If you'd like to, ahem, make room for all that Thanksgiving deliciousness that's just around the corner, just read this pap from The Wall Street Journal about "The Other Maverick," Joe (Droopy Dawg) Lieberman.

When John McCain ran for president, he positioned himself as "the original maverick." The dissenting votes that so annoyed his fellow Republicans—on tax cuts, campaign-finance reform, offshore drilling—were hailed as evidence of these maverick credentials.

Oh crap. Yet more women's health "guidelines" from our corporate culture aimed at reducing costs.

Now, you should only get a Pap Smear every few years and not start till you’re in your 20s.

Under the headline “Negative Effects of Fewer Pap Smears Unknown,” the article reads:

Dr. Donnica Moore, president of Sapphire Women’s Health Group and an obstetrician-gynecologist by training, worried that the new guidelines might keep women who’ve had a normal Pap smear, or no symptoms, away from the doctor.

Well, folks, the Senate health plan is out. It's 2,074 pages long, and is even more crapulent than the House plan, from what I can tell.

Some of the awesome features:

1) Taxing more expensive plans that employers provide. The meme is that these are "Cadillac" plans, as if the people who are covered by these plans have any say WHATSOEVER in how much the programs cost.

2) Cutting even more from Medicare.

3) Offering an "opt-out" option for the states.

4) Forcing people to buy insurance, then penalizing them if they don't do so.

That's it!

Oh, wait. You wanted to know about that whole abortion thingy? Don't worry. The Senate has you covered!

http://weiner.house.gov/news_display.asp...

Weiner just lived up to his name by withdrawing his amendment, which would have substituted single-payer for the House bill favored by Democratic leaders. That coward sickens me right now even more than Obama, Pelosi, Emanuel, Hoyer, and Reid put together.

According to a post on Pennsylvania blog, House speaker Nancy Pelosi will allow a mere twenty minutes of debate on single-payer, albeit indirectly.

I saw this entry posted over at Docudharma and thought I'd share the link to it. I'll post as much as I can, but really, it's worth checking out the entire entry. It's by the user known as FreeSociety.

The total vacuum of any principled leadership from President Obama, has inevitably produced the most directionless, anti-consumer, Insurance Monopoly boondoggle fraud imaginable -- which is now masquerading before Congress as "reform".

Insurance premiums for small businesses are being driven higher not just because of an increase in healthcare costs, but also because Wall Street wants higher returns:

The higher premiums at least partly reflect the inexorable rise of medical costs, which is forcing Medicare to raise premiums, too. Health insurance bills are also rising for big employers, but because they have more negotiating clout, their increases are generally not as steep.

Higher medical costs aside, some experts say they think the insurance industry, under pressure from Wall Street, is raising premiums to get ahead of any legislative changes that might reduce their profits.

Now, you might think with health insurance reform pending in Congress, the industry would be concerned about screwing its customers. But you'd be wrong because Washington doesn't run this country, Wall Street does:

“There’s no one out there who hasn’t had to do a mea culpa to Wall Street,” said Sheryl Skolnick, an analyst for Pali Capital who follows the companies. While the industry is particularly vulnerable now in Washington, she said, “it seems like they’re more afraid of Wall Street.”

Via CBS:

If you've been diagnosed "probable" or "presumed" 2009 H1N1 or "swine flu" in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn’t have H1N1 flu.

In fact, you probably didn’t have flu at all. That's according to state-by-state test results obtained in a three-month-long CBS News investigation.

[...]The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.

I am no expert on healthcare, and nor do I play one on TV. But unlike the summer's theatrical extravaganzas staged in "town hall" terms, there's good information headed to Congress, and I know good information when I see it. So does Bill Moyers.

She's written a previous book not about medicine but about money.

Paul Krugman praises Maggie Mahar's work in The New York Times:

Oh, good Krist, this is wonderful Combined with this, I nearly fainted today, it's so nice to see this sort of thing. Stark is showing the Way, for those truly interested in being a New Media or whatever. It's so frakking simple.

