On a quiet day last fall I flipped to an article in the latest Harper’s entitled “American Electra: Feminism’s ritual matricide” It didn’t really seem like an uplifting topic, but I was pulled into reading. I often find discussions about feminism relevant to the topic of cooking and other disappearing domestic skills. It’s a tricky association that comes out of the reality that these important skills are diminishing due to the fact that homes are left empty for wages.  For wage earners to be able to function without these skills, they rely on a constant stream of convenience products or others’ labor. There is an uncomfortable historical relationship with feminism and consumerism which has resulted in the confusing realization that to be anti-consumer is to somehow reject the advances of women in society. To reduce your dependence on consumption, you must be more self sufficient, more productive. This production is home-based, and often in the kitchen. The Harper’s piece brings up this relationship and the ways in which consumer culture influenced feminist movements, which resulted in a rejection of, ironically, the mother.

Author Susan Faludi explains that just after the success of suffrage, at the turn of the century, “The forces arrayed against the mother were many. Some of her antagonists would be presented as allies, sympathetic “experts” who knew better than she did how to do her job. Mothers, the new and reigning “behavioralist” psychologists held, knew nothing about “scientific” child rearing and would do irreparable harm to children if they followed their own instincts instead of the male authorities.”

I consider consumer culture and science/technology two sides of the same coin considering how scientific and technology advances led to the massive increase in consumer goods and gadgets. All such advances have been marketed to undermine the wisdom and necessity of the domestic world, a world that women, for better or worse, ruled. Of course the cultural trend sided on “worse” for the sake of showing that women have potential beyond the home, but the market was all too quick to fill the void.

…In advertisements for mass-produced products that mothers used to make themselves—from dresses to baked goods—the message resounded that mothers’ skills were obsolete, unsound, and unnutritional. Young women were urged to learn their housekeeping and cooking skills from “professionals” instead of mothers—at homemaking and cooking “institutes” established by corporate entities like GE and Westinghouse. “Daughters, fresh from domestic science in school,” sociologists Robert and Helen Lynd reported in their 1929 classic, Middletown, “ridicule the mothers’ inherited rule-of-thumb practices as ‘old fashioned.’?”

Mothers were deemed incapable even of advising their daughters on menstruation, which was now the province of the new “feminine hygiene” industry. Johnson & Johnson’s first ad campaign for Modess sanitary napkins in the 1920s, called “Modernizing Mother,” showcased vibrant young girls making fun of their stick-in-the-mud mothers for shrinking from the latest consumer goods and styles, with captions like, “Don’t be a ’Fraid-Cat, Mother, There’s No Danger” and “Step on It, Mother—This Isn’t the Polka.” The accompanying text paid homage to “the modern daughter” who “is the champion of every new device which adds to the pleasure and ease of existence” and “will not tolerate the traditions and drudgeries which held her mother in bondage.”

As I read these last lines, the phone rang. I had a hunch. It was my mother. I told her about the piece I was reading, but I really wasn’t sure what her take on it would be. My mother was a do-everything woman, kids, lots of education, professional career, costume seamstress, baker, cook, cleaner, chauffeur (the last three were certainly split with my dad, but still…) I had always assumed she kind of towed the feminist line since she seem to live its image. Turned out, the points raised by Faludi resonated with her very much. In the early 1970’s she was raising two kids surrounded by childless peers who had soundly rejected and looked down upon the drudgery of homemaking. The efforts she took to cook and make clothes, while also working, meant greater self sufficiency, but this was, apparently, not a widely held value. To her, self-sufficiency was the ultimate way to live in a low-impact and simple way yet her rejection of aspects of modern consumerism were understood as a a regression to less enlightened ways.

