Thursday, February 3, 2011

Plumped Chickens Not Natural

If you can take the time to read my comment below the article, you might also think about this: 
From a nutritional standpoint, there are nutrient combinations in some meat that do not commonly occur in other foods. For example, it can be difficult to find other foods with the combination of significant amounts of protein, zinc, vitamin B12, and iron that you find in meat.
Processed poultry often is filled with such additives as soy broth, salt water, or other substances in a method referred to as "plumping".  Frozen turkeys also are subject to this.  Consider too that the water used in this process may be fluoridated so you are being medicated without your permission in some circumstances.


Another reason to make sure you read the label on the food you are purchasing!

Chicken producers debate 'natural' label

By JULIANA BARBASSA, Associated Press Writer  Fri Jul 30,
SAN FRANCISCO – A disagreement among poultry producers about whether chicken injected with salt, water and other ingredients can be promoted as "natural" has prompted federal officials to consider changing labeling guidelines.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture had maintained that if chicken wasn't flavored artificially or preserved with chemicals, it could carry the word "natural" on the package.
But the agency agreed to take another look at its policy after some producers, politicians and health advocates noted that about one-third of chicken sold in the U.S. was injected with additives that could represent up to 15 percent of the meat's weight, doubling or tripling its sodium content. Some argue that could mislead or potentially harm consumers who must limit their salt intake.
The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service plans to issue new proposed rules this fall.
Perdue, the nation's third largest poultry producer, is among those pushing for a change. The company has joined a group called the Truthful Labeling Coalition, which has hired a lobbyist and launched an advertising campaign.
"Our labels say natural or all natural only if there is nothing added," Perdue spokesman Luis Luna said. "Under no circumstances is it acceptable to label poultry that has been enhanced with water or broth or solutions as natural, or all natural."
Such mixtures are injected into poultry to make the meat tastier and more tender.
The two largest chicken processors, Pilgrim's Pride and Tyson Foods, are among those that affix "natural" labels to chicken injected with extra salt and water. Industry experts said the practice has become more common in the past decade.
Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said the company sponsored a national study that found most consumer didn't mind those labels if the ingredients added were deemed natural.
Gary Rhodes, a spokesman for Pilgrim's Pride, said the company simply wanted to offer its customers a choice.
"We offer both 100 percent natural enhanced and non-enhanced fresh chicken," Rhodes said. "It really depends on what the customer wants. It's all about choice."
But Bill Mattos, president of the California Poultry Federation, argued that current labeling rules leave consumers confused. He said the industry needs to work harder at being clear about its products.
"With all the talk about food now, all the interest in salt, the chicken industry needs to be very upfront about these issues, and be very truthful," said Mattos.
A buyer perusing the chicken counter at a San Francisco supermarket agreed.
Muembo Muanza, 30, said he read the label and considered the price but never thought to check the salt content when buying fresh chicken.
Most people buying fresh, unprocessed food will assume, like he did, that nothing is added, said Muanza, whose family has a history of high blood pressure, a condition that can be worsened by high salt intake.
"If it says natural, I expect it to be all natural - nothing but chicken," he said.
California Sen. Barbara Boxer weighed in on the issue earlier this year, calling in a press conference for the USDA to "immediately prevent sodium injected chicken from using the 'natural' label and require all poultry producers to identify added ingredients in print large enough to ensure that consumers can make informed choices."
The issue is worrisome because Americans generally eat far too much salt, with serious health consequences, said Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco.
Her research, published this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that regulations aimed at cutting back Americans' sodium intake could save $10 billion to $24 billion in health care costs, and thousands of lives, every year.
Government intervention is needed, Bibbins-Domingo said, because much of the salt people eat comes in prepared food, not out of a salt shaker.
"We have to educate people to read labels and make better choices," she said. "When there are foods that people consider to be fresh and without additives, and they also have salt added, you feel you are almost fighting a losing battle."
In a report issued this year, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which advises the federal government, revised the recommended daily salt intake from a teaspoon a day to about two-thirds of a teaspoon. It pointed to meat with added salt as a particular problem.
Foster Farms, based in Livingston, Calif., has been at the forefront of the campaign to change labeling rules.
The company sells marinated products that have added salt - but it is clear to consumers, said company spokesman Ira Brill. The problem with injection is the customer can't tell what's in their chicken.
"One of the issues we face as a nation is how to eat healthy," Brill said. "To the degree you like salt, you should be able to add it. But you should be able to make that decision for yourself. "
PHOTO: Foster Farms says no to plumping

