Washington, U.S.A. — In an engaging new historical book published by APHA Press, “The Quest for Health Reform: A Satirical History” recounts the chronology of efforts to reform the U.S. Health System through the lens of political cartoons published as early as the 19th century through passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Co-authored by American Public Health Association Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, MD; medical historian Theodore M. Brown, PhD; Susan Ladwig, MPH; and Elyse Berkman, “The Quest for Health Reform” adds narrative to more than 100 years of selected caricatures, extending from famous 1870s editorial cartoonist Thomas Nast — who drew the elephant that remains a symbol for the Republican Party — to modern artists such as Mike Luckovich, who parodies U.S. Presidents Harry S. Truman, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

“I’ve always appreciated how editorial cartoons can tell a story so succinctly, in a way the written word cannot,” Benjamin said. “Health reform in America has repeated a cycle of themes, falsehoods and criticisms. The imagery in this book explains how these beliefs and ideologies evolved over time with sentiments that words struggle to convey.”

The cartoons show the evolution of American health reform ideologies, specifically concentrating on leading political figures and institutions. Recognized events throughout U.S. History are chronicled throughout the book, including the American Medical Association’s critique of “state medicine” in the 1920s and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act in 2012.

Notable editorial cartoonist Clay Bennett of the Chattanooga Times Free Press provided a foreword for the book and is one of five Pulitzer Prize winners whose works are featured, including Nick Anderson, Luckovich, Joel Pett and Matt Wuerker.

“You see, unlike most journalists, we cartoonists aren’t held to the same standards of objectivity and impartiality. One part reporter and one part advocate, an editorial cartoonist isn’t merely an observer of the public debate, but an active participant in it, as well,” Bennett wrote in the foreword.

In the book’s preface, Benjamin described his inspiration for the book as a moment he sat in the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute in New York City — where former President Franklin D. Roosevelt began conceiving the Social Security Act of 1935. At the time, Benjamin was serving as the Joan H. Tisch Distinguished Fellow in Public Health at Hunter College.

“The Affordable Care Act was in its earliest stages of implementation and I was concerned that people did not seem to understand what the benefits were, but, most importantly, I was often surprised to hear people refer to health reform as though it was a new idea. I thought we needed a new way to tell the story,” Benjamin said.

For book ordering information, visit http://www.aphabookstore.org/.

The article The Quest for Health Reform: A Satirical History appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Denver, U.S.A. — “Mitt Romney is the architect of Obamacare,” said Jefferson George, president of the conservative tax-exempt group American Right To Life Action. “Romney has already implemented what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton only dream of: homosexual marriage, tax-funded abortion on demand by health care reform with the individual mandate, robbing religious freedom from pro-life hospitals. The list is long. If anyone believed the ‘lesser of two evils’ con, they’d have to vote for Obama.”

“Strategists say that independents decide elections,” said Darrell Birkey, the ARTL research director overseeing the new RepublicansAgainstRomney.com website. “So the only way for pro-lifers to get candidates who won’t kill unborn children is to become independent enough to oppose liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual politicians like Mitt Romney.”

Agreeing with ARTL is the longtime vice president of the nation’s first “right to life” group, Colorado Right To Life. “The Republicans Against Romney site documents that the excuses the campaign makes for Mitt’s anti-child, anti-free-market, anti-family actions are nothing but lies,” said Leslie Hanks. “Sadly, conservative talk show hosts lap it up and repeat the lies. This website even offers a$100 reward for corrections to errors of fact.”

According to the site, Romneycare is fundamentally a liberal, socialist program with its individual mandate that saps the federal treasury. Romney’s top consultants aided the development of Obamacare and put Planned Parenthood on the “health” committee that, from day one, offered $50 tax-subsidized abortion on demand. And still today Romney plans to nominate justices “like John Roberts,” who upheld Obamacare.

RepublicansAgainstRomney.com documents that Mitt Romney claimed to be pro-choice in 1994, pro-life in 2001, pro-choice in 2002, pro-life in 2004, pro-choice in 2005, pro-life in 2006 and then funded abortion in 2006. In 2012, he’s back to supporting abortion for “health reasons,” the loophole opened by the Supreme Court’s Doe v. Bolton opinion that allows all abortions, as in Colorado for example, throughout all nine months.

