Healthcare, Curing the Disease not the Symptoms; Pt. 2: Checking the Rankings

Part 2:

Dr. Mark Hyman wrote last month in his Huffington Post article, Why Health Care Reform Will Fail: Part I -- The Business of Disease: We Pay For What Doesn't Work, "Recently President Obama's rhetoric has shifted from health care reform to health insurancereform. Getting more people access to a system that provides worse outcomes at higher costs is not an option for a sustainable health care system, nor a sustainable economy." The significance of this statement is that not only are we focusing too much energy on trying to reign in costs rather than quality and delivery, but also that if we as a country try and improve the return on our healthcare dollars that will, as a byproduct, save money. So, as with healthcare availability, first you have to evaluate why it is U.S. healthcare is ranked poorly and then determine how to improve those numbers to, in Obama's own words, use a scalpal rather than a hatchet.

The shocking figure relevant to this topic is the 2000 World Health Report ranking the U.S. healthcare system as 37th out of 191 of the world's nations. The most obvious problem with using this number in the debate is that it is nearly a decade out of date. The second problem is how the WHO ranks the systems of various countries. Redington Jahncke, in his September 1st article in The Advocate, does a very thorough breakdown of by what standards the WHO evaluates their ranking, and he points out that it uses a cumulative ranking process which is overwhelmingly weighted, 63%, towards "fairness."

To illustrate, let's use a simple 1-to-10 scale. Under the WHO's "fairness"
weighting approach, a nation whose measure for health or health care ranged
from say 3 for its least advantaged citizens to 4 for its most advantaged
would outrank a nation whose measures ranged from 6 to 10.

So even though the care provided to all citizens is better overall, the difference in quality is what brings the rankig down. He also points out that a certain level of double counting occurs, which can be seen in this method of evaluation, because as part of the ranking, the U.S. is evaluated lower for having a low rating given its advanced technology and wealth. Finally, Jahncke takes a look at how the U.S. ranks in actual health, noting that of the 8 there are only 2 absolute measures, which are responsiveness and life-expectancy. In responsivenes, defined as dignity, autonomy, confidentiality, prompt attention, quality of basic amenities, access to social support networks during care and choice of care provider, the U.S. actually ranks first, a figure not often mentioned in the healthcare debate. The life-expectancy number is not so encouraging however with a ranking of 24th. So it would seem that it would be to the advantage of Americans to focus on this problem of life-expectancy (and affordability) without making too many changes to the existing system, also keeping in mind that of the 23 countries ranked higher, only 6 have populations of more than 30 million and only 1, Japan, more than 100 million.

Obama will often talk about stories he's "read in letters and heard in town halls all across America." In reality though, if you go around enough and ask enough people you can find individual examples to prove any argument. For example, in 2005, my own mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had a unique and aggressive strain of the cancer that, had she gotten it less than 10 years earlier, she probably would not have survived. It was thanks to a drug called Herceptin developed in 1998, along with chemotherapy and radiation treatments, that my mom was able to fight the cancer. There was a woman whom my mom often sat next to during her weekly chemo and Herceptin treatments who also had a similar strain of breast cancer. This woman was a nurse from Canada. She had to come to the U.S., and, yes, had to pay exorbitant fees, in order to get the treatment that would ultimately save her life because Health Canada would not allow her the use of Herceptin. So it was thanks to an American drug, developed in America, and used for treatment in America that this Canadian was given the opportunity to fight her cancer.

One strategy that is often used to evaluate the quality of our healthcare more closely is to separate the serious diseases, such as cancer, from those associated with lifestyle choices such as obesity and smoking related diseases. Gary Becker in The Becker-Posner Blog, examines an unpublished study by Samuel Preston and Jessica Ho of the University of Pennsylvania that compares mortality rates for breast and prostate cancer:

Preston and Hu show that this more aggressive detection and treatment were
apparently effective in producing a better bottom line since death rates from
breast and prostate cancer declined during the past 20 years by much more in the US than in 15 comparison countries of Europe and Japan. US death rate rates from
prostate cancer went from about 7% above those of the comparison countries in
1990 to over 20 % below the average of these other countries in recent years, or
almost a 30% greater fall in US rates. American death rates from breast cancer
declined from about 10% above the average of these other countries in 1990 to
slightly lower.

