Man leaps into river to escape wife’s nagging
A man jumped into a fast-flowing river because he couldn't take his wife's nagging anymore.
The Chinese truck driver, known as Zhou, and his wife were on a ferry on the Yangtze River when it all became too much for him, the Chongqing Evening Post reports.
Members of the ship's crew saw the man suddenly run out of his cabin with his hands covering his ears, and shouting: "I can't stand it any longer."
They initially thought he was suffering from an ear injury and went to help him but found he was unhurt.
"While we were still puzzling over the this, his wife ran up and continued nagging him," said a crewmate.
"The husband covered his ears again and said: 'I need a break' before jumping over the side into the rushing river.
"We immediately found lamps to light up the water but found nobody. The possibility of survival can be zero."
However, later that night, police found the man who had managed to swim about 2km across across the broad river.
"I felt I was dying, but even that's better than my wife's nagging," he reportedly told the police.
The couple were reunited the following morning at the local police station where Zhou's wife promised to give up her habit of nagging him.
Koba's Note: Haha! How sad is that? He'd rather risk dying than deal with his wife, has this man never heard of divorce? Or arsenic? 
Swine Flu vs. Bird Flu vs. Zombie Flu
Koba's Note: *readies the shotguns and baseball bats*
IHN – Episode 25
I Have Nothing Episode 25
This week we have Ru486, Suave(Major), Yugosaki, BigBrother, Stephan, BSV, Fox, Cherri, Nox, Loreandlaw, and Haevy Metall.
Disclaimer - Yugosaki
Glenn Beck comes to our show!
Ending song - Baalzebubg by Patient Zero
Poll: 80% Want Public Health Option
DENVER, Aug. 26 (UPI) -- While eight of 10 Americans say they favor a public health insurance option, fewer than four in 10 can define what that option is, an AARP survey indicates.
The poll, conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates for AARP, was presented Tuesday in Denver, the Denver Business Journal reported Wednesday.
While results suggest strong agreement among respondents that healthcare delivery and payment must change, it also indicated less agreement on whether the matter required higher taxes or insurance premiums, said Charlie Cook, a political analyst in Washington.
Under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform proposal, a public option would be offered as one choice in a cafeteria-style menu of health insurance packages available to consumers. Some opponents of the public option say it would lead to government-run healthcare.
Congress is deep in partisan and philosophical debate over the shape of healthcare reform, with criticism of Obama's plan that includes a public insurance option coming from both Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Poll results indicated nearly 65 percent of those surveyed said they oppose increasing taxes to pay for covering the more than 46 million uninsured Americans, the business journal said. However, a majority polled said they believed all people should be covered and 73 percent said they are unwilling to see private health insurance premiums rise to cover those costs.
The nationwide poll surveyed 1,000 adults identifying themselves Democrats, Republicans or independents this month.
Koba's Note: I've never seen a poll on this issue below 70%. Your move Slothen. 
5 Myths About Health Care Around the World
1. It's all socialized medicine out there.
Not so. Some countries, such as Britain, New Zealand and Cuba, do provide health care in government hospitals, with the government paying the bills. Others -- for instance, Canada and Taiwan -- rely on private-sector providers, paid for by government-run insurance. But many wealthy countries -- including Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and Switzerland -- provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans.
In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.
2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines.
Generally, no. Germans can sign up for any of the nation's 200 private health insurance plans -- a broader choice than any American has. If a German doesn't like her insurance company, she can switch to another, with no increase in premium. The Swiss, too, can choose any insurance plan in the country.
In France and Japan, you don't get a choice of insurance provider; you have to use the one designated for your company or your industry. But patients can go to any doctor, any hospital, any traditional healer. There are no U.S.-style limits such as "in-network" lists of doctors or "pre-authorization" for surgery. You pick any doctor, you get treatment -- and insurance has to pay.
Canadians have their choice of providers. In Austria and Germany, if a doctor diagnoses a person as "stressed," medical insurance pays for weekends at a health spa.
As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations -- Germany, Britain, Austria -- outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries.
In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother to make an appointment. One Thursday morning in Tokyo, I called the prestigious orthopedic clinic at Keio University Hospital to schedule a consultation about my aching shoulder. "Why don't you just drop by?" the receptionist said. That same afternoon, I was in the surgeon's office. Dr. Nakamichi recommended an operation. "When could we do it?" I asked. The doctor checked his computer and said, "Tomorrow would be pretty difficult. Perhaps some day next week?"
3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.
Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.
U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.
The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.
4. Cost controls stifle innovation.
False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.
Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)
5. Health insurance has to be cruel.
Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.
Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums. The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or hospital (or health spa), usually within tight time limits. The big Swiss insurer Groupe Mutuel promises to pay all claims within five days. "Our customers love it," the group's chief executive told me. The corollary is that everyone is mandated to buy insurance, to give the plans an adequate pool of rate-payers.