“And ironically,” adds Birkey, “the ’legitimate’ rape issue is Romney policy, not a Todd Akin policy. The congressman advocates protecting every child, but it’s Romney’s rape exception that requires determining whether or not there was a rape.”

Image Courtesy of   Gage Skidmore

The article American RTL Launches RepublicansAgainstRomney.com appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Minnesota, U.S.A. — Despite all the recent controversy surrounding U.S. Supreme Court decisions on health care, immigration and other issues, nearly two-thirds of Americans can’t name even a single member of the Supreme Court. That’s according to a new national survey by FindLaw.com (www.findlaw.com), the most popular legal information Web site. The survey found that only 34 percent of Americans can name any member of the nation’s highest court.

Chief Justice John Roberts is the most well known of the justices, but could be named by only one in five Americans. Only one percent of Americans can correctly name all nine sitting Justices.

According to the FindLaw survey, the percentage of Americans who can name any U.S. Supreme Court justice are:

• John Roberts – 20%
• Antonin Scalia – 16%
• Clarence Thomas – 16%
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg – 13%
• Sonia Sotomayor – 13%
• Anthony Kennedy – 10%
• Samuel Alito – 5%
• Elena Kagan – 4%
• Stephen Breyer – 3%

“Recent rulings, particularly the decision upholding health care reform, have brought more attention to the U.S. Supreme Court than we’ve seen in past years,” said Stephanie Rahlfs, an attorney and editor at FindLaw.com.

“However, the High Court issues its rulings as a collective body. While justices can and do issue individual concurring and dissenting opinions, court sessions are conducted without TV cameras and deliberations take place behind closed doors. So while the decisions often have significant and lasting impact, the justices themselves are generally not very visible nor well known to the public as individuals.”

The FindLaw.com survey was conducted using a demographically balanced telephone survey of 1,000 American adults and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus three percent.

The article 2/3 of Americans Can’t Name Any U.S. Supreme Court Justices appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A. — August 1 marks an important milestone for the Affordable Care Act and, more importantly, for women across the U.S. New insurance plans will be required to cover eight critical women’s preventive health services with no co-pay. Specifically, the no-co-pay benefits include:

• Screening for gestational diabetes
• Breastfeeding supplies and counseling
• Intimate partner violence screening and counseling
• Sexually transmitted infection counseling
• Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older
• HIV screening and counseling
• Well-woman visits
• FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling

“For many women, costly co-pays stand in the way of essential health care services and contraception,” said Ms. Foundation for Women President and CEO Anika Rahman. “Removing that barrier not only ensures better health outcomes, but also reduces the economic hardship on women and families.”

About the Ms. Foundation for Women
The Ms. Foundation for Women is the leading national social justice foundation committed to building women’s power to ignite change. Every day, it helps over 150 grassroots organizations across the US fight for changes like good paying jobs, reproductive health, ending violence against women and girls, and the inclusion of women at decision-making tables.

By investing in social justice trailblazers—especially women from low-income communities and communities of color most affected by injustice—it works for a nation in which power and possibility are not limited by gender, race, class, or any other factor. The Ms. Foundation delivers funding, builds skills, develops leaders, connects activists with allies, and amplifies the voices of our grantees to create change that benefits women, families and communities. ms.foundation.org

Image Courtesy of   LaDawna’s pics

The article Affordable Care Act: A Milestone for U.S. Women appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. – Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, released this statement on July 17:

“Last Friday, Judge Richard Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered President Barack Obama to reveal under oath the specifics of his secret meetings with health care lobbyists such as PHARMA, Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that lead up to the passage of “Obamacare,” or else submit to discovery depositions and document production in that my group filed a few years ago.

The judge’s order is courageous, particularly since he was appointed to the federal bench by Democrat President Bill Clinton, showing that some integrity still remains on the federal bench despite the politics of Obamacare and our comprised and partisan judicial system in general.

