Pak Doktor a.k.a. Mr Doctor!

A new Citibank survey reveals that women are significantly less optimistic than men over the future of the economy. For the first time since July 2010 women’s and men’s views have diverged on where the economy is headed. Citi’s quarterly survey includes an “Economic Pulse” index that ranks male and female optimism regarding the future of the economy, derived by subtracting negative responses from positive responses on 8 questions relating to employment, local economic conditions, personal financial situation (debt, savings) and willingness to buy big-ticket items.

Why So Gloomy, Ladies?

While both men and women were less optimistic in April, the female optimism index dropped a full 10 points to -16, on a scale of +100 (life is great through rose-colored glasses) to -100 (the world will end tomorrow). By comparison, men are not quite as dour; their optimism score fell only 2 points to -8.

“It’s probably the most interesting result that came out of the survey,” according to Jonathan Clements, Director of Financial Education at Citi Personal Wealth Management. He speculates that three factors have contributed to this sudden drop in women’s less than rosy views:

• Cost of gas and food is rising, thus taking a bigger chunk out of a small or nonexistent paycheck.
• Women tend to be the “family CFO” so they are more aware of the squeeze on the household’s already tight budget.
• Women are naturally more risk averse, and recent events (the Middle East crisis, the Tsunami and nuclear issues in Japan, and the Washington budget battles) make the world feel much riskier.

Moreover, Clements points to two subgroups of women who are especially pessimistic: women with only a high school degree and women aged 45-64. “Presumably [high school educated women] are going to be the people who have somewhat lower incomes, and therefore the rise in economic spend on staples like gas and groceries are going to hurt them more.” He reckons that the older women fall into the categories of the family purchasing department and risk-averse women fearing the increasing global risks.

Furthermore, nearly half of all American women in the Citi survey classified themselves as “working class” or “poor” (versus only 38 percent of men).

Optimism Versus Risk Aversion

Are women really more risk averse? A group of researchers in New Zealand and the Netherlands have demonstrated that women are naturally less optimistic than men over economic growth, interest rates, inflation and future stock performance. And this holds true over time and across several countries, regardless of education level or income. As a further twist, the researchers show that optimism and risk aversion are not actually correlated, but women’s natural lower optimism is what really drives their investment decisions and life outlook. As proof, they point to the fact that very optimistic women hold 5 percent more stocks in their portfolios than the most optimistic men.  But, they still haven’t answered the question of why women are more pessimistic than men.

Why Not Be Happy?

Optimism is good for your health, according to several health studies. Optimists have lower blood pressure, less stress and recover from surgery or major illnesses better (and quicker).

Perhaps women aren’t as optimistic as men since the majority seem to still bear the brunt of responsibility for home and family care, and they see and live with the consequences when a child becomes ill. Or perhaps it’s because more than a quarter of the kids in the U.S. live in single parent households, and the odds are more than five to one that it’s a mom who’s heading that family. Or it might have something to do with the fact that women, on average, still earn less than men or maybe because women tend to live longer than men – they know they’ve got to stretch their smaller paychecks over many more years. There’s no magic answer here – it might even be a combination of all these factors and more…

What are your thoughts? Are you optimistic?

An interesting thing happened when House Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of the so-called “Path to Prosperity” budget plan: Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg didn’t. He was one of just four GOP congressmen to vote against Rep. Paul Ryan’s, R-Wis., proposal. Why would the reliably conservative Rehberg oppose Ryan’s plan aimed at deficit reduction? The answer seems to be that changes to Medicare included in the legislation are too politically toxic to support in the run-up to Rehberg’s high-profile challenge of Democratic Sen. Jon Tester in 2012.

In a statement after the vote, Rehberg said there were “too many unanswered questions with regard to Medicare reform” and that they are “being rushed through with little to no public comment.” Regardless, the vote represented an unusual break for Rehberg from conservative members of his party, putting him on the opposite side of his colleagues in the Tea Party Caucus who supported the plan. And at least one of Montana’s larger tea party groups is letting him hear about it.

Eric Olsen, the co-founder of Montana Shrugged in Billings, told the liberal news site Huffington Post that Rehberg is “trying to vote for a political election now, instead of with his heart.”

To be sure, voting for the GOP budget plan, which won’t pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, was largely symbolic. But symbolism can go a long way, except when proposing changes to Medicare. In Ryan’s plan, Medicare under its current form (that is, a government-run health insurance plan) would be phased out in 10 years and replaced with a “premium subsidy” program that would give seniors a fixed amount of money to buy private insurance.

It’s a radical idea, but addressing a $14 trillion-plus deficit calls for a few of those. The problem is people don’t like it, at least those being asked about it by pollsters. A McClatchy-Marist poll found that a whopping 80 percent of registered voters oppose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Seniors, especially, are wary of changes to their Medicare plans. And therein lies the problem for Rehberg.

Seventeen percent of Montanans are enrolled in Medicare, slightly above the national average. The state is the seventh oldest in the nation. And elderly residents vote in disproportionately high numbers.

Tester has his own health care problems. He supported President Barack Obama’s reform law, which has failed to resonate with voters and, by many measures, is even more unpopular than when it passed about a year ago.

A Mason-Dixon poll, commissioned by Lee Newspapers and released in March, found that 57 percent of Montanans want to see the reform law repealed and just 34 percent support it. And among Independents, 64 percent support repeal.

But in a vote to defund the health care overhaul earlier this month, Tester doubled down in his support of a plan – one that even Montana’s Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer has publicly questioned.

