That's the kindest explanation I can think of.

Bloggeth the formerly-liberal perfesser a few days ago:

What this suggests is that the really important thing, for reformers, is to get the principle of universality established. Once that happens, there’s no going back.

Yeah, well, I guess it helps if you define universe.

WaPo:

The bipartisan initiative [Hold onto your wallets! -- lambert], largely eclipsed in the health-care debate, builds on a trend that is in play among some corporations and that more workers will see in the benefits packages they bring home during this fall's open enrollment. Some employers offer lower premiums to workers who complete personal health assessments; others limit coverage for smokers.

The current legislative effort would take the trend a step further. It is backed by major employer groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. It is opposed by labor unions and organizations devoted to combating serious illnesses, such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association.

Critics say employers could use the rewards and penalties to drive some workers out of their health plans.

President Obama and members of Congress have said [and of course, we believe them -- lambert] they are trying to create a system in which no one can be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on their health status. The insurance lobby has said it shares that goal. However, so-called wellness incentives could introduce a colossal loophole. In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

Or... Whatever! Pre-existing conditions are right back in the game, except now they're called "risk factors." Can anybody seriously believe that the bill won't create a whole industry devoted to finding "risk factors" and denying people care who have them? Or can plausibly be said to have had them, perhaps during rescission? Ectomorphs under the bus! Endomorphs under the bus! Black men have a higher "risk factor" for stroke? Under the bus! People who worked in chemical plants have a higher "risk factor" for cancer? Under the bus! People with blue eyes have a higher "risk factor" for uveal melanoma? Under the bus! Women have a higher "risk factor" for pregnancy? Under the bus!

It's the same old game: Collect premiums, deny care.

Tristero recently caused a bona fide flame war at the normally staid and Serious Hullaballoo comment community, in those two posts about food. I didn't really find too much of what he said outrageous or stupid, and I respect the fact that he came right out and admits that he eats what he likes because it tastes good. I confess I didn't think the Hullaballoo community had it in them, way to sling that pizza across the lunchroom, kids!

I just wanted to make a couple remarks and see what others think, because I believe that food is a critically important topic in many political debates, from those on the environment, health care, racism and more.

From my perspective, it's beyond obvious that far too many Americans aren't eating well. I was shocked, moving to this Heartland community where I now live, by the contrast of people's shapes here, vs places like DC and Chicago. That is, people in flyoverland really run to fat, in my eyes. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but the 'beautiful body' culture of my previous environment is almost nowhere to be found here, except among the Greek set of the local big state university. And I suspect those young women are not unfamiliar with some unhealthy food habits like binging and the dangerous, speedy drugs that make crash dieting an easy task.

Anyway, I bet I could get most of you to agree that the problem isn't just a regional one, and that there are many areas in which the quality of our food and the habits people have consuming it could be improved. But as the comments at those two posts remind me, a lot of people seem to have the attitude of "You can take my daily Twinkie when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands." What can be done to change that?

Further, I guess I don't understand the idea that people like me are overly righteous food snobs. Do people really want to have diabetes and be obese? I can't believe that. I understand that not all people have good food choices, but I would hope that if they did, they'd make them, at least most of the time. I'd also think people would enjoy the benefits that come with "progressively produced" food, organics and locally grown, food free of synthetics and chemicals and suchlike. That kind of food really does taste better. And if food is about satisfaction, well...I guess I just don't get the resistance to that.

A friend of mine recently introduced me to a terrific restaurant in this area, after long months of my despairing of ever finding a place that compares to the upscale, "progressive" dining option I had when I lived in big cities. It's in a town that defines "podunk backwater." It serves locally produced, organically grown, reasonably priced, fucking outstanding tasty food. And it's doing really well as a business, apparently, even in this Depression we're having in this state. So I know there's 'a market' for better food. My question is: why are so many people resistant to good food and healthy eating habits, in favor of unfood horror found at fast food restaurants or the junk food aisle? Marketing? Ignorance? Addiction to unhealthy but "good" tasting things like corn syrup and trans fats?

Also: consider this a Saturday Morning open recipe thread, if you've got any. I'm always looking for new cooking ideas, especially now that "chef" is practically my 4th job.