"Family Values" and 20 Years of Abstinence Training

Ever wonder what the result was of replacing sex education in the schools with abstinence training?   How did it promote "Family Values"?   The graph below has some interesting insights and answers.



Here is a good article by Charles Blow that further explores this theme:

Let’s Talk About Sex 

September 6, 2008

New York Times

Op-Ed Columnist

By CHARLES M. BLOW

[ Read original article ]

Sarah Palin has a pregnant teenager. And, she’s not alone. According to a report published in 2007, there are more than 400,000 other American girls in the same predicament.

In fact, a 2001 Unicef report said that the United States teenage birthrate was higher than any other member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The U.S. tied Hungary for the most abortions. This was in spite of the fact that girls in the U.S. were not the most sexually active. Denmark held that title. But, its teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours.

If there is a shame here, it’s a national shame ­ a failure of our puritanical society to accept and deal with the facts. Teenagers have sex. How often and how safely depends on how much knowledge and support they have. Crossing our fingers that they won’t cross the line is not an intelligent strategy.

Comparison of GOP vs. Democrat Investment Returns

EXPLANATION By TOMMY McCALL
[ Read original NYT article ]


Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

( This blog is not intended to be a partisan screeching platform for either party or political persuasion but sometimes, you come across information that is just too important or interesting to not publish and it usually points a finger one way or the other.  

Without starting a partisan slug-fest, here are a pair of graphs that were particularly interesting if you are trying to judge the overall economic performances of various past administrations. - Ed  )

And here's another way of looking at it:

How Does Russia Really Feel about U.S.?

Saw this on the front page of a Russian newspaper not long after the Georgia/Russia clash.  As friend said to me after seeing this: "We are in now in great danger; the Russians have discovered humor and are using it against us!"

Health Care Costs Continue To Soar While Congress Continues to Fiddle

Health care costs have far outstripped inflation and yet Congress has yet to propose any option that doesn't increase our dependence and increase the profits of the very insurance companies who have lead us to this impasse.  In fact, by killing the public option,Congress removed the only option that could realistically control costs.

Here is what other countries are spending per capita

The above and below graphs shows the U.S. spends nearly double what other civilized countries spend....
......and gets worse results!

• Why do you suppose that is?  
• Where does all that extra spent money go?
• Why is the GOP blocking reform?

 

 

The fact is, the GOP would have us believe that the cost of reform is too high.  The simple but inconvenient fact is, the cost of not fixing health care now is much much higher.   To the double direct cost of delivery, add the hidden costs of time wasted wreslting with insurance companies, jobs not left and productivity lost because millions of people are afraid to lose employer provided health care.  On top of this add poor outcomes and an astounding level of uninsured.

This all adds up to the fact that the U.S. worker will find it increasingly difficult to compete with other workers who don't give a thought to heath care because its all handled.

Oil Pricing and Volatility 1983-2009

Infant Mortality Rate Trends 1960-2004

Well, we may be in 12th place but at least we are slipping down fast.....

Here's another interesting graph showing infant mortality rate trends.   Sure makes you wonder what planet those folks live on who claim U.S. health care is "Number 1!".  "Number 1"  in what exactly?  Certainly at spending (we pay double what other western countries pay)  I guess this would make us "Number 1 in wastefulness and ineffectiveness, and I think we probably get first place for number of uninsured.  

We seem to be the only civilized country on earth that doesn't cover healthcare for their people.  Nope, we're not #1 in lack of coverage either; seem places like Haiti, Somolia, etc..... have already beat us to it.  Interesting the company we keep.

2005 Mean Tax Rates By Country

I thought this was interesting. Particularly interesting was that while the U.S. has some of the lowest personal tax rates, corporate taxes rates are among the highest. I suspect that these are the total formal rates, rather than what a corporation actually pays after they jump through all the loopholes carefully crafted for each industry. I guess this just illustrates the need for tax reform.

Income Disparity

Income of the Top .001 Percent-1910-2008

I've looked at this a number of times and in a number of ways but there just is no possible way to put a positive spin on this. Wide disparities are bad. Bad for social stability, bad for economic competitiveness, bad for policy, bad for politics.....just bad all around.

FACTOIDS

'47-'77
- median family income increase = 102%
- top 1% income increase = 35%

'77-'05
- median family income increase = 22%
- top 1% income increase = 465%
(source: 07-12-23 - NYT)

U.S. - 1976
top 10% owns 49% of all wealth
low 90% owns 51% of all wealth

U.S. - 1999
top 10% owns 73% of all wealth
low 90% owns 27% of all wealth
(source - TomPaine.common sense)

CHINA - 1945
top 10% own 75% of land
low 90% own 25% of land

China 1945 is used here as a comparison because many believe it was the gross wealth disparities that if not sparked the revolution, certainly provided ample fuel that consumed the country in turmoil.

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda


November 14, 2007
New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Two dates ­ two numbers. Read them and weep for what could have, and should have, been. On Sept. 11, 2001, the OPEC basket oil price was $25.50 a barrel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the OPEC basket price was around $90 a barrel.

In the wake of 9/11, some of us pleaded for a “patriot tax” on gasoline of $1 or more a gallon to diminish the transfers of wealth we were making to the very countries who were indirectly financing the ideologies of intolerance that were killing Americans and in order to spur innovation in energy efficiency by U.S. manufacturers.

Imagine what problems we could have solved.....

Annual Growth Rate of Debt in the U.S.

The New Sputnik

September 27, 2009
New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


Most people would assume that 20 years from now when historians look back at 2008-09, they will conclude that the most important thing to happen in this period was the Great Recession. I’d hold off on that. If we can continue stumbling out of this economic crisis, I believe future historians may well conclude that the most important thing to happen in the last 18 months was that Red China decided to become Green China.

Yes, China’s leaders have decided to go green — out of necessity because too many of their people can’t breathe, can’t swim, can’t fish, can’t farm and can’t drink thanks to pollution from its coal- and oil-based manufacturing growth engine. And, therefore, unless China powers its development with cleaner energy systems, and more knowledge-intensive businesses without smokestacks, China will die of its own development.

