Health/Nutrition

Health: the general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigor; soundness of body or mind; freedom from disease or ailment. Nu·tri·tion: the science or study of, or a course of study in, the process by which organisms, esp. humans, take in and utilize food material. Posts in this category pertain to the science of human nutrition and diet, and their impact on health.

Fried rutabaga with broiled pork chop and Brussells sprout slaw

Rutabaga: Well-Kept Low-Carb Secret

Filed in PersonalTags: Health/Nutrition, Low Carb

Oh, rutabaga, where have you been my whole (low-carb) life?

I have been a dedicated low-carber for over a decade. While I could go the rest of my life without eating another dessert or drinking another soft drink, my meat-and-potatoes farm-community up-bringing often leaves me missing starch-laden foods of my youth, such as fried potatoes and biscuits and gravy. In fact, when I decide to splurge, it is almost alway with one of these two foods. In over ten years of living low-carb, I had never found a suitable, low-carb replacement for crispy potatoes fried in bacon grease.

Enter the rutabaga: humble root vegetable, that also happens to be incredibly low in carbohydrate (under half the net carbohydrate content of a potato). While not a strictly low-carb food, it makes for a great option for the occasional potato fix.

Apparently, the rutabaga has fallen out of popular use, due to its reputation as famine food during World War II. How unfortunate. As it turns out, the rutabaga is basically just as easy to work with as the potato, and makes an equally good accompaniment as the potato when fried.

Here are the results of tonight's experiment with making fried rutabaga.

The rutabaga is at first a somewhat unusual-looking vegetable, but is actually easier to peel than a potato:

Rutabaga Peeled and Unpeeled

Rutabaga Peeled and Unpeeled

Once peeled, rutabaga is considerably more difficult to cut through than a potato; however, once I quartered the rutabaga, the mandolin made quick work of slicing:

Rutabaga Quartered and Mandolin-Sliced

Rutabaga Quartered and Mandolin-Sliced

I initially fried a small batch (1/2 rutabaga) of potato chip-thin slices, to get a feel for the texture and taste of fried rutabaga.

Frying a trial batch of rutabaga

Frying a trial batch of rutabaga

Having discovered that rutabaga fries essentially the same as potato, we were pleasantly surprised further to discover the mild, natural sweetness of rutabaga that - especially when crispy-fried - pairs in a rather addictive manner with a little salt and pepper.

Finding the trial run successful, I set the mandolin to one setting thicker, sliced another whole rutabaga, and fried the whole batch in bacon grease, as before.

First full batch of fried rutabaga

First full batch of fried rutabaga

This batch definitely took longer to cook than the potato chip-thin slices, but still barely took longer than the time required to broil pork chops.

The pork chops and fried rutabaga (garnished with a few bits of crumbled bacon), combined with some Brussels sprouts "slaw" (steamed Brussels sprouts, core removed, mashed/quick chopped, with butter, Parmesan cheese, and a few drops of lemon juice) made for a tasty and - and unexpectedly filling - meal.

Fried rutabaga with broiled pork chop and Brussells sprout slaw

Fried rutabaga with broiled pork chop and Brussells sprout slaw

(I actually was unable to finish the entire plate.)

Next up: rutabaga chips in the deep fryer, rutabaga soup (using my secret family potato soup recipe), and roast with rutabaga.

HR3200: Tax On Individuals Without Acceptable Coverage

Filed in Politics, Social IssuesTags: Constitutional Rights, Health/Nutrition, HR3200, ObamaCare

HR3200 – Reading The Bill: Tax On Individuals Without Acceptable Coverage

I’m really getting sick of supporters of ObamaCare admonishing those who oppose it to read the bill. So, I’m working on a series in which I do just that, framing my opposition to the bill by referencing the actual wording of the proposed legislation.

Up next: HR3200’s tax on individuals without acceptable healthcare coverage, and debunking President Obama's lie that ObamaCare does not impose such a tax.

As part of his Sunday ObamaCare Blitzkreig, Obama told George Stephanopoulos that ObamaCare does not tax individuals who fail to pay for ObamaCare-approved health coverage:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here -- here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...

OBAMA: No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase.

...

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

(H/T Canticle4Leibowitz. Full transcript can be found at ABC.)

Jim Hoft and Bob Leibowitz go on to discuss Stephanopoulos reading Obama the dictionary definition of a tax, and Obama claiming that he was "stretching" the meaning of a tax by quoting the dictionary.

Theirs is certainly valid criticism, but I want to look at the wording of the bill itself, which likewise proves Obama to be telling yet another bald-faced lie.

