This recipe is taken from Ginger Beat. I have made only a couple of small changes. It's really good, and healthy, while tasting great and having decadent "mouth feel".
Yes, it is a lot of garlic. And rosemary. And red pepper flakes. But soooo darn addictive.
The first time I made this, I used my blender to puree the chickpeas. The second time, I just went at them with a potato masher. As might be expected, the sauce made with the blender was smoother -- but I kind of like the chunky mashed chickpea texture, too.
Pasta With Chickpeas, Rosemary, and Garlic
Ingredients
16 ounces campanelle or other small pasta, prepared per package instructions
5 cups drained cooked or canned chickpeas (rinse if using canned)
3 cups water, divided
1/4 cup olive oil
1 teaspoon red pepper flakes
8 cloves garlic, minced
2/3 ounce rosemary sprigs, washed, with the leaves removed and minced
1 teaspoon salt (I used 2 teaspoons with unsalted cooked chickpeas)
Place the chickpeas and 1 cup water in a blender and puree until smooth (or, alternatively, place the chickpeas and 1 cup water in a large bowl and mash until the chickpeas are smooth or you are tired).
Heat the olive oil and red pepper flakes in a large skillet over medium heat.
Add the garlic and minced rosemary and cook, stirring frequently, for about a minute, or until the garlic begins to brown.
Stir in the salt.
Carefully add the pureed/mashed chickpeas to the skillet, and stir to combine with the seasoned oil.
Add the remaining two cups of water to the skillet and stir until the chickpea mixture is smooth.
Allow the chickpea mixture to come to a boil, and simmer for about 5 minutes.
Stir in the cooked pasta and serve.
NOTE: If you want to add steamed broccoli, it's really good added at the end with the chickpea mixture. Sauteed mushrooms are also a great addition.
If you don't want the heat from the pepper flakes, chopped or julienned red bell pepper is wonderful.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Corn in Your Cupboard
I just watched a movie entitled King Corn. It's a documentary made by two guys who, after graduating from college, lease one acre of farmland in Iowa and raise 180 bushels of corn. They find where the crop goes, what it's made into, how it's used and consumed. Why would they do that? Well, they had their hair tested and found that the carbon in their body was made from corn. CORN? Yep. How did that happen? That's the story.
What they learned was that the corn grown on their land, and all the other land around them, was not used to directly feed people. It was used to feed cattle, make high fructose corn syrup, shipped overseas for feed, and other non-consumption purposes, including ethanol. Okay. So it feeds cattle we eat. That's good, right? Not for the cattle.
Cattle that are "grain fed" (which means corn fed) are raised in feedlots, confined spaces where the cattle can't move around. This way, instead of taking years to grow to market-size, the cattle can be slaughtered in less than six months. Which is a good thing for the cattle, since the corn-based diet would kill them from acidosis in slightly more than six months anyway. Evidently cattle were not intended to eat massive amounts of grain and can't properly digest it and use it. So after a few months on this type of diet, they become too acidic and die.
Cattle raised in feedlots don't have high muscle mass, as they don't really even get to walk around, much less "roam the prairies" like we see in movies and commercials. So the fat-to-muscle ratio in their meat is much higher, sometimes up to 65% fat. This is the meat that is sold to our fast food chains and consumed by so many of us. No wonder it tastes good and is so cheap. And, no wonder the US has an obesity epidemic.
So, why do I want you to know this? I believe that people need to be able to make informed decisions about what we eat and the impact our choices may be making on our health. For example, we all know that fast food is not good for us, is full of excessive, empty calories and can make us fat. But did you know that everything in your "value meal" of burger, fries and soda contains corn? The meat was grown by corn products; the bun contains corn syrup as does the soda; the fries were probably fried in corn oil. It's Iowa-in-a-bag.
Look at most of the items in your cupboards or pantry. Read the labels. Corn starch and high fructose corn syrup or just plain corn syrup are in almost everything we buy and eat. Our cupboards house items that weren't even thought of 40 years ago. And the items that were around then have been "improved" so much that they are barely recognizable. And all this is considered progress.
I was wondering just the other day about the significant increase in obesity and diabetes in our society and why these and several other health issues are so much more prevalent than the were in the 1950's and 1960's. Well, I may have found some of the answer to that question by reading food labels.
My challenge to you: Look at the labels and read the ingredients of the food in your pantry and cupboards. Let's don't change any habits right now; simply read the ingredients and become informed.
More to do later.
What they learned was that the corn grown on their land, and all the other land around them, was not used to directly feed people. It was used to feed cattle, make high fructose corn syrup, shipped overseas for feed, and other non-consumption purposes, including ethanol. Okay. So it feeds cattle we eat. That's good, right? Not for the cattle.
