Tag Archives: prompt 2

Pharmaceutical Industry Prompt 2

When I clicked on the website, it took me to a basic introduction section. The information of the site that is most relevant and consumer friendly to me is the section where it talks about introduction part,  Product Claim Advertisements, and Prescription Drug Advertising: Questions to Ask Yourself.

Why? Because I think that to me, this is consumer friendly. For the introduction part, it gives general information about the site and helps consumer searching through this web understand the purpose of the site.  Basics of Drug Ads section of the site was also most relevant and consumer friendly because it is very clear and understandable information to consumer. The last section that I found most relevant and consumer friendly was the part where it have questions to ask yourself which is very consumer friendly. For instance, it makes people think about what drugs they’re taking and how it affects them. I think that consumers might still be at risk is because not everything ( drugs ) is approved by the FDA. Many people are selling drugs that are not effectively safe; selling these drugs illegally leads consumers to be at risk from purchasing drugs that are not safe and aren’t approved.

 

Advertisements

Illness and Mortality Prompt 2

There is so much information out there about health services that it can be hard to dig through what is fact or fiction. When there is not enough services or personnel in the first place, it makes it hard to get accountable, easily accessible information to the consumer. There does not seem to be many options available for long-term care, especially for those who do not qualify for financial aid. As consumers, we need to push for better options in health care. As a nation, we need to address the severe shortage of health workers /services and the ridiculous cost of health services.

Myth 1: We have enough health care workers to meet the demands of the aging population.

There is an increasing demand for health services due to the increased incidence of chronic illness and a large aging population.  The number of people over the age of 65 is expected to double between 2000 and 2030. This has led to a shortage of healthcare workers as there is not enough to meet the increasing demand. Physicians and nurses are being hit especially hard. By 2025, the AAMC estimates we will have a shortfall of 46,000 to 90,000 physicians. Between 2014 and 2020, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports there will be over 1 million vacancies in nursing. This growing lack of services and personal has led to concerning healthcare challenges.

Myth 2: We have adequate care for our aging generation.

The U.S population might be living longer, but the quality of life for many of the elderly is low. Our society does not currently have the resources to deal with the increasing number of older adults, many of whom have serious health problems and risks. Health care is extremely expensive, in 2010 people age 65+ spent an average of $18,424 on health care services in the United States. This financial burden is particularly concerning for the middle class, who make too much to qualify for aid but not enough to pay for long-term care services. In addition to the increasing cost of care, we simply lack the compacity to care for our aging population.

Myth 3: The DSHS has high standards and requirements for adult family homes.

Reading this article made me sick. I was shocked that we did not have higher criteria or rigorous inspections of these homes. People who have not read this article most likely believe that the DSHS has a rigorous application process and frequent expectations. This might be similar to how people believe the FDA conducts its own testing on products since its purpose of these agencies is to provide safe service/products and protect the consumer. It is terrifying to think that, so much abuse goes unnoticed and undealt with because we do not have the personal or facilities to deal with the increasing elderly population. Consumers need to push for higher standards and better options.

Is Moderation Key?

I was shocked after reading this article. The opinions presented in this were very different from what I am currently taught in class. Jonathan Ross, the man who wrote this post, talked about how everything in moderation is not the answer and does not work. However, my professors preach almost the exact opposite.

For those who do not know, I am a nutrition major going into my last quarter of my bachelor’s degree. A specific professor sticks out to me. I remember her saying, “yeah sure, my guilty pleasure is nachos. But I don’t eat them every day. Moderation is key you guys.” And this spoke to me. Ross explains that those who practice moderation eat one treat each day. In that sense, yes of course moderation would not work because that is not what the moderation nutrition professionals speak of.

I can’t say that I see myself in this type of moderation. I eat generally very healthy foods, and try to include my greens into at least one meal a day. I pay attention to what I am putting into my body and how I feel after eating specific meals. However, if I would like to have a bagel for breakfast or a coffee with my lunch I will do so. I must mention that while doing this, I do not go overboard on the cream cheese and I’ll ask for a little less caramel in my Americano. That way I am still very attentive to the food I am consuming even if I did indulge on those things. The moderation Ross speaks of would not allow of this. If your friends ask you to go out and get appetizers are you not going to go because you already had a coffee that week?

This is where I disagree with his idea of “everything in moderation doesn’t work.” As an ‘almost’ nutrition professional myself, I think it is essential that we teach people to listen to their bodies rather than an outsider who does not know how their insides feel. If you order fries for your appetizer, just stop eating them when you become full and take them home in a box for another day, or for your roommate to eat. You do not need to finish them off. Also, just pay attention to the fact that you ate fries and maybe have a green salad with lots of veggies and chicken for dinner instead of another highly caloric meal.

I don’t feel like my practice of moderation is increasing my risk of chronic diseases what so ever. I think I am very aware of my body and very aware of that fact that what I put into my body will either impact me positively or negatively. As we know, harmful foods do not make the body feel refreshed and healthy, but rather sluggish and sick. A helpful tip to give people is to recognize how certain foods make them feel and how moods are impacted by food. That is what I would tell a consumer, rather than scare them into believing that eating a slice of cake is going to ruin their health immediately. Food is such a private and sensitive topic that I think the best thing we can do for the public and for consumers is to encourage them to create a happy and healthy relationship with food and eating. In my opinions, the article, written by Jonathan Ross, does a poor job of this.