Refer to pp. 167-168, Title IV — Amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility, Part 1 — Individual Responsibility, Sec. 401. Tax On Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage [emphasis added]:

IN GENERAL. — Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

‘‘TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

‘‘the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

This section is fairly straight-forward, and its intent is clear: if you do not pay for ObamaCare-approved health coverage, the IRS will impose a tax on you. The bill amends the IRS tax code, to define a new tax: a tax for failure to maintain acceptable health coverage.

So: a given individual is not paying a certain tax now, but under ObamaCare, that same individual will be paying that tax. That outcome is, by definition, a tax increase.

Oh, and by the way, it's in the Baucus Senate bill, too.)

President Obama: You Lie!

For reference and context, below are the above-referenced excerpts from HR 3200:

167 • HR 3200 IH
TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
8 Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
9 PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
10 SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
11 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
14 the end the following new part:
15 ‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
16 ‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable
17 Health Care Coverage
18 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

168 • HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in
2 come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

Coverage elsewhere: FoxNews, The P/Oed Patriot, BluegrassBulletin, Revolution By Constitution, My Take On Life, Politico

HR3200: Hostility Toward SMBs That Self-Insure

Filed in Politics, Social IssuesTags: Constitutional Rights, Health/Nutrition, HR3200, ObamaCare

HR3200 – Reading The Bill: Hostility Toward SMBs That Self-Insure

I’m really getting sick of supporters of ObamaCare admonishing those who oppose it to read the bill. So, I’m working on a series in which I do just that, framing my opposition to the bill by referencing the actual wording of the proposed legislation.

Up next: HR3200's hostility toward Small and Medium Businesses (SMBs) that self-insure.

We'll start with a look at SEC. 113, INSURANCE RATING RULES. Refer to page 21 line 23 through page 22 line 11, Sec. 113(b)(1)(C):

The Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine...[t]he financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.

Now, I'm not a businessperson; I'm just an engineer. That said, I don't understand how one can "examine...[t]he financial solvency and capital reserve levels" of a company without looking at that company's books. I have seen the argument from the left that this information is available in normal IRS paperwork, but I don't think so. Such IRS documents involve a company's income, expenditures, and losses for a given fiscal year. "Financial solvency and capital reserve levels" cannot be gleaned solely from such data.

Perhaps this information can be gleaned from the publicly available annual financial reports; however, publicly traded companies (which are the ones required to publish annual financial reports) are, I would assume, less likely to self-insure. It is the SMBs that would be most likely to self-insure - and at the same time, less likely to be publicly traded and therefore less likely to publish annual financial reports.

So, from where will the Commissioner get these data, without auditing the books of companies that self-insure?

Further, the bill explicitly states that its intent is to eliminate tax incentives for SMBs to self-insure. Refer to page 22 line 23 to page 23 line 3, Sec. 113(b)(2):

Such report shall include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers.

To make matters worse, under Title VIII, Section 1802, Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund, subsection 1802(b)(1), the bill actually amends Chapter 34 of the Internal Revenue code, adding a new Subchapter B to impose a fine (tax) on companies that self-insure. Refer to page 830, lines 1-9, Sec. 1802(b)(1), quoting Internal Revenue code Chapter 34, Subchapter B, Section 4376, Self-Insured Health Plans:

SEC. 4376. SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

(a) IMPOSITION OF FEE.—In the case of any applicable self-insured health plan for each plan year, there is hereby imposed a fee equal to the fair share per capita amount determined under section 9511(c)(1) multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the plan.

(b) LIABILITY FOR FEE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The fee imposed by subsection (a) shall be paid by the plan sponsor.

So, what is the "fair share per capita" fee amount? It is defined as follows:

Subject to subparagraph (B), the fair share per capita amount under this paragraph for a fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2013) is an amount computed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for such fiscal year that, when applied under this section and subchapter B of chapter 34 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, will result in revenues to the CERTF of $375,000,000 for the fiscal year.

In other words, take $375 million, divide by the total of all employees under an employer self-insurance plan, and you get the "fair share per capita amount".

According to this report, 73 million Americans were in self-insurance plans in 2007. Using this number, employers who self-insure will be taxed at least $5 per employee, just to help fund the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (CERTF).