Let me put it this way: I always thought I couldn't take good pictures. Trad film and I don't get along. Then they invented fancee digi cams that I can sort of use, and voila! I'm ansel adams, or something. But anyway, my point is that there should be a lot more of this, please.

So I guess I hit a nerve with my food fight post, or rather, several of them. I think it's worth breaking down some of the comments and sub-discussions into a longer series. One topic that seemed to bring out the very Correntian best in folks: how we define "obese."

Reader Jeff W points us to this helpful link from the CDC, in which they have determined that there have been "noticeable increases" in the number of overweight or obese people in this country. Reader Aeryl questions the methodology with this link. Other comments in that thread had other definitions and methods to measure the size and number of "healthy" bodies.

I'm a long way from my scientific research days, but I'll say that generally, I think obesity is both a "nature" and a "nurture" issue. On the Nature side: I fully recognize that the FSM has been kind to people in my family; we're generally tall and thin with only a modicum of exercise effort and don't tend to "overweight"-edness until quite late in life, if at all. I doubt I could find the link for it now, but I recall reading a fascinating report about a group of indigenous people from South America, recently relocated from their ancestral lands to a reservation. Apparently, in a single generation they went from thin and fit to outrageously overweight. The report's conclusion was that they had evolved to live on a fat-poor diet for thousands of years before being relocated and fed "government cheese" instead of their previous natural, "jungle food" diet, and as a result their bodies were incredibly efficient in terms of fat storage. "Too" efficient when fed a more modern diet, and thus their current obesity.

I'm tossing out those two examples and asking for your thoughts, because before we can make policy progress on the "nurture" argument, it's important to correctly frame the "nature" part.

How do you define "fat" and "obese?" How should government, for the purposes of health and food policy? How important is identifying obesity as a public health "problem?" Then there are questions about how Big Industry (Fashion, Food, the Exercise-Industrial Complex, etc) define "fat." Definitions generated by the discourse of the Patriarchy play a role as well.

And once again, consider this an open thread for recipes, especially those good for people who want to reduce or change their body's shape. Warning: I will delete comments that are inappropriately insensitive to people who don't conform to mainstream body shape standards. Consider this is a safe space for people of all body shapes to contribute.

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.

Helen Thomas explains to Robert Gibbs why she keeps asking if Obama will fight for a public option (h/t Melissa McEwan):

Of course, I'm sure Helen realizes that:

1) Obama isn't going to fight for a public option (even a puny, useless one and if you don't believe me, watch the video again); and
2) Robert Gibbs doesn't have a conscience.

From the Star Tribune:

"One victim used to sell health insurance.

Another is a retired deputy attorney general.

A third is a 93-year-old woman from West St. Paul.

All three were tricked into buying what they thought were health insurance policies that turned out to be empty promises, according to two lawsuits filed Wednesday by Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson.

Swanson accused two out-of-state companies, Consumer Health Benefits Association and Home Health America LLC, of "scamming Minnesotans citizens."

Best reason yet for Single Payer

There's a charge that the insurance company pays and one that you pay and then there's the mystery money thats only charged to people without insurance or the wrong insurance. You can best believe that, unless you have the Cadillac of insurance, the amopunt you pay will be more than your insurance company and the mystery money will be outragious. It's a game they play to balance the books.

(but if you do, I'll be there waving at ya!)

The Poor People's Economic Campaign has contacted our local single payer activist and invited us to be seen and heard at two G20 events:

1. Sunday, Sept. 20, 2:00 - 3:30 pm: Rally at Monumental Baptist Church (Soho and Wylie Streets, Hill District) with march to Freedom Corner--see here for details and flyer. This event is supported by the USW (steel workers) and UE (electrical workers), as well as other unions. Rev. Bruce Wright says that Cindy Sheehan will be one of the speakers. This is a permitted march. Also, a permitted tent city will be erected on the church grounds to highlight the needs of the homeless and unemployed.

