Latest headlines

Loading...

Learn about Erectile Dysfunction and Sildenafil Citrate Online

Have you ever wondered how sildenafil acts within your body to help you solve your problems with erectile dysfunction?  Thanks to the instant availability of the Internet and computer devices, you will now be able to learn about ED and sildenafil citrate online right at your fingertips.

If you are curious as to how PDE5 inhibitors such as sildenafil work inside your body, then you can browse on search engines by simply typing in the search box the words sildenafil citrate online.  When you read about the mechanics of the action of sildenafil citrate online, you will learn that it helps protect the enzyme cGMP (short for cyclic guanosine monophosphate) from being degraded by the cGMP-specific PDE5 (short for phosphodiesterase type 5 enzyme) which are evidently located in the penile corpus cavernosum of men.  The free radical NO (short for nitric oxide) found in the penile corpus cavernosum adheres itself to what are called the guanylate cyclase receptors, which then results to the occurrence of elevated amounts of cGMP, thereby leading to the vasodilation or relaxation of the smooth muscles of the inner lining cushions of the helicine arteries (tendril-like arteries of the penis importantly involved in the process of its erection).  Once the smooth muscles relax, it will result to vasodilation and therefore there will be an increased supply of blood flowing into the penile spongy tissue, and the end result would be a successful penile erection.

Additionally, what you would also learn about sildenafil citrate online is that its special molecular makeup is somewhat similar to cGMP (located in the penile corpus cavernosum as well) and functions as an aggressive binding element of PDE5 in the penile corpus cavernosum, which results to more concentrations of cGMP and even better occurrences of erections. Avery important information that men will learn through reading about sildenafil citrate online is that sildenafil will be rendered useless without the introduction of one or more sexual stimuli, since only a sexual stimulus will be the only factor that can initiate the activation of the nitric oxide and cGMP inside a man’s body. Read more…

The death of convergence theory

Canadians and Americans aren’t so different: Tim Hortons and Dunkin’ Donuts, poutine and disco fries, professional hockey and professional wrestling -- there’s some truth behind that “51st state” joke. But despite our similarities, there’s a glaring difference between us that we can’t seem to reconcile: health insurance.

This year, in which a Canadian federal election preceded the American one by just three weeks, serves as a case in point.

Throughout the Canadian campaign, the mere mention of expanding the role of private insurance set off public apoplexy. During the American campaign, a Canadian-style single-payer system has been deemed equally ludicrous as its converse in Canada, the thinking apparently being that letting the government run the health insurance plan is tantamount to asking a five-year-old to change your car’s oil: it’s sure to be messy, expensive, frustrating, and somebody’s likely to get hurt.

Both the American and Canadian interpretations of health insurance reform can’t be correct. Where’s the truth in all of this?

It has been suggested for years that in reality neither of us is right, that some sort of ideal compromise existed. Eventually the United States and Canada would, after experimentation and study revealed an enlightened pathway, reach an effective, sensible equilibrium between private and public health insurance -- or so the theory went. This notion is known in comparative health policy studies as “convergence theory” and was especially popular in the early ’90s, when the Democrats were ascendant and Hillary Clinton was hard at work on drafting legislation to create a national health plan for the U.S.

We all remember what happened: the plan was destroyed by a combination of its own complexity, dissent within the Democratic Party, private-industry lobbying, and Republican scaremongering. The last fifteen years saw Canadian and American health policy remain as far apart as ever.

But, lo and behold, convergence theory was back again this year as the Democratic primaries saw the return of talk about universal healthcare and insurance mandates from Clinton and John Edwards. For a time it looked as though Canada was back in vogue in Washington. But University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Jon Oberlander, the author of the 2003 book The Political Life of Medicare, recently warned me about the turn of events, “There might be more of a convergence in rhetoric than in reality.” Right he was. Barack Obama won the nomination and the party once again adopted a relatively centrist platform in the general election.

Canada’s single-payer approach is far from perfect, of course. Wait times are dangerously long in some cases, remuneration for physicians is lower than in the U.S., and medical technology lags behind. But for all its shortcomings, the overall cost of delivering healthcare is half in Canada what it is in the U.S. while health outcomes and mortality rates are essentially equivalent, and the discrepancy in healthcare quality between rich and poor is vastly reduced in the Canadian model.

Nevertheless, the prospect of following the Canadian example has lost what little currency the idea once had in the United States; a Canadian-style schema is as anathema to mainstream politics as ever. McCain’s plan would move the U.S. even further still away from Canada. And keeping in mind Obama’s modest tax plan has been blasted as Communist, just imagine what a call for universal healthcare would do to him; his campaign realized early on it was political suicide to propose anything like what exists north of the border.

“There are still a lot of people in the U.S. for whom ‘socialized medicine’ is still a dirty word,” Oberlander told me. “That’s why when John McCain calls Barack Obama’s plan ‘socialized medicine’ the campaign wants to shoot that down immediately. Those are fighting words here.”

Regardless of who wins on Tuesday, over at least the next four years Canadian healthcare will remain as foreign to Americans as ketchup chips or Bob and Doug McKenzie. Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, Canadian forays into private health insurance have been few and far between, and severely limited in scope by existing laws.

In practice, convergence theory looks to have been a failure.


This essay was first published yesterday at KevinMD.

Get Canadian Medicine news by email or in an RSS reader

2 comments:

  1. sharon3 November, 2008 2:19 PM

    Health Insurance:

    " piggy-back" it into mandatory policy ( home/auto) which has an early start with a long lifespan .

    Comparable sanctions in cost of policy will eliminate the dross.

    Delete
  2. sharon3 November, 2008 11:13 PM

    Insurance ( cont'd)

    Remember:

    if the insurance program " pays out " ....to the client..... upon receipt of "payment made" evidence
    ..... focussing on reimbursement...

    the following will happen:

    1.value-added
    i.e. you will have a tracking system in place that demonstrates the provider followed an appropriate costed careplan ( patient led)

    2. obstacle
    i.e.you will have patient obligation to "pay" before reimbursed

    3. incentive
    i.e. you will have "reduced use" because of the reimbursement methodology

    4. automatic creation of alternatives
    i.e.
    4.1 you will reinvent the " credit" economy who will create a "sliding rate scale"

    4.2 you enable the patient to be his own banker

    4.3 you restore purchasing power

    7. you honor competition law

    4.4 you will make those on guaranteed incomes ( pensioners) safe from harm as they become " preferred patients"

    Delete

Newer Post Older Post Home