So, to summarize, HR3200 is hostile toward SMBs that self-insure:

  • SMBs that self-insure will be subjected to auditing in order to examine... financial solvency and capital reserve levels"
  • Recommendations will be made to ensure that tax laws "does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure"
  • SMBs that self-insure will be subjected to a "fair share per capita" tax to help fund the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (CERTF)

For reference and context, below are the above-referenced excerpts from HR 3200:

Page 21•HR 3200
22 (b) STUDY AND REPORTS.—
23 (1) STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordina
24 tion with the Secretary of Health and Human Serv
25 ices and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a
26 study of the large group insured and self-insured
Page 22•HR 3200
1 employer health care markets. Such study shall ex
2 amine the following:
3 (A) The types of employers by key charac
4 teristics, including size, that purchase insured
5 products versus those that self-insure.
6 (B) The similarities and differences be
7 tween typical insured and self-insured health
8 plans.
9 (C) The financial solvency and capital re
10 serve levels of employers that self-insure by em
11 ployer size.
12 (D) The risk of self-insured employers not
13 being able to pay obligations or otherwise be
14 coming financially insolvent.
15 (E) The extent to which rating rules are
16 likely to cause adverse selection in the large
17 group market or to encourage small and mid
18 size employers to self-insure
19 (2) REPORTS.—Not later than 18 months after
20 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commis
21 sioner shall submit to Congress and the applicable
22 agencies a report on the study conducted under
23 paragraph (1). Such report shall include any rec
24 ommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate
25 to ensure that the law does not provide incentives
Page 23 •HR 3200
1 for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or
2 create adverse selection in the risk pools of large
3 group insurers and self-insured employers. Not later
4 than 18 months after the first day of Y1, the Com
5 missioner shall submit to Congress and the applica
6 ble agencies an updated report on such study, in
7 cluding updates on such recommendations.

Page 830 •HR 3200
1 ‘‘SEC. 4376. SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.
2 ‘‘(a) IMPOSITION OF FEE.—In the case of any appli
3 cable self-insured health plan for each plan year, there is
4 hereby imposed a fee equal to the fair share per capita
5 amount determined under section 9511(c)(1) multiplied by
6 the average number of lives covered under the plan.
7 ‘‘(b) LIABILITY FOR FEE.—
8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The fee imposed by sub
9 section (a) shall be paid by the plan sponsor.
10 ‘‘(2) PLAN SPONSOR.—For purposes of para
11 graph (1) the term ‘plan sponsor’ means—
12 ‘‘(A) the employer in the case of a plan es
13 tablished or maintained by a single employer,
14 ‘‘(B) the employee organization in the case
15 of a plan established or maintained by an em
16 ployee organization,
17 ‘‘(C) in the case of—
18 ‘‘(i) a plan established or maintained
19 by 2 or more employers or jointly by 1 or
20 more employers and 1 or more employee
21 organizations,
22 ‘‘(ii) a multiple employer welfare ar
23 rangement, or
24 ‘‘(iii) a voluntary employees’ bene
25 ficiary association described in section
26 501(c)(9),
Page 831 •HR 3200
1 the association, committee, joint board of trust
2 ees, or other similar group of representatives of
3 the parties who establish or maintain the plan,
4 or
5 ‘‘(D) the cooperative or association de
6 scribed in subsection (c)(2)(F) in the case of a
7 plan established or maintained by such a coop
8 erative or association.
9 ‘‘(c) APPLICABLE SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLAN.—
10 For purposes of this section, the term ‘applicable self-in
11 sured health plan’ means any plan for providing accident
12 or health coverage if—
13 ‘‘(1) any portion of such coverage is provided
14 other than through an insurance policy, and
15 ‘‘(2) such plan is established or maintained—
16 ‘‘(A) by one or more employers for the
17 benefit of their employees or former employees,
18 ‘‘(B) by one or more employee organiza
19 tions for the benefit of their members or former
20 members,
21 ‘‘(C) jointly by 1 or more employers and 1
22 or more employee organizations for the benefit
23 of employees or former employees,
24 ‘‘(D) by a voluntary employees’ beneficiary
25 association described in section 501(c)(9),
Page 832 •HR 3200
1 ‘‘(E) by any organization described in sec
2 tion 501(c)(6), or
3 ‘‘(F) in the case of a plan not described in
4 the preceding subparagraphs, by a multiple em
5 ployer welfare arrangement (as defined in sec
6 tion 3(40) of Employee Retirement Income Se
7 curity Act of 1974), a rural electric cooperative
8 (as defined in section 3(40)(B)(iv) of such Act),
9 or a rural telephone cooperative association (as
10 defined in section 3(40)(B)(v) of such Act).

