Autographed Letter Signed

A Mostly Center-Right Place For Those With Irritable Obama Syndrome and Diversity Fatigue

When Harry Met Salad: Afrocity Encounters The Organic Police April 27, 2010

The flowering of the organic produce culture during the 1990′s never quite spread to my stomach or the dwindling funds available in my pocket book.  I have nothing against organic produce.  I just do not buy it on the regular basis.

I have great respect for our society’s heightened awareness concerning the dangers of pesticides and other toxins used in the farming industry. However, I don’t lose any sleep over eating a “conventional” non-organic anjou pear.

Do I care about my diet?

Am I concerned with what goes into my body?  Yes, of course I am. Truthfully,  I am more worried about my salt intake and sugary food consumption than I am about the pesticide levels in my ginger beer.

For the purposes of full disclosure, recently I have not been happy with my choice of diet.  I eat a lot of Kettle Brand Sea Salt and Vinegar potato chips.  Burgers and fries make my menu when I can’t afford the time to make a real meal. Pizza on Friday nights. Ice cream, cake, lots of carbs. I work and I get too lazy to cook. The microwave is my saving grace when I pop in a Stoufer’s Swedish Meatball frozen meal.

I should eat healthier meals, get more grains and fiber in my diet -drink more water.  There are times when I actually do decide to work on my eating habits.   This past Sunday was one of those times.

I had just made a stop to my local Blockbuster Video and rented Crazy Heart and The Lovely Bones.   The Whole Foods store was a hop skip and a jump around the corner from Blockbusters. I thought I would pick up something good for my body.  Yesm the Kettle chips were there but I would also get salad fixings, some fiber filled smoothie juices, maybe some smoked salmon.

Brevity marks my strategy to sane, calm, uneventful visits to Whole Foods Market.  Let’s face it.  Whole Foods is a liberal’s haven. Hemp muffins, organic cat food, Obama sweat pants, white guys with dreds…Peace, love and liberalism. Afrocity gets a rash when she is in the place for too long.  I hit the automatic door, breeze past the floral section, make a bee line for the Naked juice section.

Round the corner past the seafood counter and stock boy who smells like cumin and gluten free cookies, pick up a can of Wellness cat food just in case I am too busy to make it to my regular pet store.

As I near the counter, I grab an evil salt and grease bag of Kettle sea salt chips.  Then presto, I am out of there like a happy tea partier.

That is usually how it works. ..How it was supposed to work until Sunday April 25th. This one particular cold rainy Chicago day was full of monkey wrenches. My visit to Whole Foods was one of them.

Everything was proceeding as planned.  I got my Naked Juice it was on sale for $4.99.   I decided that I needed more fiber. Salads are fun and I could throw in some avocados. Hmmm think I will get some pre-packaged salad and this is where things went terribly wrong for me.

AFROCITY: [Stands looking at refrigerated salad selections.  Organic choices, arugula (ugh), Boston Lettuce. Notes that the same bag of Fresh Express pre-cut salad is a whole dollar cheaper at other Chicago markets.  Does not really want to pay $3.99 for a bag of salad...Maybe wants spinach but would like something with crunch like iceberg.  Sees a bag that costs $2.49 on high shelf .  Notices a Whole Foods employee with long dreds wearing a do-rag,  stocking bags of salad. Decides to ask him help her get bag of iceberg lettuce  salad because she is too short and his cart of boxes is in her way]  Excuse, me could you reach that for me? [Points to bag of salad]

PRODUCE GUY:   Sure. [He reaches for bag of salad, hands to Afrocity]

AFROCITY:   Thank you. [Takes bag of salad.  Notices that it is smaller than it appeared on the shelf.  Sees that it is organic and realizes why it was $2.49 for a smaller portion.   Stands there holding bag of organic salad. Feels like it is not a good bargain.  Could use some spinach anyway.  Hmmmmm...Sigh...Well Fresh Express is $3.99 but it is a bigger bag and has more varieties like 50/50 (half iceberg/half spinach)...Okay will go with the Fresh Express...Now what to do with this bag of salad that I won't buy.  Leave it here on top of the bananas?  Will just ask nice produce guy to put salad back]

Can you put this back for me? I have decided that I do not want it. [hands bag of salad back to produce man]

PRODUCE GUY: [looking puzzled takes bag of salad and places it back on shelf]

AFROCITY: [Turns and grabs bag of Fresh Express 50/50 drops in basket turns to leave]

PRODUCE GUY: Oh, no. Wrong move. You put back the organic.

AFROCITY: [startled] Excuse me?

PRODUCE GUY:   You just traded that bag of organic salad for a bag that is filled with toxins

AFROCITY:   …um…yes I know [and don't care] I know.