Cattle that are "grain fed" (which means corn fed) are raised in feedlots, confined spaces where the cattle can't move around. This way, instead of taking years to grow to market-size, the cattle can be slaughtered in less than six months. Which is a good thing for the cattle, since the corn-based diet would kill them from acidosis in slightly more than six months anyway. Evidently cattle were not intended to eat massive amounts of grain and can't properly digest it and use it. So after a few months on this type of diet, they become too acidic and die.
Cattle raised in feedlots don't have high muscle mass, as they don't really even get to walk around, much less "roam the prairies" like we see in movies and commercials. So the fat-to-muscle ratio in their meat is much higher, sometimes up to 65% fat. This is the meat that is sold to our fast food chains and consumed by so many of us. No wonder it tastes good and is so cheap. And, no wonder the US has an obesity epidemic.
So, why do I want you to know this? I believe that people need to be able to make informed decisions about what we eat and the impact our choices may be making on our health. For example, we all know that fast food is not good for us, is full of excessive, empty calories and can make us fat. But did you know that everything in your "value meal" of burger, fries and soda contains corn? The meat was grown by corn products; the bun contains corn syrup as does the soda; the fries were probably fried in corn oil. It's Iowa-in-a-bag.
Look at most of the items in your cupboards or pantry. Read the labels. Corn starch and high fructose corn syrup or just plain corn syrup are in almost everything we buy and eat. Our cupboards house items that weren't even thought of 40 years ago. And the items that were around then have been "improved" so much that they are barely recognizable. And all this is considered progress.
I was wondering just the other day about the significant increase in obesity and diabetes in our society and why these and several other health issues are so much more prevalent than the were in the 1950's and 1960's. Well, I may have found some of the answer to that question by reading food labels.
My challenge to you: Look at the labels and read the ingredients of the food in your pantry and cupboards. Let's don't change any habits right now; simply read the ingredients and become informed.
More to do later.
Monday, December 7, 2009
I’ve Lived Both Sides of the Healthcare System. This Is What I've Learned.
Now here's an interesting article on healthcare reform. I happen to agree with this man's opinion. And I'm one of the uninsured!
I’ve Lived Both Sides of the Healthcare System. This Is What I've Learned.: "
"
I’ve Lived Both Sides of the Healthcare System. This Is What I've Learned.: "
By Paul Michael
This debate has been furiously argued on both sides for several months, so I thought I’d throw my hat in the ring. I lived with the British National Health Service (NHS) until I was 26 years old, and then I moved to America. For the last 9 years, I have lived with private healthcare.
Obviously this is just one man’s opinion. You have your own opinion, and that’s cool. That’s what’s great about this country. What is also great is that we can talk openly about this in a public forum, and (hopefully) spark some intelligent debate and questions. So, let me first begin with my experiences from both sides of the pond.
Living With The British NHS
You will hear horror stories about British healthcare, and I will be the first to say the system is not perfect. But it is no archaic nightmare filled with medieval torture devices and untrained doctors. On the whole, my treatment was great.
When I wanted to see a doctor, I saw a doctor. No co-pay. It was the doctor of my choosing, and my family has had the same GP since way before I was born. He was always being retrained on new techniques, and he wasn't overzealous with a prescription pad. When I made an appointment, I was seen within 10 minutes. If I came in without an appointment, the wait could be an hour or more. I never waited longer than 90 minutes, and that was only because I was a walk-in. When I saw my GP, I was never rushed in and out of the consultation room.
I had several small operations in Britain and everything went very smoothly. The wait from diagnosis to treatment was a few weeks. This may not be the case for everyone, but it was for me. Every hospital I ever went to was clean, efficient and, well, full. Yes, I will admit that there are too few hospitals, but that never stopped me getting treatment in a timely manner. When my sister had a baby, she was in a beautiful room which she shared with one other lady. It wasn't a private room, but it wasn't like a M*A*S*H ward either! And it's also worth noting that private insurance is available in Britain as an addition to standard coverage. BUPA is one example. So, if you have the money, you can upgrade to private rooms, jump ahead on a waiting lists, that kind of thing.
Doctors and nurses, in my honest opinion, usually seemed quite happy with their work. However, most doctors in Britain earn a far more modest income than in the U.S. As far as I know, it's not a sticking point, but then again I'm not a doctor. I'm sure some salivate when they see the amazing salaries commanded by many U.S. doctors.
Were there major downsides? Well, taxes were higher to help pay for the NHS. But, there were usually no co-pays, and prescriptions were filled at a standard price (around seven pounds last time I checked). There are definitely limits imposed on people in Britain, too. For instance, you may have to reach a certain age to be entitled to a hip replacement. And as I said, hospitals are sometimes few and far between. My own parents usually have to travel to the next town for some treatments because the hospital within their town is small and has limited services. But I never had to stand in line for a day to see a crummy, overworked doctor. It was not some “Glenn Beck Nightmare” with rusty beds, abandoned wards and filthy patients roaming the hallways of darkened hospitals. I was just fine, healthy, and happy.