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare and Congress is considering repealing or amending it, Judge Roberts’ decision is crucial for the American people to know what went on behind closed doors, including any lobbyist commitments to pay campaign contributions to the Obama reelection campaign, in order to fully understand and remedy Obamacare, which many feel will seriously harm the economy if put into effect as is during these times of deep economic crisis.”

Obamacare, which is actually called the Affordable Care Act, was passed by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. It was ruled constitutional not under the Commerce Clause but the taxing powers of Congress. Justice John Roberts, who tends to lean more conservative, seemed to jump to the opposing side in this decision, giving the liberals the majority that they needed to allow the law to pass.

For a copy of Judge Roberts’ decision, go to www.freedomwatchusa.org or Pacer with regard to the case styled Freedom Watch v. Obama et. al, Civil Action No. 09-2398 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia).

Image Courtesy of   michael rubin / Shutterstock.com

The article Obamacare Still in Court in Washington, DC appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Chicago and Springfield, U.S.A. — The Republican led U.S. House of Representatives wasted taxpayer dollars playing a partisan game on Wednesday, when they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

It represented the 33rd time Congress has attempted to repeal the Act, even though the measure is destined for certain defeat in the U.S. Senate. Keith Kelleher, President of SEIU Healthcare Illinois and Indiana, uniting 91,000 health care and child care workers, issued the following statement in response:

At a time when Congress should put its full attention on the country’s economic recovery, the U.S. House Republicans squandered a day at the office Wednesday when they voted for a politically motivated and legislatively futile repeal of President Obama’s landmark health care reform.

While average Americans need Congress to focus intensely on policies that will create jobs, make college education more affordable, reduce the federal deficit and generally improve our economic fortunes, the House Republicans chose to spend the day on a blatant political stunt. The attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act is considered dead on arrival in the Senate, so Wednesday’s vote was an exercise in empty symbolism, wasting time, energy and public dollars that should have been marshaled to accelerate our economic revitalization.

In response to today’s vote we will be informing our union members of all of Illinois’ Congressional members who voted to deny Illinois citizens quality, affordable health care. In the wake of last month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, the time has come for opponents of the bill to dispense with partisan gamesmanship and move on to the business at hand: putting more Americans to work.

Congress should let the Affordable Care Act continue to work for the people of Illinois.

According to the Campaign for Better Health Care, the law has already generated the following rewards in Illinois:

• More than 3.6 million residents became entitled to preventative medical services, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, without having to pay deductibles or co-pays.
• More than 100,000 uninsured young adults under the age of 26 became eligible for coverage under the parents’ health insurance.
• More than 150,000 seniors with Medicare received a $250 rebate to cover the cost of their prescription drugs once they hit the so-called donut hole.

For all of these reasons, members of Congress who voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act must explain to Illinois voters why they chose to deny health security to their constituents and why they oppose providing quality and affordable health care for all Americans.

Image Courtesy of  Jose Gil / Shutterstock.com

The article Health Workers Criticize House Republicans For Repeal Vote appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In Part One of Toonari’s Affordable Care Act series, we gave an overview of the law’s structure. In Part Two, we will begin to review the benefits as stated in the law, and their possible implications. The provisions we will review first are two that will be at the forefront of the President’s campaign stump speeches. These are benefits related to children and preexisting conditions.
Children Can Stay On

Before the 2008 recession, this is a benefit that would not have been a big deal for most parents. In the wake of the recession and Millennials moving back home in droves, it has become a more frequent problem. Before the ACA, children could remain on their parent’s health insurance plans until some time between age 21 and 24; it varied from state to state.

Now under the ACA, children can remain on their parents plan until age 26. This is something that many parents like, and sounds good on the campaign trail. For parents with kids with serious, ongoing chronic illnesses this also relieves, in theory, some of the stress of approaching health care costs. This is a catch gap designed to be a bridge between now, and when the preexisting condition benefits kick-in, in 2014.

Implications

The consequences of this change are minute. It is true that some people have a philosophical problem with what could be seen as further coddling of young adults, the reality is the difference between 24 and 26 is small. Keeping kids on the parent’s plans for a couple of extra years does increase the risk of higher and more medical payouts for the insurance companies, but most people at age 26 do not go to the doctor that often. In addition, the parents still have to pay the extra premium they were paying for their kids remaining on their plan for a few more years.