More on Health Insurance Reform

UPDATE: 3 August - Health Insurance Reform, how it plays out

Covering New Ground in Health System Shift
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/health/policy/03insurance.html

Medicare Reform Means Some Seniors Face Benefit Cuts

UPDATE: 2 August - Judge Gives Virginia OK to Press On With Health Care Lawsuit Against Feds
U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson is allowing a health care
suit filed by the state of Virginia against the U.S. government to proceed, saying no court has ever ruled on whether it's constitutional to require Americans to purchase a product.
The state of Virginia can continue its lawsuit to stop the nation's new health care law from taking effect, a federal judge ruled Monday. 
U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said he is allowing the suit against the U.S. government to proceed, saying no court has ever ruled on whether it's constitutional to require Americans to purchase a product. 
"While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate -- and tax -- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce," Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision. Complete article
HEALTHCARE:  Impact on Access to Care, Costs


Health-policy experts across the political spectrum are wary of Obamacare’s promises to increase access to health care and lower costs.



Use 'search' to locate more than 36 related Natural Health News posts on this topic


The libertarian Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes President Obama recently told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd that the law “not only makes sure everybody has access to coverage but is reducing costs.”  Tanner refutes those claims: 
  • “The bill doesn’t come close to giving ‘everybody’ access to coverage. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 10 years from now there will still be at least 21 million uninsured Americans. That’s an improvement over today, but it’s a far cry from the universal coverage that Obama once promised. And nearly half of the newly covered aren’t getting access to true health insurance but are being added to the Medicaid program, with all of its attendant problems of access and quality.”
  • “Even further from reality is the president’s continued insistence that the new law is ‘reducing costs.’ In fact, the administration’s own chief health-care actuary reports that the law will actually raise US health-care spending by $311 billion over 10 years. This failure to control costs means that the law will add significantly to the already crushing burden of government spending, taxes and debt.”
  • “Anyone who thinks that their insurance premiums will be going down in the foreseeable future is going to be disappointed. The law does nothing to restrain the growth in insurance costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that premiums will double over the next six years, roughly the same rate of increase as would have occurred without health-care reform.”
Meanwhile, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and cofounder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), told the SocialistWorker.org that the health-reform bill was actually written by the insurance industry and doesn’t address underlying problems:
  • “The big problem with the bill is that so much money and power is being handed to the private health insurance industry, which is the cause of the problem in the first place.… If you look at the [political] donations, plenty of insurance industry money did go to the Democrats. An insurance industry vice president, Elizabeth Fowler, actually came to work for Sen. Max Baucus, the head of the Senate Finance Committee, and was the author of the Baucus Framework for the legislation.”
  • “Under the new ‘exchanges’ set up under the law for the uninsured to go to buy insurance, people will have to spend up to 9.5 percent of their income for policies that cover only 70 percent of health care costs. So you would still be in a situation of having insurance that was so skimpy that you would have difficulty getting care when you needed it. As you know, Massachusetts has the prototype of this reform. If you go on the Internet to look at our insurance exchange, it’s called the Massachusetts Connector. For someone in their mid-50s, the cheapest policy available that would meet the mandate for someone who is paying the full rate—which is anyone who makes more than $33,000 in income a year—costs more than $5,000 per year in premiums. Then, if you get sick, there’s a $2,000 deductible—so you have to take another $2,000 out of your pocket before the insurance kicks in. And then, for the next $15,000 in health spending, you’re responsible for 20 percent of everything—$3,000. So it’s extremely expensive if you get sick and have to use it once you buy it.”
  • “That means that many people will still lack access to care—because they won’t be able to afford to use their insurance policy, even if they own it.”
 Sources:

Help Support Our Work and Natural Health News

Please help support our efforts to bring you great health and nutrition education

Starting today, through Friday, April 9, you can help raise money to support this effort by downloading the GoodSearch and GoodShop tool bar to your computer.