My Treatment In The U.S.
Great. I can't deny it at all. I've had plenty of co-pays over the years, but I think that equates (kind of) with paying higher taxes for healthcare in Britain. Here, I pay out of pocket; back there I was paying before I saw my money.
Prices for my medicnes, until this week, were fine. I have always been on a $10/$20 plan for generics and name-brand. That did just change, and now I dread the day when I may have to take a name-brand drug, as I am no longer covered for those.
My waiting times here have been great, too. They were the same as in Britain, with no wait for scheduled appointments and up to an hour for a walk-in. The operations I had went fine, were painless, and came with a small $50 outpatient fee. My wife had two babies here, both births went very well, we had our own private room, and each time our total cost was just $200 (I saw the bill that went to the insurance company...$20,000!).
Overall, when I was privileged enough to have good insurance through an employer, I was fine. But now, that's no longer the case, and I'm just hoping none of us ever get really sick or need major drugs, as we'll see ourselves facing huge bills.
In conclusion...
After living with both systems, and seeing very little difference in the actual quality of treatment, I have to say that I am for a public plan. The idea of making a profit healthcare, well it just leaves an incredibly nasty taste in the mouth. Knowing that while some people are being denied coverage for the most puerile reasons, CEOs and shareholders of these companies are earning billions of dollars, it's just plain wrong.
Right now, a friend of our family is facing untold horrors because of the healthcare system. They are millions of dollars in debt because their daughter was diagnosed with cancer and they could not afford the $1200 per month for private family health insurance. They could lose everything, and at the same time still have to support a sick little girl. Is this fair? Not when you know that vast, vast sums of money are wasted in our current system, and that money goes to pad the bank accounts of the wealthy.
It’s an argument I’ve been having with people for years. “What’s wrong with profit, what are you, a socialist?” Not at all. Profit is great and I applaud it. If you want a Ferrari, and you can afford it, by all means go and line the pockets of the Ferrari company. I don’t care. If you want an Omega watch, go get one. I hope Omega makes a fortune. If you buy Starbucks coffee, you are making the Starbucks corporation rich, and I say good for them.
But here’s the thing.
No one needs a Ferrari. No one needs an Omega watch. No one needs a coffee from Starbucks. For that matter, no one needs most things that are available today, from your average family-sized pizza to a luxury home in the Hamptons. They’re all wants.
People NEED healthcare. It's that simple.
They need to live. They need help when they’re sick. They need operations to fix broken legs or arms, or heart transplants, or brain surgery. It’s not like they can say “nah, I’m just not really digging this whole cancer treatment thing, I’ll shop around and see if I can pick up a DIY version at Sam’s Club.”
Now, when you couple a “need” with profit, you get slammed. We all saw it with the massive rise in gas prices not so long ago. How many of you stopped driving completely? It just didn’t happen, because we need gas to get around. So, we paid the price and the oil companies had demolition derbies with Rolls Royces.
Healthcare for profit, that’s even worse in my book. There is all this talk of “death panels” and old people being denied coverage, but these things already exist! There are people employed by health insurance companies to keep costs low and profits high. That’s why this enormous and ever-growing list of pre-existing conditions exists. My doctor once told me he was wary of removing a suspicious mole I had because I may not get future coverage for skin cancer! What kind of madness is this?!
To a health insurance company, it’s a risk and rewards game. They give you coverage, but it’s all conditional. They can deny coverage at will it seems, and they give you lifetime maximums that, because costs keep rising, are now being met, even by children. I recently read a story of a young boy who can no longer receive new prosthetic arms because he’s hit his max. But something tells me the CEOs are still getting big bonuses and rising salaries.
And then there’s the issue of switching jobs. Sometimes, you can’t leave a company even if you want to because you cannot give up the health benefits. It’s called “golden handcuffs” and it can cause real misery.
I had none of the above problems in Britain. Did I have to wait for operations? Yes. But it wasn’t a long wait. In all honesty, my care and service was almost identical to the service I receive here, except it was all paid for out of taxes. I paid more taxes than I do here, but not a lot more. And I can tell you this…no one EVER goes bankrupt in Britain because of medical bills. No one. Not a soul. No one worries about medical bills. It’s not an issue.
You should not fear for your health. You should not be afraid that an illness could lead to bankruptcy. You should not be terrified of the cost of simply staying healthy and alive. And corporations SHOULD NOT profit from healthcare. Because at the end of the day, you and your life will always be less important than the price of their stock.
Now, feel free to mow me down with comments, but consider this. Unlike most people, and most of you, I have lived with both types of healthcare. And I choose the public option. There is nothing to be afraid of. Do the research, forget the hype and fear mongering. In your current healthcare system, over $700 billion is wasted each year in administration costs! You deserve affordable healthcare.