Page 825 •HR 3200
5 ‘‘(c) FAIR SHARE PER CAPITA AMOUNT.—
6 ‘‘(1) COMPUTATION.—
7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara
8 graph (B), the fair share per capita amount
9 under this paragraph for a fiscal year (begin
10 ning with fiscal year 2013) is an amount com
11 puted by the Secretary of Health and Human
12 Services for such fiscal year that, when applied
13 under this section and subchapter B of chapter
14 34 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, will
15 result in revenues to the CERTF of
16 $375,000,000 for the fiscal year.
17 ‘‘(B) ALTERNATIVE COMPUTATION.—
18 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary is
19 unable to compute the fair share per capita
20 amount under subparagraph (A) for a fis21
cal year, the fair share per capita amount
22 under this paragraph for the fiscal year
23 shall be the default amount determined
24 under clause (ii) for the fiscal year.
Page 826 •HR 3200
1 ‘‘(ii) DEFAULT AMOUNT.—The default
2 amount under this clause for—
3 ‘‘(I) fiscal year 2013 is equal to
4 $2; or
5 ‘‘(II) a subsequent year is equal
6 to the default amount under this
7 clause for the preceding fiscal year in
8 creased by the annual percentage in
9 crease in the medical care component
10 of the consumer price index (United
11 States city average) for the 12-month
12 period ending with April of the pre
13 ceding fiscal year.
14 Any amount determined under subclause
15 (II) shall be rounded to the nearest penny.
16 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON MEDICARE FUNDING.—In
17 no case shall the amount transferred under sub
18 section (b)(4)(B) for any fiscal year exceed
19 $90,000,000.

HR3200: You Will Lose Your Current Insurance

Filed in Politics, Social IssuesTags: Constitutional Rights, Health/Nutrition, HR3200, ObamaCare

HR3200 - Reading The Bill: You Will Lose Your Current Insurance

I'm really getting sick of supporters of ObamaCare admonishing those who oppose it to read the bill. So, I'm starting a series in which I do just that, framing my opposition to the bill by referencing the actual wording of the proposed legislation.

Up first: Obama's claim that "if you like your current plan, you can keep it."

This claim is a bald-faced lie, and one that I will demonstrate using the wording of the bill itself. Whatever your private insurance coverage is today, whether or not you are satisfied with it, you will be forced to move to another plan by 2018.

First, some background. Page 14 defines "Y1" through "Y5" as years 2013 and following. So, anything in the bill that takes place in Y1 takes place in 2013, and Y5 in 2017.

Now, let's get into the heart of the matter. Start with this statement from Page 19, lines 1-5:

IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

We can establish thus far that, as of January 1, 2013, all health insurance plans must be either a) an "Exchange-participating" benefits plan, or b) a grandfathered plan.

An "Exchange-participating" benefits plan is, essentially, any plan that is "qualified" under HR 3200, according to qualification rules that will be determined and implemented by the government.

So, what is a "grandfathered" plan? From the rhetoric coming from Obama, one would assume that all currently existing plans would be "grandfathered". Not so.

According to Page 16, lines 3-26, Section 102, PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE:

GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

See that? Not all pre-existing plans will be considered as "grandfathered"; but rather only those that meet two very important conditions. To be considered "grandfathered", a plan must:

  1. Exist prior to January 1, 2013,
  2. Not enroll any new members on or after January 1, 2013 (except for adding dependents to existing plans, and
  3. Not change any of its terms or conditions on or after January 1, 2013

Now, how tenable are those requirements? Not very.

Are you insured through your employer? Do you think that your company will hire any new employees on or after January 1, 2013? Do you think that your employer will want to add those new employees to the company insurance plan? Do you think that your company might want to negotiate new or better coverage, or changes to deductibles, or make any other routine changes to your plan?

Of course. And if so, your insurance plan will no longer be grandfathered. Once it is no longer grandfathered, it will be subject to government control and subject to the requirements and qualifications for "Exchange-participating" plans.

However, let's make the extreme assumption that such a plan will exist, and will remain viable. You're in the clear, right? You'll be able to keep that coverage for as long as your grandfathered plan doesn't change and doesn't enroll any new members, right?

Wrong.

According to page 17, lines 11-19, Sec. 102(b), GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
9 BASED HEALTH PLANS
:

IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

Now, what is "an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1"? You guessed it: an otherwise "grandfathered" plan.

This clause clearly indicates that "grandfathered" plans are only truly grandfathered for the first five years (2013-2017). After this "grace period", all pre-existing employment-based health plans will be subject to government control and subject to the requirements and qualifications for "Exchange-participating" plans.

Thus, we have indisputably established that, according to the wording of HR 3200, you will be forced into a different health coverage plan from the one you have today, by 2018.

For reference and context, below is TITLE I—PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN Subtitle A—General Standards, pages 14-19 of HR 3200:

Page 14 •HR 3200

14 TITLE I—PROTECTIONS AND
15 STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED
16 HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS
17 Subtitle A—General Standards
18 SEC. 101. REQUIREMENTS REFORMING HEALTH INSUR
19 ANCE MARKETPLACE.
20 (a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this title is to estab
21 lish standards to ensure that new health insurance cov
22 erage and employment-based health plans that are offered
23 meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable cov
24 erage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections.