While the deficit and state of the economy will almost certainly be the focal points during the debates leading up to the 2012 election, cutting spending is directly tied to each party’s health care proposals.

Democrats have maintained that their health care reform plan will decrease the deficit by up to $1 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office backs up some of their numbers, but Republicans aren’t buying it.

Meanwhile, Republicans say their overall budget plan would save more than $6 trillion over the next 10 years and reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion. Critics challenge many of those claims. Nonetheless, a lot those savings would come from changes to Medicare and Medicaid, with a CBO analysis saying the plan would eventually increase health care costs for the poor and elderly.

As Tester and Rehberg hit the campaign trail, they will be questioned on why they, or their parties, want to overhaul a health care system in a way that the majority of Americans oppose. And their respective explanations may be a deciding factor in what is expected to be an exceptionally tight race.

Video: A Crash Course In Beating The Cubicle Trap

This graphic requires version 9 or higher of the Adobe Flash Player.Get the latest Flash Player.

A crash course in beating the cubical trap. Breaking up a day of inactivity with movement, even if just for a few minutes, can make a difference.

Credit: Jonathan Makiri, Maggie Starbard, Music by: Die Drei Lenore

On this week’s podcast we’re getting physical, with lots of stories about the dangers of a sedentary life. Whether you are suffering from knee pain like our colleague Richard Knox, or just feel weary after a day sitting at your desk, the solution might be to get moving.

We’ll hear a story of some folks who have taken this advice to heart; they’ve installed “treadmill desks” at work.

Plus, we’ll discuss child nutrition. Schools in L.A. are getting rid of flavored milk, thanks to the efforts of celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, and soon, many schools might find it easier to get produce from their neighbors to put into their school lunches. Meanwhile, the Obama administration wants to curb marketing of sugary foods to children — but the response by some to the guidelines hasn’t been all that sweet.

You can find the podcast at the bottom of the page under the podcast heading. To subscribe to the Your Health podcast, click here.

By Rylee DeGood

Wyoming is looking at some possible flooding in the next couple months when that snow from the winter starts to melt. The Wyoming Department of Health is wanting to make sure residents and volunteers are aware of the possibility of flood related health concerns.

Dr. Tracy Murphy, the acting state health officer and state epidemiologist offers this advice: (Wyoming Department of Health Press Release)

Safe Drinking Water

Residents who receive water from a city or other public water supply source should watch and listen for public announcements about water safety and follow the specific advice offered.

Flooded private water wells can sometimes make the water drawn from that well unsafe. People who receive water from a flooded private well should not drink the water or use it to wash dishes, brush teeth, wash and prepare food, make ice, make baby formula or otherwise use for human consumption without taking precautions.

Safe water includes bottled water or water boiled for at least 3 minutes. Flooded, private water wells need to be tested and disinfected after flood waters recede.

Flood Waters

Although skin contact with flood water usually does not, by itself, pose a serious health risk, there is some risk of disease from eating or drinking anything contaminated with flood water. Do not eat food that may have come into contact with flood water.

Wash hands with soap and water that has not been contaminated, or has been boiled or otherwise disinfected or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer before preparing or eating food, after toilet use, after participating in flood cleanup activities, and after handling articles contaminated with flood water or sewage.

Keep open cuts or sores exposed to flood water clean by washing well with soap and safe water. If a wound develops redness, swelling or drainage, see a medical professional.

Tetanus

Tetanus bacteria enter the body through cuts or wounds and can cause serious disease. Workers, volunteers and residents involved in flood operations or clean-up efforts may be at increased risk for injury and should consider whether they are up-to-date on their tetanus immunizations. Routine boosters are recommended for adults every 10 years; possibly sooner for injured persons.

Children

Parents should help children avoid waterborne illness. Do not allow children to play in flood water areas, wash children’s hands frequently (always before meals), and do not allow children to play with flood-water contaminated toys that have not been disinfected. Disinfect toys using a solution of 1 cup of bleach in 5 gallons of water.

Illness

People who become ill after drinking contaminated water or contact with flood water should consult a medical professional. Symptoms of illness from drinking unsafe water include upset stomach, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, cramps and headaches. Children (especially infants), the elderly and those with existing health conditions or severely compromised immune systems are at greater risk of severe illness.

By
Jason Meyers, Meteorologist

April 29, 2011

Updated Apr 29, 2011 at 12:47 PM EDT

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (Indiana’s NewsCenter) – Days are getting warmer. Most people want to get outside and start walking, running, and being active to shed some of those winter pounds or just to get in better shape. This is good for you, but if you try too much too quickly, your plan can backfire. Watch the story for more.

For more information on anything in the story, go to Parkview Hospital, for more information.

• 
  Digital Daily – subscribe to our daily newsletter
  

---

What are your thoughts CLICK HERE to leave us a “Your2Cents” comment.

Want to be in the know for the next weather event, the next school closing or the next big breaking news story?

TextCaster alerts from Indiana’s NewsCenter are your defining source for instant information delivered right to your cell phone and email. It’s free, easy and instant. Sign-Up Now!

© Copyright 2011 A Granite Broadcasting Station. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

• Previous article
  Watch Will And Kate Say “I Do”
  

• Next article
  South Side H.S. Dance Program May Be Cut
  

To submit a comment on this article, your email address is required. We respect your privacy and your email will not be visible to others nor will it be added to any email lists.