Susan Collins wants you to know that she does NOT support a public option trigger:

A key swing vote on healthcare reform said Sunday she would not support a public option "trigger" -- a series of benchmarks that, if not met by a certain time, would authorize the creation of a government insurance program.

"No -- the problem with triggers is that is just delays the public option," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told CNN's "State of the Union," adding that her major qualm with the public option was its scope and cost.

From the Baucus health insurance reform framework document: (p. 2)

Interstate Sale of Insurance. Starting in 2015, states may form “health care choice compacts” to allow for the purchase of non-group health insurance across state lines. Such compacts may exist between two or more states. Once compacts have been formed, insurers would be allowed to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. Insurers selling policies through a compact would only be subject to the laws and regulations of the state where the policy is written or issued.

My son wants to know, how to argue with "liberals" who say, isn't it a good thing if we cover more people than we do now?

My son is a consummate liberal. He's tried to get me to give him good arguments.

My arguments:

The present plan may, in fact, insure a handful - a hundred thousand -- but at the expense of charging a hundred thousend.

It insures only half (maybe) of the uninsured by pouring money into into the for-profit insurance companies.

Why would any person calling him/herself liberal, want to pour even more money into the for-profit insurers?

Folks, my son wants to know. He's a son of a baby-boomer who has, so far, resisted giving in to generational resentment. All your input is welcomed!

And I missed it, but you don't have to -- go check out community coverage! There are seven parts and they're also posted at YouTube.

Cleanin' out my ears.

"CONGRESSMAN NORM DICKS ANNOUNCES HE IS FOR A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM FOR OUR HEALTH CARE AND I AM WITH HIM

But the greatest part of this meeting was Norm Dicks, who is in full support of a single payer government run program to which the emergency room physician clapped and was in full support. More people there were for a single payer system than were not, more people in a Kitsap County Washington, were for a SINGLE PAYER GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH PLAN. The others were outnumbered. We have to stand up like we did during the election and ram this thing through."

I guess he did say it. Video is supposed to be on the way...

"Socialism stifles creativity! Profit and the free market are why we are number one in drug research."

You've heard it OR some variation of it from faux patriots waving faded flags, right?

Turns out it never was true and never will be unless we get our sciences back on track...

It is widely believed that the United States has eclipsed Europe in pharmaceutical research productivity. Some leading analysts claim that although fewer drugs have been discovered worldwide over the past decade, most are therapeutically important. Yet a comprehensive data set of all new chemical entities approved between 1982 and 2003 shows that the United States never overtook Europe in research productivity, and that Europe in fact is pulling ahead of U.S. productivity. Other large studies show that most new drugs add few if any clinical benefits over previously discovered drugs. I discuss ways in which Congress, employers, and insurers can increase the value of drugs and revitalize the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.

Fact is we never caught up to those socialists in Europe and - probably because they base decisions on science a little more than the average American - they are pulling out further ahead now. I am truly shocked to find out that what the right wing teabaggers/birthers/deathers have been screeching about is the exact opposite of reality... Not really surprised, either, are you?

Scienceblogger Zuska has recently been writing about her experience dealing with The Best Health Insurance System In The World!^TM

Zuska's mother resides in an assisted living facility, where a few weeks ago, her wallet was stolen, including her health insurance card. As a result, she was required to cancel her Blue Cross policy number and get a new card with a new number. In the meantime, it appeared to her health care providers that mom did not have health insurance. Merriment ensued.

[Information copied from handbills posted around the 'hood, and Healthcare-NOW.]

There will be a meeting to discuss Single Payer Health Care and HR 676, tomorrow, Wednesday 26 August, at 7 PM. Location: Holy Trinity Church, 20 Cummings Street, NY, NY. (One block north of Dyckman St. at Seaman Avenue.)

...- actually, all they are seeking to do is readjust it for temporary comfort - and the insurance industry freaks out.

The Democratic-led Michigan House has voted to toughen penalties for insurance companies that deny or delay valid claims.

But the legislation approved today probably will stall in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Supporters of the bills say Michigan is one of just four states without serious financial penalties when a court rules an insurer has not fairly settled a claim.