Page 15 •HR 3200

1 (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENE
2 FITS PLANS.—On or after the first day of Y1, a health
3 benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan
4 under this division unless the plan meets the applicable
5 requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan
6 and plan year involved:
7 (1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).
8 (2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits).
9 (3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protec
10 tion).
11 (c) TERMINOLOGY.—In this division:
12 (1) ENROLLMENT IN EMPLOYMENT-BASED
13 HEALTH PLANS.—An individual shall be treated as
14 being ‘‘enrolled’’ in an employment-based health
15 plan if the individual is a participant or beneficiary
16 (as such terms are defined in section 3(7) and 3(8),
17 respectively, of the Employee Retirement Income Se
18 curity Act of 1974) in such plan.
19 (2) INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP HEALTH INSUR
20 ANCE COVERAGE.—The terms ‘‘individual health in
21 surance coverage’’ and ‘‘group health insurance cov
22 erage’’ mean health insurance coverage offered in
23 the individual market or large or small group mar
24 ket, respectively, as defined in section 2791 of the
25 Public Health Service Act.

Page 16 •HR 3200

1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER
18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be
26 fore the first day of Y1.

Page 17 •HR 3200

1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
2 The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
3 the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
4 grandfathered health insurance coverage without
5 changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
6 risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
7 Commissioner.
8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
9 BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe
14 riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require
17 ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
20 (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS
21 PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
22 an employment-based health plan in which the
23 coverage consists only of one or more of the fol
24 lowing:

Page 18 •HR 3200

1 (i) Any coverage described in section
2 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the
3 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
4 of 2009 (Public Law 111–5).
5 (ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in
6 section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement
7 Income Security Act of 1974), including
8 coverage under a specified disease or ill
9 ness policy described in paragraph (3)(A)
10 of such section.
11 (iii) Such other limited benefits as the
12 Commissioner may specify.
13 In no case shall an employment-based health
14 plan in which the coverage consists only of one
15 or more of the coverage or benefits described in
16 clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable
17 coverage under this division
18 (2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPT
19 ABLE COVERAGE.—During the grace period specified
20 in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health
21 plan that is described in such paragraph shall be
22 treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
23 (c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE
24 COVERAGE.—

Page 19•HR 3200

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance
2 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance
3 coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered
4 on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par
5 ticipating health benefits plan.
6 (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PER
7 MITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section
8 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not
9 included within the definition of health insurance
10 coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the
11 offering, other than through the Health Insurance
12 Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is of
13 fered and priced separately from health insurance
14 coverage.

Review: Good Calories, Bad Calories

Filed in ReviewsTags: Books, Health/Nutrition, Low Carb, Weight Loss

I finally had a chance to finish Gary Taubes' book Good Calories, Bad Calories, and all I can really say is, "Wow!"

Taubes' 600-page book is the culmination of five years of work researching a century worth of epidemiological and clinical research into the carbohydrate and fat hypotheses regarding physiology, metabolism, obesity, and the "diseases of civilization" - coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer, dementia, etc. The volume, which includes some 70 pages of bibliographical references, is divided into three sections: a history of the fat-heart disease hypothesis, a history of the carbohydrate-heart disease hypothesis, and a history of the fat-obseity and carbohydrate-obesity hypotheses.

Taubes reviews this century-worth of data, and comes to the following conclusions:

  1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, does not cause heart disease.
  2. Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin. The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
  3. Sugars—sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin levels; the fructose they contain overloads the liver.
  4. Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are also the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the other common chronic diseases of modern times.
  5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.
  6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller.
  7. Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.
  8. We get fat because of an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. More fat is stored in the fat tissue than is mobilized and used for fuel. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.
  9. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, we stockpile calories as fat. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and burn it for fuel.
  10. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
  11. The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.

I found the book to be an enjoyable, if dense, read. While Taubes of necessity sometimes gets into the scientific and physiological details, in general he keeps the prose at an understandable level. With the exception of the forward, which I found to be a bit tedious in my first attempt to read, the book is a page-turner, and reads much like investigative journalism.

The preponderance of the evidence - and if you wish to refute it, start with that 70-page bibliography of references - clearly sides with Taubes' conclusions. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this book is not Taubes' conclusions, but rather the implied indictment of the medical research community with respect to hypothesis regarding the connections between fat, carbhoydrates, heart disease, metabolism, and obesity. That indictment is perhaps best summarized in this line from the Epilogue:

The urge to simplify a complex scientific situation so that physicians can apply it and their patients and the public embrace it has taken precedence over the scientific obligation of presenting the evidence with relentless honesty. The result is an enormous enterprise dedicated in theory to determining the relationship between diet, obesity and disease, while dedicated in practice to convincing everyone involved, and the lay public, most of all, that the answers are already known and always have been - an enterprise, in other words, that purports to be a science and yet functions like a religion.