For further reading on the current healthcare debate, check out our sister site, The U.S. Healthcare System: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
- The U.S. Vs. The World On Healthcare Quality
- Solidarity (At High Costs): The French Healthcare System
- Socialized Medicine In Britain: Is It Really That Bad?
- End Of Life Care: The Big Bad Wolf Of Healthcare Reform
- The Underinsured: The Sleeping Giant In The Healthcare Crisis
- Understanding The Healthcare Reform Debate: The Uninsured
Permalink | 29 comments | Paul Michael's blog | Channel: Health and Beauty
Similar entries:
This article is from Wise Bread.
"
I’ve Lived Both Sides of the Healthcare System. This Is What I've Learned.
Now here's an interesting article on healthcare reform. I happen to agree with this man's opinion. And I'm one of the uninsured!
I’ve Lived Both Sides of the Healthcare System. This Is What I've Learned.: "
"
I’ve Lived Both Sides of the Healthcare System. This Is What I've Learned.: "
By Paul Michael
This debate has been furiously argued on both sides for several months, so I thought I’d throw my hat in the ring. I lived with the British National Health Service (NHS) until I was 26 years old, and then I moved to America. For the last 9 years, I have lived with private healthcare.
Obviously this is just one man’s opinion. You have your own opinion, and that’s cool. That’s what’s great about this country. What is also great is that we can talk openly about this in a public forum, and (hopefully) spark some intelligent debate and questions. So, let me first begin with my experiences from both sides of the pond.
Living With The British NHS
You will hear horror stories about British healthcare, and I will be the first to say the system is not perfect. But it is no archaic nightmare filled with medieval torture devices and untrained doctors. On the whole, my treatment was great.
When I wanted to see a doctor, I saw a doctor. No co-pay. It was the doctor of my choosing, and my family has had the same GP since way before I was born. He was always being retrained on new techniques, and he wasn't overzealous with a prescription pad. When I made an appointment, I was seen within 10 minutes. If I came in without an appointment, the wait could be an hour or more. I never waited longer than 90 minutes, and that was only because I was a walk-in. When I saw my GP, I was never rushed in and out of the consultation room.
I had several small operations in Britain and everything went very smoothly. The wait from diagnosis to treatment was a few weeks. This may not be the case for everyone, but it was for me. Every hospital I ever went to was clean, efficient and, well, full. Yes, I will admit that there are too few hospitals, but that never stopped me getting treatment in a timely manner. When my sister had a baby, she was in a beautiful room which she shared with one other lady. It wasn't a private room, but it wasn't like a M*A*S*H ward either! And it's also worth noting that private insurance is available in Britain as an addition to standard coverage. BUPA is one example. So, if you have the money, you can upgrade to private rooms, jump ahead on a waiting lists, that kind of thing.
Doctors and nurses, in my honest opinion, usually seemed quite happy with their work. However, most doctors in Britain earn a far more modest income than in the U.S. As far as I know, it's not a sticking point, but then again I'm not a doctor. I'm sure some salivate when they see the amazing salaries commanded by many U.S. doctors.
Were there major downsides? Well, taxes were higher to help pay for the NHS. But, there were usually no co-pays, and prescriptions were filled at a standard price (around seven pounds last time I checked). There are definitely limits imposed on people in Britain, too. For instance, you may have to reach a certain age to be entitled to a hip replacement. And as I said, hospitals are sometimes few and far between. My own parents usually have to travel to the next town for some treatments because the hospital within their town is small and has limited services. But I never had to stand in line for a day to see a crummy, overworked doctor. It was not some “Glenn Beck Nightmare” with rusty beds, abandoned wards and filthy patients roaming the hallways of darkened hospitals. I was just fine, healthy, and happy.
My Treatment In The U.S.
Great. I can't deny it at all. I've had plenty of co-pays over the years, but I think that equates (kind of) with paying higher taxes for healthcare in Britain. Here, I pay out of pocket; back there I was paying before I saw my money.
Prices for my medicnes, until this week, were fine. I have always been on a $10/$20 plan for generics and name-brand. That did just change, and now I dread the day when I may have to take a name-brand drug, as I am no longer covered for those.
My waiting times here have been great, too. They were the same as in Britain, with no wait for scheduled appointments and up to an hour for a walk-in. The operations I had went fine, were painless, and came with a small $50 outpatient fee. My wife had two babies here, both births went very well, we had our own private room, and each time our total cost was just $200 (I saw the bill that went to the insurance company...$20,000!).
Overall, when I was privileged enough to have good insurance through an employer, I was fine. But now, that's no longer the case, and I'm just hoping none of us ever get really sick or need major drugs, as we'll see ourselves facing huge bills.
In conclusion...
After living with both systems, and seeing very little difference in the actual quality of treatment, I have to say that I am for a public plan. The idea of making a profit healthcare, well it just leaves an incredibly nasty taste in the mouth. Knowing that while some people are being denied coverage for the most puerile reasons, CEOs and shareholders of these companies are earning billions of dollars, it's just plain wrong.