What do we know about necessity? It is the mother of invention. And when China decides it has to go green out of necessity, watch out. You will not just be buying your toys from China. You will buy your next electric car, solar panels, batteries and energy-efficiency software from China...........

READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE >>>

Playing Chicken With Suicide Bombers


September 27, 2009
New York Times
Op-Ed Contributor
By JOHN FARMER Jr.


THE nation is abuzz with praise for law enforcement. After months of careful investigation, involving extensive surveillance and international monitoring of travel and financial records, the authorities disrupt a major Qaeda cell operating domestically, arresting the primary conspirators. The conspirators are indicted and detained, and the nation breathes a sigh of relief.

Until the subway explodes.

The situation described above is not, thankfully, what has happened in the wake of the arrests this month of Najibullah Zazi, his father and several alleged confederates in Colorado and New York. Instead, it describes what happened in England in 2004 when the authorities, in Operation Crevice, arrested several terrorists (five of whom were eventually convicted) but had insufficient evidence to charge several other associates. Those other men went on to bomb the London subway on July 7, 2005.

Taken together, the Zazi and British cases illustrate a daunting challenge facing the criminal justice system in dealing with domestic terrorism attacks: law enforcement must constantly balance its need to develop evidence sufficient to convict the conspirators against the potentially devastating consequences of allowing the conspiracy to ripen into an attack.

To arrest the suspects prematurely is to run the risks of acquittal, of forcing prosecutors to advocate and courts to accept overly broad interpretations of existing criminal statutes, and perhaps of arresting innocent people. To decide to wait, however, continuing surveillance in the hope of developing better proof, is to risk losing the suspects and placing the public in mortal peril.

Police departments, prosecutors and the F.B.I. all face similar challenges in other criminal contexts. Anyone who has been involved at a senior level in serious investigations is aware of the suspected sexual predator or armed bank robber — or even the suspected serial killer — who must be left at large because of the lack of admissible evidence. Sometimes, proof is developed and the perpetrator is caught; sometimes, people get hurt. ...........

MORE >>>

Why Health Care Will Never Be Equal

[great article on the cost of care/rationing issue within the current health care debate]


September 20, 2009
New York TImes
Economic View
by N. GREGORY MANKIW


EVERY morning, I take a small white pill that makes me think deep philosophical thoughts about the American health care system, the value of life, and the relationship between man and state. No, it is not some illegal psychedelic left over from the 1960s along with my tie-dyed T-shirts. But if you bear with me, I bet this pill will have the same effect on you.

The pill is a statin — a type of pharmaceutical developed over the last few decades to lower a person’s cholesterol. My father died of cardiovascular disease, and unfortunately I inherited his genetic predisposition. Yet I am hoping that modern medicine will help me avoid his fate. So like millions of middle-age men, I take my little pill every morning.

Here is the question I ask as the pill passes through my lips: Is it worth it?

Now you might be tempted to say, “Of course it is.” Most people would prefer to avoid an early death. If the wonders of modern science might put off the inevitable for a while longer, why not give it a shot?

And that is, indeed, how I thought about the decision when my doctor recommended the treatment. One thing I did not consider was the price. Like most consumers of health care, I was insulated from economic concerns. I knew that the insurance company — and, indirectly, all its policyholders — would pick up most of the tab. This arrangement, encouraged by the tax system, ensures that I get the benefit of the pills while .......

MORE >>>>

Why I Love Al Jazeera

The Arab TV channel is visually stunning, exudes hustle, and covers the globe like no one else. Just beware of its insidious despotism.


October 2009
Atlantic
Foreign Affairs
by Robert D. Kaplan

Has anyone watched the English-language version of Al Jazeera lately? The Qatar-based Arab TV channel’s eclectic internationalism—a feast of vivid, pathbreaking coverage from all continents—is a rebuke to the dire predictions about the end of foreign news as we know it. Indeed, if Al Jazeera were more widely available in the United States—on nationwide cable, for example, instead of only on the Web and several satellite stations and local cable channels—it would eat steadily into the viewership of The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. Al Jazeera—not Lehrer—is what the internationally minded elite class really yearns for: a visually stunning, deeply reported description of developments in dozens upon dozens of countries simultaneously.

Over just a few days in late May, when I actively monitored Al Jazeera (although I watched it almost every evening during a month in Sri Lanka), I was treated to penetrating portraits of ............

MORE >>>

Can Countries Cut Carbon Emissions Without Hurting Economic Growth?


Monday Sept 21
Wall Street Journal
By ROBERT N. STAVINS

Yes: The Transition Can Be Gradual—and Affordable


The world is facing a potential catastrophe from greenhouse-gas emissions. But nations don't have to wreck their economies to avert the crisis.
The Journal Report

See the complete Environment report.

Critics argue that the legislation passed earlier this year by the U.S. House of Representatives—to cut U.S. emissions 80% below 2005 levels by 2050—will mean big, disruptive changes to our infrastructure and untold economic damage. But they make a couple of basic errors. For one thing, they seem to think we'd have to replace the entire infrastructure quickly, paying trillions of dollars to shift to cleaner power. They also seem to assume that we have to choose between much more expensive energy and no energy at all.

The move to greener power doesn't have to be completed immediately, and it doesn't have to be painful. The right transition plan will increase consumers' bills gradually and modestly, and allow companies to make gradual, well-timed moves.

Read entire article.....

Lies


September 21, 2009
New Yorker
Hendrik Hertzberg


After the tea-partying, town-meeting-disrupting, pistol-packing mensis horribilis of August, more than a few commentators complained, as one of them put it, that “Obama should have seen it coming.” No one doubted that the current attempt to overhaul America’s uniquely wasteful and unjust system of health insurance and non-insurance would touch off the kind of demagogic, misleading attacks that have greeted every past attempt at ambitious reform, successful (Medicare) and unsuccessful (all the rest) alike. The plan is socialism; government bureaucrats will choose your doctor and prescribe your treatments; the economy will be ruined; taxes will crush you—all that and more was to be expected. But the predominant tone of opposition to the emerging Democratic health-care proposals, and to the President personally, came as a surprise to the White House and a profound shock to many who voted for Barack Obama last November.