PRODUCE GUY: Organic is better for your body that was a wrong move.

AFROCITY: [shugs shoulders]

Yeah, yeah [tries to walk away, realizes that produce guy has come to stand in front of her]

PRODUCE GUY:  [looking manic while pointing to bag of salad in Afrocity's basket]  Do you know what they do to that salad…They wash it with chemicals-

AFROCITY [irritated] I KNOW okay. [brushes by produce guy]

PRODUCE GUY: That goes into your body and builds up over time-

AFROCITY:   [pissed off and feeling judged] Look, I am an adult. I do not drink or smoke. I have never taken drugs in my entire life if I want to eat-

PRODUCE GUY:   No! That does not matter. It is not about not smoking or drinking. The toxins build up in your body from eating inorganic and your not smoking is not doing you any good if you continue to poison your system with non-organic products-

AFROCITY:   [abruptly walks away knowing this guy obviously has control issues and is some sort of organic junkie freak-a-zoid. rolls eyes. Disperse immediately. Moonbat alert ]

Immediately after this rude encounter, there was little I could do to contain my disgust.   I stomped to the snack aisle and grabbed my Kettle chips, slammed them into my basket. Checked out in a huff.  How dare he lecture me? It is really not any of his business what I put into my body.  I bet he is a liberal and I bet he is pro-choice. How would he feel if a pro-lifer was outside of Planned Parenthood telling women “Don’t go in there. Do you know what that will do to your body?”

If I want to eat conventional, non-organic ginger root that is my damn business and I do not need employees of grocery stores looking down their noses at me. I mean WTF is happening to this country?   The entire exchange reminded me of the Sylvester Stalone movie Demolition Man (1993).  Stalone  plays a policeman that is cryogenically frozen in the year 1996 and reawakens to face crime and a new world in the year 2032.   One of my favorite scenes in the movie involves Stalone and Sandra Bullock who is his partner.   In this YouTube clip at about 4:46, Stalone is at a dinner and wants salt on his meal. Bullock explains to him that salt is not illegal.

In 1993 when I first saw this movie, I really did not believe that our society would ever come to this.  Now I am no longer so certain.  We have sin tax on everything from bottled water to candy bars. You get taxed for tanning.  New York wants to ban salt.  Whole Foods baggers look at you like you are Hitler’s hairstylist if you request a paper bag. Of course you are a total ugly wasteful American if you do not bring your own bags to the grocery store.  So what now?  You can’t pick up a harmless bag of conventional salad without a pap smear invasive lecture from some produce guy?

Liberals are all about choice when it comes to abortion but what about everything else? They tell us that we should not have guns.  We should not be allowed to pray in school, unless you are of course Middle Eastern or some other non-American then it is kewl to let you openly observe your religion.  You can’t be a Tea Partier without being a racist.  You must get government health care. You must pay taxes.

Where has the choice gone? To the dogs? Or should I say jackasses?

Compromised organic lifehood was my judgment.  Guilty as charged. Velcro some scarlet letter on my chest.  But I am Afrocity and Afrocity does not go down without a fight.  This morning I called Whole Foods and asked to speak with a manager. I explained the incident to her and she was quite thoughtful. She agreed that the produce man’s behavior was inappropriate.  I further pressed the issue by saying if Whole Foods feels that conventional produce is bad for its customers then they should not be selling it. The manager agreed and felt it was wrong for the employee to “bad mouth” a product that was sold in its store. She fully understood my humiliation and apologized.

I appreciated her response and felt satisfied with the outcome of my complaint.

The moral of this true incident is simple.  It is not the place of anyone to decide what we should and should not consume, especially the Federal Government.  Regulation of drugs, tobacco, and pesticides is one thing but when the government begins to micromanage our food choices, America loses that freedom and liberty luster that makes it shine. If I want salt on my chocolate cake and my blood pressure is as high as a kite that is my business.  Food, like sexual partners, is a lifestyle choice. Some eat healthier than others.  Some women like other women. It is your business what you do with your life as long as you are not hurting other people.  We do not need whistler blowers coming up with a blacklist of people who eat non-organic produce anymore than we need a list of women considering abortions.

Now let There Be Peas and Choice on Earth!!!

Autographed Letter Signed,

AFROCITY

 

Obama’s Wonderland:Will Health Care Reform Spawn the Next Great Culture War? By Jenn Q. Public May 29, 2009

Alice

By Jenn Q. Public

Cross-posted at http://www.jennqpublic.com/

When I turn 35 I will have my first mammogram.

In the United States, mammography is recommended for breast cancer screening every one to two years beginning at age 40.  The best available evidence suggests that mammography screening among women aged 40 to 74 reduces breast cancer mortality.