This book puts the imprimatur on what I have been saying for almost a decade: There is absolutely no rigorous, scientific evidence that dietary fat causes heart disease or obesity. To the contrary: plenty of bona fide evidence places the blame squarely upon the over-consumption of refined carbohydrates.

Simply put: if you care about your health and nutrition, read this book. Come to your own conclusions. But if you want to argue the dietary fat-heart disease or dietary fat-obesity hypotheses, then you'd better read this book first, or else you will only make a fool of yourself.

Others' reviews of Good Calories, Bad Calories: Weight of the Evidence, Beantown Bloggery, Jollyblogger. And of course, plenty of coverage at Livin' La Vida Low Carb.

Now Reading: Good Calories, Bad Calories

Filed in Reviews, ScienceTags: Academia, Books, Health/Nutrition, Low Carb, Media Bias, Weight Loss

I got a very pleasant surprise today when I came home for lunch and found out that my pre-order of Gary Taubes' new book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, had arrived!

Here is the publisher's description:

In this groundbreaking book, the result of seven years of research in every science connected with the impact of nutrition on health, award-winning science writer Gary Taubes shows us that almost everything we believe about the nature of a healthy diet is wrong.

For decades we have been taught that fat is bad for us, carbohydrates better, and that the key to a healthy weight is eating less and exercising more. Yet with more and more people acting on this advice, we have seen unprecedented epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Taubes argues persuasively that the problem lies in refined carbohydrates (white flour, sugar, easily digested starches) and sugars–via their dramatic and longterm effects on insulin, the hormone that regulates fat accumulation–and that the key to good health is the kind of calories we take in, not the number. There are good calories, and bad ones.

Good Calories

These are from foods without easily digestible carbohydrates and sugars. These foods can be eaten without restraint.

Meat, fish, fowl, cheese, eggs, butter, and non-starchy vegetables.

Bad Calories

These are from foods that stimulate excessive insulin secretion and so make us fat and increase our risk of chronic disease—all refined and easily digestible carbohydrates and sugars. The key is not how much vitamins and minerals they contain, but how quickly they are digested. (So apple juice or even green vegetable juices are not necessarily any healthier than soda.)

Bread and other baked goods, potatoes, yams, rice, pasta, cereal grains, corn, sugar (sucrose and high fructose corn syrup), ice cream, candy, soft drinks, fruit juices, bananas and other tropical fruits, and beer.

Taubes traces how the common assumption that carbohydrates are fattening was abandoned in the 1960s when fat and cholesterol were blamed for heart disease and then –wrongly–were seen as the causes of a host of other maladies, including cancer. He shows us how these unproven hypotheses were emphatically embraced by authorities in nutrition, public health, and clinical medicine, in spite of how well-conceived clinical trials have consistently refuted them. He also documents the dietary trials of carbohydrate-restriction, which consistently show that the fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.

With precise references to the most significant existing clinical studies, he convinces us that there is no compelling scientific evidence demonstrating that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease, that salt causes high blood pressure, and that fiber is a necessary part of a healthy diet. Based on the evidence that does exist, he leads us to conclude that the only healthy way to lose weight and remain lean is to eat fewer carbohydrates or to change the type of the carbohydrates we do eat, and, for some of us, perhaps to eat virtually none at all.

The 11 Critical Conclusions of Good Calories, Bad Calories:

  1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, does not cause heart disease.
  2. Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin. The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
  3. Sugars—sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin levels; the fructose they contain overloads the liver.
  4. Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are also the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the other common chronic diseases of modern times.
  5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.
  6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller.
  7. Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.
  8. We get fat because of an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. More fat is stored in the fat tissue than is mobilized and used for fuel. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.
  9. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, we stockpile calories as fat. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and burn it for fuel.
  10. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
  11. The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.

Good Calories, Bad Calories is a tour de force of scientific investigation–certain to redefine the ongoing debate about the foods we eat and their effects on our health.

This book is destined for greatness, and will make waves in the world of nutrition. I will have a review, once I have finished reading.

Greek Study Falsely Disparages Low-Carb/High-Protein Diets – Part 1

Filed in Social IssuesTags: Health/Nutrition

For background information, see the Introduction.

Part 1: Is It Really Low-Carb?

The study purports to evaluate "the effects on mortality of habitual low carbohydrate–high-protein diets that are thought to contribute to weight control." - ostensibly, this study evaluates low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets designed for weight control (that is, weight loss). In other words, this study purports to evaluate low-carb weight-loss diets. (I may sound repetitive here, but I have a purpose). What, then, does this study consider to be "low-carbohydrate/high-protein"?