That is added income to the insurance company. Basically this is a wash. The one caveat to this is that one of the benefits mandated by the ACA (more in this later in the series) is the coverage of birth control costs with no co-pay. Young adults are typically more sexually active so there will be an increase in costs to the insurance company for that benefit, which will force an increase in premiums from the insurance company.

Premium increases are a subject we will return to again and again in this series about the ACA law. It is important to remember; health insurance companies do not have the power to tax the public. They pay their claims out of the earnings they make. When their expenses go up, they must charge more. This is not a matter of evil intentions. It is basic business 101. You must charge enough to cover your expenses. If expenses go up, then so must your prices.

Pre-existing Conditions

This is the big one. The issue that pulls the most heart strings, and the one that most people agree upon. Starting in 2014 there will be no preexisting conditions limitations for anyone. Before the law, if you had a preexisting condition and were not on an employee health care plan, you would be denied coverage. The reason for this is simple. If you have diabetes, then you are a guaranteed expense for the insurance company.

Insurance is all about minimizing risk to cover as many people as possible, for as little as possible. That basic tenant of insurance planning is now off the table. Cancer, AIDS, asthma, congenital conditions, previous surgeries; it is unimportant what the condition is, you can now get coverage.

Implications

The possible and real implications for this are huge. On the consumer side, you do not have to worry about being denied coverage. The days of worrying about choosing bankruptcy over health care are now ostensibly over. On the insurance side, the costs will skyrocket. It is easy for many to say, “Life before profits, or money” but that is because they are not the ones writing the check to cover the costs. One of the main selling points politically was that the ACA would reduce costs of health insurance and health care expenses.

This is one component of the law that makes that claim hard to reach. Millions of people who are very sick will now have coverage. This is a good thing. However, this will prove to be a bad thing fiscally. As the law settles in (assuming an Obama victory in November), costs for premiums and actual care will move up under the law. At some point cost containment measures will have to be looked at, which could mean rationing of care.

The other implication is that many Americans will opt not to buy insurance and just pay the penalty, because it is less money then annual premiums for the insurance. If they do get sick, or need an expensive surgery, they can just sign up for the coverage after they find out what they need. The scenario painted by conservatives is the picture of a person signing up for the plan in an ambulance on the patient’s way to a hospital.

The image is extreme, but it is also true. A person can do that. The law has no provisions in it to keep people from waiting till they know they need to sign up, and then dropping coverage once the medical situation is treated.

This will also have an effect of increasing costs, but also limiting the funds necessary to run the plan, as those missing premiums will affect the balance sheets of the insurance companies and cause higher premiums.

In our next installment, we will review the health care cost limitations, and preventative care provisions.

The article Part Two: Affordable Care Act Series appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A. – As the Supreme Court readies for its ruling on the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes referred to as “Obamacare,” Americans have different opinions on components of the law, depending on the type of health insurance they currently have. Specifically, over half of U.S. adults who have purchased health insurance individually (54%) think employers should not be required to provide employee health insurance compared to only 28% of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance who think this. Additionally, over half of those with individual health insurance (55%) think the government should play a role in assuring access to health insurance, compared to almost two-thirds of Americans with employer-sponsored coverage (64%).

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,208 U.S. adults (ages 18 and over) surveyed online between June 12 and 14, 2012 by Harris Interactive.

Two thirds of Americans (66%) agree that having health insurance should be a personal choice, so there may be some general disapproval of the ACA’s individual mandate. However, Americans do agree with some of the ACA’s other provisions. For example, over four in five U.S. adults agree that neither children nor adults should be denied health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition (83%) and nearly three-quarters of Americans agree that tax credits should be offered to individuals if they purchase their own health insurance (74%).

