Cha Ching Votes

I've been watching Drew Armstrong discussing w/ Libby Casey on C-SPAN the final hours of Harry's haggling in the Senate -- specifically regarding Landrieu's receipt of $300M for LA, Nelson's earmarks for NE (inc. possibly removal of a threat to place Offutt AFB on the Base Realignment And Closure list), & anticipated pork for Bernie Sander's NH (ironically meaning that the Dem. leadership has to pacify both ends of their party). Callers were decrying Nelson for being a sellout; it occurred to me that I couldn't tell if they were conservative or liberal (they weren't being specific about why they dislike his change, whether it's over money, abortion language, or something else). This illustrates a larger point about politics: negotiators in the middle of the road can earn disrespect from both sides when they hold out for earmarks. It's interesting that so many laud moderates for taking the high road, so to speak, as opposed to the extremists. But is middle-of-the-road always a principled stand? Are people at the ends always merely letting their emotions get the better of them, or following their prejudices, or something of the sort? That's not to say, of course, that the respective bases of the parties never compromise for dishonorable reasons. I think everyone bends, and more often than we like to think, for selfish ends. Only God can keep us from our own desires & from others manipulating our desires to their ends.

Stupak Amendment

http://firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/stupak-amendment-passes-64-dems-ask-for-primary-opponents/

So a woman's alleged right to privacy while killing the unborn baby within her requires taxpayers' money? Whenever anyone asserts a "right to privacy" for something, will it require taxpayer funds? I need to start studying my own "rights to privacy".

Business Owners' View of Healthcare Reform

The readers of the Phoenix Business Journal tend to be business owners, since it is a vital resource for following developments in the Phoenix business community, keeping track of which businesses are biggest in specific industries, etc. Hence, there are significant proportions recognizing the need to lower costs, introduce tort reform, or the sheer complexity of the healthcare system ("Can't just pick one"). Here we see someone identifying the second problem (malpractice litigation), which feeds the first (costs), whereas Congress & the Omessiah claim to be able to fix costs without tort reform. And, perhaps most important, only 22% see universal coverage as the top priority (not a significant lead over other problems/factors, and quite different from the perspective of labor unions, unemployed, career politicians, etc. -- parties unacquainted or unconcerned with the prices businesses pay to cover their employees).

True Preventive Care

I think one gaping hole in the current debate is that both sides are ignoring a major cause of rising healthcare costs. While the conservatives claim preventive care is more expensive by pointing to private-industry screening tests (that's not true preventive care), the government continues to recommend high-carb diets and not address the sources of carbs, proteins, & fats (natural or processed food).

While I may not agree w/ Dean Ornish's vegan recommendation (I think some essential proteins are most easily found in meat), I like his emphasis on diet-based preventive care. I probably favor Sear's Zone diet more in terms of the carb-protein-fat ratio.

I think the following article (citing mostly former Mr. Universe Lance Dreher) also helps analyze demographic trends contributing to obesity and explaining why we Americans are not eating as well nowadays.
http://www.evliving.com/drfittalks.php?action=fullnews&id=3256
Hopefully more restaurants will try to present more options favorable to a healthy diet for people with long workdays.

Congress Co-opts Term "Co-op"

Congress previously tried to market the public "option" as just one of many players in a free-market healthcare system, but that mask was just too transparent to the public as well as pundits & bloggers (since the government can print money & unfairly compete w/ other providers -- thus it would eventually crowd others out & become the only "option"). Now Congress tries to repackage the same old socialism in free-market wrap by calling it a "co-op":
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/19/dont-fall-for-the-co-op-co-opt/
I spoke w/ JD Hayworth today at the healthcare townhall at Tom's Tavern in downtown Phoenix, and he said the new "co-option" would have gov't deciding which insurance co's could come to the table. What kind of fools do they take us for?