This would actually indicate that the U.S. is in fact, at least with regards to serious diseases such as breast and prostate cancer, performing quite well in treating diseases. So why is our life expectancy so much lower if it seems the U.S. should be more than competant enough to treat disease and illness? The next step is to look at what brings that number lower which it would seem is largely a result of life style choices, and fixing these problems could actually be an effective way in controlling much of the runaway costs of the U.S. system.

Healthcare Debate

This is a post from another blog I have, DiscussNotArgue, and though it doesn't fit into the chronology I think it does fit with the spirit of One Dimension of looking at the facts and arguments of both sides to come to a non-partisan solution in the middle. As the big debate right now is Healthcare in the United States, it is the subject that's really caught my attention. So as I've been sifting through information during my free time, this is what I've come up with:

Healthcare, Curing the Disease not the Symptoms; Pt. 1: Crunching the Numbers
It seems as if these days politics has become a competition in fear. Rather than who can come up with the best and most comprehensive solutions, it is about which side can scare the public enough into believing that they need to somehow be protected from the other side. This strategy is very effective as a distraction from the causes of what it is we are meant to fear as well as what the proposed solutions are. Obama points to this problem very directly in his recent town hall meeting in Colorado, "whenever America has set about solving our toughest problems, there have always been those who've sought to preserve the status quo by scaring the American people." In the recent past, it was the right claiming that Democrats couldn't keep America safe, another example is when during the 2008 election it was that we needed a change it was the policies of the Bush administration that was the cause of the entire financial collapse. And so the trend continues during the current healthcare reform debate. From one side we hear about death panels and Obama's secret Marxist ambitions. Alternatively, the flip side of the debate presents fear through a sense of urgency. This can be seen in Obama's own words: "because for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary is if we don't do anything." The idea of this is that we have a big problem on our hands so something needs to be done as quickly as possible, the underlying implication being that it doesn't really matter what that may be. What both of these arguments do is to shift the debate away from what are the causes of our problems and as a result we get a treatment for the symptoms, or no treatment at all, rather than a cure for the actual disease.

There is no denying, by anyone in the debate really, what the problems are that the United States healthcare system faces. The numbers are pretty clear: Americans pay more, fewer are covered, and the results are worse than in any other developed nation in the world. But what is the cause of such a bad performance in the country that is supposed to be leading the rest of the world? A good place to start, I believe, is to first look at where the numbers come from and then figure out why they are the way the are particularly in comparison to other countries.
One of the more shocking numbers is the number of uninsured in the United States, somewhere between 40 and 50 million people, nearly as big as the populations of Canada and Australia combined. However, according to the Census Bureau, in 2007, 18 million of the uninsured lived in households with annual incomes of $50,000 or more and an additional 14 million uninsured adults qualified for government health care programs in 2004. This means that somewhere around 70% of the uninsured population in the U.S. could be covered but have chosen not to. So the largest contributor to the problem of the massive amount uninsured is not necessarily affordability or lack of government presence. One contributing factor to these statistics are those people that are young and healthy and so choose not to pay for health insurance as they don't believe they need it. In fact, in 2007 there were 18 million people between the ages of 18 and 35 without health insurance (unfortunately I couldn't find information on what income bracket this group fits into, but for the sake of an educated case let's say 70%, taken from above, could be covered, which comes out to 12.6 million). It's often mentioned in the health care debate that if everyone or at least more people were included in the U.S. health care system, it would bring down costs, and though this may not be true of those with pre-existing conditions, at least for this group of presumably healthy 18-35 year olds it is, especially because if one of these individuals is suddenly met with an emergency, the burden really falls on those who have been contributing, an unfortunate situation that could be avoided if they had already been contributing to the insurance pool.

