Breathing with a Cost

For some people, breathing comes with a cost. About 40 million people in the U.S. have a chronic disease called Asthma. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute says that asthma is a “lung disease that that narrows the airways” and “causes wheezing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and coughing.” Asthma can be easily treated with inhalers and medication, but for many, buying the medicine is not easy.

New York Times says “Pulmicort, a steroid inhaler, generally retails for over $175 in the United States” and “pharmacists in Britain buy the identical product for about $20 and dispense it free of charge to asthma patients.” On the article from New York Times, there is a visual that compares the number of inhalers, allergy sprays, and medication one could get for $250 in the U.S. and in other countries. The differences are huge, and other countries sell Asthma medication for a lot less compared to the U.S. The annual cost for asthma is more than $56 billion. Many avoidable hospital visits and more than 3,300 deaths, that dealt with Asthma, involved patients who were frugal with or did not take their medication.

After reading the article, I started to wonder why medications have such high costs in the U.S. compared to other countries, like France and Belgium. Even though the article blames new packaging for one of the causes of the increase in price, there must be a bigger reason why the prices keep increasing. The price of medicine wasn't always this high. An Albuterol inhaler costs anywhere from $50-$100 now, when it retailed for less then $15 a decade years ago. In 2012, generic medication has increased 5.3% in prices, while name brand medication has increased 25% (Health Care Cost Institute). 

So why have prices increased over the past decade? Why does the U.S. sell these asthma medications at a higher cost than other countries? Should the cost of asthma medication remain the same if it means hindering someone from breathing? What are Americans doing about the problem, if they are? Should Americans even care about the situation at all?

To the internet or to the mall?

Transitioning from summer into fall, Americans are starting to buy new clothes, appliances, and decor for the season. With all the shopping, one would expect to find clusters of people at the mall, but there aren’t. People are still shopping but they’re using the Internet to do so.

Forrester Research predicts that online shoppers in the U.S. will spend “$327 billion in 2016.” That’s a “45% [increase] from $226 billion in [2012] and 62% [increase] from $202 billion in 2011” (internetretailer.com). As the rate of online shopping is increasing, Americans are becoming more comfortable with buying items online as opposed to going to the store to make their purchases. In a 2012 study, 71% of customers said that they prefer making purchases online, while 59% prefer in-store shopping (pymnts.com).

So are Americans getting lazier? Yes, online shopping is definitely a quicker process compared to in-store shopping, but people are using time as an excuse to stay at home. Shoppers dismiss the interaction with others that comes with shopping. The action of actually going out to buy something is lost when Americans sit behind their computers and click on buttons (as I sit here blogging behind my laptop). Americans want everything to be fast, easy, and comfortable. 

What Americans want is for their own self, but shouldn't we be creating relationships and expanding our horizons in the world outside of our own comfort zone? What do these statistics say about American shoppers? Is it better to shop online, in stores, or are they equal? How does the way people shop affect their connection with society? As fall progresses, think about these questions and the interactions you have with others in society.

(Super) Heroes

Some of Marvel's most popular Superheroes.

The Pilot of  "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D" premiered on ABC, Tuesday night. I have to say that I’m a huge fan of superhero movies, and after I heard about the show, I couldn’t wait for the series premiere.  With a total of 12.2 million viewers, ABC said that the show had the "best ratings of any new drama in four years.” After Marvel’s big hit with “The Avengers” last year, it’s no surprise that so many people were anticipating “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” With all the rave about super hero movies in the past couple of years, I've realized that people are extremely attached to the idea of "superheroes."

What is a uperhero? "Oxford American Dictionaries" states that a superhero is "a benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers, such as Superman." I think that society uses superheroes as people or things that are greater than society. With justice on their side, they save the people from the evil villain. To people, superheroes are what they want to be, even though they know it will never happen. Marvel says that they're wrong. 

In the Pilot of "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D," the episode starts off with a low income man, working hard for his son. A building explodes and the man leaves his son in order to save others. Within minutes of the episode, viewers realize that he has supernatural powers. Viewers want this character to succeed because he's a superhero. As the episode goes on, viewers realize that a doctor put serum into his body in order for the man to gain these powers. The serum turns the hero into a monster. He has the same appearance, but he becomes brainwashed because everything in his life still went wrong after becoming a superhero. By the end of the episode, S.H.I.E.L.D. injects a cure into the man and gives him a better life. He says that "he can be a hero too," even as a normal person. 

I find it interesting how the superhero goes from good, to bad, and back to good. I believe that Marvel is trying to tell people that heroes come in many forms and sizes, that heroes don't need to have to have super powers or fancy outfits. As a society, we need to let go of this idea that heroes must have special abilities in order to fight crime and symbolize goodness. Heroes are everywhere.

What do you think a hero is? Who has been a hero to you? How does the idea of "superheroes" affect society? Should society stick to greater than life "superheroes" or "heroes in everyday life? 

This or that?

Amidst listening to the radio, 94.3 was talking about a video that went viral because of one young man’s good deed. I read more about the story on here. Joey Prusak, Dairy Queen manager in Minneapolis, was going about his work when he saw a $20 bill fall from a blind customer. A woman eyed the bill and quietly slipped it into her purse. Prusak witnessed everything and demanded the woman to give the blind man his money back. She refused and Prusak gave $20 out of his own pocket to restore the blind man’s lost bill. I was drawn back by this 19 year old’s immense kindness but also this woman’s pure selfishness.

This story really opened my eyes to the “freedom” that we Americans have in everyday life. Our duty is to use that freedom to promote what is right. We have the choice to choose right from wrong. Prusak could have pretended not to see the woman take the money, but he chose to speak up and gave his own earnings to the blind man. The woman also had a choice to return the $20 back to the man, but she decided to keep it for herself. What I found even more horrible was that she didn’t give the money back to the man after Prusak called her out. Not only did she make a morally wrong choice, but she didn’t feel embarrassed enough to return the money.

One could say that this woman was just a “bad person” but maybe she wasn’t taught wrong from right. Maybe she just learned to take what she could in order to survive. Is this just one of the few “bad people” in America, or is she simply morally uneducated? What is America teaching its people? From whom are Americans learning morality? How are Americans being influenced to do this or that?