Right now, a friend of our family is facing untold horrors because of the healthcare system. They are millions of dollars in debt because their daughter was diagnosed with cancer and they could not afford the $1200 per month for private family health insurance. They could lose everything, and at the same time still have to support a sick little girl. Is this fair? Not when you know that vast, vast sums of money are wasted in our current system, and that money goes to pad the bank accounts of the wealthy.
It’s an argument I’ve been having with people for years. “What’s wrong with profit, what are you, a socialist?” Not at all. Profit is great and I applaud it. If you want a Ferrari, and you can afford it, by all means go and line the pockets of the Ferrari company. I don’t care. If you want an Omega watch, go get one. I hope Omega makes a fortune. If you buy Starbucks coffee, you are making the Starbucks corporation rich, and I say good for them.
But here’s the thing.
No one needs a Ferrari. No one needs an Omega watch. No one needs a coffee from Starbucks. For that matter, no one needs most things that are available today, from your average family-sized pizza to a luxury home in the Hamptons. They’re all wants.
People NEED healthcare. It's that simple.
They need to live. They need help when they’re sick. They need operations to fix broken legs or arms, or heart transplants, or brain surgery. It’s not like they can say “nah, I’m just not really digging this whole cancer treatment thing, I’ll shop around and see if I can pick up a DIY version at Sam’s Club.”
Now, when you couple a “need” with profit, you get slammed. We all saw it with the massive rise in gas prices not so long ago. How many of you stopped driving completely? It just didn’t happen, because we need gas to get around. So, we paid the price and the oil companies had demolition derbies with Rolls Royces.
Healthcare for profit, that’s even worse in my book. There is all this talk of “death panels” and old people being denied coverage, but these things already exist! There are people employed by health insurance companies to keep costs low and profits high. That’s why this enormous and ever-growing list of pre-existing conditions exists. My doctor once told me he was wary of removing a suspicious mole I had because I may not get future coverage for skin cancer! What kind of madness is this?!
To a health insurance company, it’s a risk and rewards game. They give you coverage, but it’s all conditional. They can deny coverage at will it seems, and they give you lifetime maximums that, because costs keep rising, are now being met, even by children. I recently read a story of a young boy who can no longer receive new prosthetic arms because he’s hit his max. But something tells me the CEOs are still getting big bonuses and rising salaries.
And then there’s the issue of switching jobs. Sometimes, you can’t leave a company even if you want to because you cannot give up the health benefits. It’s called “golden handcuffs” and it can cause real misery.
I had none of the above problems in Britain. Did I have to wait for operations? Yes. But it wasn’t a long wait. In all honesty, my care and service was almost identical to the service I receive here, except it was all paid for out of taxes. I paid more taxes than I do here, but not a lot more. And I can tell you this…no one EVER goes bankrupt in Britain because of medical bills. No one. Not a soul. No one worries about medical bills. It’s not an issue.
You should not fear for your health. You should not be afraid that an illness could lead to bankruptcy. You should not be terrified of the cost of simply staying healthy and alive. And corporations SHOULD NOT profit from healthcare. Because at the end of the day, you and your life will always be less important than the price of their stock.
Now, feel free to mow me down with comments, but consider this. Unlike most people, and most of you, I have lived with both types of healthcare. And I choose the public option. There is nothing to be afraid of. Do the research, forget the hype and fear mongering. In your current healthcare system, over $700 billion is wasted each year in administration costs! You deserve affordable healthcare.
For further reading on the current healthcare debate, check out our sister site, The U.S. Healthcare System: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
- The U.S. Vs. The World On Healthcare Quality
- Solidarity (At High Costs): The French Healthcare System
- Socialized Medicine In Britain: Is It Really That Bad?
- End Of Life Care: The Big Bad Wolf Of Healthcare Reform
- The Underinsured: The Sleeping Giant In The Healthcare Crisis
- Understanding The Healthcare Reform Debate: The Uninsured
Permalink | 29 comments | Paul Michael's blog | Channel: Health and Beauty
Similar entries:
This article is from Wise Bread.
"
I’ve Lived Both Sides of the Healthcare System. This Is What I've Learned.
Now here's an interesting article on healthcare reform. I happen to agree with this man's opinion. And I'm one of the uninsured!
I’ve Lived Both Sides of the Healthcare System. This Is What I've Learned.: "
"
I’ve Lived Both Sides of the Healthcare System. This Is What I've Learned.: "
By Paul Michael
This debate has been furiously argued on both sides for several months, so I thought I’d throw my hat in the ring. I lived with the British National Health Service (NHS) until I was 26 years old, and then I moved to America. For the last 9 years, I have lived with private healthcare.
Obviously this is just one man’s opinion. You have your own opinion, and that’s cool. That’s what’s great about this country. What is also great is that we can talk openly about this in a public forum, and (hopefully) spark some intelligent debate and questions. So, let me first begin with my experiences from both sides of the pond.