This very dilemma was addressed fully and expertly by Shannon Hayes in her book Radical Homemakers. Hayes gives an important historical perspective on why the work within the domestic realm became depressive drudgery, not necessarily because of the work itself, which was highly skilled and of great necessity, but because it was no longer valued. Today’s New York Times has a piece about this very issue, that while the homemaker seems like the quintessential image for the 50’s decade, it was really a time when this role was least respected and a hard image to maintain happily. The home, and by extension, whoever has responsibility for it, was a consumer not a creator and I think we’re learning, that isn’t a role that fills us with much sense of purpose. Again, that sneaky consumerism markets away the home as a place of production and the women its master. It’s all fine and good that the type of work we do is (sort of) not (as) limited to your gender. That really isn’t the issue. The problem is that the home has been lost as a source of production and self-sufficiency regardless of gender (In fact Hayes points out that both genders were pushed out for wage earning, and both suffer because of it). But it makes sense that given the rocky relationship with this role, women are still conflicted about taking any of it back.

Peggy Orenstein covers Hayes’ book and the relationship of feminism and self-sufficiency, particularly when it comes to food, in an article called the Femivore’s Dilemma. How totally unappealing the word “femivore” is and that it should never be used beyond quoting this article aside, Orenstein provides additional proof that the domestic is in fact a place where feminism does belong, in fact it’s more productive there than manipulated by marketers.

Honestly, I simply don’t like the world that is created by the relationship of feminism and consumerism. For one, it has only helped the latter. The home is where we take responsibility for our basic needs, it should never be considered beneath anyone to cook, clean, and care for their family. Not only is there a tendency to undervalue those who do this for their own household  but the people hired to do this work are of a lower status. Even when we need them for things we should be able to do ourselves. The role of mother, the giver of life, the nurturer is undervalued in the world-view of our society and that judgement has deep and wide repercussions. Despite my resistance to any current feminist movement, I got a lot out of feminist political theory, specifically in college the amazing Falguni Sheth, who moved discussions of feminism beyond disapproving certain lifestyles or activities from hijab or high heals to homemaking and offered up the core idea that love is a legitimate political tool. Wendell Berry, in The Unsettling of America Culture and Agriculture, addresses the need for the nuturer in a much larger sense, and touches on the sad irony of taking the feminine out of feminism: “the women’s movement…when its energies are most accurately placed, is arguing the cause of nurture; other times it is arguing the right of women to be exploiters”

The home is an important place of power for a more sustainable and low-impact life, and the nurturer is a very powerful role that is sorely missing from our cultural values. Mother’s day seems to be just the right day to honor both and to take them back.

                          

Given two recent reports about the dangers of pesticides there really shouldn’t be a choice. But that isn’t a guilt trip to people who won’t fork over the cash to pay for safer products. It is to say  no one should have to choose not to poison their kids or be forced to bring harmful chemicals into their system because the other options are more affordable.

The recent report by the President’s Cancer Panel reveals, finally, that the most important aspect of the issue of cancer is environmental factors. Factors that are have been grossly underestimated and under-regulated. The Panel’s report is called REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER RISK: What We Can Do Now.

It is almost shocking how straightforward the report is about the harm caused by the chemicals and environmental factors of daily life. We are so used to hearing measured responses to “possible health risks” associated with much of the stuff we are exposed to and taking these risks seriously in a consistent way can even make you feel a bit like a paranoid wing-nut. But now there is enough evidence and acknowledgment of that evidence prove that efforts to avoid plastics and pesticides are not wacky…but there is the disappointment, that yes, it’s as bad (or worse) than you thought. So yes, it’s an overwhelming report, but in all reality it’s a refreshing report because it finally puts these causes of cancer out in the open, and asks that be addressed. It is something that everyone should read which you can do in this pdf.

The report should be read so that as many people as possible know the harm of the exposure to these chemicals so that these chemicals will stopped being used. Rather than having choices about what products we are exposed to, these products, given the evidence, should be banned. Then no one can make the wrong choice.

The Pesticide Action Network sent out an e-mail to ask for support for  language in the Safe Chemicals Act that would give EPA more power to regulate persistent chemicals. You can contact your Senator through PAN here.

as this Washington Post report points out:

The panel said the country needs to overhaul existing chemical laws, a conclusion that has been supported by public health groups, environmental advocates, the Obama administration and even the chemical industry.