For every toolbar download we can earn $1.

We gratefully appreciate your support, and sharing this with your friends and lists.

"herbalYODA Says! Frequently Copied, Never Duplicated! "

Find more information about the topics covered in our newsletters at www.leaflady.org and www.simply4health.org. We're also found at Natural Health News, Natural Notes, Green Muze, and HealthierTalk.

Listen to herbalYoda Says! LIVE and follow herbalYODA on twitter.

herbalYODA Says! is written by Gayle Eversole, DHom, PhD, MH, NP, ND, founder and director of Creating Health Institute (CHI) and The Oake Centre for natural health education (TOC). We are celebrating more than 50 years of blending science with the natural healing arts.

herbalYODA Says! is brought to you as a public service. It's a long established feature of the Health Matters© series from CHI. TOC manages educational services, all publications and this newsletter.We're read around the world by thousands daily; please share our newsletter with your friends.

As a tax-exempt, non-profit 501(c) (3) organization, we ask that you consider helping us continue this important work through your tax-deductible donations, and through purchases of our goods and services.

Donating directly via PayPal (membership not required), and searching the web or doing your on-line shopping at www.goodsearch.com in support of Creating Health Institute helps us continue this important work.

TOC Copyright © 2010. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Calcium and Bone Health


UPDATE: 4 August - NattoPharma says calcium research highlights vitamin K role

By NUTRA staff reporter, 04-Aug-2010


Norwegian vitamin K supplier NattoPharma has backed the role of vitamin K in calcium metabolism following the controversial British Medical Journal meta-analysis linking calcium consumption and increased risk of heart attack.

The article has drawn widespread industry criticism for inappropriately “cherry picking” data, but NattoPharma says regardless of that fact, the research highlights the importance of vitamins D and K in the way the body processes calcium.
“Vitamin D helps the body absorb calcium and vitamin K2 activates the proteins responsible for directing the calcium to the bone where we want it and out of the arteries where it can have detrimental negative effects,” said NattoPharma chief executive officer, Morten Sundstø.
The company referenced vitamin K researcher, Professor Cees Vermeer, who backed observations made by two of the researchers that, “the only mechanism for arteries to protect themselves from calcification is via the vitamin K‐dependent protein MGP.”
“MGP is the most powerful inhibitor of soft tissue calcification presently known, but non‐supplemented healthy adults are insufficient in vitamin K to a level that 30 per cent of their MGP is synthesised in an inactive form. So protection against cardiovascular calcification is only 70 per cent in the young, healthy population, and this figure decreases at increasing age.”
NutraIngredients coverage of the calcium research that found the risk of vascular calcium deposits causing heart attack outweighed potential bone healthbenefits can be found here.
Sundstø noted the western diet was something like 30 per cent deficient in vitamin K2 which could extenuate calcium deposits, especially among over-50s who commonly use calcium supplements to ease osteoporosis.
Vermeer added: Obviously, an increased calcium load (by taking calcium supplements) will be beneficial for bone strength, but at the same time it will worsen the situation for the vasculature.”

from 30 July, 2010 -  One part of this equation seems to be overlooked and that is the type of calcium supplement and the amount of calcium supplementation. 

Too often I find that people do not want to spend money for supplements and look for the most inexpensive product rather than a high quality product that will fare them better in the long run.

Numerous studies have been completed that clearly establish the lack of benefit from mas market supplements made with the lowest grade, and most often least effective ingredients.

Calcium carbonate is just one of these ingredients, and its also the main core found in TUMS.

For many not well apprised of the best ways to utilize supplements, TUMS is one of those often suggested by doctors to help bones.  Those same doctors are quick to forget that all this calcium overload add a negative effect to the blood buffering system.  You know, the buffering system that keeps your blood pH in normal range.

Often this form of calcium can lead to bone spurs and calcium deposits basically because your body just can't metabolize it effectively.  We've got better options for you to consider.