Finance: Prompt 2

Personally, both articles were easier to read than I thought they were going to be but for some reason 4 Reasons Against the Fiduciary Rule Debunked was a little easier for me to understand and grasp the concept of what we are supposed to be learning about this week. The Fiduciary Rule is basically all financial advisors helping there clients save money need to have the clients best interest in mind instead of there own.

What I don’t really understand is how someone can be so cruel in there job. No matter what your job is whether it is a teacher, CNA (Certified Nurses Assistant), social worker or even a manager at Walmart, you ALWAYS have someone else best interest in mind because it is part of your job! The second you put yourself first is when you lose your job. How can someone keep there job when they aren’t even doing the main portion of it which is help there client save money.

If I had to chose one of the articles that was easier for the consumer to understand it would be 4 Reasons Against the Fiduciary Rules Debunked because the lay out was easier to read, the main points they wanted to explain were very much in detail with words that were easier to understand and it explained everything as you read along. It was a tad bit longer but only because it had more explanations. I liked both articles and I really like how Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: The Retirement Industry is a Minefield — But Here’s the Answer had five main points at the end that they thought were necessary to include sort of as a reminder.

Finance Matters Prompt 2

The Fiduciary Rule requires financial advisers to  put customers first and they are restricted from accepting any kind of compensation or payments that would create a conflict of interest. The rule basically states that financial advisers must put the clients best interests’ ahead of their own for their retirement savings.

Prior to reading both of these articles, I had no idea what the fiduciary rule was. I barely know anything about financial advisers or about retirement savings, other than you should start doing it early on. “4 Arguments Against the Fiduciary Rule Debunked” by Patrick Tucker explained the fiduciary rule better for me. The author was going against the arguments people had for the rule and explaining why they could be incorrect which helped me understand it better. The first article did have a better definition of the fiduciary rule, but the rest of the reading was a little tough for me to understand.

Understanding Fiduciaries

The fiduciary rule, something I personally have never heard of until today, seems like a no brainer. Apparently, financial advisors are allowed to give advice that is not in the best interest of their clients. Their advice will, in turn, benefit the advisors instead. All of this is 100% legal unless you are, what is called, a fiduciary. This is a term for a group of professionals that are legitimately required to put the clients’ interests and benefits before their own. This “fiduciary rule” seems like it should be an obligation for everyone in the financial advising world however, it sadly is not.

Both the articles, one written by Kathryn Lee and the other by Patrick Tucker, came down to the same conclusion. The fiduciary rule is, in fact, a good one. Tucker and Lee are in favor of fiduciaries and think that financial advisors, who do not work under this rule, are scammers and con-artists. I, myself, happen to agree with them. The article written by Lee was much easier for me to understand. She got right to the point and explained exactly what a fiduciary is and how the rule works. Lee also explained that it is legal for financial advisors to give one-sided advice to clients, which I was not aware of. Reading her article, I was able to pinpoint exactly which side she stood on as well as gain information I was uninformed of. The tone in Tucker’s article was too far over my head. I have very little knowledge in the legal world as well as the financial world, so it was difficult to comprehend much of the vocabulary he chose to use. It was also a challenge to identify which side Tucker took because of the lack of familiarity I had with his writing. I think that it is very important to understand that many clients go to financial advisors and fiduciaries because they are unaware of laws and legal terms. Which is why, regarding the readings, Lee’s article is more consumer friendly. If I was seeking financial help, I would now know to look for a fiduciary or be weary of all financial advice I was receiving.

Finance Prompt 2

Both “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: The Retirement Industry is a Minefield – But Here’s the Answer” and “4 Arguments Against the Fiduciary Rule Debunked” both argue that the Fiduciary Rule would only be beneficial to consumers. The Fiduciary Rule is a professional obligation that requires financial advisers to put their client’s best interests ahead of their own. Before this rule was instated, many financial advisers were having their clients do things that are beneficial for the advisory and many of these clients had high interest rates, which according to “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: The Retirement Industry is a Minefield – But Here’s the Answer” can add up as “paying a 2 percent fee, [could mean] losing two-thirds of savings over a fifty-year time period” (Lee, 2016).

Looking at both of these articles from a consumer point of view, the John Oliver one was easier to understand. As I am a 20-year-old Nutrition major, I know next to nothing about business, therefore, I know next to nothing about financial advisers and how they operate. I do recognize this as being a problem, however, I have always thought that I would start saving for retirement after graduating college, and that retirement worries can wait till then, for now I just need to figure out how I am going to afford housing, food, and gas at the same time. I think this may be true for many consumers this age, the exception being those who are studying business. If the consumer is well-informed or currently saving for retirement, then “4 Arguments Against the Fiduciary Rule Debunked” might be more helpful. For instance, in this article’s first point, it states that the government cannot reclaim a consumer’s assets “unless you’re a criminal” (“4 Arguments Against the Fiduciary Rule Debunked”). This was news to me as I thought that the government could reclaim anything and everything depending on the level of debt that person may be in. Another thing that I, and most likely many consumers, was unaware of is that “some advisers receive commissions for their financial counsel” (“4 Arguments Against the Fiduciary Rule Debunked”). While I knew that financial advisers needed to be paid by their clients, I was not aware that they could also take commission from the prosperous investments made by their clients. To summarize, I believe that “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: The Retirement Industry is a Minefield – But Here’s the Answer” provides better baseline information for those who are uninformed about the business world whereas “4 Arguments Against the Fiduciary Rule Debunked” provides better information for those who are more informed about the business and retirement world.