The current system places the burden on the government to prove that a chemical is unsafe before it can removed from the market. The standards are so high, the government has been unable to ban chemicals such as asbestos, a widely recognized carcinogen that is prohibited in many other countries.

About 80,000 chemicals are in commercial use in the United States, but federal regulators have assessed only about 200 for safety.

Chapter Two of the President’s Cancer Panel Report is “Exposure to Contaminants From Agricultural Sources”  It opens with this uplifting observation:

The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals.  Many of these chemicals are known or suspected of having either carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. chemicals.

It goes onto explain the dangers of chemical use in agriculture to all of us, most especially the people who get their livelihood from the food system. Unfortunately the consequences of these chemicals are not limited to cancer. The other recent report that reveals the impact conventional agriculture on our bodies and brains is an investigation by a team of scientists from the University of Montreal and Harvard University, published in the journal Pediatrics, which found a connection between exposure pesticides and the presence of symptoms of ADHD.  Lead author Maryse F. Bouchard of the University of Montreal Department of Environmental and Occupational Health and the Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Center says:

Our study found that exposure to organophosphates in developing children might have effects on neural systems and could contribute to ADHD behaviors, such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity.

All this brings up that mantra of “Don’t panic, buy Organic”, which is more true than ever before. But again, it raises the issue of why this country has allowed this to be a choice. Sure we’ve carved out a market for those who are willing and able to pay the full cost of sustainably raised food but the remainder is too many people still being exposed to toxins, including those who paid to avoid it. We need to move beyond an organic certification to a certain market and apply those standards to all food. There is not enough evidence to prove that avoiding chemicals and feeding the people of the world are mutually exclusive goals, and remember that saying so sidesteps the issue that conventional farming isn’t feeding the world successfully either.

We are certainly in a better spot politically than we have been before to take these chemicals out of our system, and the more that people are aware of what is causing these diseases and disorders and choose, as much as possible to support practices and products that avoid them the better.

You can read more about the Organophosphate (OP) Pesticides addressed in there study here. You can also take a small action to, again through the Pesticide Action network, sign a petition to the EPA to ban Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide.

I guess the message for now is, Be optimistic about Organic- choose it until you don’t have to.

I admit that the choice for the video below is weird because Don Imus is not well respected since his many rude remarks, and he and his wife (Deirdre Imus) are friends of Sean Hannity and all their media is through Fox, but that doesn’t change the fact that I agree with Deirdre’s approach and her information and that ultimately she is doing good work on these issues. It’s always good to look at common ground among often divided groups.

                          

Scientific American Magazine published a short piece in their latest issue that addresses the recent studies that have taken a more critical look at this (apparently) confounding relationship between dietary cholesterol, blood cholesterol, saturated fat, heart disease, and overall health including body mass. As history and the current health of those still eating traditional diets would have us understand saturated fat is just not the culprit they thought. Instead these studies have shown that carbohydrates are problem.

The finding joins other conclusions of the past few years that run counter to the conventional wisdom that saturated fat is bad for the heart because it increases total cholesterol levels. That idea is “based in large measure on extrapolations, which are not supported by the data,” Krauss says.
…
One problem with the old logic is that “total cholesterol is not a great predictor of risk,”
…
Although the subjects on the low-carb diet ate the most saturated fat, they ended up with the healthiest ratio of HDL to LDL cholesterol and lost twice as much weight as their low-fat-eating counterparts.

While I agree that sugar and white flour should have a very different role in our lives than it currently plays (celebrity cameo for occasional special times rather than the lead) it is a bit frustrating to have one evil replaced by another. It seems like our puritanical roots make us have to have something to burn at the stake and we are unable to be satisfied with or have the attention for an explanation that involves an understanding of the quality and quantity of food and the importance of balance (I didn’t say, “moderation in all things” which is the favorite comment section posting of those annoyed at the dietary contradictions and prescription). But humans have never lived with just “good things” and no “bad things.” This is food, not a moral tug of war. As long as it has gone through minimal and/or careful processing and is in the right quantities and qualities, we can use it all.