Living With The British NHS
You will hear horror stories about British healthcare, and I will be the first to say the system is not perfect. But it is no archaic nightmare filled with medieval torture devices and untrained doctors. On the whole, my treatment was great.
When I wanted to see a doctor, I saw a doctor. No co-pay. It was the doctor of my choosing, and my family has had the same GP since way before I was born. He was always being retrained on new techniques, and he wasn't overzealous with a prescription pad. When I made an appointment, I was seen within 10 minutes. If I came in without an appointment, the wait could be an hour or more. I never waited longer than 90 minutes, and that was only because I was a walk-in. When I saw my GP, I was never rushed in and out of the consultation room.
I had several small operations in Britain and everything went very smoothly. The wait from diagnosis to treatment was a few weeks. This may not be the case for everyone, but it was for me. Every hospital I ever went to was clean, efficient and, well, full. Yes, I will admit that there are too few hospitals, but that never stopped me getting treatment in a timely manner. When my sister had a baby, she was in a beautiful room which she shared with one other lady. It wasn't a private room, but it wasn't like a M*A*S*H ward either! And it's also worth noting that private insurance is available in Britain as an addition to standard coverage. BUPA is one example. So, if you have the money, you can upgrade to private rooms, jump ahead on a waiting lists, that kind of thing.
Doctors and nurses, in my honest opinion, usually seemed quite happy with their work. However, most doctors in Britain earn a far more modest income than in the U.S. As far as I know, it's not a sticking point, but then again I'm not a doctor. I'm sure some salivate when they see the amazing salaries commanded by many U.S. doctors.
Were there major downsides? Well, taxes were higher to help pay for the NHS. But, there were usually no co-pays, and prescriptions were filled at a standard price (around seven pounds last time I checked). There are definitely limits imposed on people in Britain, too. For instance, you may have to reach a certain age to be entitled to a hip replacement. And as I said, hospitals are sometimes few and far between. My own parents usually have to travel to the next town for some treatments because the hospital within their town is small and has limited services. But I never had to stand in line for a day to see a crummy, overworked doctor. It was not some “Glenn Beck Nightmare” with rusty beds, abandoned wards and filthy patients roaming the hallways of darkened hospitals. I was just fine, healthy, and happy.
My Treatment In The U.S.
Great. I can't deny it at all. I've had plenty of co-pays over the years, but I think that equates (kind of) with paying higher taxes for healthcare in Britain. Here, I pay out of pocket; back there I was paying before I saw my money.
Prices for my medicnes, until this week, were fine. I have always been on a $10/$20 plan for generics and name-brand. That did just change, and now I dread the day when I may have to take a name-brand drug, as I am no longer covered for those.
My waiting times here have been great, too. They were the same as in Britain, with no wait for scheduled appointments and up to an hour for a walk-in. The operations I had went fine, were painless, and came with a small $50 outpatient fee. My wife had two babies here, both births went very well, we had our own private room, and each time our total cost was just $200 (I saw the bill that went to the insurance company...$20,000!).
Overall, when I was privileged enough to have good insurance through an employer, I was fine. But now, that's no longer the case, and I'm just hoping none of us ever get really sick or need major drugs, as we'll see ourselves facing huge bills.
In conclusion...
After living with both systems, and seeing very little difference in the actual quality of treatment, I have to say that I am for a public plan. The idea of making a profit healthcare, well it just leaves an incredibly nasty taste in the mouth. Knowing that while some people are being denied coverage for the most puerile reasons, CEOs and shareholders of these companies are earning billions of dollars, it's just plain wrong.
Right now, a friend of our family is facing untold horrors because of the healthcare system. They are millions of dollars in debt because their daughter was diagnosed with cancer and they could not afford the $1200 per month for private family health insurance. They could lose everything, and at the same time still have to support a sick little girl. Is this fair? Not when you know that vast, vast sums of money are wasted in our current system, and that money goes to pad the bank accounts of the wealthy.
It’s an argument I’ve been having with people for years. “What’s wrong with profit, what are you, a socialist?” Not at all. Profit is great and I applaud it. If you want a Ferrari, and you can afford it, by all means go and line the pockets of the Ferrari company. I don’t care. If you want an Omega watch, go get one. I hope Omega makes a fortune. If you buy Starbucks coffee, you are making the Starbucks corporation rich, and I say good for them.
But here’s the thing.
No one needs a Ferrari. No one needs an Omega watch. No one needs a coffee from Starbucks. For that matter, no one needs most things that are available today, from your average family-sized pizza to a luxury home in the Hamptons. They’re all wants.
People NEED healthcare. It's that simple.
They need to live. They need help when they’re sick. They need operations to fix broken legs or arms, or heart transplants, or brain surgery. It’s not like they can say “nah, I’m just not really digging this whole cancer treatment thing, I’ll shop around and see if I can pick up a DIY version at Sam’s Club.”
