Health Tip: Get More Bang for Your Beans

Beans are rich in fiber and full of valuable nutrients, while largely void of fat and cholesterol.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics suggests how to add beans to your favorite recipes:

Use black beans in dishes such as Cuban rice and beans, soups, stews and tacos.Use cannellini, or white kidney beans, in your favorite Italian side dishes, casseroles, salads, soups and stews.

Health Tip: Know the Rules of Sponge Safety

Sponges may be a handy way to wipe up messes in the kitchen, but they can also spread germs.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics offers this advice for safer kitchen sponges:

Don't use a sponge to wipe up spilled juices from meat.

Physical Punishment in Childhood Tied to Health Woes as Adults

Children whose parents use "harsh" physical punishment such as slapping or shoving may end up in relatively poorer physical health as adults, a new study suggests.

Researchers found that of more than 34,000 U.S. adults in a government health study, those who said they were harshly disciplined as kids had slightly higher risks of obesity, arthritis and heart disease.

Harsh punishment was defined as being hit, slapped, pushed or grabbed at least sometimes.

The findings, published online July 15 and in the August print issue of Pediatrics, do not prove that physical punishment, itself, affects kids' long-term health.

"It's an association. We can't say the punishment is causing the physical health problems," said lead researcher Tracie Afifi, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada.

But, she added, the findings add to evidence that physical punishment can harm kids. A number of studies have linked such punishment -- even spanking -- with problems such as aggressive behavior and poorer emotional well-being.

"Kids need discipline," Afifi said. "But it shouldn't involve physical force."

The findings are based on 34,226 U.S. adults who took part in a government health study in 2004 and 2005. Just under 4 percent fit the definition of being harshly punished as kids.

Overall, their rate of obesity was higher, compared to adults who reported no harsh physical punishment: about 31 percent, versus 26 percent. They also had higher rates of arthritis (22.5 percent, versus 20 percent) and heart disease (9 percent, versus 7 percent).

Afifi's team was able to account for some other factors -- including family income and whether kids suffered more severe abuse, physical or otherwise. "Harsh" discipline was still linked to a 20 percent to 28 percent increased risk of the three adulthood health problems.

A child-abuse expert not involved in the study agreed that physical punishment is potentially harmful. Plus, while it may get a child to stop the bad behavior right now, it does not work in the long run, said Dr. Rachel Berger, of the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.

"There's a tremendous and growing literature showing that corporal punishment is not necessary, and that there can be detrimental effects," Berger said.

The current study, though, has some limitations, said Berger, who co-wrote an accompanying editorial.

One issue, according to Berger, is how "harsh" physical punishment was defined. It was based on one question: "How often did a parent or other adults living in your home push, grab, shove, slap or hit you?" (The study did not ask specifically about "spanking" -- the most common form of childhood physical punishment.)

Only about 4 percent of adults said they'd at least sometimes been subjected to those forms of discipline. On the other hand, 38 percent reported more-severe child maltreatment -- including physical abuse that left kids bruised or injured.

Berger said fewer adults would be expected to report severe maltreatment, versus harsh punishment. So that raises doubts about how the question was asked, and how respondents were interpreting it, according to Berger.

And since the study did not look at milder physical punishment, the findings cannot be used to condemn everything down to the occasional whack on the behind. "You can't say, based on this alone, 'OK, now we know we shouldn't use any physical punishment,'" Berger said.

Another researcher not involved in the work said he did not find the results all that compelling. The study looked at seven adulthood health conditions, and found that harsh physical punishment was statistically linked to three of them.

And even then, the links were not strong in statistical terms, noted Christopher Ferguson, an associate professor of psychology at Texas A&M International University, in Laredo.

Ferguson said he is no advocate of spanking, but added, "I wouldn't want parents who have spanked their kids to become alarmed by this."

Study author Afifi agreed that parents should not feel alarmed -- or guilty. "We're not trying to point the finger at parents," she said. But based on the body of research, parents should try to learn nonphysical types of discipline, she added.