Perhaps it was naïve, and obviously it was optimistic, to hope that once Obama—having been elected by a large and undisputed majority, unlike his two predecessors—took office the nastiness of the assault against him would subside. And so it did, briefly. But as the reality sank in that this temperamentally conservative President intends to make good on his substantively progressive promises, the fury returned, uglier than before and no longer subject to the minimal restraints inherent in a national electoral campaign aimed at persuading a plurality of voters. Lies and fantasies about health-care reform swirled together with lies and fantasies about the chief executive himself. Obama is plotting to set up “death panels,” government tribunals authorized to euthanize the old and sick. Obama was born in Kenya and therefore his very Presidency is unconstitutional. Obama will cut Medicare benefits to provide coverage to illegal aliens. Obama seeks to indoctrinate children in Marxist ideology and put teenagers in “reëducation camps.” Obama is a Communist. Obama is a Fascist............

MORE >>>>

U.S. Federal Budget (2007)

This great visualization of where the U.S. Govt spends money always fascinates me. I am most concerned about how the U.S. will ever be able to stay competitive when we spend over 50% of our entire discretionary budget on the military when others, spending far less, are investing far more in their economic capacity.

A good read of Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of Great Empires" provides many insights in to this very question. Highly recommended reading.

CEO vs. Avg Workers Pay Ratios

 

Got "Family Values"? How Red/Blue States Stack Up

Who's Buying:  Military Expenditure Rankings

1) How is it that with only 5% of the worlds population, the U.S. came to be generate 50% of the world's spending on weapons and war?

2) How will we ever be economically competitive if we continue to carry this type of massive overhead?

3) How will we be able to provide quality of life now and investments in our future if we continue non-constructive spending at this rate?

"When a country has 5% of the world's population but does 50% of its military spending then the persuasive powers of that country are in decline."
- "Prince Al-Subi" from the movie "Syriana"


 

Who's Selling:  Military Sales Rankings

Who Locks Up Their People?

Why is it that the U.S. has only 5% of the world’s population but 25% of the world’s prisoners?

[note that the length of graph for U.S. is very truncated and if correctly proportional, would extend through the guy's head and off the graph to the right]

The graph below is probably a more accurate to method to assess relative rates of incarceration since unlike the above graph which counts total number of prisoners, the graph below measures prisoners 100,000 population.

Who Executes Their People?

Interesting the company we keep, non?

How Can We Possibly Be Globally Competitive With Poor Health Care Quality, Quantity and Coverage?

Beyond any moral imperatives, there is an over-arching economic question and it works something like this: 

In an era of global competition, can any country be economically/culturally/politically competitive while operating at a reduced effectiveness caused by its people being negatively affected by health care issues (sickness, time, money, etc..)?

Challenging the Crowd in Whispers, Not Shouts


November 2, 2008
New York Times
Economic View
By ROBERT J. SHILLER


ALAN GREENSPAN, the former Federal Reserve chairman, acknowledged in a Congressional hearing last month that he had made an “error” in assuming that the markets would properly regulate themselves, and added that he had no idea a financial disaster was in the making. What’s more, he said the Fed’s own computer models and economic experts simply “did not forecast” the current financial crisis.

Mr. Greenspan’s comments may have left the impression that no one in the world could have predicted the crisis. Yet it is clear that well before home prices started falling in 2006, lots of people were worried about the housing boom and its potential for creating economic disaster. It’s just that the Fed did not take them very seriously.

For example, I clearly remember a taxi driver in Miami explaining to me years ago that the housing bubble there was getting crazy. With all the construction under way, which he pointed out as we drove along, he said that there would surely be a glut in the market and, eventually, a disaster.

But why weren’t the experts at the Fed saying such things? And why didn’t a consensus of economists at universities and other institutions warn that a crisis was on the way?....................

Read entire article.....

Why aren't more conservatives disgusted that their party nominated a person devoid of qualifications for the vice presidency (again)?

Oct. 4, 2008
Reuters
By Joe Conason

Sarah Palin's debate performance (at Washington University in St. Louis Oct. 2, 2008) should signal the beginning of the end of her fad. But for the moment it is worth looking at the meaning of her nomination, without the protective varnish of what conservatives usually dismiss as political correctness.

Why should we pretend not to notice when Gov. Palin's ideas make no sense? Having said last week that "it doesn't matter" whether human activity is the cause of climate change, she said in debate that she "doesn't want to argue" about the causes. It doesn't occur to her that we have to know the causes in order to address the problem. (She was very fortunate that moderator Gwen Ifill didn't ask her whether she truly believes that human beings and dinosaurs inhabited this planet simultaneously only 6,000 years ago.)

The Social Animal


September 12, 2008
NYTimes
Op-Ed Columnist
By DAVID BROOKS


Near the start of his book, “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Barry Goldwater wrote: “Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make; they cannot be made by any other human being.” The political implications of this are clear, Goldwater continued: “Conservatism’s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?”

Goldwater’s vision was highly individualistic and celebrated a certain sort of person ­ the stout pioneer crossing the West, the risk-taking entrepreneur with a vision, the stalwart hero fighting the collectivist foe.

The problem is, this individualist description of human nature seems to be wrong. Over the past 30 years, there has been a tide of research in many fields, all underlining one old truth ­ that we are intensely social creatures, deeply interconnected with one another and the idea of the lone individual rationally and willfully steering his own life course is often an illusion.

Cognitive scientists have shown that our decision-making is powerfully influenced by social context ­ by the frames, biases and filters that are shared subconsciously by those around. Neuroscientists have shown that we have permeable minds. When we watch somebody do something, we recreate their mental processes in our own brains as if we were performing the action ourselves, and it is through this process of deep imitation that we learn, empathize and share culture.

