Finally

Is it perfect? No. Is it even that good? Eh, I think it's ok. History was definitely made last night with the passage of the healthcare reform bill, but the bill doesn't do anywhere what needs to be done like ban basic healthcare insurance for profit, like every other developed country has.

The pluses are that discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and other nasty insurance practices will be done away with; thirty some million people in the next four years will have coverage; and healthcare insurance will be mandated. With the first and third items in effect, hopefully we can get some of the people with poorer health off medicaid and medicare and onto private plans. Oh and this plan actually seeks to pay for itself and not add to the deficit. Something that can't be said about Medicare part D which was passed under Bush.

As for the "American people's" feelings. I honestly could give a crap. I don't really care what the polls say. There's been so much disinformation put out there by the fear factory known as Fox News that I don't think most people have the slightest clue what they are talking about. Also most people have insurance that they are happy with, and it seems that unless one has personally been screwed by the current healthcare system one is less likely to be for changing it.

I thought Chuck Todd made a valid point yesterday on Meet the Press. A Democrat and Republican leader were on earlier in the show stating that they could maybe find some agreement on energy and immigration. Todd pointed out that those issues were regional, so we should expect some agreement, as where healthcare is philosophical, so we should expect the intense partisanship we have seen. My feeling is that next year this will be all history, and Americans will be as happy with this legislation as they are with another piece of legislation the Right said would take our freedom away-- Medicare.

Lastly, out of this whole mess also comes proof that pro-lifers do have a real voice in the Democratic party. So much for the Obama is the most hardcore pro-abortionist ever crap.

The Healthcare Summit

I'm watching the healthcare summit. The president has pointed out that where the gov't steps in is to create a baseline standard of care. I've thought this should happen even when I was still a conservative. It seems like an obvious point. I have yet to see a Republican take this point on. Instead I hear from Republicans: "if people pay less then they will get less coverage, and if people pay more they'll get more coverage." But the people paying less are only getting high deductible catastrophic coverage which doesn't do crap for preventative medicine and routine medical needs. And that's a big part of the problem.

But to be fair. I would like to see a Democrat address the claim that employers will be more willing to drop people from their coverage and pay the fine because the fine will be cheaper.

Why I Love the Daily Dish

This is just awesome. I almost peed my pants.

Obama Says F*ck It

SuperNews | MySpace Video

Also, interestingly enough, a libertarian defense of the health care bill.

How About Now?

Maybe this will finally get middle-American, populist conservatives on board with health care reform. Just wondering...

Health Care Around the World

T.R. Reid is a journalist who recently traveled the world learning about other country's health care systems. He wrote a book about it, but his findings are also distilled in this article. Reading it just makes me crazy, because it shows that we have no excuse for having our crappy system.

Why???

A question I have been pondering this past week is: Why can't we just have a real bipartisan health care reform bill?

The Republicans want tort reform and to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. They argue that tort reform would reduce costs because doctors order unnecessary tests and such to cover their butts in case they are sued. Greater competition, the argument goes will greatly lower costs as well. Fair enough.

The Democrats want greater regulation of insurance companies to make sure they do not deny care based on "pre-existing conditions" and cherry pick the healthy people over the sick. They (and Bill O'Reilly??!!) also want a public option to keep insurance companies honest and create competition. Both sides agree on many cost-cutting measures such as comparative effectiveness, electronic medical records and preventive medicine.

So why not have a bill with all these things?? If we can have a public option, the Dems could say, then we'll support insurance companies competing across state lines etc... Instead it looks like we're going to get more watered-down mediocrity that isn't even going to get Republican support. What a waste.

Stupid Is...