And if you're not sure how to do that? "I would recommend that parents start by talking to their pediatrician," Afifi suggested.

Based on past surveys, the vast majority of Americans were spanked as kids. So it may be pretty ingrained in the culture, noted Berger at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.

"But just because you were spanked," she said, "doesn't mean it's right for your child."

Vermont Releases Final Health Insurance Rates

Vermonters can expect to pay slightly lower premiums than those initially proposed by the two insurance carriers approved to sell plans on the state's new health insurance Marketplace, called Vermont Health Connect.

The Green Mountain Care Board -- the regulatory authority for insurance and hospital rates in Vermont -- announced this week that it negotiated 4.3% to 5.3% rate cuts in individual and small-group plans offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont and MVP Health Care. The rates go into effect Jan. 1.

Vermont approved six "metal" plans in its health insurance Marketplace, also called an Exchange. There are two bronze, two silver, one gold, and one platinum plan, each with different combinations of copayments, coinsurance rates, and limits on annual out-of-pocket spending.

Every plan must cover the same services, but the companies pay a bigger share of costs going from the bronze to platinum. Bronze plans pay about 60% of the average person's health costs. Silver plans pay 70%, gold plans 80%, and platinum plans 90%. Customers pay the remaining costs. (For example, customers pay 40% of the costs under a bronze plan.) Bronze plans have the lowest premiums, while the platinum plans have the highest.

In Vermont, final rates for mid-range silver plans are from $395 (BCBS) to $410 (MVP) per month for a single person. Family plans range from $1,111 (BCBS) to $1,151 (MVP) per month. About 100,000 state residents are expected to buy insurance through Vermont Health Connect.

Lower-income Vermonters can expect to pay 0.5% to 8% of their income on health insurance premiums, according to Robin Lunge, Vermont's director of health care reform. Financial aid in the form of state subsidies and federal tax credits are available to ease the financial burden for about 49,500 residents.

Under the Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010, each state must have a health insurance Marketplace in place by Oct. 1 for coverage starting Jan. 1, 2014. Most Americans will be required to have health insurance starting Jan. 1. Vermont is one of 17 states, along with the District of Columbia, that will run its own Marketplace.

SOURCES: News release, Green Mountain Care Board. Robin Lunge, director of health care reform, state of Vermont. Anya Wallack, chair, Green Mountain Care Board. Emily Yahr, education and outreach manager, Vermont Health Benefit Exchange-Vermont Health Connect.

Employer Health Insurance Mandate Delayed Until 2015

The Obama administration will delay a crucial provision of its signature health care law, giving businesses an extra year to comply with a requirement that they provide their workers with insurance.

The government will postpone enforcement of the so-called employer mandate until 2015, after the congressional elections, the administration said yesterday. Under the provision, companies with 50 or more workers face a fine of as much as $3,000 per employee if they don’t offer affordable insurance.

It’s the latest setback for a health care law that has met resistance from Republicans, who have sought to make the plan a symbol of government overreach. Republican-controlled legislatures and governors in several states have refused funding to expand Medicaid coverage for the poor and declined to set up exchanges where individuals can buy insurance, leaving the job to the federal government.

The delay in the employer mandate addresses complaints from business groups to President Barack Obama’s administration about the burden of the law’s reporting requirements.

“The administration has finally recognized the obvious — employers need more time and clarification of the rules of the road before implementing the employer mandate,” Randy Johnson, a senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobby, said in an e-mail.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior Obama adviser, said in a blog post announcing the move that the administration decided on the delay so officials could simplify reporting requirements and give employers a chance to adjust their health care coverage.

The individual mandate, a linchpin of the law that requires most Americans to carry health insurance, remains in effect.