Geneticists have shown that our behavior is influenced by our ancestors and the exigencies of the past. Behavioral economists have shown the limits of the classical economic model, which assumes that individuals are efficient, rational, utility-maximizing creatures.

Psychologists have shown that we are organized by our attachments. Sociologists have shown the power of social networks to affect individual behavior..............

Read entire article.....

Bill of Rights Pared Down to Manageable Six

WASHINGTON, DC Flanked by key members of Congress and his administration, President Bush approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight, no-nonsense" six.

A Republican initiative that went unopposed by congressional Democrats, the revised Bill of Rights provides citizens with a "more manageable" set of privacy and due-process rights by eliminating four amendments and condensing and/or restructuring five others. The Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the only article left unchanged.

Calling the historic reduction "a victory for America," Bush promised that the new document would do away with "bureaucratic impediments to the flourishing of democracy at home and abroad."

"It is high time we reaffirmed our commitment to this enduring symbol of American ideals," Bush said. "By making the Bill of Rights a tool for progress instead of a hindrance to freedom, we honor the true spirit of our nation's forefathers."

The Fourth Amendment, which long protected citizens' homes against unreasonable search and seizure, was among the eliminated amendments. Also stricken was the Ninth Amendment, which stated that the enumeration of certain Constitutional rights does not result in the abrogation of rights not mentioned.

"Quite honestly, I could never get my head around what the Ninth Amendment meant anyway," said outgoing House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), one of the leading advocates of the revised Bill of Rights. "So goodbye to that one."

Amendments V through VII, which guaranteed the right to legal counsel in criminal cases, and guarded against double jeopardy, testifying against oneself, biased juries, and drawn-out trials, have been condensed into Super-Amendment V: The One About Trials.

Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed the slimmed-down Bill of Rights as "a positive step."

"Go up to the average citizen and ask them what's in the Bill of Rights," Ashcroft said. "Chances are, they'll have only a vague notion. They just know it's a set of rules put in place to protect their individual freedoms from government intrusion, and they assume that's a good thing."

Ashcroft responded sharply to critics who charge that the Bill of Rights no longer safeguards certain basic, inalienable rights.

"We're not taking away personal rights; we're increasing personal security," Ashcroft said. "By allowing for greater government control over the particulars of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights will now offer expanded personal freedoms whenever they are deemed appropriate and unobtrusive to the activities necessary to effective operation of the federal government."

Ashcroft added that, thanks to several key additions, the Bill of Rights now offers protections that were previously lacking, including the right to be protected by soldiers quartered in one's home (Amendment III), the guarantee that activities not specifically delegated to the states and people will be carried out by the federal government (Amendment VI), and freedom of Judeo-Christianity and non-combative speech (Amendment I).

According to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the original Bill of Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."

"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."

Ashcroft noted that recent FBI efforts to conduct investigations into "unusual activities" were severely hampered by the old Fourth Amendment.

"The Bill of Rights was written more than 200 years ago, long before anyone could even fathom the existence of wiretapping technology or surveillance cameras," Ashcroft said. "Yet through a bizarre fluke, it was still somehow worded in such a way as to restrict use of these devices. Clearly, it had to go before it could do more serious damage in the future."

The president agreed.

"Any machine, no matter how well-built, periodically needs a tune-up to keep it in good working order," Bush said. "Now that we have the bugs worked out of the ol' Constitution, she'll be purring like a kitten when Congress reconvenes in January just in time to work on a new round of counterterrorism legislation."

"Ten was just too much of a handful," Bush added. "Six civil liberties are more than enough."

Read orig article.....

To be a NeoCon-Bush-Cheney-McConnell-Limbaugh-Beck-Rove-Palin-Fox Republican you need to believe:

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's Daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Viet Nam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq .

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational drug corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet .

13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

15. Supporting 'Executive Privilege' for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)

16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80's is irrelevant.

17. Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.

Unforgivable Behavior, Inadmissible Evidence

(Very powerful stuff from a very credible source)

February 17, 2008
New York Times
Op-Ed Contributor
Washington
By MORRIS DAVIS

(Morris Davis, an Air Force colonel, was the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from 2005 to 2007.)


TWENTY-SEVEN years ago, in the final days of the Iran hostage crisis, the C.I.A.’s Tehran station chief, Tom Ahern, faced his principal interrogator for the last time. The interrogator said the abuse Mr. Ahern had suffered was inconsistent with his own personal values and with the values of Islam and, as if to wipe the slate clean, he offered Mr. Ahern a chance to abuse him just as he had abused the hostages. Mr. Ahern looked the interrogator in the eyes and said, “We don’t do stuff like that.”

Today, Tom Ahern might have to say: “We don’t do stuff like that very often.” Or, “We generally don’t do stuff like that.” That is a shame. Virtues requiring caveats are not virtues. Saying a man is honest is a compliment. Saying a man is “generally” honest or honest “quite often” means he lies. The mistreatment of detainees, like honesty, is all or nothing: We either do stuff like that or we do not. It is in our national interest to restore our reputation for the latter. (All opinions here are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Air Force or Defense Department.)

Some accounts of detainee abuse in the war on terrorism are overblown, but others are not. After humiliating prisoners at Abu Ghraib by forcing them to strip naked and lie in a pile like a stack of firewood or simulating the drowning of detainees to persuade them to talk, we can no longer say we “don’t do stuff like that” ­ and we do not have to look far to see the damage. The disclosure last month of a manual for Canadian diplomats listing the United States as a country where prisoners might face torture, referring specifically to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was an embarrassment on both sides of the border.

During the Persian Gulf war in 1991, the Iraqi armed forces surrendered by the tens of thousands because they believed Americans would treat them humanely. Our troops reached the outskirts of Baghdad in 100 hours and suffered fewer than 150 combat-related fatalities in large part because of these mass surrenders.