However, when looking at the data by the type of insurance respondents currently have, some distinct differences can be seen. Interestingly, among those that have individual coverage, almost half (46%) agree that all people do not need to be covered by health insurance, compared to 30% among those with employer-sponsored coverage and 36% among those that have no insurance at all. Those with individual insurance are also slightly less likely to agree (79%) that adults and children with pre-existing coverage should not be denied coverage, compared to those with employer-sponsored plans (86% adults; 85% children) and Medicare (82% adults; 83% children).

When asked to rate how important 11 different aspects of health insurance are, over nine in ten Americans say access to the doctors, hospitals and services they need is important (91%) while nine in ten say coverage for prescriptions (90%) and availability of insurance if they have a pre-existing condition (90%) are important. Those who have employer sponsored health insurance are more likely than those with insurance they have purchased themselves to say each of the 11 aspects is important when it comes to health insurance. Some of the larger differences are seen when looking at coverage for prescriptions (95% vs. 76%), coverage for preventative care (93% vs. 74%), and coverage for wellness programs (84% vs. 65%).

Additionally, when asked which two things are most important when it comes to health insurance, one aspect rises to the top – two in five Americans say one of the two most important aspects is access to the doctors, hospitals and services they need (39%). The next three are financial as about one-quarter of U.S. adults say financial protection from major health crises (27%), lower out of pocket costs (26%), and low premiums (24%) are most important.

“The importance of health insurance to the American consumer cannot be understated regardless of the opinion issued by the Supreme Court,” said Debra Richman, Senior Vice President of Healthcare Business Development & Strategy at Harris Interactive. “This is especially true for consumers who individually purchase health insurance plans, a market of growing significance to health insurers. It will be imperative for health insurers to increase their focus on how those in the individual market ‘consume’ health insurance, including what plan features they prefer, and what they will and conversely will not choose to buy. Financial protection from major health crises, access to providers, convenience, and quality will be key factors as individual health consumers make purchasing decisions, despite how the Supreme Court rules on the individual coverage mandate.”

The article Employers Should Not Provide Healthcare, Americans Say appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Seattle, U.S.A. — The Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA) expressed strong approval for the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold all major provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). With many reforms already having a positive impact in Washington, WSNA has pledged to continue work already under way to increase access to quality, affordable, appropriate care.

As front line health care providers, registered nurses are acutely aware of the consequences when people do not have access or cannot afford quality health care. Our health care system has been plagued by rising health care costs, increasing numbers of uninsured and under insured individuals, and growing disparities in health care access. With the passage of health care reform came the promise that we would fix our broken health care system, lower costs, and improve health outcomes.

“It is incredibly encouraging to know that the Supreme Court stands behind health care reform and has agreed that we must move forward with this transformational process. Nurses supported health care reform because we knew that our patients and our communities could no longer thrive under a broken health care system. As more and more pieces are implemented, I hope I will no longer have the heartbreak of seeing patients forced to make decisions about their treatment based on cost rather than what’s best for their recovery. We all know there is still much work to do, but this is truly a moment to celebrate,” said Julia Weinberg, RN, President of the Washington State Nurses Association.

There are currently over one million people in Washington without health insurance who will benefit from programs already in development. A state health-insurance exchange will allow many of these individuals to purchase affordable insurance and the ACA also includes provisions to expand Medicaid. WSNA is committed to ensuring that the exchange and Medicaid expansion move forward so that Washington can continue to increase access to health care.

“Nurses are already seeing the positive effects such as increased coverage for young adults and better access to preventive care. Increasing access to coverage will only continue to provide more benefits and better outcomes to individuals and our state as a whole. As we increase coverage and access, we are also increasing demand on our health care system and it is critical that we have an adequate supply of qualified registered nurses moving forward. Now is the time for nurses to be involved in planning for the future of our health care system and the future of our profession,” said Judy Huntington, MN, RN, Executive Director of the Washington State Nurses Association.

WSNA, along with the American Nurses Association, has consistently supported and advocated for a system that guarantees every single person in this country has access to quality care in a timely fashion by the most appropriate health care provider at an affordable cost. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, WSNA has worked with local, state and national partners to represent the nursing profession and ensure that nurses’ voices are included in planning and implementation of reform.