And I guess no one told the same doctors that BonAmi, my favorite commercial scouring powder, is made from the very same form of calcium -carbonate!

Calcium pills 'increase' risk of heart attack


Calcium supplements taken by many older people could be increasing their risk of a heart attack, research shows.
The study, in the British Medical Journal, said people who took supplements were 30% more likely to have a heart attack.
Data from 11 trials also suggested the medicines were not very effective at preventing bone fractures.
Almost 3m people in the UK are thought to have osteoporosis and many take calcium pills to prevent fractures.
The study recommends doctors review their use of calcium supplements for managing osteoporosis.
The National Osteoporosis Society said most people should be able to get enough calcium through their diets, rather than reaching for the medicine cabinet.
The researchers said those who had a diet naturally high in calcium were at no increased danger.
'Limited benefit'In all 12,000 people aged over 40 took part in the trials of calcium supplements of 500mg or more a day.

It is a balance of risks - people should consider the risks involved and how they apply to their own circumstances and discuss the matter with their GP” Dr Alison Avenell Study author
The risk of heart attack was seen across men and women, was independent of age and the type of supplement given.
A small increased risk of death was seen in the study but was not statistically significant, the researchers said.
The reason for the increased risk of heart attack is not clear but it is thought the extra calcium circulating in the blood could lead to a hardening of the arteries.
Calcium in the diet is safe and the Food Standards Agency recommends adults have 700mg of calcium a day from milk, cheese and green, leafy vegetables.
Dr Alison Avenell, from the University of Aberdeen which did the research with colleagues in New Zealand and the US, said the evidence suggests calcium supplements only have a limited benefit in preventing fractures, especially when compared to other treatments available.
"It is a balance of risks - people should consider the risks involved and how they apply to their own circumstances and discuss the matter with their GP," she said.
She added the results did not necessarily apply to younger people with conditions for which they take calcium.
Judy O'Sullivan, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said the results should be interpreted with caution because the trials did not set out to look at the risk of heart attack.
"However, the research should not be completely ignored," she said.
"Any new guidelines on the prevention of fractures in those most vulnerable to them should take this type of analysis into account."
Dr Claire Bowring, of the National Osteoporosis Society, said: "We've always recommended that people should aim to get the calcium they need from their diet to help build stronger bones.
"If you get all of the calcium that you need from your diet and adequate vitamin D from exposure to sunshine, then a supplement will not be necessary."
She said there were still questions to be answered about the treatment of osteoporosis but advised people taking calcium supplements to talk to their GP, especially if they have a heart condition.

Sampling from Natural Health News 30+ posts about Bone Health
May 26, 2010
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Tuesday that studies suggest a possible increased risk of bone fractures with the use of proton pump inhibitors for one year or longer, or at high doses. Package insert labels for the drugs ...
Dec 10, 2008
Dr Victoria King, of the charity Diabetes UK, said: "We really do need further evidence through properly controlled trials before we can conclusively link thiazolidinediones to increased risk of various bone conditions in humans and ...
Oct 02, 2009
A few points to consider - DpD only indicates current bone loss. There are so many factors regarding bone loss - including; those who never gained peak bone mass for multiple reasons - eating disorders or simply not eating well during ...
Mar 08, 2010
It is very critical that you understand that the bisphosphonate drugs are associated with killing off specific cells that have to do with the complete cycle of bone construction and destruction in the body's natural physiology. ...

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Lycopene and Vitamin K

UPDATE: 27 APRIL 2010 -
Mayo study links increased vitamin K intake to lower non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk
A higher intake of vitamin K is associated with a reduced risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, an immune system cancer that is the most common blood malignancy in the United States.

In research funded by the National Cancer Institute, cancer epidemiologist James Cerhan, MD, PhD and his colleagues at the Mayo Comprehensive Cancer Center compared 603 newly diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients to 1,007 men and women who did not have cancer. Dietary questionnaire responses were analyzed for vitamin K intake from food and supplements.