According to the Results section:

With respect to the choice LC/HP score that relies on energy-adjusted components, at the high extreme of the distribution around 20% of energy intake was derived from proteins, whereas around 25% was derived from carbohydrates. At the low extreme of the distribution, around 10% of energy intake was derived from protein, whereas more than 50% was derived from carbohydrates.

Thus, for the purposes of this study, "low-carbohydrate/high-protein" means 25% carbohydrate and 20% protein.

Yes, you read that right: this study claims that a diet that includes 25% of its caloric intake from carbohydrate is "low-carb", and that a diet that includes 20% of its caloric intake from protein is "high-protein".

For a 2,000 kCal daily intake, these values equate to 500 kCal, or 125g, of carbohydrate per day - and bear in mind, this is the most extreme low-carb limit in the study. (Likewise, these values equate to 400 kCal, or 100g, of protein per day, for a 2,000 kCal daily intake. This is the extreme high-carb limit in the study.)

So, my first question is this: what mainstream low-carb diet in any way resembles this macro-nutrient intake?

To put the bounds of the study into perspective, here are the mean macro-nutrient intake values for the population:

In this population, the mean intake of protein was 76 g/day with standard error of the mean (s.e.m.) 0.16 g/day, the mean intake of carbohydrates was 208 g/day with s.e.m. 0.44 g/day, and the mean intake of lipids was 109 g/day (28% saturated, 15% polyunsaturated, 48% monounsaturated fatty acids and 9% other components of the lipid group) with s.e.m. 0.25 g/day.

Let's explore those numbers for carbohydrate intake: mean intake 208 g/day, s.e.m. 0.44 g/day. Standard Error on the Mean (s.e.m.) is equal to the standard deviation (σ) divided by the square root of the number of samples (total population size). The total population size is 22,944; the square root of 22,944 is 151.5. Thus:

s.e.m. = 0.44 g/day = σ / 151.5

σ = 0.44 g/day * 151.5 = 66.7 g/day

Thus, carbohydrate intake for the study was a mean of 208 g/day with a standard deviation of 66.7 g/day.

Standard Deviation is the measure of the distribution around the mean. We can probably safely assume that our population is normally distributed (bell-shaped curve, with the peak at the mean, and exactly half of the population on either side of the peak). In a normally distributed set of data, 2/3 of all data lie within 1 σ of the mean, and 90% of all data lie within 2 σ of the mean.

Therefore, given the values for mean and standard deviation, we know that, statistically speaking, 2/3 of the study participants had a carbohydrate intake between 141 and 274 g/day, and that 90% of the study had a carbohydrate intake between 75 and 340 g/day.

How accurate is that estimate? The accuracy depends on the normality of the distribution.

According to Table 1 of the study, only 552 men (5.9%) and 2,218 women (16.3%) - a total of 2,770 participants (12.1%) had a carbohydrate intake of less than 140 g/day.

Based on the mean and standard deviation above, we can estimate that since 2/3 of the study participants had a carbohydrate intake between 141 and 274 g/day, that 1/3 were outside of that span - half of which (1/6, or 16.7%) had a carbohydrate intake of less than 140 g/day.

If anything, the distribution is biased against the low-carb side of the curve - meaning that the true number of participants at any given standard deviation is actually less than predicted by the normal curve.

The two most popular mainstream low-carb diets are the Atkins Diet and Protein Power (the South Beach diet does not consider itself to be "low-carb" and is excluded here).

The Atkins Diet allows anywhere from 20g carbohydrate per day in the Induction phase to 60-90g carbohydrate per day in the Maintenance phase (with allowance for more than 90g per day for active exercisers).

Protein Power allows anywhere from 40g carbohydrate per day at the Intervention level to 80g carbohydrate per day at the Maintenance level (according to Table 13.6 of my Protein Power Lifeplan book, page 355).

That means that less than 5% of the study participants had a carbohydrate intake anywhere near what is specified by mainstream low-carbohydrate diets.

In other words, this study in no way resembles either mainstream, low-carbohydrate diet. Therefore, any conclusions to which this study might lead do not apply to mainstream low-carbohydrate diets.

Coming Soon - Part 2: Is It Really High-Protein?

Greek Study Falsely Disparages Low-Carb/High-Protein Diets – Introduction

Filed in Social IssuesTags: Health/Nutrition

Introduction

Recently, Jimmy Moore at Livin' La Vida Low-Carb linked to an epidemiological Greek Study that purported to compare mortality rates of Low-Carb/High-Protein and High-Carb/Low-Protein diets, along with a challenge from Dr. Steven Acocella - a vocal critic of low-carb diets - to refute it under the assumption that it is a legitimate study:

I will not editorialize on the study, but simply listen to you and your reader’s comments. I will say that there's no reason that we need to dispute the efficacy of the study itself. Let's go from the position that the study is not flawed. Let's discuss the science and findings.

