A friend of mine who works for the health insurance industry has taken the time to read through the entire health care bill, and its addenda, and has posted a summary of its provisos on Facebook. With his permission, I am going to cut and paste the entire thing here. A few things to note: contrary to the fears some folks have expressed, this is NOT government-run health care, and therefore cannot be compared to VA-style care. Instead, it is an attempt to regulate PRIVATE health care companies in a way that is intended to offer a wider range of options and therefore insure more members of the American populace. It is not perfect; there are issues, and the actual enactment of this group of bills is likely to prove quite a mess in the short term. It is, however, a step this blogger thinks is headed in the right direction. Here is my friend's post, along with his own caveats at the top and at the bottom:
The Meat of The Healthcare Reform Bill - without all the talking heads, tea-baggers, and Obama cheerleading
Monday, March 22, 2010 at 9:10am
Notice: The opinions and information expressed within this post are purely my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
In light of the recent passing of Health Care Reform, this bill may effect me in many ways that are different to my friends and family members, since I work for the largest health insurance company in the Maryland/DC area. Having said that, I have read this bill, in its entirety, and would like to point out key elements that may help others understand exactly what this bill means. If I missed something, or you would like more clarification on a topic, just comment below.
What it means for business owners:
Many of these provisions won't take place until 2014, so if you're a business owner, you have time to prepare and figure out your "best course" of action. I'll break the changes down in bullet points to make it easier to follow.
1) States have to set up "Small Business Health Options Programs" (SHOP Exchange) - this will allow small business to pool together to buy insurance for their employees. This will be for businesses with fewer than 100 employees, but can be limited to 50 employees through 2016 for some states. As written, this only includes full-time employees, but there is an amendment on table, if passed, would also include part-time employees.
2) Prior to 2014, small businesses with 10 or fewer employees that earn less than $25,000 a year will be eligible for a tax credit of up to 35% on health insurance costs.
3) Tax credit for small businesses will be in place for 50% of the cost from 2014-2016 if the business buys into the SHOP Exchanges. This credit will decline sharply after 2016.
4) Starting in 2014, businesses will be required to offer health care to their employees, or pay a fine of $750 ($2000 if amendment passes the Senate) per full-time employee. This coverage would have to meet minimum benefits guidelines set forth by Congress and account for 60% of overall health costs of the employee.
What it means for individuals:
Again, many of these provisions don't take place until 2014. So we have time as individuals and/or families to determine what our best course of action is - or if our current coverage is "good enough".
1) Starting in 2014, insurers will no longer be able to set rates or exclude coverage based on pre-existing conditions or chronic illness
2) Effective immediately upon signing into law:
- Ban on lifetime limits of coverage (no maximums)
- Ban on cancellation of policies for any reason (excluding fraud)
3) High-end "Cadillac" insurance plans (costing more than $10,200 per year per individual or $27,500 per family) will be subject to a 40% tax on the portion that exceeds the policy pricing limit set forth by Congress. This tax would be paid by insurers, but is expected to be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. This would take place immediately, unless the amendment presented on Sunday passes the Senate, then it would take place in 2018.
4) By 2014, all individuals will be required to pay for health insurance or pay a penalty. This penalty would start at $95, or 1% of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5% of income by 2016. This penalty is for individuals. For families, the penalty is set at a $2085 maximum. Some individuals would be exempt from this requirement due to financial hardships or religious beliefs, or if they are American Indians.
5) Beginning in 2014, Medicaid will be expanded for individuals who cannot afford traditional health insurance. Individuals making less that $14,404 or families making less than $29,326 would now qualify. Additionally, there will be premium subsidies available starting in 2014 for those who do not qualify for Medicaid, but still could not afford coverage. The amount of the subsidy is based on a sliding scale of income that falls between 133% and 400% of the poverty level.
6) If you are unmarried and under 26, you can still be covered on your parents' family plan as long as you do are not offered health insurance through your employer. This is effective immediately when signed into law. The current age limitation is 23 and requires the individual to be a student.
7) Medicare recipients will see an increase in assistance for medication costs. Those entering the Part D coverage gap (the doughnut hole) would receive $250 to help cover medication costs (This is a gap created by drug companies only offering a "brand" medication vs. a generic alternative - causing a drain on the maximum drug benefit). Drug company discounts and Federal subsidies for all drugs would gradually reduce the gap, eliminating it by 2020.
8) Medicare Advantage (the privatized portion of Medicare) enrollees will see a loss in benefits starting in 2011. Federal payments to this plan will be greatly reduced, resulting in the loss of certain benefits, including free eyeglasses, hearing aids, and gym memberships.
9) Medicare recipients would no longer be charged for preventive services, such as cancer screenings. This change would be effective immediately.
10) Based on the wording of premiums and the power of the insurance companies, there is reason to believe that premiums could and will increase for tobacco users, the elderly, and the healthy. This is because the bill prevents insurance companies from charging sick people more, nor can they drop coverage on "high-risk" individuals, such as tobacco users or older people.
What this bill means for America (taxes):
With sweeping change, comes great responsibility. There is always a price associated with any Government led program. Here are the bullet points of what this means for the country as a whole:
1) This bill has an estimated cost of $940 Billion over the next 10 years. Taxes will be raised over the next 10 years to help burden the cost, and payments to Medicare providers would be reduced, lowering the deficit to only $138 Billion over the next 10 years.