I just have to comment on the Henry Louis Gates incident. I got to check out the Sunday morning political shows, and listen to George Will and others discuss how Obama's comments had racial overtones. Really? The police arresting a man in his own home after he showed identification proving he lived there wasn't acting stupidly? Really? I don't care if Gates went off on them, called them racists and pigs blah, blah, blah. After he showed some ID, the cops should have been on their way. Now I'm not saying the cop involved is a racist, or that Gates shouldn't have kept a cooler head, all I'm saying is that the president was right for calling said actions stupid. For conservatives-- and I didn't read the Thomas Sowell piece where he weighed in on this but I can imagine what he said-- to imply the president was making accusations of racial profiling is absurd.

In other news, a study has been published declaring that obesity costs the U.S. 147 billion annually. It goes on to say that medical bill are much higher for obese people. I think this is pretty convincing evidence that we need a junk food tax in our health care reform. It's a common argument that obese people die earlier and are thus less expensive than healthy people in the long run. However, much of our health care expenses go towards interventions to keep people alive longer who are suffering from obesity, i.e. people now live longer with heart disease than they did in the past. All that to say, if we're looking to cut costs and pay for health care reform, taxing the crap that increases the costs might not be a bad idea.

The Missing Piece in the Healthcare Reform Puzzle

Massive healthcare reform is currently in the works, and hopefully some good changes will be made. There are at least two unchangable certainties that will continue to increase the cost of healthcare, and while I'm in favor of a government option to compete with private companies, and the various other ideas to reduce costs, I believe one of the root causes of the rising cost of healthare are not being addressed. This is because, even though it directly affects the rise in healthcare, it is beyond the scope of healthcare policy. Yet, I believe, it is imperative that changes in this area need to happen in order to balance out the two certainties that will contintue to make costs rise.

Two things that are unchangable that affect cost:

-The baby-boomers are aging, which means that more and more people are going to need more and more care. Demand raises the cost, thus the price of healthcare is destined to increase and there is nothing we can do to change this. For more on this go here.

-New technology is always incredibly expensive when it comes out. I can buy an older cheaper Ipod and still listen to music; I don't need the latest version of it. But getting the newest and best healthcare could mean life or death, so the constantly developing technology in healthcare also means it will invariably become more expensive.

Some ways to decrease cost:

I think we need a national program to compete with private plans. I believe this because A. competition is good for consumers and B. as Paul Krugman recently argued, a national plan would keep private plans honest. Having a national plan would also ensure that everyone could have healthcare, and access to cost reducing preventative care. But here's the problem. I have good health insurance, yet I don't get a yearly check-up even though I know I should. The reality is that a lot of other people might not as well. Outside of forcing people to get check-ups, there is just no easy solution to this problem except for providers to create huge incentives for people who participate in preventative care. I know that if my premium would go way up if I didn't get my check-ups or screenings, I would start seeing a doctor regularly. Another problem is that people just might not get insurance even if they can afford it, which is why mandating healthcare is important. I understand the concern with "forcing" people to get healthcare, but realistically, everyone participating in this is important not only for the health of individuals, but for the economic well-being of the country.

But even with univeral coverage and prevention, there is still remains a missing component. Other countries aren't healthier than us because they have universal healthcare. They are healthier because they eat and live differently.

The cost-reducing issue in the healthcare debate that no one is talking about is the atrocious American diet. To deal with this, I would argue that taxes should be raised on junk food and foods that contribute to poor health, and we should stop subsidizing corn and soy beans and begin subsidizing crops that promote healthy diets. Part of the reason people are obese is because unhealthy food is cheap and healthy food is more expensive. Most fast food items, for example, are made from corn or soy products so they are cheap. And high-fructose corn syrup, a contributor to obesity, is in everything because corn is cheaper than sugar or natural sweeteners. Reducing subsidies on these crops and increasing subsidies on crops that promote a healthy diet; taxing unhealthy food; and educating the public more on a healthy diet might, by hitting Americans in their pocketbook, cause people to eat better and live healthier.

To cope with the large swath of our population getting older, we all need to live healthier lives. Eating healthier and preventative care will drive down costs making universal coverage affordable. If we tax junk food, that would generate additional revenue for the purpose of healthcare as well. The bottom line is whether it's the insurance companies or the masses, everyone needs to change their ways, but unfortunately I don't see much coming out of Washington on getting Americans to put down their Big Mac and pick up some veggies and whole grains.

