and HMO's that offer consumers a range of medical services for a set monthly fee. Some people argue this helps keep costs down, while others think it denies patients being able to have important medical tools and specalists. In 2007 there was a consensus that the health care system needed to be reformed. Today the debate continues over if the change should involve universal coverage (comprehensive changes), or using incremental adjustments to expand existing coverage and reduce the number of uninsured people. Universal health care supporters believe the best way to make sure everyone has health care is to completely overhaul the nation's health care system. They believe Medicare and Medicaid have only increased medical costs and have not provided a reliable source of coverage for uninsured people. In their opinion the federal government should be the single purchaser of health care and force health care providers to not charge too much and hold them responsible for how they care for their patients. Another option is that government subsidies should be controlled by the federal government so that the poor get tax credits or money to help them pay for their health care. Others favor a mix of government funding basic health care while still providing elements of competition and choice. Everyone would be able to have basic health care, but people would have the choice to choose from competing plans to purchase more coverage. Then there are those who completely oppose universal health care. They still want health care for all, but they belive that government control over medical programs would create less competition between providers that would eventually lead to a decrease in quality of health care. They also think it will lead to soaring costs, inefficiency, bureaucracy, and unemployment for many people in the health insurance companies. What they support is incremental changes health savings accounts that help people save money tax-free for certain health care expenses. With more people paying for their own health care insurance and medical expenses, the market would naturally cut their medical costs. These are the two sides of the issue.


Opinion: I most agree with the opinion of a mix of the government funding basic health care with the option of people being able to purchase more coverage from competing plans. This provides a sort of "bridge" between both sides and is a good compromise. With this system, everyone will be able to get their basic health needs met. No longer would there be 50 million American uninsured, and 18,000 people would no longer die each year because they can't afford to get the care they need. People wouldn't be turned away because they couldn't pay for a chemo treatment. People wouldn't have to chose between the loss of two fingers which one they wanted to reattach because it's all they could afford. People wouldn't be turned away because they had a "prexisting condition" that may be as minor as headaches or a yeast infection from 15 years previous. (These instances I got from the movie "Sicko.") I don't think anyone could argue that getting rid of these problems wouldn't be a good thing. As to appease the Republicans, though, I think it's important to allow people to purchase more coverage if they desire it. That way competition between companies can still exist, people won't loose their jobs, and the quality of care would not decrease. Hopefully they won't feel like the government is taking too big or a role, it's just trying to help those people in our country who can't afford health insurance or can't set aside money in a health savings account. Against what some people might think, I believe there are many, many, people in our country who work very hard, but just do not make enough to purchase health insurance. Maybe it's a young woman who had to start working at Wal-mart instead of going to college to help a sick or disabled mother who had her as a teenager and therefore herself couldn't go to college or earn enough money to pay for health insurance either. Then when that mother dies, the daughter has no means to go to college or get a higher paying job that would require a college education either. There are numerous instances where people are doing there best to make it in the world, but they can't afford to go to the doctor when they're sick. I don't think this is right and that's why I think that their basic care should be funded by the government. Then for those who can afford it, they can purchase more health care if they desire and don't have to worry about a decrease in their quality of health care. This are also primarily the views of President Obama and I believe are a win-win situation.

To see issue #2 visit my classmate's blog at:
 http://katieireneiverson.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-2-ensuring-quality-care-for.html

To see issue #3 visit my classmate's blog at:
http://maxineannec.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-3-safe-to-eat.html

Midterm Elections 2010

The midterm elections today are expected to "shake things up" in the nation politically. President Obama's agenda is then also at risk because predictions are that Republicans will take over the House, and possibly the Senate if they win each tight race. Republicans are talking about a divided government and a change from the last two years. Their goals are to reverse Pres. Obama's tax and spending plans, climate change, trade, arms control, reduce the deficit, make jobs, and repeal the health care law. Races are particularly tight in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Illinois, Colorado, Wisconsin, Illinois, West Virginia, and Washington State. Then if Republicans do take control of both the House and Senate, a political "gridlock" will occur unless President Obama can find common ground with Republicans. President Obama, Michelle Obama, and former President Bill Clinton have been campaigning almost non-stop these past few weeks for democratic supporters to go out and vote to stop the Republicans from taking over Congress. President Obama says, "We need to keep moving forward, that's why I need folks to vote today." Republicans need 40 seats to take over the House and 10 to take over the Senate. One factor that might help out the Democrats is how the Tea Party has been causing a split in Republican votes. On Wednesday at 1 pm President Obama is set to have a news conference to react to the results of the midterm elections and it is then that we can reflect on what has transpired and see where we go from there.