- Concern: lower payouts to Medicare providers may lead to less providers accepting Medicare
- Concern: increased taxes may effect overall consumer confidence and spending
Added by myself: Several independent offices, including the Congressional Budget Office, have observed that the net effect of the bills provisions, over the next ten years, will actually be to reduce the federal deficit, rather than adding to it. In the questions following this post on Facebook, I asked whether the reduced payout to Medicare was more than an attempt to reduce or eliminate Medicare fraud. The answer: The Medicare is indeed a reduction in fraud, but there is also a provision in the bill to reduce the amounts paid out to Medicare and Medicaid providers. This reduction will cause the dreaded inevitable wait times at clinics and doctors that primarily see Medicaid and Medicare patients that the opponents of Health Care Reform were afraid of, due to less doctors being willing to accept Medicare and Medicaid, instead opting for specialization fields or private practice. I add only that it is THOUGHT the result will be increased wait times; no one can see the future, but my friend's statement is certainly one of the more educated guesses I have seen. Were I to edit his statement, I might change it only to say that "This is likely to cause the dreaded wait times"...but I am not editing his words for the sake of complete clarity here.
2) Starting in 2013, individuals making more than $200,000 will pay a higher Medicare payroll tax (2.35%, up from 1.45%)
3) Medical deduction threshold for non-reimbursed medical expenses raises from 7.5% to 10%.
4) Starting in 2013, Flex Spending Accounts (FSA) will be limited to a maximum of $2500 for medical expenses.
5) Individuals earning more than $200,000 per year, or $250,000 per household, would be hit with a 3.8% tax on investment income to help pay for the bill.
6) Individuals who use Tanning Salons will be taxed an additional 10% starting this year.
Feel free to comment with CONSTRUCTIVE and USEFUL information or questions. Any comments that are unfounded rants or opinions will be deleted. Of course, educated opinions are welcome - as those tend to raise interesting conversation and possible questions/answers that others may not have come up with on their own. Be prepared to defend your comments, or you'll look like the crazy shouting people on Fox News and I'll just point and laugh at you. Here ends his post. I, too, welcome constructive commentary, and will also not tolerate flaming of any sort.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
another voice for health care reform
Here's another voice from among the masses who are uninsured. I do not drink. I do not smoke. I am not on drugs. I am not homeless. I am not uneducated or stupid. In fact, I have a doctorate. But I cannot get work in my field right now because all of the colleges and universities are tightening their belts and putting on hiring freezes, and those that are hiring are so swamped with applicants that they have their pick from among those with more experience than I have (I am a recent grad). The job I did have was a short-term, part-time contractual adjunct lectureship that could not offer me health benefits because I wasn't full-time. I used to have health insurance when I was an undergrad. It cost me $80/paycheck for regular health coverage + eyes + teeth + prescriptions.
I did my graduate school work in Canada because the field I am in has a limited number of excellent universities with the resources and faculty I needed to have a top flight education. I lived in Toronto for seven years. While there, I had to purchase private insurance through the university that stood in lieu of -- and functioned just like -- the universal coverage all Canadians have. That coverage, including the supplemental insurance to cover eyes, teeth and prescriptions (just like here, they're not on the same plan as general health care), cost only $780/year.
Now look at that again. The SAME COVERAGE, THE SAME QUALITY OF CARE, FOR LESS THAN HALF THE AMOUNT. $80/paycheck x 52 weeks divided by two (for biweekly checks). It's pretty simple mathematics. That adds up to a whopping TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.
Are there issues with the Canadian system? Sure. But let me tell you something, those of you who would prate on about waiting periods and so on. I had to deal with some of those waiting periods, and there were times when it wasn't particularly helpful. But guess what? In the US, general practitioners and certain specialists are in such short supply that it's often a matter of waiting here, too -- if you have the coverage to see a doctor at all. If I had an emergency, I was seen IMMEDIATELY. Even more "amusing" was the fact that while I was living there, a study was done by a medical group (I think it was the AMA but I can't remember for sure) that showed that cardiac patients in Canada had a higher survival rate...or more exactly, that if you have a heart attack in Canada, you're more likely to survive than if you're in the US.
And if you're going to try to trot out the old saw about how universal health care quashes innovation....who was it who figured out what caused SARS? Canada. Sweden has had universal health coverage for decades and they are at the forefront of medical advances.
If the words of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office aren't enough, consult other non-partisan third party sources. They say the same thing. There will be an initial outlay of monies, but over time, those costs will be offset. Ultimately the reform is budget neutral. And it is desperately needed, as imperfect as it may be.
I have a neuromuscular disease and must be on maintenance medications that cost me, out of pocket, more than $200/month. I'm supposed to get skin and kidney tests every six months. And I have it easy; a friend of mine has maintenance prescriptions that cost in excess of two grand per month. She has coverage....I do not. My brother has no coverage because he falls among the working poor also. He is medically bankrupt because of a series of happenstance events that required (1) hernia surgery, (2) surgery for a severely fractured ankle thanks to a slip on ice and (3) surgery to repair an accidental finger amputation during a work accident. My father had no health insurance most of his life because he owned his own business, but didn't make enough to pay the premiums for himself or his employees. He has prostate cancer that could have been treated and removed years ago, had he not had to wait until he was 65 and his Medicare kicked in.
THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN. IT COSTS TOO MUCH, AND IT LEAVES TOO MANY PEOPLE UNINSURED AND OUT IN THE DARK. NO ONE should EVER go bankrupt because they could not pay their medical bills. NO ONE should EVER lose their house because they got cancer or needed surgery. NO ONE SHOULD EVER HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN FOOD AND THE MEDICINES THAT KEEP THEM ALIVE. But that is EXACTLY what people have to do every single day in this country under the present system. It is idiotic, antiquated and inhumane. It needs to be changed. The United States is the ONLY developed nation in which human beings every day go hungry because they have to get medicines for their children or themselves, or have to pass on desperately needed medical procedures because they cannot afford the cost. It's about time that this country, a nation that purports to be a world leader, actually stood the heck up and BECAME a world leader.
Learn from the mistakes other countries with universal care have made. Mold something that's uniquely American, something that will do what WE need, while taking the best and leaving the worst of the examples we can learn from others like Sweden or Canada. Having universal health care will NOT make the US a 'socialist' country in the horrific pejorative fashion so often bandied about by those who would inveigh against reform. It will simply make the United States what it should have been all along: a beacon from which other nations can once again take their own light and guidance.