You Are What You Eat- Part 5

From what I know about him, Polan is a secular Jew, but I found the final portion of his book very spiritual and moving. He quotes the Christian writer, Wendall Berry, numerous times and even discusses why it is good to say a blessing.

Eating is a tremendously spiritual, sacred practice. Jesus knew this-- one of Christianity's main practices centers on eating. What we eat exemplifies our stewardship of creation. And not only of the created world around us, but the creation God has imparted us to care for-- our own bodies. Our skyrocketing health care costs are a direct consequence of our horrendous failure as stewards of creation. I would argue that if we ate differently, our health care crisis would go away.

Secondly, eating is spiritual because eating is relational. Creation depends on us to steward it well, and we depend on creation for sustenance. All of us depend on the same planet. In that way, we are all interconnected. Polan talks about the importance of going to farmer's markets, not just to get good food, but to meet the person feeding you. He argues that there is something important about the farmer looking the consumer in the eye when he sells him some produce. It's a lot harder to sell salmonella-infected vegetables to someone when you have to meet and greet the buyer.

Anne and I have come to the conclusion that eating well is something worth spending the extra cash on. Why wouldn't you spend a little more on something you put into your body on a constant basis? People research their new T.V. much more than they research what they eat. That is incredible to me. What's more incredible though is how much of our health problems-- and I would argue social problems-- are rooted in or linked to the ways greed and selfishness have affected our diet and food production. The good news is that the solutions are simple: eat food as God intended it to be, and develop eating practices that have been around since the dawn of civilization. The bad news is that our culture and economy want to create food products that are cheap and quick to make. So just like living a life that is, morally, how things were intended to be goes against the ways of the world around us, it seems that eating how we were intended to does as well.

You Are What You Eat- Part 4

I'm just skimming the surface of what Polan has to say about the reductionist science of nutritionism, processing, and the Western diet and all of the diseases that come with it. I found his research to be eye-opening, logical and clear-headed. But this book isn't just about how screwed up the American diet is, it's about changing one's eating habits as well. So what does Polan suggest? Polan's solution isn't focused on teaching the reader to eat foods containing only certain nutrients, or to only eat organic or become vegan. Instead he offers a simple mantra: Eat Food, Mostly Plants, Not too Much.

Eating food means eating whole foods, or foods made with a minimum amount of easily recognizable ingredients. "Mostly plants" is obvious. People should eat mainly fruits, grains and vegetables. This is the one I struggle most with because while I like vegetables, I generally tend to eat them the least. Concerning meat, Polan argues that meat should be more of a condiment than a main dish. He also points out that commercially produced animals are pumped full of hormones and pharmaceuticals, and eat horrible diets. On top of the dreadful conditions these animals live in (which is reason enough not to consume them), and all the crap they are given, the person who eats them is eating what they have eaten. In other words, all of the horrible things put into these animals is put into you when you eat them. Thus, Polan argues that it is best to buy meat that has been "grass finished," or better yet, to hunt and kill your own meat. It is true that animals who have been raised in cruelty-free environments and have been fed healthy food produce much more expensive meat, but if one is eating much less meat, then the price shouldn't be a huge issue.

The last part of the mantra, "Not too much" is also obvious. Americans are notoriously "big eaters," and-- go figure-- Americans are notoriously obese. Polan suggests that Americans should take up eating practices of other (healthier!) cultures, eat smaller portions and take more time to eat. Taking more time allows the body to digest the food and let the eater know he is full. When we shovel food into our mouth our body doesn't have the time to let us know we are full before it's too late. Polan also says that we need to not eat alone. He says that food should be a communal experience where relationships are strengthened and bonds are made. It's interesting to point out that a gateway into a culture is its diet. Food is often a great starting point for people of different countries or cultures to begin learning about one another. It is something we all have in common.