Now, when you couple a “need” with profit, you get slammed. We all saw it with the massive rise in gas prices not so long ago. How many of you stopped driving completely? It just didn’t happen, because we need gas to get around. So, we paid the price and the oil companies had demolition derbies with Rolls Royces.
Healthcare for profit, that’s even worse in my book. There is all this talk of “death panels” and old people being denied coverage, but these things already exist! There are people employed by health insurance companies to keep costs low and profits high. That’s why this enormous and ever-growing list of pre-existing conditions exists. My doctor once told me he was wary of removing a suspicious mole I had because I may not get future coverage for skin cancer! What kind of madness is this?!
To a health insurance company, it’s a risk and rewards game. They give you coverage, but it’s all conditional. They can deny coverage at will it seems, and they give you lifetime maximums that, because costs keep rising, are now being met, even by children. I recently read a story of a young boy who can no longer receive new prosthetic arms because he’s hit his max. But something tells me the CEOs are still getting big bonuses and rising salaries.
And then there’s the issue of switching jobs. Sometimes, you can’t leave a company even if you want to because you cannot give up the health benefits. It’s called “golden handcuffs” and it can cause real misery.
I had none of the above problems in Britain. Did I have to wait for operations? Yes. But it wasn’t a long wait. In all honesty, my care and service was almost identical to the service I receive here, except it was all paid for out of taxes. I paid more taxes than I do here, but not a lot more. And I can tell you this…no one EVER goes bankrupt in Britain because of medical bills. No one. Not a soul. No one worries about medical bills. It’s not an issue.
You should not fear for your health. You should not be afraid that an illness could lead to bankruptcy. You should not be terrified of the cost of simply staying healthy and alive. And corporations SHOULD NOT profit from healthcare. Because at the end of the day, you and your life will always be less important than the price of their stock.
Now, feel free to mow me down with comments, but consider this. Unlike most people, and most of you, I have lived with both types of healthcare. And I choose the public option. There is nothing to be afraid of. Do the research, forget the hype and fear mongering. In your current healthcare system, over $700 billion is wasted each year in administration costs! You deserve affordable healthcare.
For further reading on the current healthcare debate, check out our sister site, The U.S. Healthcare System: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
- The U.S. Vs. The World On Healthcare Quality
- Solidarity (At High Costs): The French Healthcare System
- Socialized Medicine In Britain: Is It Really That Bad?
- End Of Life Care: The Big Bad Wolf Of Healthcare Reform
- The Underinsured: The Sleeping Giant In The Healthcare Crisis
- Understanding The Healthcare Reform Debate: The Uninsured
Permalink | 29 comments | Paul Michael's blog | Channel: Health and Beauty
Similar entries:
This article is from Wise Bread.
"
Thursday, November 19, 2009
AH-AH-AH-CHOO! It's cold season.
Well, it's really here. Cold and flu season is upon us and, as usual, I've been getting questions about flu vaccines and Chinese herbs for flu.
The vaccination decision is a personal one. Everyone needs to weigh the risks of vaccine side effects against the risk of getting the flu. For the weak, frail or immune deficient there is a stronger argument in favor of vaccination. The healthy and strong could mount a good defense against the flu and might want to skip the vaccine and any side effects.
Chinese medicine can assist and support you in 2 ways:
Regular acupuncture treatments help strengthen the immune system and reduce stress, which has been shown to damage the immune system. If you eat well, get plenty of rest, avoid overworking, exercise regularly and practice stress reduction activities, you will go a long way toward keeping your body healthy and your immune system working well.
If disease or illness does occur, acupuncture and Chinese herbs can effectively treat the symptoms and strengthen your body's ability to fight the attack.
The vaccination decision is a personal one. Everyone needs to weigh the risks of vaccine side effects against the risk of getting the flu. For the weak, frail or immune deficient there is a stronger argument in favor of vaccination. The healthy and strong could mount a good defense against the flu and might want to skip the vaccine and any side effects.
Chinese medicine can assist and support you in 2 ways:
- Chinese herbs and acupuncture can strengthen your immune function and general health, giving you a better chance to ward off infection.
- Chinese medicine can treat flu symptoms if you do contract it. Patients are often amazed with the results of acupuncture and herbs in treating colds, flu and other respiratory ailments.
Regular acupuncture treatments help strengthen the immune system and reduce stress, which has been shown to damage the immune system. If you eat well, get plenty of rest, avoid overworking, exercise regularly and practice stress reduction activities, you will go a long way toward keeping your body healthy and your immune system working well.
If disease or illness does occur, acupuncture and Chinese herbs can effectively treat the symptoms and strengthen your body's ability to fight the attack.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Alternative Sweeteners 101
The opening paragraph of this article left me speechless. What are we doing to ourselves?