I did my graduate school work in Canada because the field I am in has a limited number of excellent universities with the resources and faculty I needed to have a top flight education. I lived in Toronto for seven years. While there, I had to purchase private insurance through the university that stood in lieu of -- and functioned just like -- the universal coverage all Canadians have. That coverage, including the supplemental insurance to cover eyes, teeth and prescriptions (just like here, they're not on the same plan as general health care), cost only $780/year.
Now look at that again. The SAME COVERAGE, THE SAME QUALITY OF CARE, FOR LESS THAN HALF THE AMOUNT. $80/paycheck x 52 weeks divided by two (for biweekly checks). It's pretty simple mathematics. That adds up to a whopping TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.
Are there issues with the Canadian system? Sure. But let me tell you something, those of you who would prate on about waiting periods and so on. I had to deal with some of those waiting periods, and there were times when it wasn't particularly helpful. But guess what? In the US, general practitioners and certain specialists are in such short supply that it's often a matter of waiting here, too -- if you have the coverage to see a doctor at all. If I had an emergency, I was seen IMMEDIATELY. Even more "amusing" was the fact that while I was living there, a study was done by a medical group (I think it was the AMA but I can't remember for sure) that showed that cardiac patients in Canada had a higher survival rate...or more exactly, that if you have a heart attack in Canada, you're more likely to survive than if you're in the US.
And if you're going to try to trot out the old saw about how universal health care quashes innovation....who was it who figured out what caused SARS? Canada. Sweden has had universal health coverage for decades and they are at the forefront of medical advances.
If the words of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office aren't enough, consult other non-partisan third party sources. They say the same thing. There will be an initial outlay of monies, but over time, those costs will be offset. Ultimately the reform is budget neutral. And it is desperately needed, as imperfect as it may be.
I have a neuromuscular disease and must be on maintenance medications that cost me, out of pocket, more than $200/month. I'm supposed to get skin and kidney tests every six months. And I have it easy; a friend of mine has maintenance prescriptions that cost in excess of two grand per month. She has coverage....I do not. My brother has no coverage because he falls among the working poor also. He is medically bankrupt because of a series of happenstance events that required (1) hernia surgery, (2) surgery for a severely fractured ankle thanks to a slip on ice and (3) surgery to repair an accidental finger amputation during a work accident. My father had no health insurance most of his life because he owned his own business, but didn't make enough to pay the premiums for himself or his employees. He has prostate cancer that could have been treated and removed years ago, had he not had to wait until he was 65 and his Medicare kicked in.
THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN. IT COSTS TOO MUCH, AND IT LEAVES TOO MANY PEOPLE UNINSURED AND OUT IN THE DARK. NO ONE should EVER go bankrupt because they could not pay their medical bills. NO ONE should EVER lose their house because they got cancer or needed surgery. NO ONE SHOULD EVER HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN FOOD AND THE MEDICINES THAT KEEP THEM ALIVE. But that is EXACTLY what people have to do every single day in this country under the present system. It is idiotic, antiquated and inhumane. It needs to be changed. The United States is the ONLY developed nation in which human beings every day go hungry because they have to get medicines for their children or themselves, or have to pass on desperately needed medical procedures because they cannot afford the cost. It's about time that this country, a nation that purports to be a world leader, actually stood the heck up and BECAME a world leader.
Learn from the mistakes other countries with universal care have made. Mold something that's uniquely American, something that will do what WE need, while taking the best and leaving the worst of the examples we can learn from others like Sweden or Canada. Having universal health care will NOT make the US a 'socialist' country in the horrific pejorative fashion so often bandied about by those who would inveigh against reform. It will simply make the United States what it should have been all along: a beacon from which other nations can once again take their own light and guidance.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Why organic meats are important
Some folks have questioned whether it is important to consume organic beef, pork, poultry and dairy products rather than to save money by sticking with the more "conventional" meats of most supermarkets and stores. Just for the sake of clarity, let me explain that by "organic" I specifically mean meat that is obtained from animals raised on organic feed, who are not fed hormones or unnecessary antibiotics (a sick animal should be treated, for instance, if needed, but antibiotics should not be administered "just in case") while alive, and who are allowed to be free range. In the case of dairy, this also means that the cows have not been given hormones to make them lactate.
A few years back, I had a very serious health scare. For some reason my annual physical's blood test showed my kidney function had plummeted. I'd been feeling tired and out of sorts, so I'd gone in for my annual check-up a little early. According to the blood test, I had good reason to feel tired; my kidneys were only operating at about 55% normal. Now, by itself that's not alarming. One test does not a diagnosis or a concern make. But when my kidney tests continued to show such low levels over a period of months, I was tentatively diagnosed with kidney disease. The scary thing was that we had no idea what had caused it or how to resolve it...or even if it could be resolved.
I turned out to be lucky. After a few months of mystification, it was revealed that I am among the very rare individuals who are so allergic to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, including aspirin, naproxin, ibuprofen and other such drugs) that their kidneys cease to operate normally. I'd been prescribed a new NSAID that was not supposed to irritate my stomach lining -- as all other such drugs had always done, or so we thought -- and it had worked very well. The condition (plantar fasciitis) for which I'd been given the drug was able to resolve so rapidly that I didn't need to use the entire prescription. During the time we'd been testing my kidney function, I'd been taking the drug; when I stopped for a few weeks, my kidney tests improved slightly. Then I put my back out...took the drug for two days to relieve the inflammation around the spine...and the kidney values dropped dramatically. Finding out that I had a reaction that can lead to a condition known as analgesic nephropathy, and that I most probably experienced vomiting and dizziness when on other NSAIDs not because of stomach irritation but because kidney function impairment led to my body literally poisoning itself, suddenly explained a great deal. Needless to say I don't touch the stuff at all anymore!