How the general, non Scientific American Magazine reading, public is going to learn about the redemption of sat fats was the other concern of the article…meaning mostly, will the FDA change its recommendations/pyramid to reflect these findings? And they responded by saying, in so many words, not if it involves losing political contributions:

Right now, Post explains, the agency’s main message to Americans is to limit overall calorie intake, irrespective of the source. “We’re finding that messages to consumers need to be short and simple and to the point,” he says. Another issue facing regulatory agencies, notes Harvard’s Stampfer, is that “the sugared beverage industry is lobbying very hard and trying to cast doubt on all these studies.”

This Scientific American Magazine article provides a great defense for whole foods that have not been tampered with to fit a new idea of health. The winner in this (besides us) is butter.

The categorization of butter as a healthy whole food has significance on this blog, because it was in this post, from almost two years ago (!), that I found the Weston Price Foundation and moved to a next-level way of eating that involved avoiding most things in packages, eating pretty much no white grains, and few grains that haven’t been soaked/fermented/sprouted. I also REALLY cut out sugar. This whole change really just sprung from the fact that butter is so lovely, so many lovely healthy people eat/have eaten it and it seems so much simpler and more pure than anything created to replace it. Also, no one can really make a dishonest amount of  money from butter and this fact seemed to warrant trust and loyalty through all the contradictions and food technologies that are supposed to be better than what we had before.

And butter has stayed true through it all hasn’t it? Despite its modern maligning, we have more health problems related to diet than ever before. So, no  “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter” we don’t know better. But maybe we finally are starting to again.

“If you reduce saturated fat and replace it with high glycemic-index carbohydrates, you may not only not get benefits—you might actually produce harm,” Ludwig argues. The next time you eat a piece of buttered toast, he says, consider that “butter is actually the more healthful component.”

                          

The best of these interviews so far has been with Amy Goodman and Sharif Abdek Kouddous on Democracy Now. They tell him at the beginning that their “food rule” for him is “no sound bites” and he plays along (probably eager for the chance to elaborate really). Even if you have read his books and/or heard him talk, and he does do a lot of repeating, as I guess is necessary, this interchange is worth watching. As he does in the other interviews, he really brings together the complexity of the food culture with clear ways out of many of the tangles we’re in but he goes a bit deeper than the rest and seems a bit more forthright.

My favorite point is his mention of the feminist/labor issues around food and how processed food and classic feminism went, unfortunately, hand in hand due to the need for more income and less entrapment of women in a domestic role. I think this questions gets to the heart of our daily food life; who cooks for us, why don’t we cook ourselves, why don’t we prioritize the time and money to eat well? I really feel that addressing these questions and making changes that align with our heart-of-heart values with the answers can be really empowering, healing, and have great impact on the world.

My least favorite point is his use of the word “fat” as if there is one category and none of the members of that category have any distinction. I know he understands this because he is very current on the research on the role of fat in the diet. People generally understand that there a “good fats” and “bad fats” so he could just at least say “bad fats” but he could take it a step further and separate out whole, traditional fats from industrial oils. He does this already with meat. There is no such thing as meat as one category- there are animals that are eaten that have completely different diets and nutritional profiles even though they are technically the same animals. He explains that he eats less meat than he used to and he eats different meat than he used to (only grass fed for beef for example). I wish he would make the same distinction with fat. He mentioned that school lunches are so deplorable because it is the disposal method for surplus cheap food and because the meals have calorie minimums not maximums. He says the meals need to have less fat- well school lunches have low-fat milk, but we know that’s not really the best choice in terms of providing whole food. So schools have followed the low-fat mantra, but are still terribly unhealthy. He doesn’t really mean that they need less fat, they need less of the processed foods and chemicals that are contributing to disease and obesity in children, which is not whole milk- it is soda (which he does mention), and highly processed carbs, and industrial fats. I wouldn’t change much about what he said, and I don’t think he should bring down the ease with which he communicates by bringing this up in such a way (as I do), but it would help his message stay consistent if he would at least make a careful distinction in this regard.