I wish so very badly that I was just a little bit older so that I could vote. This is the last election where I can't. From now on, for the rest of my life, I can and will vote. It makes me very upset when people think their one vote doesn't make any difference, so they never go and vote. One voice can make a difference!!! Back when our founding fathers were voting on what should be our official language, english won over german by one vote. ONE VOTE!! And just looking back at previous races in 2008 between Frankin and Coleman and in 2000 between Bush and Gore, each individual vote had to be recounted-by hand. Now tell me one vote doesn't make a difference! The predicted outcome of this election also make me very angry. I don't understand how only 2 years ago everyone was gung-ho over Obama and his promises for change. It's only been two years and it seems we have already given up on him, and it's not like he hasn't been trying. He's done almost everything he's promised to do, but just because they all haven't worked people are angry. President Obama is a very smart man, but he's not God. Nobody can be God. Nobody can snap their fingers once taking office during a time when we've already slipped deep into a recession and have been involved in two wars for many years and make things all wonderful and fix every problem. That just doesn't happen. But man, President Obama has tried. Almost immediately after taking office he put in place the stimulus plan. Although it didn't turn out to be as succesful as hoped, it was definitely worth a try and I do believe it helped some. I highly doubt the Republicans could of done any better. Their goals of wanting to reduce the deficit so much and get rid of President Obama's health care law also scares me. Yes, we are in a huge debt and it needs to be reduced, but we can't do it by cutting out things that people need. And just because you may not need welfare, or whatever the case might be, doesn't mean other people don't need it. I believe most of those people who rely on government support use it wisely and are NOT lazy. Some people, maybe it's the neighborhood they grew up in and their family's financial status, an illness or disease, or any unforunate circumstance can cause people to find themselves in a bind and need government's help. We can't cut out people's lifelines just so we can reduce our national debt. I strongly disagree also with the Republican view that, "I make more money because I work harder and therefore deserve that extra money. Nobody should make me pay more in taxes." Umm, well, I think many, many, people work extremely hard but have a very difficult time making anything over minimum wage. I believe the more you make, the more you should pay in taxes. It's only fair. And finally, it will really anger me if Republicans take control and they get ride of Obama's health care plan. There's a lot of misinformation out their and manipulation of some fine details that have caused people to believe some crazy things such as that it will cover illegal immigrants and cause you to not be able to chose your doctor or your care. Obama's health care bill is to insure all Americans can have health insurance and won't get turned down for a pre-existing condition or not having enough money. There are literally thousands of people in the United States who die each year because they don't have health insurance. And I really don't understand how someone could not want health insurance because there's no way you can go through life without ever getting sick. So the Republican's health care plan of no change and just, "don't get sick" doesn't work. Obviously, I agree with almost all of Obama's agendas and it will make me very sad tomorrow if Republicans take over both the Senate and the House. Nothing will every get accomplished then because whatever Obama wants, the Republicans won't vote for it. And whatever the Republicans want, President Obama will veto. I don't think that will turn out too well, and if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that I will vote for Obama and the democrats the next election and make my voice count!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39962482/ns/politics-decision_2010/