The conclusions of the authors are reproducible and consistent. What do you all think? If you do post this study I applaud your willingness to explore the science and not ignore nor dismiss it.

Many of Jimmy's readers have been up to the challenge, and I would like to throw in my two-cents' worth.

First, let's examine the abstract, to get a basic understanding of the study. Here is the study objective:

We have evaluated the effects on mortality of habitual low carbohydrate–high-protein diets that are thought to contribute to weight control.

As the objective states, the object of the study was to evaluate the effect on mortality rate of so-called low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets - ostensibly, low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets.

The study setting is the general Greek population. Here are the subject methods:

Follow-up was performed from 1993 to 2003 in the context of the Greek component of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition. Participants were 22 944 healthy adults, whose diet was assessed through a validated questionnaire. Participants were distributed by increasing deciles according to protein intake or carbohydrate intake, as well as by an additive score generated by increasing decile intake of protein and decreasing decile intake of carbohydrates. Proportional hazards regression was used to assess the relation between high protein, high carbohydrate and the low carbohydrate–high protein score on the one hand and mortality on the other.

In other words, this is an epidemiological study based on the Greek-population subset (about 23,000 people) of the EPIC study from 1992 to 2003. Analysis is based on separating this subset into various decile groups based on descending protein intake, ascending carbohydrate intake, and a sum of the two deciles.

Understanding these groupings is key to understanding the study, so let's take some time with the explanation. For the three analysis groups, participants were separated into decile groups - that is, groups of 1/10 of the total - based on the given criterion. So, for the descending protein intake group, all 23,000 participants are ordered based on protein intake, and the highest 2,300 participants are placed in the first decile (and so on, for all 23,000 participants). Likewise for descending carbohydrate intake (except, in this case, the 2,300 lowest carbohydrate-intake participants are placed in the first decile). Finally, for the third analysis group, each participant's two decile "scores" (the first decile is scored a "1" and the tenth decile is scored a "10") are added together, and groups are defined from a "score" of 2 (low-carb/high-protein) to 20 (high-carb/low-protein). Make sense?

Moving on: The study claims the following results:

During 113 230 persons years of follow-up, there were 455 deaths. In models with energy adjustment, higher intake of carbohydrates was associated with significant reduction of total mortality, whereas higher intake of protein was associated with nonsignificant increase of total mortality (per decile, mortality ratios 0.94 with 95% CI 0.89 –0.99, and 1.02 with 95% CI 0.98 –1.07 respectively). Even more predictive of higher mortality were high values of the additive low carbohydrate–high protein score (per 5 units, mortality ratio 1.22 with 95% CI 1.09 –to 1.36). Positive associations of this score were noted with respect to both cardiovascular and cancer mortality.

Finally, the study makes the following conclusion:

Prolonged consumption of diets low in carbohydrates and high in protein is associated with an increase in total mortality.

Sounds pretty bad for low-carb diets, eh? Perhaps - or perhaps not. We need to dig deeper into the study in order to decide.

Read on, in Part 1: Is It Really Low-Carb?

I’m a Blogiversary Prize Winner!

Filed in PersonalTags: Health/Nutrition, Low Carb

Jimmy Moore over at the Livin' La Vida Low-Carb blog threw a big second-blogiversary prize contest, and what do you know, but I was one of the winners!

I won a case of Olivado Omega Plus Oil, part of Prize Bundle #3.

I just happened to stumble upon his web site shortly after he announced the contest, and on a whim decided to enter, just for fun. Looking at the prizes, there are actually few I would rather have than the one that I won. I'm actually looking forward to experimenting with some recipes with the oil.

Thanks, Jimmy!

Peanut Butter Recall

Filed in MiscellaneousTags: Food/Wine, Health/Nutrition, Missouri, Saint Louis

When I woke up this morning, Stephanie alerted me to reports of a Peanut Butter recall - one that particularly impacted Missouri/Saint Louis. The recall was issued due to a suspected link between the peanut butter and a widespread salmonella outbreak, and includes Peter Pan and GreatValu peanut butter packaged by ConAgra, with lot numbers starting with "2111" stamped on the product lid - such as this one, that I just bought:

Peanut Butter Recall 005

Peanut Butter Recall 009

The jar of peanut butter that we just bought was included in the recall of ConAgra-packaged Peter Pan and GreatValu peanut butter with lot numbers starting with "2111".
Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

I returned it today, but of course, that didn't do anything to help the jar I just threw away that also had a lot number starting with "2111" - which means I fed a whole jar of possibly salmonella-contaminated peanut butter to Steph...