Would it have been different if the perception of us as purveyors of torture and humiliation existed back then? Would tens of thousands of Iraqis have put down their weapons if they believed they were going to be humiliated, abused or tortured, or would they have fought? Had they chosen to fight, the war would have lasted longer and cost more and casualties would have skyrocketed. Our reputation in 1991 as the good guys paid dividends and supported our national interests. We must regain that reputation.

We can start by renouncing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees and unreservedly committing to uphold the Detainee Treatment Act, which passed Congress in 2005 but was diluted by a presidential signing statement. We must also reaffirm our adherence to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which the Senate ratified in 1990.

Just as important, we need to come to grips with the practice known as waterboarding, the simulated drowning of a person to persuade him to talk. There was some progress in recent weeks: the C.I.A.’s director, Gen. Michael Hayden, told Congress that the practice may be illegal under current law; the director of national intelligence, Michael McConnell, told a reporter, “Whether it’s torture by anybody else’s definition, for me it would be torture”; Attorney General Michael Mukasey, after being asked if waterboarding would be torture if done to him, said that “I would feel that it was”; and on Wednesday, Congress passed a law forbidding the C.I.A. to use waterboarding and other harsh techniques.

Why a few others in positions of power still find it so difficult to admit the obvious about waterboarding is astounding. We can never retake the moral high ground when we claim the right to do unto others that which we would vehemently condemn if done to us.

Once we condemn and stop all waterboarding, what do we do in cases where it was conducted? An obvious step is to prohibit the use of evidence derived by waterboarding in criminal proceedings against detainees. Regardless of whether the technique has produced actionable intelligence, it did not produce reliable evidence with a place in our justice system. Imagine the outrage if the Iranian government tied down an American, convinced him the choices were to cooperate or die, and then used his “confession” as evidence in a death-penalty trial.

My policy as the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo was that evidence derived through waterboarding was off limits. That should still be our policy. To do otherwise is not only an affront to American justice, it will potentially put prosecutors at risk for using illegally obtained evidence.

Unfortunately, I was overruled on the question, and I resigned my position to call attention to the issue ­ efforts that were hampered by my being placed under a gag rule and ordered not to testify at a Senate hearing. While some high-level military and civilian officials have rightly expressed indignation on the issue, the current state can be described generally as indifference and inaction.

At a Senate hearing in December, the legal adviser for the military commissions, Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, refused to rule out using evidence obtained by waterboarding. Afterward, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is also a lawyer in the Air Force Reserves, said that no military judge would allow the introduction of such evidence. I hope Senator Graham is right about military judges, and it is unfortunate that any might be put in a position where he has to make such a decision.

Regrettably, at a Pentagon press briefing last week announcing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and five others had been charged and faced the death penalty, General Hartmann again declined to rule out the use of evidence acquired through waterboarding. Military justice has a proud history; this was not one of its finer moments.

That is not to say those subjected to waterboarding get a free pass. If the prosecution can build a persuasive case without using the coerced “confession,” then whether a defendant endured waterboarding is immaterial in determining guilt or innocence.

There are some bad men at Guantánamo Bay and a few deserve death, but only after trials we can truthfully call full, fair and open. In that service, we must declare that evidence obtained by waterboarding be banned in every American system of justice. We must restore our reputation as the good guys who refuse to stoop to the level of our adversaries. We are Americans, and we should be able to state with conviction, “We don’t do stuff like that.”

Read entire article.....

T.R. Reid: Looking Overseas For 'Healing Of America'


August 24, 2009
NPR
Interview with T.R. Reid


Journalist and author T.R. Reid set out on a global tour of hospitals and doctors' offices, all in the hopes of understanding how other industrialized nations provide affordable, effective universal health care. The result: his book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care.

Reid is a foreign correspondent for The Washington Post ­ in whose pages he recently addressed five major myths about other countries' health-care systems ­ and the former chief of the paper's London and Tokyo bureaus.

Reid was the lead correspondent for the 2008 Frontline documentary Sick Around the World, which examined five other capitalist democracies, looking for lessons on health-care delivery. His books include Confucius Lives Next Door: What Living in the East Teaches Us About Living in the West and The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy.

Read entire article.....

Analysis: Health Care Debate a Long-Running Story



By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 12, 2009


CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) -- President Barack Obama's campaign for a health care overhaul is an intense installment in a long-running story, dating to Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.

It did not go well nearly a century ago. Roosevelt made national health insurance an issue in his last, losing campaign for the White House, and successive efforts to get it enacted have lost, too.

The basic issue, affordable health care for all Americans, has not changed. But possible solutions have not evolved either, in part because new proposals seldom build on old ones. Obama's broad, leave-the-details-to-Congress proposal has little in common with the 1,300-page measure President Bill Clinton couldn't even get to a vote in a Democratic Senate in 1993.

The Obama strategy was designed to avoid mistakes Clinton made in confronting Congress with a massive bill written in the White House under the management of Hillary Rodham Clinton and essentially telling the House and Senate to take it or leave it. Clinton threatened to veto any bill that did not deliver universal health care. He got nothing to veto.

The Obama team missed part of the lesson when the president pressed for passage of House and Senate bills before Congress took its summer vacation so that they could negotiate a final version when they reconvene in September. What he got was narrow committee approval in the House, a preface to debate and action after Labor Day. In the Senate, the Finance Committee was trying to meet a Sept. 15 deadline to deliver its bill.

Obama's push for action before the summer recess created a goal the Democrats couldn't meet and a psychological setback he didn't need to risk. He now says that it was no big deal and that what he wants is a reform law by the end of the year, to get all Americans insured and curb medical costs.

That is a big deal, underscored by his aggressive television and traveling campaign to try to build public support -- and pressure in Congress -- to enact health care overhaul this time.

''Now is the hard part -- because the history is clear -- every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they've got,'' Obama told a town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., on Tuesday. ''They use their influence. They use their political allies to scare and mislead the American people. They start running ads. This is what they always do.''