The investigators found an association between a lower risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and increased consumption of vitamin K. For those whose intake of the vitamin was among the top 25 percent of participants at over 108 micrograms per day, the risk of the disease was 45 percent lower than those whose intake was among the lowest fourth at less than 39 micrograms per day. Adjustment of the analysis for age and other factors failed to modify the association. When vitamin K from supplements was examined, intake of the vitamin was also shown to be protective up to a certain level, above which increased intake offered no additional benefit, suggesting that it is not necessary to supplement with high doses for protection to occur.

Vitamin K is well known for its role in blood coagulation; however, an ability of the vitamin to inhibit inflammatory cytokines and involvement in cell cycle arrest and cell death pathways could help explain the benefit suggested by the current study's outcome.

"Whether the protective effect we observed is due to vitamin K intake, or some other dietary or lifestyle exposure, cannot be definitely assessed in this study," Dr Cerhan remarked. "But these findings add to a lot of other data that support a diet that includes plenty of green leafy vegetables in order to prevent many cancers as well as other diseases."

"These results are provocative, since they are the first work we have done on the connection between vitamin K and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and this is a fairly strong protective effect," he noted. "However, as with all new findings, this will need to be replicated in other studies."

I am a great fan of tomatoes and also vitamin K supplying foods. What makes it more supportive of my long held views are two new reports I received today.

I have posted on the benefits of vitamin K for osteoporosis in the past, and now we have more data on its benefit in cancer.
An article published online on March 24, 2010 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reports the finding of researchers from the German Cancer Research Center and the German Research Centre for Environmental Health of an association between reduced vitamin K2 intake and an increased risk of dying from cancer.

The current research analyzed data from 24.340 participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Heidelberg (EPIC-Heidelberg) prospective study who were aged 35 to 64 upon enrollment between 1994 and 1998. Participants, who were free of cancer at the beginning of the study, were followed through 2008. Dietary questionnaires completed upon enrollment were analyzed for phylloquinone (vitamin K1) and menaquinones (vitamin K2) intake.

Over the follow up period, there were 1,755 cases of cancer, including 458 fatalities. While the those whose intake of vitamin K2 was among the top 25 percent of participants had a 14 percent nonsignficant reduction in cancer incidence compared with those whose intake was among the lowest fourth, the group with the highest intake experienced a 28 percent lower risk of dying of the disease. Further analysis of the data determined that the reduction in cancer incidence associated with vitamin K2 occurred in men. When cancers were examined by cause, a 62 percent reduction in the risk of lung cancer and a 35 percent lower risk of prostate cancer were observed in those whose intake of vitamin K2 was among the top 25 percent. Although exclusion of prostate and lung cancer from the analysis still found an inverse association between vitamin K2 intake and metastatic cancer risk, the researchers did not consider it to be of statistical significance. No associations were found between vitamin K1 and cancer incidence or mortality.

The authors explain the difference in vitamin K2's effects on men and women by the fact that the men in the study had cancer sites (prostate, lung) that were likelier to be influenced by vitamin K2. Concerning the greater inverse association of vitamin K2 with cancer mortality compared to cancer incidence, the authors remark that "This observation is consistent with the assumption that factors affecting apoptosis and cell cycle arrest are likely to play a role later in carcinogenesis. In addition, experimental studies suggest an inhibitory role of menaquinones in angiogenesis, which is tightly linked to the development of metastasis."