Ron Pollack, executive director of the consumer advocacy group Families USA, said the employer-mandate delay creates “a potential for some harm” to workers. Businesses that don’t offer coverage may now wait an additional year because there is no penalty, he said. And employers who provide “substandard” coverage that doesn’t meet the minimum requirements of the health law won’t be forced to improve it, he said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said the delay confirms his party’s argument that “Obamacare costs too much and it isn’t working the way the administration promised.”

House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, seized on the announcement to urge the White House to also delay the individual mandate.

“I hope the administration recognizes the need to release American families from the mandates of this law as well,” Boehner said in a statement. “This is a clear acknowledgment that the law is unworkable.”

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows the Obama administration to set the starting date for the information-reporting requirement that is key to enforcing the mandate that companies cover their workers. While the White House hadn’t yet announced a date, enforcement of the mandate had been widely expected to begin in 2014, an official said.

Congressional elections will take place in November of next year, and the delay potentially shields Democratic candidates from a backlash generated by the additional regulations on employers.

The White House had been in discussions with business groups over complaints about the reporting requirements and believes it can simplify the process, two officials said.

“As we implement this law, we have and will continue to make changes as needed,” Jarrett said in her blog post. “In our ongoing discussions with businesses we have heard that you need the time to get this right.”

The employer mandate imposes extensive reporting requirements on businesses including the months during which each employee and any of their dependents was covered by health insurance, the official said. The Business Roundtable said in a June 11, 2012, comment letter that reporting requirements would demand “substantial changes in administrative procedures and reprogramming of recordkeeping systems.”

According to a White House fact sheet, more than 96 percent of companies with at least 50 employees already offer health insurance to their employees.

The officials said the decision stemmed from a commitment in the administration to reduce regulatory red tape and drew parallels to a move earlier this year to cut the length of application forms for insurance provided through government- sponsored exchanges to three pages from 21.

Neil Trautwein, vice president and employee benefits counsel for the National Retail Federation, called the move “an unexpected but extraordinarily wise decision.”

It could lead companies to delay their own decisions on whether to offer coverage to all their workers, Trautwein said.

“The administration is certainly encouraging employers to continue and expand offerings,” he said. “We’ll see how that goes.”

Tim Taft, president and chief executive officer of Fiesta Restaurant Group Inc., reacted to news of the delay in a phone interview: “Hooray,” he said. “That’s so huge.”

“The delay affords us what is really needed, which is time to get our heads and minds around how this is going to work,” Taft said.

Obama has confronted opposition from Republicans at every turn of the law, which passed Congress with only Democratic votes and was later challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Only 16 states have agreed to set up the new exchanges, or marketplaces to sell insurance to people who don’t get it at work. Twenty-four states have refused to expand Medicaid, as called for under the law, according to Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s secretary of health and human services.

Congressional Republicans, who have vowed to try to repeal the law, have refused Obama’s requests for about $1 billion more to help enact the statute and ensure it runs smoothly. Instead, they’ve started multiple investigations into the implementation.

Nor is this the first time Obama has been forced to scale back the law’s features. In March, the administration said small businesses wouldn’t be able to give their workers a choice of health plans in exchanges set up just for them. In January, a plan to create new nonprofit insurers in states was curtailed after Congress capped funding for the companies.

With assistance from James Rowley in Washington. Editors: Mark McQuillan, Robin Meszoly

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Wisconsin Governor Vetoes Health Insurance Tobacco Surcharge

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has vetoed his own plan to charge state workers more for health insurance if they smoke.

Walker’s executive state budget would have required state workers who smoke to pay $50 more per month for health insurance. Walker’s administration said the extra charge was necessary because health care is more expensive for tobacco users.

But Walker used his partial veto powers to erase the plan from the final budget signed June 30.

Walker’s veto message says new federal guidance on tobacco surcharges was issued after he drew up the fee plan that would make the program too cumbersome. For example, Walker wrote, a smoker could avoid the fee by joining a cessation program.

A Walker spokeswoman had no immediate comment Monday afternoon, and could not be reached later for details.

Copyright 2013 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online