Now, I'm sure you're wondering what in blue blazes all of that has to do with organic meat. While I was having unexplained difficulty, and even after the extreme nature of my NSAID allergy was understood, it was determined that I could not stress out my kidneys any more than they had already been harmed. We didn't know if I had actually developed analgesic nephropathy in its full and worst form, which is a degenerative kidney disease leading to eventual dialysis and kidney transplant, nor was it at all clear whether my kidney function loss was permanent or temporary. Consuming foods with hormones and antibiotics in them could have had a negative impact on my kidney health, it was explained to me, so I went on an almost entirely organic diet. Again, I turned out to be extraordinarily fortunate; the loss of kidney function was environmental, not chronic, and over the course of two years I slowly regained nearly all of my normal status. I have permanently lost about 30% of my kidney health, but that's nowhere near life threatening, and the loss is stable rather than increasing over time.
That is why I began to eat a predominantly organic diet, but over time I have continued to do so even once my kidneys regained their senses (so to speak) for many other reasons. Every time I turn around, another news story indicates that the foods our food eat, we eat. If your beef cow is fed corn that is laced with pesticides, those pesticides end up in your meat. Maybe the concentrations are minute, but over years and years? No one is very sure how that impacts the human body, and it seems to me that it is at best naive to assume that there is no risk or damage. Here's one example of a news item worth perusing on the subject: Why has the FDA allowed a drug marked 'not safe for use in humans' to be fed to livestock right before slaughter? What an animal consumes must go through its liver and kidneys to be removed from its blood. If that consumption occurs right before slaughter, there's no time for the substance to leave the cow's body. So, as this article observes, if you choose to eat conventional beef you may be eating a livestock drug banned in 160 countries.
Now, why else should our meat, eggs and dairy be free of hormones and antibiotics? Did you know that the rise of multi-drug resistant bacterial diseases in recent years may have roots in the common human consumption of meats, eggs and dairy from animals that were treated prophylactically with antibiotics? Yes, there's a good deal of evidence to suggest that another source is the overuse of antibiotics to treat human illness as well, particularly the application of antibiotics when the sick human in question has a virus (upon which antibiotics have no effect at all). This evolution pattern is one reason why the kinds of bacteria picked up in labs and hospitals are often drug resistant. But there's also good evidence behind the likelihood that another source is the chronic low level of antibiotics that enters our food through unnecessary treatment of feed and animal by agribusiness. Here is one article, from the New York Times, on the rise and impact of such superbugs.
And what about herbicides? The application of herbicides to control weeds near and around crops that are grown for animal consumption has been shown to affect those fodder crops, resulting in animals meant for slaughter or dairying eating grains and silage that were indirectly treated. In Science News, the toxicity of one weedkiller commonly used by agribusiness to treat crops, including the corn fed to cattle, pigs and poultry (the weedkiller only affects broad-leafed plants like dandelion but does not kill crop plants)is discussed. Of course, this also affects vegetable and grain crops we eat ourselves, and not just those that could be fed to the cows, pigs, chickens and so on. It is particularly worth noting that the effect of the weedkiller in question, atrazine, disrupts the normal production and functioning of hormones in test subjects, most particularly affecting estrogen. Could the widespread use of atrazine on foods we eat, and on crops our animals eat, have been having an impact on the increase in human fertility issues over the last few generations? Atrazine acts on the pituitary gland. What might it be doing to us and to our livestock, to say nothing of how it affects all the wildlife in the areas that are treated?
The toxins so often used on the crops and fodder that eventually -- whether eaten directly or through meat, eggs and dairy products -- make it to our tables are poisons. There's no getting around that fact. Just consider the case of the Frenchmen whose exposure to pesticides nearly killed them. And before you decide to castigate me, or anyone else, for continuing to consume animals products, consider this article on how grass-fed cows could save the planet. It's true, large ranches raising cattle the more modern way are contributing to global climate change, and I am all for reducing my carbon footprint...yet another reason to eat, clean and wear organic as much as I can afford. But as this article shows, grass-fed and free range cattle give back to the environment more than they take...including having a negligible carbon footprint.
I have not, of course, really addressed the issue of the ethics of eating organic and free-range, nor have I mentioned that such food items -- particularly, I find, organic eggs and dairy products -- just seem to taste richer and better. I am very strongly in support of the ethical and humane treatment of all living things on this planet, including and perhaps most particularly those animals we herd and raise for our own survival. That organic farming standards require this level of care for the cows, pigs, sheep, chickens and so forth that are destined to be labeled as organically raised is certainly a significant portion of my choice to continue eating organic. I am not so naive, however, as to believe that this argument will actually affect as many people as I'd like. I am quite aware that most human beings are more interested in what will benefit them, rather than what will benefit others, particularly if those 'others' belong to a different species. For that reason I chose above to under-emphasize the issue of animal rights, and to focus primarily upon how the way we treat our livestock affects what happens to US.
And as for cost....I admit it...organic food generally costs more. A big part of that is demand, however. If more people bought organic, and required it to be made available as a viable choice at their area supermarkets (see, for instance, the organic foods available at the Martin's market in DuBois, PA), the costs would begin to decrease. Simple economics. Just look at the fact that it is now possible to purchase a half-gallon of organic milk for less than $5 in some stores...because that's what the buying public has required. Organic eggs, which I used to see sold for as much as $8 a dozen, can now be bought for as little as $3.50 for jumbo eggs and $2.00 or less for large and medium eggs. The rest of the reason for the higher costs is that the government doesn't subsidize smaller organic outfits the way it subsidizes big agribusiness...and it's those subsidies that allow us to have artificially low grocery costs for many of our staple items. So you may pay less at the cash register for your conventional milk or eggs, but what about the costs down the line to your health? Is it worth the risk?