The article Nurses Association Welcomes Health Care Reform Decision appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Around 10:15 AM today the Supreme Court announced that the Obama Affordable Care Act has been completely upheld, including the individual mandate. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of keeping the new law known as “Obamacare.”

Justice Roberts did announce that the individual mandate could not be justified through the Commerce Clause but instead through the Taxing Clause. Roberts stated, “When a court confronts an unconstitutional statue its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy the legislation.”

Roberts claimed that allowing the Commerce Clause to be used to justify the individual mandate would “open a new and vast domain” for Congressional Power. Never before has Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to tell individuals to buy something. What the Supreme Court was worried about under this justification is that there would be no limit to what Congress could tell the American people to buy or not buy.

Justice Roberts also claimed that the required expansion of Medicaid may violate states’ rights. He wrote, “the states are given no choice in this case. They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid or risk losing all Medicaid funding.” This part of the law is the one part that Roberts states the federal government cannot require of states but is still a limited ruling. Roberts says that the justices have not completely removed this part of the law but have stated that they have included a possible solution to this problem in their ruling.

So far the Physicians for National Health Program have already responded to the ruling claiming they disagree with the Supreme Court ruling because 26 million people will still not be insured. They also advocate for a single-payer option.

The GOP has already started the fight to repeal the ruling, writing on Twitter, “The fight for #FullRepeal begins NOW. The way to get rid of #Obamacare is to defeat Obama in November.” The GOP claims that the Supreme Court has set “the stakes for the November election.”

For continuous updates see the CNN News Blog.

Image Courtesy of  spirit of america / Shutterstock.com

The article Obama’s Health Care Law Upheld by Supreme Court appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

A new study conducted in Taiwan reveals that providing the body with a small dose of exercise several days a week can equate to a substantial list of health benefits.

Taiwan’s National Health Research Institutes have discovered that those who exercise an overall average of 92 minutes a week acquired a 14 percent decreased mortality rate in comparison to inactive individuals.  The study, which was published in the Lancet, uncovers that this 14 percent mortality reduction translates into three added years to one’s life.

The significance of exercise is a well understood fact by society’s majority but it’s well known it’s not practiced by all.  Taiwan’s new study gives a new perspective to the typical look at exercise; It has consistently been vocalized that exercise in the arena of 30 minutes 5 days a week is the ideal but it’s a sure thing that Taiwan’s findings will offer people a look into exercise.

The study reads that while an individual may not be able to exercise into the 30 minute realm consistently if they can squeeze 15 minutes of exercise into their day they’ve still undoubtedly benefited there body.  The 30 minute a day mentality can be an overwhelming standard for many- Taiwan’s study, rather than feeding this mentality helps acknowledge the importance of exercise in a newer light.

The study’s researchers questioned 416,175 people who self-assessed how much they exercised.  Those surveyed were asked to note types of exercise they carried out in the previous month which includes walking, jogging and running which were then sorted into levels activity- inactive, low, medium, high or very high activity

The majority of participants were found to be classified as inactive while 22% were low, 14% as medium, and 5% for high and very high activity.

After that study was conducted the researchers carried out a follow up study organized after an approximate 8 years to determine the mortality risk and life expectancy for each grouping.

Their findings uncovered that simply 15 minutes of moderately intense exercise amounted to “significant health benefits” for those who were originally inactive. Ultimately the group of those who exercised had fewer deaths and fewer cancer-related deaths than the inactive category of people.

While many organizers fluent in the health and fitness field do recommend a half hour of exercise five days a week, this study helps cement the fact that even an ounce of exercise is working toward greater bodily health.

“Individuals are more likely to do 15 minutes of daily exercise than they are 30 minutes of daily exercise,” the authors stated.

Nonetheless the study was an observational study which leaves gaps for slight inaccuracy of the findings to arise.  This truth makes it difficult to determine whether the health outcomes of those studied were a result of exercise alone. And with the exercise accounts within the study being self-reported, this makes determining exactly how strong the health benefits of exercise are even further.

Yet it remains undeniable the positive impact any form of exercise can bring to one’s body and quality of life.

The article Study Finds Minimal Time Exercising Reaps Body Benefits appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.