The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.
In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die.
This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.
Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.
Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care administration from the other industrialized democracies.
Koba's Note: Hmm, quite fascinating... And here's the source for Slothen, before he asks...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778_pf.html
Topless Women March in Central Park for Right to Bare Breasts
Some were shocked. Others disgusted. But for some, it was the breast day ever!
Dozens of semi-nude women gave the city a Double-D eyeful Sunday when they bared their boobs in Central Park and then marched through the streets.
The daring display was part of "National Go-Topless Day" - indeed, there is such a thing - and stunned jaded New Yorkers and wide-eyed tourists alike.
"This is unbelievable - and super," said Dalvin Jan, 21, who rents bicycles for a living on Central Park South. "I'm going to tell my wife to join in."
With Chaka Khan's "I'm Every Woman" blaring from speakers and chants of "free your breasts, free your mind," the troupe of bare-breasted women - and their enthusiastic male supporters - paraded their way along Central Park South.
"We're all here for the same reason - to allow women to be free in the park like men," organizer Sylvie Chabot, 54, of Montreal, told the crowd at a midday rally at Columbus Circle.
Motorists honked their horns in support while bemused tourists took photos from passing tour buses.
"I'm pretty surprised," said Carolyn Meierjurgen, 49, of New Jersey, who was taking a horse carriage ride in the park. "If they want to do it, let them do it. I couldn't," she admitted.
Several unhappy onlookers complained to cops who were powerless to intervene.
New York is the only state in the country where women can be topless legally, after a 1992 ruling in the state's highest court. That means any woman can walk around the city at any time with no shirt on.
Among the speakers was Ramona Santorelli, of upstate Rochester, who was the plaintiff in the 1992 case.
"It's not about baring your breasts," she said. "But the true meaning is to normalize women's bodies."
Yesterday's protesters noted that is not always the case.
Artist Jill Coccaro, who goes by the name Phoenix Feeley, tested the New York law in 2005 after cops arrested her for exposing her breasts on Delancey St. She cited the 1992 ruling when cops grabbed her, but was held for 12 hours. She sued. The city later settled for $29,000.
Topless events took place across the country, from Los Angeles to Columbus, Ohio.
Organizers gathered signatures for a petition asking Congress to relax nudity laws, which they plan to hand over on Go-Topless Day next year.
Most passersby were amused by the sight of scores of half-naked people.
"It's nice for them," said unfazed Swedish tourist Birgitta Asplin, 58. "It's the human body - nothing more!"
But others said it was all a very bad idea.
"This is extreme liberalism and why America's in decline," shouted one woman, who said she was a doctor but declined to give her name. "It's degrading to women to tell them to expose their breasts publicly."
"I'm not shocked - we're in New York City," said Lindsay Hall, 28, of Maryland. "But speaking from a woman's perspective, I disagree with them. There's something to be said for modesty," she added.
Placebos Getting More Effective, Drugmakers Desperate to Know Why
Merck was in trouble. In 2002, the pharmaceutical giant was falling behind its rivals in sales. Even worse, patents on five blockbuster drugs were about to expire, which would allow cheaper generics to flood the market. The company hadn't introduced a truly new product in three years, and its stock price was plummeting.
In interviews with the press, Edward Scolnick, Merck's research director, laid out his battle plan to restore the firm to preeminence. Key to his strategy was expanding the company's reach into the antidepressant market, where Merck had lagged while competitors like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline created some of the best-selling drugs in the world. "To remain dominant in the future," he told Forbes, "we need to dominate the central nervous system."
His plan hinged on the success of an experimental antidepressant codenamed MK-869. Still in clinical trials, it looked like every pharma executive's dream: a new kind of medication that exploited brain chemistry in innovative ways to promote feelings of well-being. The drug tested brilliantly early on, with minimal side effects, and Merck touted its game-changing potential at a meeting of 300 securities analysts.
Behind the scenes, however, MK-869 was starting to unravel. True, many test subjects treated with the medication felt their hopelessness and anxiety lift. But so did nearly the same number who took a placebo, a look-alike pill made of milk sugar or another inert substance given to groups of volunteers in clinical trials to gauge how much more effective the real drug is by comparison. The fact that taking a faux drug can powerfully improve some people's health—the so-called placebo effect—has long been considered an embarrassment to the serious practice of pharmacology.
Ultimately, Merck's foray into the antidepressant market failed. In subsequent tests, MK-869 turned out to be no more effective than a placebo. In the jargon of the industry, the trials crossed the futility boundary.
More here: http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect
Koba's Note: My theory is that people are just so dependent on drugs these days that they can't imagine them not working. I have a headache, here have some Aspirin. I'm sad, here take some Prozac. I have a sniffle, here have some Sudafed. My kid moves around too much, here give him some Ritalin. It's fucking ridiculous.