The choice is yours. Hopefully some of what I've said here will point you toward making a better informed decision. Bon appetit!
A few years back, I had a very serious health scare. For some reason my annual physical's blood test showed my kidney function had plummeted. I'd been feeling tired and out of sorts, so I'd gone in for my annual check-up a little early. According to the blood test, I had good reason to feel tired; my kidneys were only operating at about 55% normal. Now, by itself that's not alarming. One test does not a diagnosis or a concern make. But when my kidney tests continued to show such low levels over a period of months, I was tentatively diagnosed with kidney disease. The scary thing was that we had no idea what had caused it or how to resolve it...or even if it could be resolved.
I turned out to be lucky. After a few months of mystification, it was revealed that I am among the very rare individuals who are so allergic to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, including aspirin, naproxin, ibuprofen and other such drugs) that their kidneys cease to operate normally. I'd been prescribed a new NSAID that was not supposed to irritate my stomach lining -- as all other such drugs had always done, or so we thought -- and it had worked very well. The condition (plantar fasciitis) for which I'd been given the drug was able to resolve so rapidly that I didn't need to use the entire prescription. During the time we'd been testing my kidney function, I'd been taking the drug; when I stopped for a few weeks, my kidney tests improved slightly. Then I put my back out...took the drug for two days to relieve the inflammation around the spine...and the kidney values dropped dramatically. Finding out that I had a reaction that can lead to a condition known as analgesic nephropathy, and that I most probably experienced vomiting and dizziness when on other NSAIDs not because of stomach irritation but because kidney function impairment led to my body literally poisoning itself, suddenly explained a great deal. Needless to say I don't touch the stuff at all anymore!
Now, I'm sure you're wondering what in blue blazes all of that has to do with organic meat. While I was having unexplained difficulty, and even after the extreme nature of my NSAID allergy was understood, it was determined that I could not stress out my kidneys any more than they had already been harmed. We didn't know if I had actually developed analgesic nephropathy in its full and worst form, which is a degenerative kidney disease leading to eventual dialysis and kidney transplant, nor was it at all clear whether my kidney function loss was permanent or temporary. Consuming foods with hormones and antibiotics in them could have had a negative impact on my kidney health, it was explained to me, so I went on an almost entirely organic diet. Again, I turned out to be extraordinarily fortunate; the loss of kidney function was environmental, not chronic, and over the course of two years I slowly regained nearly all of my normal status. I have permanently lost about 30% of my kidney health, but that's nowhere near life threatening, and the loss is stable rather than increasing over time.
That is why I began to eat a predominantly organic diet, but over time I have continued to do so even once my kidneys regained their senses (so to speak) for many other reasons. Every time I turn around, another news story indicates that the foods our food eat, we eat. If your beef cow is fed corn that is laced with pesticides, those pesticides end up in your meat. Maybe the concentrations are minute, but over years and years? No one is very sure how that impacts the human body, and it seems to me that it is at best naive to assume that there is no risk or damage. Here's one example of a news item worth perusing on the subject: Why has the FDA allowed a drug marked 'not safe for use in humans' to be fed to livestock right before slaughter? What an animal consumes must go through its liver and kidneys to be removed from its blood. If that consumption occurs right before slaughter, there's no time for the substance to leave the cow's body. So, as this article observes, if you choose to eat conventional beef you may be eating a livestock drug banned in 160 countries.
Now, why else should our meat, eggs and dairy be free of hormones and antibiotics? Did you know that the rise of multi-drug resistant bacterial diseases in recent years may have roots in the common human consumption of meats, eggs and dairy from animals that were treated prophylactically with antibiotics? Yes, there's a good deal of evidence to suggest that another source is the overuse of antibiotics to treat human illness as well, particularly the application of antibiotics when the sick human in question has a virus (upon which antibiotics have no effect at all). This evolution pattern is one reason why the kinds of bacteria picked up in labs and hospitals are often drug resistant. But there's also good evidence behind the likelihood that another source is the chronic low level of antibiotics that enters our food through unnecessary treatment of feed and animal by agribusiness. Here is one article, from the New York Times, on the rise and impact of such superbugs.
And what about herbicides? The application of herbicides to control weeds near and around crops that are grown for animal consumption has been shown to affect those fodder crops, resulting in animals meant for slaughter or dairying eating grains and silage that were indirectly treated. In Science News, the toxicity of one weedkiller commonly used by agribusiness to treat crops, including the corn fed to cattle, pigs and poultry (the weedkiller only affects broad-leafed plants like dandelion but does not kill crop plants)is discussed. Of course, this also affects vegetable and grain crops we eat ourselves, and not just those that could be fed to the cows, pigs, chickens and so on. It is particularly worth noting that the effect of the weedkiller in question, atrazine, disrupts the normal production and functioning of hormones in test subjects, most particularly affecting estrogen. Could the widespread use of atrazine on foods we eat, and on crops our animals eat, have been having an impact on the increase in human fertility issues over the last few generations? Atrazine acts on the pituitary gland. What might it be doing to us and to our livestock, to say nothing of how it affects all the wildlife in the areas that are treated?
The toxins so often used on the crops and fodder that eventually -- whether eaten directly or through meat, eggs and dairy products -- make it to our tables are poisons. There's no getting around that fact. Just consider the case of the Frenchmen whose exposure to pesticides nearly killed them. And before you decide to castigate me, or anyone else, for continuing to consume animals products, consider this article on how grass-fed cows could save the planet. It's true, large ranches raising cattle the more modern way are contributing to global climate change, and I am all for reducing my carbon footprint...yet another reason to eat, clean and wear organic as much as I can afford. But as this article shows, grass-fed and free range cattle give back to the environment more than they take...including having a negligible carbon footprint.