Bibliography

Lee, K. (2016, June 14). LAST WEEK TONIGHT WITH JOHN OLIVER: THE RETIREMENT INDUSTRY IS A MINEFIELD — BUT HERE’S THE ANSWER. Retrieved October 25, 2017, from https://uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/last-week-tonight-john-oliver-retirement-industry-minefield-here%E2%80%99s-answer

4 Arguments Against the Fiduciary Rule Debunked. (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2017, from http://www.truemeasureadvisors.com/2016/04/20/20164145-argument-against-the-fiduciary-rule-debunked/

Healthcare Post

Before I looked into this article, to be honest, I had no idea what CBO was. And I’m glad that I know what it is and that i’ll be able to look into it more deeply if I want to know more information about it. What I learned from reading this is that many people wouldn’t know is that insurance will change and that many people will be affected by this new Better Care Reconciliation. In addition, about 15 millions people will be uninsured just in the near year, 2018. To think about this, it is very close, it is next year. It is kind of scary how everything might change in the near future. According to the article, about 22 million people will not have insurance by the year of 2026. Because under this new legislation, penalty for not having insurance will be eliminated so that’s why many people will be uninsured.

Now, I want to know if this new legislation is worth it. I mean, what I am seeing is that a lot of people will be uninsured. That’s a negative thing. It looks like this new legislation is not making things easier for low income families. Many low income families will suffer because of this. That is what it looks like so far from what I read. It would be more negative than positive. Well, I might find out more about it if I search Better Care Reconciliation of 2017 since there are a lot of information online whether it is through federal websites or just news.

Thinking and Discourse Prompt 2

The piece of Social Justice vs. Market Justice explores how these two concepts influence ideas which then influence language and actions. As stated in the article, Market Justice has become somewhat of a “default” for the American society. Market Justice is the belief that people earn what they have received in life; for example, if someone were to choose to not attend college, they deserve a lower paying job as they did not put in the effort to obtain a higher paying job. Therefore, those who believe in Market Justice believe that what happens in a person’s life is directly related to the choices that that person has made. Social Justice is the belief that not everyone had the same starting point when they were born, therefore, basic benefits should be assured to level the playing field. For example, if someone could not afford to attend college due to their socioeconomic status growing up, why should they have to live with a lower paying job? They were never even given a chance to go to college without falling in major debt. Social Justice would put community wellbeing before personal wellbeing to bridge the ever-growing economic gap.

A large health area of concern for me is nutrition. I am fully aware that not everyone is able to afford healthy food all the time, nor does everyone have the time to make healthy food. For instance, a prepackaged salad at Fred Meyer costs $3 to $4 for one serving, whereas a frozen pizza costs about the same, but contains two to four servings. In Market Justice, it would be argued that those who choose the salad are opting for a healthy lifestyle and therefore are choosing the health benefits that come along with that. If someone is unable to afford the salad due to their economic status, that is also on them as they have chosen their career and how much they are paid. Those who are choosing the pizza are opting for an unhealthy lifestyle and deserve the health problems that come with that.

In contrast, in Social Justice, it is recognized that for some, this is not a choice. For some, it is not possible to spend $4 on one person’s meal, so they must choose the pizza for economic reasons only. If this leads to health problems, then so be it, there was no choice to be made. Social Justice would argue that economic status cannot always be determined by an individual. Based on the earnings of the parents, some people may have to start working at an early age to help their parents afford basic necessities, therefore they may neglect school, and may not be able to attend college. This can be traced back several generations. In 1865 to 1867 when slavery was abolished, former slaves were not given much, if anything, to live on, so they had to work and were only able to afford basic necessities, therefore, their children had to work and were also poor, and so on and so forth. So, according to Social Justice, why should people now have to live with the choices, or forced choices, of their ancestors?

I will be able to use this knowledge of Market Justice vs. Social Justice in my future career as a Registered Dietitian from an economic standpoint. If a client is unable to afford healthier foods, I should be able to make suggestions of foods that are commonly carried at a food bank, and point them in that direction so that they are able to make healthier choices without too much strain on their income. In nutrition it is very easy to get in the mindset of “you have chosen to eat poorly and now you have poor health.” However, it must be recognized that health is a combination of factors, one of which being genetics. So again, why should someone have to live with the choice, or forced choices, or their ancestors? In Market Justice terms, the answer would be that it is the individual’s problem to fix any health issues afflicting them; in Social Justice terms, the individual does not always get the opportunity to fix their health issues, but they should be given one.