Within hours of Obama's comments, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it will begin airing 30-second ads in about 20 states Wednesday criticizing the Democratic proposal to offer optional government health coverage. The multimillion-dollar ad buy would be one of the largest so far critical of Obama's effort; opponents this year have been heavily outspent by supporters of Obama's plan.

Short of enacting an overhaul plan, Obama and the Democrats could have a major political burden going into the 2010 congressional elections, just as Clinton did when Democrats lost the 1994 elections after his health care failure.

An issue that affects all Americans, their doctors, insurers and employers is bound to carry political risk.

Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted national health insurance but, even with his power...............

Read entire article.....

The Health-Care Sacrifice:

What President Obama needs to tell the public about the cost of reform


Sunday, July 26, 2009
Washington Post Weekly
EDITORIAL


PRESIDENT OBAMA sometimes presents health-care reform as a pain-free proposition, as simple as choosing the red pill over the blue -- one that's no more effective but costs twice as much. Asked at his news conference whether "the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen," Mr. Obama's basic answer was no. "They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier," he said.

This all-gain-no-pain stance may be politically advisable; people are increasingly edgy about how reform will affect their own health care. A new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that that the percentage of those who believe they will be worse off if reform passes (21 percent) has doubled since February.

But Mr. Obama's soothing bedside manner masks the reality that getting health costs under control will require making difficult choices about what procedures and medications to cover. It will require saying no, or having the patient pay more, at times when the extra expense is not justified by the marginal improvement in care. Mr. Obama is right that sticking with the status quo is a bad alternative, but he isn't leveling about the consequences of change..............

Read entire article.....

Town Halls by Invitation

(NOTE: Great idea and seems to solve a real and present problem)

August 16, 2009
New York Times
Op-Ed Contributor
By JAMES FISHKIN


“CONGRESS on Your Corner” has turned into “Your Congressperson Cornered.” Around the country, lawmakers are finding their town hall meetings disrupted by hecklers, many echoing anti-health-care-reform messages from talk radio and cable television. Supporters of reform will surely countermobilize, leading to more outbursts and demonstrations. Forget, for a moment, that these impassioned voters have turned these meetings into political sideshows. Are town halls actually the best way for lawmakers to connect with their constituents?

Why We Need Health Care Reform


August 16, 2009
New York Times
Op-Ed Contributor
By BARACK OBAMA


OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.

These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her. Another woman testified that an insurance company would not cover illnesses related to her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5 years old. A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.

I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.

There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.

First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family ­ coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.

Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.

Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.

Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.

We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.

Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. It makes sense, it saves lives and it can also save money.

This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor ­ not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.

The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.

But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.

Despite what we’ve seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I’ve received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care.

I am confident that when all is said and done, we can forge the consensus we need to achieve this goal. We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.

In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary ­ truly risky ­ is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.

That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.

In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.

The Ghosts of Clintoncare


Washington Post Weekly
By Ezra Klein
Sunday, July 26, 2009


Barack Obama's strategy to pass health-care reform seems based on a simple principle: Whatever Bill Clinton did, do the opposite.

Where Clinton and his team crafted their health-care reform plan in the executive branch, Obama has left the details of his effort almost entirely to Congress. Where Clinton pursued an ambitious reconstruction of the entire sector, Obama has sought to preserve existing insurance arrangements and win the support of industry players. Where Clinton spent a year developing his bill before even getting to Congress, Obama lashed his efforts to a tight (and apparently unrealizable) timetable. Even the atmospherics offer contrasts: Clinton's big push for reform came in a soaring 1993 speech before a joint session of Congress, in which he offered painstaking details of his plans; Obama made his argument to the nation at a news conference last week, addressing concerns more than specifying proposals.

Obama's reluctance to follow Clinton's example is understandable: Few legislative failures have been as catastrophic as Clinton's on health-care reform. Yet the ghosts of the early 1990s still hover over today's debates............

Read entire article.....

The Internet, Where Rumors Never Die



NYTimes Blog
By Michael Mason


“Page 29: Admission: Your health care will be rationed!”

“Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.”

“Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.”

Ever wonder how some of the most persistent falsehoods about health care legislation keep re-incubating? Look no further than a scary memo that’s been landing in e-mail inboxes nationwide. Apparently based in part on the colorful tweets of a conservative blogger in Arizona, the e-mail purports to be a page-by-page, section-by-section dissection of the House health care bill. But according to two independent fact-checking organizations, most of its allegations are false.

Politifact took the first swing at it in July: “Most of what the e-mail says is wrong. In fact, it’s a clearinghouse of bad information circulating around the Web about proposed health care changes.”

Today, FactCheck.org weighed in: “A notorious analysis of the House health care bill contains 48 claims. Twenty-six of them are false, and the rest mostly misleading. Only four are true.”

Among the real lu-lu’s, according to the FactCheck-ers..............

Read entire article.....

Who Gets the Blame for the Deep Deficit?



New York Times
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: August 29, 2009


Last week, Congress and the White House released their summer budget updates, touching off a flurry of headlines and commentary suggesting President Obama’s agenda would produce deficits exceeding a total of $9 trillion over a decade. Others said $2 trillion. Both calculations were misleading.

While Mr. Obama has proposed nothing to reduce the nation’s red ink, he also has not deepened it — yet.

The analyses of the Congressional Budget Office and the administration’s Office of Management and Budget are not exactly comparable for technical reasons. Still, both agree that much of the $9 trillion through fiscal year 2019 is the government’s so-called baseline deficit — the shortfall that would result if current law and policies don’t change.

In effect, it is the deficit that Mr. Obama inherited — about $6.3 trillion by the administration’s calculation, $7.1 trillion by the Congressional office’s.

Some commentators apparently subtracted the Congressional office’s $7.1 trillion baseline deficit from the more than $9 trillion that both agencies say would result under Mr. Obama’s policies, and concluded the president would add at least $2 trillion to the decade’s debt. But so would any president, Democrat or Republican, since the amount reflects policy adjustments that are costly and almost certain, and that have bipartisan support.