                          

But its clear from presidential polls that the credit crisis may shift that advantage with growing support for the candidate that is more likely to address the root causes of the economic situation. So this uncertainty of the markets has a number of silver linings: more socialist solutions are seen as necessities- we might start to feel like we pay taxes for things that actually benefit the wellbeing of our communities rather than wars; support of a more comprehensive even holistic approach to policy making with equality at its core; and the simple fact that leaner times seem to be making us shift our resources to goods and activities that reconnect us with our communities, our families, our health.

Yes, I’m just so full of hope this Saturday afternoon- read The Food Issue of the NYT mag and get the same bug. Michael Pollan’s (long, but stick with it) piece (that I mentioned was coming), this new media piece about the refrigerators of food activists (note that they walk the talk- for the most part), and a refreshingly more extensive word from Mark Bittman (I love the videos, but I appreciate his actual articles as well)

P.S. How did they do this image?!

                          

Michael Dimock, president of Roots of Change discussed prioritizing these fundamental principles while raising these issues to a national and mainstream conversation:

Change the current goals which frame the system- currently the goal is cheap calories, shift this to health (of humans, communities, planet) and food sovereignty; Keep the process of feeding people properly connected to the health care system and ensure local control through national policies that support the regionalization of food.

Secretary of State of Minnesota, Mark Ritchie, had such a deep and broad understanding of these issues there was mention of him possibly filling the cabinet position on agriculture. I will take any opportunity there is to hear him speak again, he is spot on. Great to hear a non-Californian perspective on eating locally, how to make the case for local food systems in difficult climates (hint cabbage and canning). Of particular relevance was his insight into the the ways in which misguided or non-existent regulation is at the source of the crises in the food and financial sectors.

In regards to how the next president might specifically approach the issues with our food system Michael Pollan raised the point, which he will apparently also be addressing in the next Sunday NYTimes Magazine, that though the candidates do not address food issues per se in their stump speeches they do address them in their three main focuses of climate change, energy independence, and health care. Clearly no progress can be made to these agenda items without addressing the failing food system. More on Pollan’s point and specifics about the candidates position (or lack thereof) of food issues, see recent Grist article “Politics and the dinner table”

Judith of Full Belly Farms was very encouraging with her platform for a family farmer for every household. Why not? She also noted that the three newest and growing types of farmers are young people, women, and immigrants. (They have apprenticeships …tempting isn’t it?) Her farm is to be commended for their attention to labor, she spoke very well valuing of those that do physical work for the rest of us to live and also made the important point that a diverse farm like hers (versus a sprawling monoculture) can provide year-round work. This is crucial for allowing workers to have roots (so to speak) in their community and continuity in their lives.

Again, it being a food system reformer love fest the discussion continued to feel uplifting an encouraging (and I can’t say that wasn’t appreciated). Michael Pollan laid out his idea of the Sunshine Agenda, getting food off oil and back on solar power- shocking concept really.

Ultimately, the next administration is unknown so the question of what it should do on food issues was a little open ended and the conversation was all over the map. Eventually it got down to the responsibility of the consumer and, since it was held on a college campus, how to get involved. (Dimock encouraged everyone to work in DC, so props to the Blumenauer team for your hard work).

The take home message for me was not so much about the role of the president, but really about our personal role as consumers. Even, actually I think especially, during a time of great economic uncertainty it is crucial to support the positive aspects remaining in our food system and resist buying into cheap food. We need to convince producers that the bottom line is health and fairness, not cheap calories. Cheap food pays companies who only pay their workers enough to buy more cheap food and we see no progress.

As I try to demonstrate in previous and future posts there are ways to buy into better food by being aware of what you buy, what you cook, and the ways in which these two things can save you money in other areas even though, yes, you may in some cases have spent more on the actual food.