"This study showed inverse associations between the dietary intake of menaquinones and both overall cancer incidence and mortality," the authors conclude. They suggest additional studies using biomarker measurements of vitamin K status.
and
"Dietary vitamin K intake in relation to cancer incidence and mortality: results from the Heidelberg cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Heidelberg)," Nimptsch K, Rohrmann S, et al, Am J Clin Nutr, 2010 March 24; [Epub ahead of print]. (Address: J Linseisen, Institute of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Zentrum Munchen, German Research Centre for Environmental Health, Ingolstadter Landstr. 1, D-85746 Neuherberg, Germany. E-mail: j.linseisen@helmholtz-muenchen.de ).
Summary: In a prospective cohort study (EPIC-Heidelberg) involving 24,340 subjects between the ages of 35 and 64 years, free of cancer at enrollment, followed up with for an average of > 10 years, during which time 1,755 incident cases of cancer occurred of which 458 were fatal, dietary intake of menaquinones (vitamin K2) was found to be inversely associated with overall incidence of cancer (for highest vs. lowest quartile HR=0.86), and cancer mortality (HR=0.72). The reduction in risk associated with increasing intake of menaquinones was even greater in men than in women, specifically seen with prostate and lung cancers. No association was found for phylloquinone (vitamin K1) intake. The authors conclude, "These findings suggest that dietary intake of menaquinones, which is highly determined by the consumption of cheese, is associated with a reduced risk of incident and fatal cancer."
Lycopene now shows help in glioma, which again should be considered for its high antioxidant capacity -
"Lycopene in treatment of high-grade gliomas: A pilot study," Puri T, Goyal S, et al, Neurol India, 2010 Jan-Feb; 58(1): 20-3. (Address: Department of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi - 110 029, India).
Summary:In a randomized, placebo-controlled study involving 50 patients with high-grade gliomas treated with surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy and concomitant paclitaxel, oral supplementation with lycopene (8 mg/d) along with radiotherapy was found to exert potentially beneficial effects. Specifically, prior to supplementation, lycopene levels were 152 ng/ml and after supplementation 316 ng/ml, as compared to no significant change found in the placebo group. More favorable overall response at 6 months, last follow-up, and time to progression (40.83 vs. 26.74 weeks) were found in the lycopene group, as compared to the placebo group, though the differences were considered non-significant. Follow-up duration was significantly higher among those taking lycopene (66.29 weeks), as compared to placebo (38.71 weeks). The authors conclude, "Addition of nutrition supplements such as lycopene may have potential therapeutic benefit in the adjuvant management of high-grade glioma s."
So you see there is a clear pattern for the need of supplementation in prevention and treatment of cancers, along with powerful and good nutrition - against what you may hear and read in mainstream media or from your doctor (or the doctor who tells you not to eat broccoli because it interferes with chemo).

Monsanto: The evil corporation in your refrigerator

The case for real food -

Monsanto: The evil corporation in your refrigerator

When we consider the rogue's gallery of devilish, over-sized, greedy and disproportionately powerful corporations, we generally come up with outfits like Microsoft, Bechtel, AIG, Halliburton, Goldman-Sachs, Exxon-Mobil and the United States Senate. Yet somehow, Monsanto, arguably the most devilish, over-sized, greedy and disproportionately powerful corporation in the world has been able to more or less skulk between the raindrops -- only a household name in households where documentaries like Food Inc. are regarded as light Friday evening entertainment. My house, for example. But for the most part, if you were to ask an average American for their list of sinister corporations, Monsanto probably wouldn't make the cut.

See full article from WalletPop: http://srph.it/bpzXks

Healthcare law full of unknowns

Thom Hartmann did a good explanation of some of the points in the new mega bill that give you some clues into how the dark forces are at work in this bill.

Another point to consider is that Medicaid usually pays about 60% of costs and Medicare pays about 80%. With these figures in mind, is it a wonder that doctors aren't accepting or are cutting back on providing care to these people.

Perhaps the omen is that we need to do a better job of taking care of our selves and our health needs, just like it used to be.

And you can do it!
About the only thing Dr. Philip Schwarzman can be sure of under the national healthcare overhaul is that he is adding his daughters, ages 23 and 25, to his health plan immediately.

Much less clear to Schwarzman is how the sweeping law will affect the emergency department at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, where he is medical director.

"It's incredibly complicated," said the white-haired physician, whose department sees 50,000 patients a year. "It's hard to predict what's going to happen."

That pretty well sums up the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Potential effects of the law, passed last month, can be described as profound and prosaic, obvious and unknowable.

Some of its most complex and far-reaching changes won't take effect for years, including the requirement that, by 2014, all Americans have health insurance. But the law also contains immediate changes, such as the one allowing parents to add or keep dependent children up to age 26 on their health insurance policies.

Over the next decade, many of its consequences will play out at places like St. Joe's, a 431-bed nonprofit hospital founded by the Sisters of Providence in 1943, and in surrounding community clinics.

Article continues here -
Related article here on the state of Social Security

Kiplinger reports as well...