Among the adjustments:

• Extending Bush tax cuts past their scheduled 2010 expiration (Mr. Obama, by letting those for the rich lapse, would reduce the revenue loss).

• Adjusting the alternative minimum tax for inflation to spare millions of Americans higher income taxes.

• Blocking cuts mandated for doctors’ Medicare reimbursements.

Those fixes, in turn, would mean hundreds of billions more in interest on the added debt.

As for Mr. Obama’s big-ticket proposals, notably health care and energy policy overhauls, those do not add to the deficits under the agencies’ analyses because he has proposed savings and tax increases to offset their costs.

Read entire article.....

Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops in Afghanistan



New York Times
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: September 1, 2009


Civilian contractors working for the Pentagon in Afghanistan not only outnumber the uniformed troops, according to a report by a Congressional research group, but also form the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel recorded in any war in the history of the United States.

On a superficial level, the shift means that most of those representing the United States in the war will be wearing the scruffy cargo pants, polo shirts, baseball caps and other casual accouterments favored by overseas contractors rather than the fatigues and flight suits of the military.

More fundamentally, the contractors who are a majority of the force in what has become the most important American enterprise abroad are subject to lines of authority that are less clear-cut than they are for their military colleagues.

What is clear, the report says, is that when contractors for the Pentagon or other agencies are not properly managed — as when civilian interrogators committed abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq or members of the security firm Blackwater shot and killed 17 Iraqi citizens in Baghdad — the American effort can be severely undermined.

As of March this year, contractors made up 57 percent of the Pentagon’s force in Afghanistan, and if the figure is averaged over the past two years, it is 65 percent, according to the report by the Congressional Research Service. A copy of the report was posted online by Secrecy News, a publication of the Federation of American Scientists.


Read entire article.....

Taxing Rich Wouldn't Close the Gap, but Would Shrink It

Wall Street Journal
by David Wessel
September 03 2009

President Barack Obama projects the federal deficit will be $9 trillion over the next 10 years even if his policies prevail -- undoing the Bush tax cuts for upper-income Americans, auctioning carbon-emission permits, and enacting a health-care plan that doesn't widen the deficit over the next decade.

He also continues to promise to limit tax increases to incomes above $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals -- "the rich."

Talking about tax increases usually dissolves into shouting matches. The right says tax increases will choke off growth and massacre small business. The left says tax increases are vital to finance much-needed investments and that the rich can pay more.

The U.S. deficit is forecast to reach $9 trillion over the next 10 years -- that's if the current administration's plans work. WSJ Economics Editor David Wessel says President Obama is kidding himself if he thinks he can reduce that debt without tax hikes and spending cuts.

Hard numbers and recent history suggest two facts. One, the deficit is too wide to be closed exclusively by raising taxes on "the rich." Two, "the rich" do have a lot of money, even after the bust, and raising their taxes would raise significant sums without hampering the economy.................

Read entire article.....

The state of economics

The other-worldly philosophers


Jul 16th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Although the crisis has exposed bitter divisions among economists, it could still be good for economics. Our first article looks at the turmoil among macroeconomists. Our second examines the foundations of financial economics

ROBERT LUCAS, one of the greatest macroeconomists of his generation, and his followers are “making ancient and basic analytical errors all over the place”. Harvard’s Robert Barro, another towering figure in the discipline, is “making truly boneheaded arguments”. The past 30 years of macroeconomics training at American and British universities were a “costly waste of time”.

Efficiency and beyond

Jul 16th 2009 | NEW YORK

From The Economist print edition

The efficient-markets hypothesis has underpinned many of the financial industry’s models for years. After the crash, what remains of it?

IN 1978 Michael Jensen, an American economist, boldly declared that “there is no other proposition in economics which has more solid empirical evidence supporting it than the efficient-markets hypothesis” (EMH). That was quite a claim. The theory’s origins went back to the beginning of the century, but it had come to prominence only a decade or so before. Eugene Fama, of the University of Chicago, defined its essence: that the price of a financial asset reflects all available information that is relevant to its value.

The politics of death

Sep 3rd 2009
From The Economist print edition
Americans fear health reform because they fear the Reaper


THE first patient Dr Sherwin Nuland ever treated died horribly in front of him. James McCarty, a 52-year-old construction boss, had eaten too much red meat, smoked too many Camels and suffered a heart attack. Dr Nuland, then but a student, was asked to keep an eye on him while he recuperated. Suddenly, McCarty threw his head back, bellowed out a wordless roar and hit his own chest with balled fists. His face turned purple, his eyes bulged out of his head, he took “an immensely long gurgling breath”—and he died. Since this was half a century ago, Dr Nuland did what the textbooks then recommended. He cut open his patient’s chest and tried, unsuccessfully, to massage his heart back to life with his bare hands. It felt like “a wet, jellylike bag of hyperactive worms”. And it did no good. The “dead McCarty… threw back his head once more [and gave] a dreadful rasping whoop that sounded like the hounds of hell were barking.”

That story is one of several that make up “How We Die”, a book Dr Nuland wrote in 1993, after a lifetime of watching the effects of terminal illness. Because modern life is so clean and orderly, he argued, people expect to die with dignity. But this may be wishful thinking: death can be dirty, ugly and often involves the “disintegration of the dying person’s humanity”. Despite its gloominess, “How We Die” was a huge success, because it addressed with excruciating honesty mankind’s greatest fear.

The current debate about health-care reform is in part a debate about death, which is why it evokes such fear. Some of this fear is absurd. Outside a town-hall meeting in Reston, Virginia, last week, a few buffoons likened Barack Obama to Hitler. But most of the protesters are sane. Mr Obama plans to cover millions of uninsured people, says Brittany Tomaino, a young would-be oncologist. He will have to find the money somewhere. That means cuts to Medicare, the government health plan for the elderly, which covers her 95-year-old grandfather, she reckons. “If he needs care, they’re going to give it to someone younger,” she predicts.