You Are What You Eat- Part 3

The book I read where this information comes from is called In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Polan. It was a great and informative read. Polan argues that the Western diet has made us more unhealthy despite the fact that Americans are obsessed more about the nutrients they take in than ever before. The problem with focusing on nutrients, Polan argues, is that nutrients have a food context, food comes from a cuisine, and a cuisine comes from cultures that have existed for a long periods of time living in the same place and eating the same things. So people have adapted to their diets for thousands of years. But more importantly, these cuisines usually consist of whole foods with little processing.

Processing makes foods last longer and makes them cheaper, but also strips them of their nutrients. Polan uses the example of a Twinkie, and how it never goes bad. Why doesn't it go bad? Because it has no nutritional value. We are in competition with micro-organisms for the nutrition found in food. If it will rot then that means it's good for you; micro-organisms want to eat it for the same reasons we do. Yet instead of eating foods that will spoil, we have a culture that lives off food which will last forever-- hamburger helper, macaroni and cheese, canned soup and pasta-- and much of this food amounts to a lot of empty calories and carbohydrates. In other words, we might have a crap ton of food in this country, but much of it is poor quality, and has to be fortified with vitamins because of the ways it is preserved. And while fortified food is better than non-fortified food, it's just not that same as "real food"-- that is, fresh fruits and vegetables and meat that comes from animals that had healthy diets themselves. Take whole grain.

For years we've been eating white bread made from refined flour. Refined flour-- or the plain white flour in your pantry-- is made by stripping the grain of most of it's nutritional value (the germ) leaving the starch and protein. Why strip it of the germ? Because removing the germ causes the flour to last much longer. Before this discovery, flour would rot rather quickly. When people first began living off of bread made from refined flour they began developing deficiency diseases. It wasn't until the thirties, with the discovery of vitamins, that this problem was solved. And in 1996 folic acid began to be added to flour as well, because people were deficient in folic acid. It hasn't been till recently that we've seen food companies and the media encouraging to us eat "whole grains."

You Are What You Eat- Part 2

We've all been to the store and seen food packages loaded with health claims-- "high in fiber", "low in fat", "heart healthy." There is big money in these claims. Scientists are paid to research nutrition. When they make a "discovery" like, say, I don't know, that all fat isn't evil, and some, like omega 3 polyunsaturated fat, is good for you, food companies start churning out products that are "high in "omega 3s." And it doesn't matter what that food is. I have orange juice that Tropicana somehow got omega 3s into. The idea is that we can make any food-- even pop! -- good for us if we simply add certain nutrients to it. The problem, however, is that food is more than the sum of its parts.

Take beta-carotene for example. In carrots, beta-carotene is an incredibly healthful anti-oxidant. Thus, the logic was that if we could just put some beta-carotene in a pill and take it as a supplement, then we wouldn't have to do the dirty work of eating carrots or other beta-carotene rich food. But that logic was wrong. In fact not only did it not work, but taking B-C in supplement form could actually be bad for you. Why? Because for some unknown reason the body metabolizes B-C in a beneficial way when it comes from carrots or other foods, but not when it's taken alone. It could be something in the carrot, or it could be something even more complex like a combination of acids in the stomach and other things in the carrot.

Another great example is milk. When milk has fat removed from it, it loses its creamy milk texture, and in order to restore some of that texture, non-fat dry milk is added. However, non-fat dry milk contains oxidized cholesterol, which is actually worse for you than regular cholesterol. On top of that, milk contains fat-soluble vitamins which, needless to say, the body needs fat to properly digest. So removing the fat negates the purpose of drinking milk in the first place!

You Are What You Eat- Part 1

It's been pointed out repeatedly that we live in a culture where we are always trying to get the biggest and the best, and do things in the shortest amount of time. To acquire that new I Pod, cell phone or car we are constantly trying to cheapen the things we spend money on to survive and live; and do things faster so we can work more hours. And in this uniquely American way of life, we have developed a uniquely American diet to facilitate our mission for acquiring more shit.