Cholera Treatment Hospital Protest Erupts in Haiti

In St. Marc, Haiti, a cholera treatment center was attacked by protestors yesterday. The protest is a response to the fear many people are feeling to this disease that they most didn't know existed until it began infecting their citizens by the thousands. There were about 300 protestors, and their goal was to stop the clinic run by Doctors Without Borders-Spain from opening because they didn't want it to bring more of the disease to their town. Already it has been one of the hardest hit towns in this outbreak that has killed 284 people and infected 3,769. Multiple rocks and even a Molotov cocktail was thrown. To stop the violence, peace makers from Argentina can with riot shields to help back up the police. Warning shot were also fired, but no one was injured. The protestors were then told by Haitian health officials that the clinic would not open in their neighborhood. It had been meant to help rehydrate and treat over 400 people infected with the cholera. The country chief of the Doctors Without Borders-Spain has now talked with local authorities and explained how the clinic is important for combating the disease and that they would try to open in another area of St. Marc. But in order to do that, there will need to be good communication between health officials and the Haitian citizens so that they know there is no risk in locating a hospital in their city. The majority of cases have been occuring near the Artibonite River and in Haiti's central plateau. One of the first places to widely alert the epidemic to the world was St. Marc's main hospital, as it soon became overflowing with people who were sick and dying. U.N. staff can only enter areas of heavy infection if they are given special permission. To enforce this police have been set up to guard check points. The neighboring country of the Dominican Republic is also now announcing that everyone who crosses the border must wash their hands and fill out a medical form. In addition, military supervision is be used and markets between the countries have been closed. Everyone is trying to do whatever possible to avoid the disease that is continuing to spread like wildfire across the country.

First of all, I don't blame those Haitians for protesting against the hospital. I can't imagine how terrified they must feel with this potentially fatal disease running rampant through their country, as if the catastrophic hurricane wasn't enough earlier this year. Cholera is a disease they haven't seen in generations and all they know about it is that it kills. I'm sure they feared that the hospital, with all its infected patients would only attract more sick people to their area, causing the disease to continue to spread even faster than before. It makes sense. What I really hope though, is that these health officials can effectively get the word out that the hospitals will help combat and stop the disease, not spread it. The doctors will be able to treat people and hopefully save lives, which would not be possible if the Haitians were just left alone to fight the disease themselves. Communication needs to be drastically better between the government, those giving aid, and the citizens so that they can work together and stop the disease before everyone dies. I also think more doctors need to be sent to Haiti so more people can be helped. Those doctors will have to be extremely brave, but I believe the work they can do would make all the difference in the world. These Haitian people have already suffered so much, and although the world may be getting tiring of sending aid and money, it still needs to be done. People are dying, and Haiti needs all the countries and people working together so that the dealth, disease, starvation, and poverty can be put to an end. Haiti deserves to get back on its feet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39867288/ns/health-infectious_diseases/

Runners Beware of Your Usage of Common Pain Pills

The advantages of taking a pill before a race has been found to not be worth the risk. A women named Stephanie Ehret landed herself in an emergency room following a 24-hour track run win in record time after taking pain pills. She was throwing up her digestive tract lining. According to her, she had never felt so bad and was sure she was dying. What she had was diagnosed as rhabdomyolysis, which is a precurser to kidney failure. And she was not in this state solely because of dyhdration and overexhaustion from the race, but because she had downed 12 ibuprofen pills during the course of the race. Of course this was from overuse because when used properly pain medication can be very helpful. Many pains can be eased by an acetaminophen drug such as Tylenol, and non-sterodal drugs such as ibuprofen and aspirin can reduce both pain and swelling during the first few days of an injury. The problems come with overdose. Many runners think that because they're exerting their bodies the more ibuprofen pills they take, the better they will feel. This is definitely not the case. Overdose does not have to be as extreme as in Stephanie Ehret's case either. Even just one pill before a race doesn't outweigh the risks. The drugs can inhibit hormones that help regulate blood flow to the kidneys, raise your blood pressure, block enzymes that normally protect the heart, lessen protection in the stomach lining from digestive acids that can cause nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and intestinal bleeding, and increase the risk for hyponatremia that can cause swelling in the brain that can even lead to death. Also, studies go against the belief that pain meds cause an increase in pain tolerance. David Nieman, Dr. P.H., from Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina did a study on ibuprofen use in Western States. He found that 70% of the runners said they took the pills to have less discomfort while racing. What he found was that when measuring pain and muscle soreness in both the pill takers and the nonusers that there was, in fact, no reduction of pain. The ibuprofin takers actually had more inflamation. What has been found to be the most helpful and safe for pain is acetaminophen drugs such as Tylenol since they work differently than drugs such as ibuprofen. Still, however, with overdosage there is a risk of liver failure. These pill should also not be used to treat long-term injuries because it slows down the healing process for soft-tissue. Bottom line is that more is not better in this case, and dosage instructions must be followed very carefully.