I knew aspartame and saccharin were bad, but I didn't know that the process to make Splenda included chlorine. GAG. None of these products should be consumed.
Let's stick to more natural sweeteners and use fruit instead.
Alternative Sweeteners 101: "
Share on Facebook
"
I knew aspartame and saccharin were bad, but I didn't know that the process to make Splenda included chlorine. GAG. None of these products should be consumed.
Let's stick to more natural sweeteners and use fruit instead.
Alternative Sweeteners 101: "
Photo by Vali.
Just take a guess at how much sugar the average American consumed, per day in 2003. Answer: 44 teaspoons. That means that in 2003, the average American consumed 142 pounds of sugar! That’s more than 7 times the recommended maximum intake of sugar (which is 6 teaspoons).
As a way to curb the problem of chronic diseases, like diabetes and obesity, that result from sweetener over-consumption, many people have turned to artificial sweeteners. The following is your guide to the most common alternatives to sugar.
Artificial sweeteners
Aspartame is the active ingredient in NutraSweet® and Equal®). Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sugar is made by combining two amino acids (aspartic acid + phenylalanine) with the alcohol methanol. Alone, the two amino acids are harmless, but when transformed chemically by the toxic wood alcohol, the resultant artificial sweetener’s safety is questionable. Author and neurologist, Russel L. Blaylock, writes in his book Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills, that metabolized Aspartame overexcites the brains neurons leading to neuronal death, seizures, Alzheimer’s, and Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS). Some scientists have even found that Aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde (used to embalm cadavers) and accumulates in the body. NutraSweet® is found in over 5,000 products so read your labels, folks.
Saccharin is found in such sugar alternatives such as Sweet’ N Low®. Saccharin is known by the chemical name benzoic sulfinide and is derived from coal tar. There are no calories or food energy obtained from saccharin because it can’t be metabolized by the body. Its super-sweet (200-700 more sweet than sugar) taste though, can induce insulin release by the pancreas and wreak havoc on one’s blood sugar. Saccharin’s safety came into question the 1970’s when male rats ingested large quantities, formed toxic silicate crystals and developed bladder cancer. Since 2000, the US government has removed saccharin from the list of potential cancer causing substances. Center for Science in the Public Interest immediately posted a press release that calls into question the de-listing and the safety of a substance like saccharin that is linked to cancer.
Sucralose is found in artificial sweeteners such as Splenda®. This alternative to sugar is extremely sweet at an estimated 600 times more sweet than sugar. Sucrolose is manufactured by adding chlorine to sucrose (table sugar). Like aspartame and saccharin, sucralose is not metabolized into energy and thus makers of Splenda label it as a no calorie sweetener, it actually contains 3.31 calories per gram or 96 calories and 32 grams of carbohydrates per cup because of the added bulking agents dextrose or maltodextrin. The concern with sucralose comes from the chlorine that is added to the sucrose. This combination was discovered when trying to formulate a new pesticide. Long-term studies have not been done on the safety of sucralose yet chloride based organic compounds, like DDT, are considered dangerous.
Natural alternative sweeteners
Agave syrup (aka Agave necter) is a naturally heated and concentration of aguamiel in the sap of the Agave plant. This syrup is 1.5 times sweeter then sugar, contains the minerals magnesium, iron, calcium and potassium and can be used to sweeten recipe. Agave has a low glycemic index and glycemic load, but this is because it is composed of 90% fructose and 10% glucose of which, only glucose is measured in the rating system. This can make it tricky for diabetics to use. The only other place fructose is this high is in high-fructose corn syrup. Additionally, most agave is produced in Mexico and before being shipped to the US it can be diluted with corn syrup to increase the volume–make sure you’re buying high quality agave. High fructose consumption is associated with reduced insulin receptor sensitivity, fatty liver disease, liver cirrhosis, and oxidative cellular damage. Be cautious even with this natural sweetener.
Stevia goes by the chemical name of stevioside (rebaudioside A) and is extracted from the stevia plant. It’s very popular in Japan because stevia is about 250 times more sweet than sucrose. Stevia can be used by diabetics, on a low carbohydrate diet as it does not greatly affect blood glucose and also enhances glucose tolerance. This alternative sweetener can also be used to treat obesity and hypertension although keep in mind it’s not completely safe. Like anything in excess, high doses of stevia have been associated with decreased sperm counts in men and interference of proper carbohydrate metabolism.
So what’s the smartest choice? Next time you bake a tray of cookies, try an alternative recipes that uses a natural sweetener. This may seem obvious but in general, it’s most healthful to return to the basics and eat whole foods. Stick to the natural concentrations of sugars found in our fruits and vegetables. When consumed as whole food, sugars are absorbed more slowly due to the high fiber content. If its fruit, don’t juice it or dry it. Eat food whole!
Share on Facebook
"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
A Month of Reflection1 year ago
-
lowering your life’s requirements8 years ago
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments