Saturday, February 28, 2009

Healthy Legislation

Link to senate hearing...I didn't watch the whole thing.

This is a link to a senate hearing with "integrative medicine" representatives Andrew Weil, Mehmet Oz, Dean Onish and Mark Hyman. It's simply an exploratory meeting, but the four doctors clarified what they felt was a major problem with the American Health Care system: a focus on disease management rather than illness prevention. The major suggestions revolved around better education: mostly in schools.

According to the initial speaker, Obama urged Congress to pass a new health related bill, and Obama also hoped for a focus on prevention. I don't know that this exploratory committee will be take things further, but I certainly believe it's a step in the right direction...and the kind of common sense legislation that will be largely supported by many Americans, especially those not following their party line. The "party line" condition is necessary only because I foresee the Republican party opposing this legislation, if it somehow becomes popular, with some variant of "The government shouldn't tell us how to live". If you're reading my blog, I'd hope you don't need me to point out the straw man. I suppose secondarily they could attack one of the doctors with claims of "quackery", which is almost a legitimate argument (ad hominem for you fallacy lovers). Almost legitimate because, if their proposed health solutions are ineffective, that's a valid reason not to use them. I personally don't think that's the case, and I think this is a perfect example of when the government should step in: not to do what's profitable, but to do what's necessary.

Slight off-topic: Obama, since taking office, has governed in a method I agree with. I don't agree with every decision (ie, I'm not convinced of the viability of the economic stimulus) but I appreciate the transparency and accountability he attempts to bring to the office and to our highest levels of government.

3 comments:

Logustus said...

"The government shouldn't tell us how to live"

I don't think the Republican party has done a great job with this recently. However, I get the feeling that you're saying that the Republicans will disagree just because the legislation going around comes from Democrats. I can't speak for everyone at DC, but I do know that the Stimulus Package opposition wasn't any kind of "Wah, we lost the election", or party line drawing. The Republicans got a LOT of pressure from their constituents to oppose the bill. It's hard to hate them for that.

On the note of health care, I'm under the understanding that some big name Republicans (McCain, Romney) are pretty pro-universal health care. I'm certainly not in support of universal health care for various reasons, but I'm not against the general idea of having a better system than the mess we have now, and prevention is the best for of maintenance, bodily or otherwise.

Aaron said...

Well, part of the reason Republicans might dislike this proposal is due to the fact that it's Democrat driven. I can't say what their reaction would be of course, but my gut feeling is that big business interests (profit from disease treatment) would not be overtly stated, and instead hidden behind a more...marketable message. I don't think Republican opposition to the stimulus package is token opposition and I didn't mean to imply that it was.

Universal health care is a whole different can of worms - one that I'm not looking to open with this blog post :).

Logustus said...

I guess that's a little humorous to me, because all politicians (Republican or Democrat) have ties to big business, and won't bite the hand that feeds them. To be clear, I'm not denying a Republican hand in big business, I'm just saying that this aspect seems universal to me.

Last year, you had McCain, Bush, and Obama all saying that they supported a bank bailout. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=809088 (couldn't find a McCain link in the required time, sorry)

Obama's top contributors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

McCain's top contributors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00006424&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=9&goButt2.y=6&goButt2=Submit

Goldman Sachs, a big investment bank (and high on both lists), as an example contributor:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085

If you dig around a bit, you'll find that everyone running for office in 08 had bank funding, except for Ron Paul (and maybe Dennis Kucinich), who is completely against a fractional reserve system entirely.

I'm not using the C word here. It just seems like an investment to me, like it or not. You pay enough money to a congressman, and he'll depend on your contributions, which means you basically bought him.

A fun quote from Jim Rogers, a big-shot economist: "You could buy a congressman back then, and still can today, but back then it was a lot cheaper."
http://info.hktdc.com/hktrader-hk/six-JimRogers20090211.htm

I think a good general rule is no matter how well intentioned you believe them to be, you can't truly trust any of them.

Sorry to leave a blog post as a comment.