Pangloss

Maybe so, but we've been doing that for a very long time, and we still have racism and pedophilia. And what of the fact that ostracism has played a role in driving those problems underground, making them harder to fight? All of which begs an interesting question: Is it necessary to change everyone's mind? Or is it just... entertaining?

But what you're ultimately saying there is that it's justified, and actually desirable, to use a derogatory label in order to accomplish a socio-political goal. Is any evidence that that approach is superior (more successful) than a more polite/respectful/education-oriented effort?

Heck, why don't we just fill in the Gulf of Mexico? Who needs that mucky old salt water anyway!

I think the fact that the single-payer crowd isn't part of the discussion even with a 60 seat Democratic majority in the Senate says more about the power of the insurance lobby than just about anything we've heard come out of Washington in the last 30 years. Well, with one big, huge, honkin' exception of course.

This is maybe more of a different subject, but it seems to me that it's becoming extremely popular for partisan, anti-Obama conservatives to hide behind a libertarian banner, tossing around buzzwords and phrases that they barely understand and had no interest in a year ago. I've seen this happen on two different conservative forums I lurk on, and I have one friend and one relative who have followed this trend themselves. It's common enough that I think it may be an indication of the direction the conservatives are heading, but exactly what that means is unclear. My hope is that they'll learn something useful, settle back from that posturing and rekindle a strong fiscal conservative movement that will bring balance to the shortsighted progressive precipice that Congress seems determined to leap off of at the moment, and that somehow this will happen without awakening the slumbering religious dragon. Or maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.

Yes, it is generally best to avoid broad generalizations about political parties. Hint, hint. It is interesting that not all Democrats are on board with the plan, I agree. It's questionable at this point if any of the proposed plans can get through the Senate even with the newly minted 60-seat majority.

Interesting. A rare note of agreement between far left and far right. "Krugman and Beck"... maybe for CNN's 10pm slot?

Or worse. "Iraq will only cost 50 billion dollars." You're absolutely right, of course. The devil/angel is in the details.

It's not just me, folks. Or Republicans. The CBO came out today agreeing with me, saying that these two plans will not curtail the spiraling cost problem. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD99FQJL80 I see a three big assumptions here that I haven't seen any evidence of: 1- Costs will come down automatically 2- Medicare is eliminated under these new bills 3- Government will be able to set costs With regard to #1, why would they if the bills don't address costs? They don't do anything to reign in the inflation-without-any-reason-to-stop pressure created by the current relationship between insurance companies and medical providers. The fact that the government would compete suggests some improvement, but if that competition is thwarted by being funded (indirectly) by that same relationship then that undermines that very pressure (i.e. if the revenue collected from insurance companies goes down then the government system looses money and has to raise prices too -- it's a Catch-22). With regard to #2, Medicare is for people 65 and over. As I understand it (and I could be wrong as well) they would continue that because they actually see it as working IF we get costs under control (but of course they aren't addressing the root cause of those skyrocketing costs). They have no incentive to kill Medicare. With regard to #3, the government could set costs without spending the kinds of amounts we're gasping at here. Regulation can be expensive but not THAT expensive. I don't understand this reasoning at all. I absolutely agree with bascule (and the president) that if we don't get costs under control then the deficit and debt will get WORSE -- much worse than even these costs suggest. What I'm afraid of, however, is that we're about to add another $1.5 trillion in debt and not solve the cost problem! I think a lot of what's driving this current effort is politics. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear, if these bills are defeated, the president come out and say that these were bad bills "in retrospect" and that his next effort will more directly address the underlying problems with the insurance industry.

The two most often cited problems in health care in the US are: 1) Not everyone is covered all of the time. 2) Costs are too high. US House and Senate Democrats are hard at work preparing bills that they say will reform the industry and solve the above two problems. Unfortunately they appear to only address the first one, and that only at staggering expense. The House bill calls for a law that will require all Americans to purchase health care. The cost of that healthcare is not addressed in any way, but it requires Americans to buy it or they have to pay a fine. No, really. It actually does this. Which is why the measure costs -- get this -- $615 billion. No, really. This actually makes sense to Congress. No no, honest! The reason for the expense is that those families who make less than $88,000 per year will have their health care paid for by the government. The only aspect of either bill that even purports to address reforming the high cost problem is that both measures will create a government-run alternative health care plan that will compete with private insurers. One amusing aspect of that is that it will be paid for by -- get this -- taxing the private insurers! So if the government-run program actually succeeds in reducing private health care costs it will make less money and have to cut expenses! Yes, this actually makes sense to Congress. Why did we dump the GOP again? Oh yeah, Terri Schiavo. Dammit. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/16/obama_pushes_hard_on_healthcare_overhaul/

Approved by:

I agree. I do think that at least part of the problem is in the attitude of pro-GW advocates (the way they react sometimes to opponents). Bashing the anti-GW crowd is kinda pointless because they just use it to make it sound like you're actually bashing the innocent-but-ill-advised people who are listening to them. Still, one has to at least make the statement that they're wrong, and explain why. Even more significant is the systemic difficulty surrounding the acceptance of (and interest in) science by the public. Not everyone has a subscription to Scientific American/Science/Nature, much less a peer-reviewed science journal, not that many of those cater to uneducated readers anyway. It's a nasty Catch-22 -- they aren't really interested in the subjects, but they are interested in getting edutainment that they don't realize is spin from people who aren't interested in accurately portraying the information. And in fairness we also have to recognize that the nature of GW is such that it's less definitive that we're used to dealing with in the hard sciences, with studies often sounding almost like economics or anthropology or history -- the social sciences. Which raises perfectly legitimate questions about how a "consensus" was achieved, and whether it was more a matter of politics than science (questions which I believe have basically been put to rest at this point, but it was legitimate to ask them). But my real point here is that we haven't been as good at explaining this kind of science to the public. And finally, from where I sit, watching a lot of conservative forums as I do, I think one of the biggest problems is the currency of the information that people bandy about in discussion. Science is very much an ongoing effort, with new information coming out all the time. But the nature of the Internet is such that discussions and facts stick around and aren't deprecated or tagged with corrections as they might be in a journal or textbook. It seems like every discussion we see on global warming HERE (a very up to date science forum with bright, hard-working, well-informed scientists at hand!) end up spending half their posts just updating participants on the latest information. It's not hard to see why those who aren't "in the work" aren't getting the best information even when they're not affected by anti-GW spin. With all of this taken into consideration, maybe we're better served NOT labeling opponents with pejorative tags like "denier". After all, beating up on the bad guys has been the practice for a while now. How's that working out so far?

In answer to the OP, I guess I'd have to say that I don't see any harm in acknowledging that inspiration can come from unusual places. It doesn't justify abuse of children, for example, or suggest that seeking anti-societal muses is a good idea. But it does address the question of whether there is such a thing as evil, or whether "evildoers" are, say, inspired by Satan, or are instead misunderstood/misdirected. That doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their behavior, either. No lynch mob is required to protect our children or to hold people accountable for their actions. We can do those things and still strive to better understand mental differences.

The what question?

I would love to see a congresscritter taken to jail for leaking secret information. I don't think that's ever happened, and for sure the history there is not good. Probably the most infamous example of this issue arising in recent decades was when Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, showed a classified document to a reporter during the media frenzy of Iran-Contra, which lead to his departure from that committee (his only penalty for breaking the law). Numerous reports have surfaced over the years suggesting that he actually leaked a number of documents and that his leaks may have endangered intelligence operatives, but nothing ever stuck and the whole subject has been muddied by ideological politics (he has the nickname "Leaky Leahy", which I've read came from Rush Limbaugh). Of course it works both ways -- you also don't want the administration outing people who take positions that oppose them in order to thwart congress's will (e.g. Valerie Plame). Such is the nature of politics in democracy. Wee.

Perhaps, but it's important to recognize that that will not be 535 people. It's more on the order of ten or fifteen thousand, including staff. And whomever they decide to inform amongst their masters over on K Street. That won't be a smaller number, either -- it'll be a larger one. Tracking leaks in that environment will be next to impossible.

I agree. A full accounting of their latest profit statement might be useful.

True, but without Paulson you probably wouldn't have gotten Geitner, or at least not without a fight. It may not be possible to pull people into government service from the financial sector who weren't at least peripherally connected with the various crises that came to the fore in 2007/2008 and still have a good working knowledge of the markets. At least not for a while.

Do you mean immediate risks to the patient, or long-term philosophical/ethical type risks to society?

With the approaching reign of our alien masters and the approach of the decline of society that will no doubt precede this event, I found this useful guide to surviving in the new world order.

Or VERY misleading....

Or on Grand Theft Auto IV. Or to replace Yankee Stadium.

You're right, my subject line didn't come across quite the way I intended. I actually took it from the headline of the news article and was a bit tired at the time. It's accurate enough, but perhaps a bit misleading.

Hypotheticals that seem to be borne out pretty often, with Bush-bashing that follows questionable logic quite common even around this forum. Do you feel that the congressional notification list should be expanded, or left where it is?

Makes sense. Unfortunately the alternative of private sector funding often seems even MORE motivated towards short-term goals, in the form of profitable products, right? I guess the most long-sighted ones might be the endowment institutions, which add an additional step of removal which forces private funding sources to think of them on a purely altruistic level. (But I believe those funding sources are also the lightest in economic weight as well, yes?) At any rate, this would seem to suggest that a compromise/combination of approaches is the best way to stimulate science over the long haul, and overcome disadvantages such as the one suggested by the OP. I'm not suggesting lessening government funding, though. I've never been convinced that government funding for scientific research was a significant drain on my wallet.