The more of us that do this the more of an impact it will have.

On that note, one more point made at this talk was the call to have the next president turn the White House lawn into a functional organic kitchen garden. More about that can be read here with TheWhoFarm folks and their wacky bus (Which I saw outside the Obama Office in my neighborhood and assumed it was a Burning Man piece)

So, with a eye towards all these issues, Vote with Your Fork at your next shopping trip and Vote on election day.

                          

I’d love your insight into our current scenario:

A peek into our kitchen would render a million spices and nothing to put them into, frozen chicken, strawberries and TJ’s frozen pasta dinners. Fridge with soymilk, condiments, an ancient bag of carrots and some miso. Cupboards of pasta, some soup, ramen and crackers.

The dinner bell rings and we balk and head out to dinner or opt for a quick fast food meal (painful).

WHEN DOES THE COLLEGE LIFESTYLE END??

I run into a wall I think because 1) I’m tired before and after work (who isn’t-moan) 2) IM THE ONLY COOK 3) We max ourselves out so quickly with eating out too often that it is RIDICULOUS that we balk at the grocery store 4) tendency ESPECIALLY to eat out for lunch daily/coffee/snacks..dios mio, right?

I’m curious what you feel like are the ABSOLUTE necessary at all time fresh ingredients to have on hand, what you like for quick breakfasts and convenient lunches.

I’m all for the planning of dinners and hope to utilize our local farmer’s market more along with aspirations of a garden of my own as soon as we’re out of this apartment (expect weekly HELP! calls on that one I’m convinced I have a black thumb).

I decided to address these questions here since I think her situation is largely universal and perfectly speaks to the idea of living mind to mouth.

To me her situation brings up some big issues about the state of our domestic life. I want to take this post to address the larger context we are in as workers (particularly women workers) trying to live well. In another post I will address the actual budgeting and pantry/menu lessons I have been trying to have in our own kitchen/life that may be helpful in hers (or yours! so stay tuned).

My friend’s situation speaks well to the difficulties facing modern Americans’ domestic life. These difficulties seem attributable to 1) that women’s transition into the workplace did not mean that skill sets necessary for “home economics” became shared across the household, they are often either still in the hands of the full-time working woman/mother or lost generally. 2) Even if these skills were had by all in the household, most Americans are no longer in a situation where one partner can work less than full time.

That womens’ role in the world has moved beyond the domestic realm is crucial for equality and to address “the problem that has no name“.

Domestic work as the entirety of ones life and responsibility became menial and even depressing with the societal assumption that you are essentially unable to contribute anything but domestic skills. So there is no question, the fact that America’s domestic life isn’t being upheld solely by women at home is a positive development for valuing women beyond the home and for women who want other options.

The issue though is that needs on the domestic front have not gone away, and managing the domestic realm in a thoughtful and efficient way has HUGE impact on the world. So how is this being taken care of? When and by whom?

Technological developments- electrical appliances, chemicals, disposable products, pre-made food etc- in their attempt to free us from domestic responsibilities has instead required us to work harder than ever to buy these products of convenience which create more waste and still don’t fully meet the need. And as people grow up in this context, our communities are more and more dependent on these things and are losing the skills to function without them.

Skills aside, when do Americans have time to buy healthy food and cook meals with their household? Steven Greenhouse in “The Big Squeeze” provides this sobering analysis of how much we work and how little it gets us:

Since 1979 hourly earnings for 80 percent of American workers (those in private sector, nonsupervisory jobs) have risen by just 1 percent after inflation…worker productivity, meanwhile, has climbed 60 percent. If wages has kept pace with productivity,the average full-time worker would be earning $58,000 a year; $36,000 was the average in 2007. The nation’s economic pie is growing, but corporations by and large have not given their workers a bigger piece… Millions of households have not slipped further behind only because Americans are working far harder than before…Viewed another way, the American worker’s financial squeeze has translated into a time squeeze…The typical American worker toils 1,804 hours a year, 135 hours more per year than the typical British workers, 240 hours more than the average French worker, and 370 hours (or nine full-time weeks) more than the average German worker.