I found this article very interesting because I am a runner. I mostly run just to stay and shape and for fun, and usually only go somewhere between 3-5 miles. I've never done any big races, but I have had my struggles with injuries and pain medicine usage. One year when I tried distance track I soon found myself with terrible shin splint after about three weeks. Mostly likely the cause was from almost doubling my usual weekly mileage right from the get-go and not stretching as I ought. After spending another three weeks corss-training on the elliptical with no improvement, I decided I had to quit and just give my legs rest. During this cross-training time and when I first began running again, I relied on pain medicine quite a bit. What I usually used was Aleve, which after I looked on the back, is a NSAID drug like ibuprofen. That kind of scares me. I never experienced any scary side-effect, but I was also careful to follow the dosage instructions too. I would think a lot of it also depends on how much you are running because I'm sure with more exertion, the higher the risks of the high blood pressure, nausea, internal bleeding, brain swelling, etc. At the time I was "taking it slow," so that's probably why I didn't experience any of what was mentioned in the article. I do think it's important for every runner to read this though, because pain meds are used all the time and it's important that we know how to use them properly so that they can help us, not hurt us.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37341523/ns/health-pain_center/

Jailed Chinese Nobel Prize Winner Meets His Wife

On Sunday a jailed Chinese man who was just awarded the Nobel Prize was finally able to meet his wife. A day earlier he was notified of the award by his jailers. He was very emotional and said he would dedicate the prize to award the victims of the 1989 military crackdown on pro-democracy protests. The Nobel committee chose him because of his over twenty years of advicating human rights and peaceful democratic change. These acts ranged from demonstrations for democracy at Tiananmen Square in 1989 to a public display of political reform in 2008 that was the cause of his current arrest. This man's wife, Liu Xia, wanted to meet with him on Friday after the Nobel announcement, but she was refused until Sunday. Now there is controversy between the country that gave out the award, Norway, and China. People in the pursecuted communites are cheering and other countries including the United States and Germany have called for the man's (Liu Xiaobo) release. Beijing in response was very angry. They warned Norway that its government relations would suffer because they awarded someone the Nobel Prize who is a criminal in the eyes of Beijing's government. Liu Xiaobo is a 54 year old man and is in his 2nd year of an 11 year prison term. The news of his award was kept secret by China's state-controlled media. They also forbade Liu Ziaobo's wife from telling him of his nomination for the award in her visit in September. She was also put on house arrest on Friday when the award was announced and she couldn't make or receive calls on her cell phone either. In response to this, a Washington-based legal rights association pleaded world leaders to call for her release. Then she had to negotiate with the police to visit her husband and tell him the news. The police escourted her until other policemen put up a road block about 1.5 miles from the prison. It was removed on Sunday, but Chinese authorities are still putting pressure on activists and Liu's supporters. Some the most prominent activist lawyers are being harrassed by police as they are trying to use to award to patch up differences amoungst themselves. On Sunday there was a group of 20 protestors in Hong Kong who celebrated his prize by drinking champagne and eating Norwegian salmon in front of the Chinese government's local liaison office while they demanded release of  Liu Xiaobo and his followers. Now his wife's plan is to go to Norway to get the Nobel medal and the $1.5 million prize money.

When I first read this story, it completely shocked me. I guess I didn't realize that these things still happen today. Here is a man who has stood up for what he believes in, and has tried to make changes in peaceful ways, and he gets put in jail. As far as I know, he has never hurt a soul. The Chinese government has put him in jail because they must believe he is a threat to how they want to run the country. It's not right. I'm very glad that Norway was brave enough to see the courage in this man, Liu Xiaobo, and award him the Nobel Prize. From what I have learned in the article, he sounds like he was very deserving of it if he was willing to give up his own freedom in order to try to gain more freedom and fairness for others. It's really sad if the government relations between Norway and China suffer because of this, but they probably will. I think China need to re-examine their current policies and take into consideration the protests this man has made and the calls they have been recieving from other countries for his release. The man in my eyes definitely deserves to be freed. This whole situation reminds me of Martin Luther King, Jr and how he was put in jail many times for his peaceful protests and attempts for civil rights. Parts of our government were not pleased with him at the time, but because of his bravery and hard work he helped make our country into the one it is today with equal rights for people of every race. In the same way, hopefully the efforts of this Chinese man, Liu Xiaobo, will also create positive change in China for the future too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39600507/ns/world_news-asiapacific/