But due to a few minor risk factors, three doctors have suggested I undergo a baseline mammogram at 35. I’m not thrilled with the idea of having a technician I’ve never met manipulate my breasts into squishing position, but being felt up and flattened out sounds a lot better than being dead, so I’ll take my chances.

Of women who receive annual screening mammography beginning at age 40, six out of 10,000 over a decade will have their lives saved.  Breast cancer will be detected and cured in many more, but regular mammograms will only make a life or death difference for six of every 10,000 women in that group.  Mammograms are of extremely high value to those women and their families, but don’t offer much bang for the buck when it comes to the other 9,994 women.

And wringing more bang from every health care buck is reason enough for Canadian and British recommendations that women wait until age 50 to begin receiving screening mammographies.  In these countries where cost-effectiveness studies influence health policy and medical practice, six saved lives aren’t worth the substantial costs associated with all those extra mammograms and the false positives they sometimes produce.

alice 12

Canadian women are offered routine mammograms every two years, but only from age 50-69 because “evidence is not conclusive” that routine mammograms benefit younger and older women.  Doctors have some leeway with regard to high risk patients.

In the United Kingdom, mammograms are recommended every three years beginning some time between age 50 and 53.  Based on guidelines developed by the Orwellian-named NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence), the National Health Service insists that for women under 40, “mammograms should only be used as part of clinical trials into screening and that they shouldn’t be used under age 30 at all.”  According to NICE, “Healthcare professionals should respond to women who present with concerns but should not, in most instances, actively seek to identify women with a family history of breast cancer.”

It is hardly shocking that the breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher in Canada and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom.  Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).  And British and Canadian patients wait for care about twice as long as Americans.

There are indeed valid criticisms American health care, but one area in which we excel is that we don’t base guidelines for care on cost-utility analysis. That’s why the U.S. ranks first in providing the “right care” for a given condition and has the best survival rate for breast cancer.

Obamacare may force Americans to give up those bragging rights.

The “right care” may soon be defined in part by how much that care costs. Health care reformers acknowledge the impossibility of implementing universal health care without introducing cost containment measures, and Democrats are enamored with a method used by the British called “comparative effectiveness research” (CER.)

AliceandtheCheshireCat3AARP CEO and CER proponent Bill Novelli describes comparative effectiveness research as “a wonky term that just means giving doctors and patients the ability to compare different kinds of treatments to find out which one works best for which patient.”  And at its best, that’s just what CER does.  CER is not inherently bad.  For example, it can help doctors cut through seductive pharmaceutical advertising to identify older, less commonly prescribed drugs that are just as effective as newer, more expensive ones.

But with CER, the devil is in the details.

CER can lead to one-size-fits-all medicine and encourages a purely analytical approach to care that is not always beneficial to the patient. The mythical average patient overshadows the individual patient, leaving most of us with about as many options as a public school cafeteria at lunchtime.

And in the UK, NICE includes cost as a determining factor in the comparative effectiveness studies that inform clinical guidelines.  Determinations about whether citizens will have access to drugs, tests, and procedures are based on cost per quality of life year (QALY.)

The QALY score is a fairly crude metric that takes into account both the number and quality of years a medical intervention is expected to add to a patient’s life.  Here’s the upshot of using QALYs to determine cost effectiveness:

On the QALY scale, 0 means you’re dead, 1 means you’re in perfect health, and varying levels of debility fall in between. Imagine two groups of people, one with a QALY of 1 and the other with a score of 0.5. An expensive technology brings a year of life to both groups. But in the second, that technology would be counted as having provided only six months, and thus be twice as expensive. It may be deemed too costly for that patient group.

alice_17651_lgThe older you are, the sicker you are, the more disabled you are, the less cost effective it is to treat you.  And if the cost per QALY of a medical intervention you need exceeds £20-30,000 (around $32,000 – 48,000), you’re out of luck.  Drugs, particularly end-of-life treatments, are routinely rejected for use due to poor cost-effectiveness.  And screening tests, like the mammograms American women take for granted, are severely restricted to ensure expenditures remain under the cost per QALY threshold.

Liberal proponents of health care reform accuse conservatives of paranoia and fear mongering about health care rationing.  Critics of CER are demonized as extremist spewers of far right talking points who don’t care about improving clinical effectiveness.  Surely a uniquely American flavor of a CER board would never 41a_king_in_courtbecome as proscriptive as NICE.

But it seems conservative anxiety (and perhaps a bit of healthy paranoia) is more than warranted by Washington Democrats singing the praises of cost-cutting comparative effectiveness studies.  Bear with me while I review some of the health care rationing talk in CER clothing coming from inside the beltway.