A slim majority of Americans support Obamacare. But that majority is declining, and the passion is mostly on the other side. Pro-lifers, for example, worry that reform will mean taxpayer-funded abortions. Half of all Americans believe this will happen. Democrats point out that the bills in question do not mention abortion. Pro-lifers respond that the language is vague enough to allow bureaucrats to add abortion funding after the bill is passed. They also fret, like Ms Tomaino, that Mr Obama will deny life-saving treatment to Grandpa to save money. This possibility alarms Grandpa, too. Americans over 65 currently receive, through Medicare, fantastically generous health insurance for which they pay only a small fraction of the cost. Only 23% of them think Obamacare will make them better off, while a growing plurality think it will hurt them.

Health reformers always smash up against two unpalatable truths. We are all going to die. And the demand for interventions that might postpone that day far outstrips the supply. No politician would be caught dead admitting this, of course: most promise that all will receive whatever is medically necessary. But what does that mean? Should doctors seek to save the largest number of lives, or the largest number of years of life? Even in America, resources are finite. No one doubts that $1,000 to save the life of a child is money well spent. But what about $1m to prolong a terminally ill patient’s painful life by a week? Also, who should pay?

There are no easy answers. Unfortunately for Mr Obama, some of his academic chums have pondered seriously and publicly about the questions. Cass Sunstein, an adviser, has written extensively about which life-saving rules are most cost-effective. Ezekiel Emanuel, a doctor whose brother is Mr Obama’s chief of staff, wrote a paper for the Lancet, a medical journal, in which he proposed a system for determining who should be first in line for such things as liver transplants or vaccines during an epidemic. Among other factors, he suggested taking age into account, with adolescents and young adults getting priority, because they have fully developed personalities and many years of life ahead. This may be philosophically defensible, but it is political poison—Dr Emanuel even included a graph showing voters above and below the ideal age how much less their lives are worth. Conservative talk radio predictably dubbed him “Dr Death”. Republicans vowed last week to outlaw the rationing of care by age.
Blithe and distrustful

Mr Obama’s supporters say that objections to his reforms are largely based on misunderstanding, fuelled by Republican scaremongering. They have a point. But the Democrats’ bigger problem is that most Americans have pretty good health insurance and no idea how much it costs. Taxpayers foot the bill for the old. Most workers with employer-provided health insurance imagine that their employer is paying for it, when in fact it comes out of their wages. Soaring medical inflation depresses Americans’ standard of living and threatens to bust the budget. The system is riddled with waste. Yet most Americans feel little urge to make it more efficient. When asked if insurance firms should be obliged to pay for expensive treatments that have not been proved more effective than a cheaper alternative, 56% say yes.

Few Americans have a clear idea how Obamacare will affect them—unsurprisingly, since even quite basic details are undecided. The uninsured have the most to gain, but they are only 15% of the population. Everyone else has something to lose. Many Americans do not trust the government to do anything much, let alone make decisions about life and death. Small wonder Mr Obama finds the headwind against health reform so blustery. x

Ike’s Other Warning


New York Times
September 3, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
By MAX BLUMENTHAL


IN this summer of town hall disruptions and birth-certificate controversies, a summer when it seemed as if the Republican Party had been captured by its extremist wing, it is worth recalling a now-obscure letter from President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Although Eisenhower is commonly remembered for a farewell address that raised concerns about the “military-industrial complex,” his letter offers an equally important — and relevant — warning: to beware the danger posed by those seeking freedom from the “mental stress and burden” of democracy.

The story began in 1958, when Eisenhower received a letter from Robert Biggs, a terminally ill World War II veteran. Biggs told the president that he “felt from your recent speeches the feeling of hedging and a little uncertainty.” He added, “We wait for someone to speak for us and back him completely if the statement is made in truth.”

Eisenhower could have discarded Biggs’s note or sent a canned response. But he didn’t. He composed a thoughtful reply. After enduring Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who had smeared his old colleague Gen. George C. Marshall as a Communist sympathizer, and having guarded the Republican Party against the newly emergent radical right John Birch Society, which labeled him and much of his cabinet Soviet agents, the president perhaps welcomed the opportunity to expound on his vision of the open society.

“I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed,” Eisenhower wrote on Feb. 10, 1959. “Such unity is not only logical but indeed indispensable in a successful military organization, but in a democracy debate is the breath of life.”

Eisenhower also recommended a short book — “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer, a self-educated itinerant longshoreman who earned the nickname “the stevedore philosopher.” “Faith in a holy cause,” Hoffer wrote, “is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.”

Though Eisenhower was criticized for lacking an intellectual framework or even an interest in ideas, he was drawn to Hoffer’s insights. He explained to Biggs that Hoffer “points out that dictatorial systems make one contribution to their people which leads them to tend to support such systems — freedom from the necessity of informing themselves and making up their own minds concerning these tremendous complex and difficult questions.” The authoritarian follower, Eisenhower suggested, desired nothing more than insulation from the pressures of a free society.

Alluding to Senator McCarthy and his allies, Eisenhower pointed out that cold war fears were distorted and exploited for political advantage. “It is difficult indeed to maintain a reasoned and accurately informed understanding of our defense situation on the part of our citizenry when many prominent officials, possessing no standing or expertness as they themselves claim it, attempt to further their own ideas or interests by resorting to statements more distinguished by stridency than by accuracy.”

It is worth noting, of course, that these Cold War exaggerations weren’t just a Republican specialty: John F. Kennedy was making a supposed “missile gap” between the United States and the Soviet Union a key element of his presidential campaign.

In closing his letter, Eisenhower praised Biggs for his “fortitude in pondering these problems despite your deep personal adversity.” Perhaps it was the president’s sense of solidarity with a fellow soldier that prompted him to respond to Biggs with such care; and perhaps it was his experience as supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe that taught him that the rise of extreme movements and authoritarianism could take root anywhere — even in a democracy.

Max Blumenthal is the author of “Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party.”

-------------------------------------

(orig article)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03blumenthal.html