(Suffice to say Greenhouse’s book is highly recommended, the ways in which America’s economic growth has been largely a “spectator sport” for most families are sort of endless, I’m in the middle of the book currently, it is more than timely)

(The end of this movie where they make all the family/life friendly policies like flex hours and job shares and they paint the office the put in plants seriously moved me to tears. But here’s something, who even just works 9 to 5 anymore?)

I think that this context is extremely important when addressing others’ questions about how to eat well. Trying to identify how to eat well on a tight budget with no time does seem to make healthy eating a rarefied experience.

But it can be done, and I think since I cannot personally address the national economic situation or make business to provide workers more time for life and decent pay (except on Nov. 4th!), which may address my friend’s first point, I will see what I can say about the others.

Next Posts on this:

Out of the Kitchen and into the Rat Race (and then into the kitchen again?): Eating well should be a shared task and working should only be paying for the things are really worth it- what are the trade-offs of time spent eating poorly but quickly, setting these priorities and responsibilities as a household.

Go Ask Alice: A shopping list and a budget from my own attempt at Living Mind to Mouth.

                          

Also in a rational and healthy world the US would have a health care system that prioritized prevention and covered everyone. Not too much to ask right? Especially given that many many other countries in the world have figured out how to provide this to their citizens. This Frontline Report (for which there is only a link, no embedding possible darn PBS…click “watch online” on the top menu) is an excellent critical profile of the systems four different countries established and the commonalities of each.

The most exciting report is that of Switzerland, an independent capitalist nation that started off with a system (if you can call it that) much like ours. The bottom line for the Swiss and the other nations’ systems is that you simply can’t have insurers making a profit on basic care. The incentive for good health is too obscured by the possibility of revenue. You have to wonder how we manage having any healthy people in this country given how much profit potential there is in the sick, from cholesterol lowering drugs to anti-depressants so much of the profit would be unavailable with simple prevention measures particularly those based on a low-tech whole food diet.

In addition to removing the profit from health care the other common lessons are:

Insurance companies must accept everyone, no limits for pre-existing conditions

Everybody is mandated to buy health insurance, government pays premium for low-income

Doctors and hospitals have to accept one standard set of fixed prices

You don’t lose your insurance when you lose or change your employment. And-here’s the kicker of what actually happens with these other systems- no one goes bankrupt due to medical costs (!!)

In the US debt from medical costs is the number one source of bankruptcy!

These should translate nicely into a good set of lessons for the US as we embark on health care reform, but that has yet to be the case. Take some time to watch this report and become the supposed minority of Americans who believe we can learn from the experience of other nations. I think the information here is good fodder for responding to often unsubstantiated claims about the perils of the systems of France and Canada. (Maybe that’s why coorespondent T.R. Reid chose other examples)

I think it will be useful for us all to understand and keep in mind lessons from the health systems around the world, which are, for the most part, from free market nations like the US. This will be particularly true in thinking about the presidential election and those first 100 days of the new presidency, since this issue will be dealt with with serious executive involvement. Since I can’t (don’t want to) imagine what kind of effort a McCain presidency would make in terms of dealing with our 47 million and 25 million un- and under- insured citizens I can only speak to the likely efforts of an Obama administration. I have to say for as much as I admire his approach to many policy areas I am pretty unclear on what he will actually do for health care reform.

His plan doesn’t seem to be committed to covering absolutely everyone, and there is no hint of moving beyond employer-based coverage. His statements as senator are more promising than his statements as presidential candidate and it is hard to know what changes would be made in his plan once actually taking office.

Health Care for America Now has the same issues as Obama’s plan and they lack the specificity I really appreciated from T.R. Reid. But they are on the forefront of the effort so it seems worth sharing your thoughts with them, maybe based on the Frontline report, on the approach you think would work for us.