The stage for CER to become a significant component of health care reform was set when President Obama’s stimulus bill passed with a $1.1 billion appropriation for CER.  In April, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) introduced a budget amendment to ensure that CER would be used appropriately:
Statement of Purpose:

To protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of items or services under Federal health care programs and to ensure that comparative effectiveness research accounts for advancements in genomics and personalized medicine, the unique needs of health disparity populations, and differences in the treatment response and the treatment preferences of patients.

The amendment was defeated 54-44.

Last week, members of the New Democrat Coalition proposed HR 2505, a bill to establish a new government bureaucracy called the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute.  The Institute would prioritize research based on both clinical and economic factors, including “the effect or potential for an effect on health expenditures associated with a health condition or the use of a particular medical treatment, service, or item.”  This would not be a problem if there were safeguards to ensure that best practices are not interpreted to mean the least expensive practices.

Officials at National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently announced a stimulus-funded initiative to integrate cost-effectiveness into clinical research.   “Cost-effectiveness research will provide accurate and objective information to guide future policies that support the allocation of health resources for the treatment of acute and chronic diseases across the lifespan,” according to the call for proposals.

Back at the White House, President Obama has been paying lip service to the clinical benefits of CER.  At the same time, he recently lamented that “the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill … there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.”  That, he explained, was part of the need for “some independent group that can give you guidance” on the ethical dilemmas involved with rationing end-of-life care.

alice 4During her Senate confirmation process, Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius declined to voice her support for prohibiting the use of comparative effectiveness data to withhold care from patients. Her ideas echo those of Tom Daschle, the tax-dodging health policy wonk who wrote in his book that the U.S. “won’t be able to make a significant dent in health-care spending without getting into the nitty-gritty of which treatments are the most clinically valuable and cost effective.”

Then there’s Peter Orszag, Obama’s director of the Office of Management and Budget and a major player in crafting health care reform.  For the most part, Orszag’s commentary on CER has been limited to lauding its ability to improve patient care while reducing waste.  But when asked a few months ago if the Obama administration has a position on empowering the CER board to make reimbursement decisions, Orszag said, “Not at this point.”

But perhaps of greatest concern is a January House report that included the following statement on CER funding:

By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.

Sound familiar?  Cough, NICE, cough, ahem.

And as Jim DeMint explains, “CER is only one step in the Obama administration’s insidious plan to take over American health care … for our own good.”

But would CER really lead to health care rationing in the United States?  Of course.  That’s pretty much the point.  The debate is not about whether or not CER would be used for rationing, but rather, whether rationing is ethical and useful, and how far we’re willing to go to save a buck and level the economic playing field.

If health care reform shapes up as many Democrats anticipate, CER Institute guidelines will initially apply to the public insurance option expected to be the centerpiece of the Democrats’ proposal. But eventually they would slide down the slippery slope into the private sector. A public insurance option would also ride roughshod over the already anemic competition among overregulated private sector insurers, making the survival of private insurance unlikely.  As in the United Kingdom, recommendations will become rules and suggestions will become mandates in order to contain the costs of universal coverage.

alice_05a-caterpillarTo what extent will this result in government control of the doctor-patient relationship?  Ultimately, a bureaucratic board will determine when, how, and whether or not you and your family receive care.

Comparative effectiveness research will no longer be just a political hot potato; it will be the basis for the next great American culture war.  Instead of clashing over God, guns, and gays, we’ll battle over the monetary value of human life, the sanctity of doctor-patient relationships, the right to medical self-determination, and my favorite hot button issue, the duty to die.

Would cases like Terry Schiavo’s be decided based on financial considerations?

Where will fetuses fall on the QALY scale?  How about the elderly or people with Down syndrome?  Will they automatically receive limited treatment due to limited resources?

Will smokers be eligible for chemotherapy?  Will overweight people have restrictions placed on cardiac care?  Will we feel differently about those decisions when we’re footing the bill for everyone?

And you thought the abortion debate was contentious.

Obviously these questions address the most extreme examples of what could happen if we continue on our current path toward universal health care.  But government efforts at cost containment through CER may push us toward debating these issues sooner than we think.  Hopefully we’ll never see the day when questions like these go beyond an academic exercise.

first-knaveMeanwhile, I’ll be saving up for a date with a mammography machine in one of those thriving medical tourism meccas.  I hear Costa Rica is a breathtaking location for a 35th birthday celebration.

Autographed Letter Signed,

JENN Q. PUBLIC

*Jenn Q. Public  is  an ALS guest commentator. She describes herself as “a reluctant republican and recovered democrat who has struggled for years to reconcile my liberal upbringing with a reality that inspires right-of-center beliefs”.

Please visit her blog “Jenn Q. Public



 

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers