How stupid. Someone is still paying, and making food insurable is as bad as making routine medical care insurable, it only feeds higher prices and vampiric bureaucracy. I understand the idea of trying to reframe stuff to align it with existing policy to make it more urgent. It's dishonest and needs to be opposed wherever encountered. See "clean air is a human right", "saying something I disagree with is violence", etc. This comes from the same place.
At first glance, it's eye roll material. But then 12 weeks of "medically supportive food and nutrition" and guidance, might be pretty effective from a cost point of view. If that's the cost of changing the mind and habits of someone who has grown used to garbage eating habits, that might be a record low for a medical treatment with long term impact. Certainly wouldn't this likely be a record low cost for a California initiative? We can't argue that more things shouldn't tried.
3 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 19.5 ms ] thread