I have not, of course, really addressed the issue of the ethics of eating organic and free-range, nor have I mentioned that such food items -- particularly, I find, organic eggs and dairy products -- just seem to taste richer and better. I am very strongly in support of the ethical and humane treatment of all living things on this planet, including and perhaps most particularly those animals we herd and raise for our own survival. That organic farming standards require this level of care for the cows, pigs, sheep, chickens and so forth that are destined to be labeled as organically raised is certainly a significant portion of my choice to continue eating organic. I am not so naive, however, as to believe that this argument will actually affect as many people as I'd like. I am quite aware that most human beings are more interested in what will benefit them, rather than what will benefit others, particularly if those 'others' belong to a different species. For that reason I chose above to under-emphasize the issue of animal rights, and to focus primarily upon how the way we treat our livestock affects what happens to US.
And as for cost....I admit it...organic food generally costs more. A big part of that is demand, however. If more people bought organic, and required it to be made available as a viable choice at their area supermarkets (see, for instance, the organic foods available at the Martin's market in DuBois, PA), the costs would begin to decrease. Simple economics. Just look at the fact that it is now possible to purchase a half-gallon of organic milk for less than $5 in some stores...because that's what the buying public has required. Organic eggs, which I used to see sold for as much as $8 a dozen, can now be bought for as little as $3.50 for jumbo eggs and $2.00 or less for large and medium eggs. The rest of the reason for the higher costs is that the government doesn't subsidize smaller organic outfits the way it subsidizes big agribusiness...and it's those subsidies that allow us to have artificially low grocery costs for many of our staple items. So you may pay less at the cash register for your conventional milk or eggs, but what about the costs down the line to your health? Is it worth the risk?
The choice is yours. Hopefully some of what I've said here will point you toward making a better informed decision. Bon appetit!
Monday, March 15, 2010
Recipes: pancakes
One of the hardest things to handle once I switched to a diet free of grains, gluten and sweeteners was missing all my favorite breakfast foods. Waffles....bagels....muffins....french toast...and pancakes. Boy do I love pancakes!
Well, I've since developed two recipes for pancakes, each of which has much to recommend it but both of which are quite unique. The first recipe is all but indistinguishable from the usual wheaten type of pancake or flapjack, yet contains no wheat or sweetener. It can also be tailored to a certain degree to a vegan diet. It makes enough pancakes for 3-4 people (depending upon how much each person eats).
I recommend having the oven on its lowest bake temperature with a ceramic dish on the top rack, into which you can deposit the pancakes as they are finished. That way the whole batch can be taken to the table together, quite warm and tasty, to be eaten. I also recommend using a cast iron griddle; I avoid the non-stick pans as the coating is unpredictable and wears microscopically into our food for years before we know it has eroded away. Just coat the pan with a little canola spray or melted organic Earth Balance butter spread (or you can use real butter if you prefer, but the Earth Balance has the advantage of being trans-fat and cholesterol free AND contains healthy Omegas).
Oddly these pancakes have a taste of corn to them, though they contain none of that particular grain! Note that I use organic ingredients whenever possible; nearly all of the ingredients below can be purchased in both organic and conventional forms.
1/4 cup soy flour
1 1/4 cups brown rice flour
1 tbsp baking powder
1 egg
1 1/2 cups milk or water
1/4 cup canola or safflower oil
Heat your cast iron griddle on medium heat while you mix together your ingredients. Mix together the dry ingredients in a decently sized bowl. In a second, smaller bowl, beat the egg with a long-tined fork until the yolk and white are thoroughly mixed but not frothy. Add in the milk/water and oil and mix until blended, then add the liquid contents to the bowl of dry ingredients and stir until well blended. Spray your hot griddle with canola spray for several seconds or allow a tablespoon of organic Earth Balance to melt, then drop the pancake batter onto the griddle in 1/4-cup increments. You hopefully have a griddle large enough that four pancakes will cook at the same time. Allow the cakes to cook until you see several bubbles steadily appearing in the center of each cake, then flip with a stainless steel spatula. Let the cakes cook on their second side for about 2-4 minutes, and then deposit into the ceramic dish waiting in your warmed oven.
If you want to make this recipe vegan, replace the egg with 1 tablespoon of flax seed meal, to which you add 3 tablespoons of hot water and allow to sit for ten minutes. Stir it occasionally during that 10 minutes to make sure it thickens evenly. You'll find that pancakes made with flax egg replacer and water will be a bit less fluffy than those made with egg and milk, but they're still very tasty! In either case you can make blueberry pancakes by adding about 2 cups of wild or domestic blueberries (fresh or thawed frozen berries are fine). Alternatively you can make apple cinnamon pancakes by adding about 1/2-3/4 cup of spiced apple butter to the batter.
In the second type of pancake, there's absolutely no grain and no baking powder, and to my knowledge they cannot be made vegan. I'll be honest; I haven't yet tried. However, my suspicion is that the texture would be rather slimy, so if you prefer to stay vegan, this is not the recipe for you. If you are allergic to nuts, this is also not the recipe for you, as it uses almond and hazelnut meal in place of flour. It doesn't make as much food as the first recipe either; it only makes four medium-sized nutcakes, but you can double or triple the recipe as needed for your family. These cakes are very filling, though, so be cautious about making too many! They contain a great number of marvelous nut oils and are very high in fiber, so you will usually find you don't need to eat as many as you would of the more usual type of pancake.
Again, I recommend using a cast iron griddle sprayed with canola oil or greased with melted organic Earth Balance spread. Heat the griddle on medium heat while you mix together the ingredients as follows:
1/4 cup hazelnut meal
1/4 cup almond meal
1/4 cup flax seed meal
2 eggs
2 tablespoons milk
If you wish to make these nutcakes in a blueberry form, replace the milk with blueberry juice; use about 1 cup of wild or domestic blueberries (wild are often better only because they are smaller and easier to mix into the batter). You can even make an apple cinnamon variety by adding about 2 tablespoons of spiced apple butter.
Mix together all dry ingredients in a bowl, then add the eggs and milk. Stir vigorously with a fork to blend the batter. You'll find you can mix the above amounts together in a decently-sized cereal bowl; if you double the recipe, obviously you'll need a larger bowl! The nutcake batter is considerably thicker than normal pancake batter; this is normal.
Spray or grease your griddle as before, then drop the batter onto the hot griddle in roughly 1/4-cup amounts. The recipe as given makes four small nutcakes, enough to feed one very hungry person or two people who are also having eggs or another dish alongside them. These cakes are tasty with maple syrup, but if you're avoiding all sweeteners, as I do, they are particularly good with unsweetened apple butter!
Enjoy!
Well, I've since developed two recipes for pancakes, each of which has much to recommend it but both of which are quite unique. The first recipe is all but indistinguishable from the usual wheaten type of pancake or flapjack, yet contains no wheat or sweetener. It can also be tailored to a certain degree to a vegan diet. It makes enough pancakes for 3-4 people (depending upon how much each person eats).
I recommend having the oven on its lowest bake temperature with a ceramic dish on the top rack, into which you can deposit the pancakes as they are finished. That way the whole batch can be taken to the table together, quite warm and tasty, to be eaten. I also recommend using a cast iron griddle; I avoid the non-stick pans as the coating is unpredictable and wears microscopically into our food for years before we know it has eroded away. Just coat the pan with a little canola spray or melted organic Earth Balance butter spread (or you can use real butter if you prefer, but the Earth Balance has the advantage of being trans-fat and cholesterol free AND contains healthy Omegas).
Oddly these pancakes have a taste of corn to them, though they contain none of that particular grain! Note that I use organic ingredients whenever possible; nearly all of the ingredients below can be purchased in both organic and conventional forms.
1/4 cup soy flour
1 1/4 cups brown rice flour
1 tbsp baking powder
1 egg
1 1/2 cups milk or water
1/4 cup canola or safflower oil
Heat your cast iron griddle on medium heat while you mix together your ingredients. Mix together the dry ingredients in a decently sized bowl. In a second, smaller bowl, beat the egg with a long-tined fork until the yolk and white are thoroughly mixed but not frothy. Add in the milk/water and oil and mix until blended, then add the liquid contents to the bowl of dry ingredients and stir until well blended. Spray your hot griddle with canola spray for several seconds or allow a tablespoon of organic Earth Balance to melt, then drop the pancake batter onto the griddle in 1/4-cup increments. You hopefully have a griddle large enough that four pancakes will cook at the same time. Allow the cakes to cook until you see several bubbles steadily appearing in the center of each cake, then flip with a stainless steel spatula. Let the cakes cook on their second side for about 2-4 minutes, and then deposit into the ceramic dish waiting in your warmed oven.
If you want to make this recipe vegan, replace the egg with 1 tablespoon of flax seed meal, to which you add 3 tablespoons of hot water and allow to sit for ten minutes. Stir it occasionally during that 10 minutes to make sure it thickens evenly. You'll find that pancakes made with flax egg replacer and water will be a bit less fluffy than those made with egg and milk, but they're still very tasty! In either case you can make blueberry pancakes by adding about 2 cups of wild or domestic blueberries (fresh or thawed frozen berries are fine). Alternatively you can make apple cinnamon pancakes by adding about 1/2-3/4 cup of spiced apple butter to the batter.
In the second type of pancake, there's absolutely no grain and no baking powder, and to my knowledge they cannot be made vegan. I'll be honest; I haven't yet tried. However, my suspicion is that the texture would be rather slimy, so if you prefer to stay vegan, this is not the recipe for you. If you are allergic to nuts, this is also not the recipe for you, as it uses almond and hazelnut meal in place of flour. It doesn't make as much food as the first recipe either; it only makes four medium-sized nutcakes, but you can double or triple the recipe as needed for your family. These cakes are very filling, though, so be cautious about making too many! They contain a great number of marvelous nut oils and are very high in fiber, so you will usually find you don't need to eat as many as you would of the more usual type of pancake.
Again, I recommend using a cast iron griddle sprayed with canola oil or greased with melted organic Earth Balance spread. Heat the griddle on medium heat while you mix together the ingredients as follows:
1/4 cup hazelnut meal
1/4 cup almond meal
1/4 cup flax seed meal
2 eggs
2 tablespoons milk
If you wish to make these nutcakes in a blueberry form, replace the milk with blueberry juice; use about 1 cup of wild or domestic blueberries (wild are often better only because they are smaller and easier to mix into the batter). You can even make an apple cinnamon variety by adding about 2 tablespoons of spiced apple butter.
Mix together all dry ingredients in a bowl, then add the eggs and milk. Stir vigorously with a fork to blend the batter. You'll find you can mix the above amounts together in a decently-sized cereal bowl; if you double the recipe, obviously you'll need a larger bowl! The nutcake batter is considerably thicker than normal pancake batter; this is normal.
Spray or grease your griddle as before, then drop the batter onto the hot griddle in roughly 1/4-cup amounts. The recipe as given makes four small nutcakes, enough to feed one very hungry person or two people who are also having eggs or another dish alongside them. These cakes are tasty with maple syrup, but if you're avoiding all sweeteners, as I do, they are particularly good with unsweetened apple butter!
Enjoy!
Ten ways to remove toxic chemicals from your home
Some years ago, I became aware that I was reacting to numerous chemicals commonly found in the environment either at work or at home. My first realization arrived when I began to develop tiny little blisters in response to the chlorine in my bath and shower water. I'd originally thought it was some kind of skin allergy from my cleansers, but the problem did not clear up until I put a filter on my showerhead to remove all chlorine.
That was a fairly simple fix; my second attack was not so easily resolved. When walking to work at a major state university, I was exposed to the herbicide RoundUp. It wasn't a huge dose; I just walked by on the same side of the street within a few moments of spraying. They were treating the cracks in the walkway for weeds. Within ten minutes I felt dizzy and had a splitting headache so severe I went to the washroom at my office to be ill. The next thing I knew I was waking up on the stall floor some fifteen minutes after I'd entered, bruised and sore from an apparent seizure. I felt weak and disoriented. I thought it was all some kind of fluke, until a little research revealed that this occurrence is a common reaction to RoundUp and its ilk of chemical weed-killers.
I immediately had to go about removing as many chemicals from my home environment as possible, and to try to educate my coworkers. That meant politely asking them not to wear perfumes to the office, to avoid heavy use of hair spray, and to arrange for the office to be cleaned when I would be away for more than 24 hours. At home, it meant removing every form of cleaner that had remained after I'd discarded those containing bleach or chlorine.
You might ask how I clean the house; it is a common query. In fact, while I do use commercial products made by companies like Seventh Generation or Ecover for such tasks as cleaning mirrors, fixtures or toilets, 99% of my cleaning is accomplished using baking soda. Need to clean a sink or a tub? Baking soda is an effective scrub. Need to wash down a counter? Make a solution of baking soda in hot water, let it stand and cool, then spray it on the counter and wipe down with a washcloth. It's amazing to realize that, contrary to the sales efforts of major chemical cleanser companies, clean does NOT have a scent. In point of fact, clean smells like nothing at all. If you smell something...it's not clean...it's chemical.
Here are ten additional and simple ways to remove toxic chemicals from your home environment (yes, I'm aware the organization is discussing Canadian households, but the advice is as true for any other nation in the world): http://www.toxicnation.ca/go-toxic-free/top-10-ways .
That was a fairly simple fix; my second attack was not so easily resolved. When walking to work at a major state university, I was exposed to the herbicide RoundUp. It wasn't a huge dose; I just walked by on the same side of the street within a few moments of spraying. They were treating the cracks in the walkway for weeds. Within ten minutes I felt dizzy and had a splitting headache so severe I went to the washroom at my office to be ill. The next thing I knew I was waking up on the stall floor some fifteen minutes after I'd entered, bruised and sore from an apparent seizure. I felt weak and disoriented. I thought it was all some kind of fluke, until a little research revealed that this occurrence is a common reaction to RoundUp and its ilk of chemical weed-killers.
I immediately had to go about removing as many chemicals from my home environment as possible, and to try to educate my coworkers. That meant politely asking them not to wear perfumes to the office, to avoid heavy use of hair spray, and to arrange for the office to be cleaned when I would be away for more than 24 hours. At home, it meant removing every form of cleaner that had remained after I'd discarded those containing bleach or chlorine.
You might ask how I clean the house; it is a common query. In fact, while I do use commercial products made by companies like Seventh Generation or Ecover for such tasks as cleaning mirrors, fixtures or toilets, 99% of my cleaning is accomplished using baking soda. Need to clean a sink or a tub? Baking soda is an effective scrub. Need to wash down a counter? Make a solution of baking soda in hot water, let it stand and cool, then spray it on the counter and wipe down with a washcloth. It's amazing to realize that, contrary to the sales efforts of major chemical cleanser companies, clean does NOT have a scent. In point of fact, clean smells like nothing at all. If you smell something...it's not clean...it's chemical.
Here are ten additional and simple ways to remove toxic chemicals from your home environment (yes, I'm aware the organization is discussing Canadian households, but the advice is as true for any other nation in the world): http://www.toxicnation.ca/go-toxic-free/top-10-ways .
A marvelous treat for the gluten-free, sugar-free world
As someone who cannot eat wheat, wheat products, grains of any kind or sweeteners of any kind, it is nearly impossible at times to find a tasty, fulfilling snack that is safe to consume. Recently, though, I've become familiar with the marvels of the Larabar (available through many online purveyors, as well as through their own site at http://www.larabar.com/food/larabar/). These truly marvelous little gems are made with very few ingredients, are completely free of gluten, grain or sweeteners, and are also dairy free, soy free, non-GMO, vegan and kosher. They are NOT safe for those who are allergic to nuts, though...so be warned...but if you can eat nuts, I cannot recommend them enough. I really love the peanut butter cookie, cherry pie and pecan pie flavors. ENJOY!
From Seventh Generation: Teach Your Children Empathy
I receive a newsletter from Seventh Generation, a marvelous company that sells environmentally friendly products from 100% recycled paper items to sustainable and non-toxic cleaners. Sometimes the posts in that newsletter have more to do with environmental living...and sometimes, as with this item, they're just worth sharing.
Introduction
It's been several years since I had much to do with the blogosphere, but it's really become difficult to stay away. Too many friends maintain contact through blogs, and there's always more information worth sharing that could help others.
In the past, I blogged to talk all about myself. I won't lie; my own life will have a place in this blog as well. Rather than solely attending to private details, though, the focus here will be the events and issues that impact not only my life but the lives of others. Issues of political, ethical, social and environmental moment will predominate, as will the ways in which these issues have a role in my daily world. I have my own political beliefs, naturally, and they'll play a clear role here, but I will try to keep an open mind. The same holds true for my religious and spiritual beliefs. I ask anyone who reads this blog and responds to do the same and to treat me and any other respondents with respect.
There will be issues of a more personal nature; these will most often relate to living a gluten-free, sugar-free, grain-free lifestyle. I am hypoglycemic, gluten intolerant and chemically sensitive, among other things, and as a consequence must keep to a fairly strict diet. Also of a more personal nature will be the ways in which I do my best to improve the ways in which I live a sustainable, socially responsible life on the face of this planet. It is my hope that some of these posts may prove useful to others who share these issues, and that the responses I may receive could be of benefit to me.
And so...welcome to my corner of the world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