I have, for several years now, been trying to eat more healthy. In my various health care related classes I have learned about the evils of saturated fat and LDL cholesterol, and the wonders of fiber and omega 3 polyunsaturated fats. I haven't always done the most stellar job, but I've tried my best. I've done this not because of my weight, but because I care about things like dying of cancer, heart disease or a MI. But these efforts have unfortunately been misguided. While I tried to stay up-to-date on the latest trends in nutritionism, I, like most Americans, have completely missed the point of why many of us are so unhealthy despite the fact that Americans are more health conscious than ever before.

What we're missing is something much bigger than just eating things that have more of this nutrient or less of that, for food is more than the sum of it's parts, and eating is an intricate, relational exercise. A book I read recently explores this idea and it has changed the way I think about food and how Anne and I eat. While I won't go into great detail I do want to share some interesting things I learned, and why this book is so important.

Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama: Part 2

Domestic Policy
With the current financial crisis it would be easy to say, "I support Obama because McCain is for the same economic policies that got us into this current mess." And I would be partly right, but I would also be being disingenuous because the economy is always much messier than how it's portrayed in blame game politics. So instead, I will appeal to my understanding of the role of business, taxes and the government.

Government and business are in a symbiotic relationship. Businesses create an economy, and taxes from that economy fund the government. A good government fosters a good society that creates workers, and more entrepreneurs to start more businesses. Everyone who owns a business in the U.S. uses the human capital created by public schools, uses U.S. infrastructure, and is protected by the U.S. military etc... Thus the government relies on business to create it's economy, but business relies on the government for a vibrant society to do business in. It makes sense then that someone who profits from a business started in the U.S., using all this country has to offer, should pay for it in taxes. And it would further make sense that the more one profits in the U.S., the more of one's profit should be subject to tax. Government and business are inextricably connected. It is with this understanding that I support Obama's tax policy to raise taxes on those making a quarter of a million a year or more, and cutting taxes on the middle class.

From 1970 to 2000 the average income for those on the bottom 90% of the income ladder actually fell from $27,060 to $27,035, and those in the 99%-99.5% ranges average income increased from 202,792 to $384,192. Those in the 99.5%-99.9% saw their average incomes raised from $317,582 to $777,450, but most strking is the increase in the average income at the very top: $3,641,285 to $23,969,767. So it is fair to say that for most, incomes have been stagnant, and it would make sense to put more money in the pockets of those who need it and will spend it, than to give more tax cuts to those who are already well off.

I also support Obama's position on closing loopholes and going after corporations who dodge taxes. In all the talk about how much the rich pay in taxes, it often gets overlooked at how much they don't. Capitalism is effective at producing great wealth because it is driven by competition to become wealthier (AKA greed). If I believe that human beings are prone to corruption and selfishness, then I have to believe we need a strong government to manage the wealth created by our economy and enforce it's tax laws. When we do this, we create a healthy society of customers for businesses and more entrepreneurs to build businesses.

In other issues, heath care continues to sky-rocket making paychecks smaller while millions remain uninsured. Obama's plan isn't perfect, but I believe it's better than McCain's plan which will increase the number of the uninsured, lower the quality of insurance and doesn't address discrimination by insurance companies. I also like Obama's policy on education with everything from merit pay to tax credits for higher education, and free community college. Education is imperative for a healthy economy and society, and for the sake of lengthiness, I'll leave it at that.

In sum, based on my understanding of the relationship between government and the economy, I believe Obama's policies are superior to McCain's. Health care is something I am greatly concerned about, and I believe it is a joke that we spend as much as we do on health care yet have so many who are uninsured. Those in that bottom 90% have also seen their wages decrease by the rising cost of health insurance and education. Therefore, I believe it makes the most sense to lessen the tax burden on people in the middle, increase the tax burden on the top, and use that money for health care and education to better our society as a whole. I also continue to believe in eliminating programs that do not work, and cutting spending where we can. Obama claims to believe the same thing. We'll see if he actually does.