So looking at these numbers, it seems as if there are three issues that need resolving. The first is to deal with that 30% of people who can't afford nor qualify for coverage. This can be dealt with through a combination of bringing down costs, expanding Medicaid coverage, and tax cuts/rebates to make it more affordable. Second would be to bring in the people that either can afford their own or qualify for government coverage. And third, a large number of these uninsured have probably been denied coverage as a result of preexisting conditions, even though they may be able to afford a standard insurance plan. One possible solution for both of these problems is to take a page from the Australian system. In Australia, they use a combination of community rating, which helps to get rid of discrimination against the sick and elderly, and tax incentives for those who have insurance when they're young and healthy. Australia's system increases the surcharge on Medicaid by 1.5 percent each year if you make more than $50,000 per year and don't have private insurance. John Hempton in his blog Bronte Capital offers a detailed description of the Australian system as well as how it applies to the situation in the U.S. Hempton explains that this strategy brings in those who otherwise wouldn't get insurance (or collects revenue from those who don't) as well as saves on the legal and administration costs of denying coverage which, he says, account for 10 percent of costs in America.

There is another statistic that deserves some attention, one that Obama has put a lot of focus on, that 14,000 Americans lose their insurance each day. I think this figure can be a little misleading though and falls in line with the fear strategy. It's important to note that the census actually recorded that the total number of uninsured declined by nearly 1.5 million in 2007 from the previous year and the proportion of people without any health insurance actually fell by a full percentage point from a decade earlier, from 16.3 percent in 1998 to 15.3 in 2007. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2002 the people who had been uninsured for a year or more was between 21 and 31 million. This means that 10 to 30 million were only temporarily without insurance. So how to account for the 14,000 Americans who lose their insurance each day? The figure itself is misleading because more Americans as opposed to less are being covered each year. It seems safe to assume that many of these people are losing their coverage as a result of either losing their jobs, changing jobs, or moving to a different state. A couple options to solve these problems would be to provide similar and equal tax incentives for individual coverage as there is for employee coverage. In fact, one of the arguments President Obama has used in favor of the public option portion of the health care reform is that it creates a portable alternative that you could keep no matter where you lived or where you worked. If this is one of the President's goals, one which he seems to think is part of the solution to our healthcare woes, why not encourage rather than penalize people for getting their own insurance, which they could take from job to job and state to state?

I think that when you take a look at the numbers the problem of health insurance coverage in the United States is more than just a problem of insurance companies being bullies and not offering competitive prices or Americans simply not having access to affordable care. Why not try and address these individual problems, such as bringing in those that simply choose not to get insurance or those that lose coverage while inbetween jobs, rather than considering the whole system a failure. That's what we would do if we had a universal health care system; it wouldn't be scrapped if it proved to be ineffective. What I want to write about next is another issue that people seem ready to dump the blame onto the failure of the free market: higher costs for seemingly lower quality care. To examine that, you have to look at why the American system seems to get worse results and how that is reflected in costs.

Sources:
National Center for Policy Analysis: Crisis of the Uninsured: 2008
Bronte Capital: Health Care Reform and single payer- an Australian perspective
Census: U.S. Census Bureau
Obama's Grand Junction Townhall transcript

mccain would be the oldest president to take office during his first term - 23/10/08

From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

McCain would be the oldest president to take office during his first term. Reagan was 78 when he left his second term as president, McCain is now 72. If you're reading about his survival expectancy from the New York Times, the newspaper that made false, unsubstantiated claims about an affair he was having and about his involvement in the Keating 5 incident, I'd be interested to know how they made those calculations without his medical records...

Didn't know about the money being from the party. I certainly don't support that She's clearly trying to play up the attractive, successful, woman card, which, honestly, is a strategy that has been working for her. My mistake on the haircut... but still, $400... I'd be interested to see more details on the Iraqi oil because there are people (like Obama) upset at Iraq's not using their newly found oil wealth. If the U.S. is getting 87% of the oil, that wouldn't be such a big deal, and at the price oil has been at, if we were getting Iraqi oil, the war probably wouldn't be costing us very much at all. The China thing I believe was a contract to build pipelines or drills or something. Still more proof that the U.S. isn't controlling everything.

"And Iraqi stability hinging on US presence is only necessary because the
instability was brought on by US presence."

How is that relevant now? It's something to keep in mind next time we're thinking about invading a country, true. And it shows that it was a mistake to go in (or at least our strategy and optimism was flawed), but still the instability being as a result of our invasion is more reason why we should stay in until things are stable. The instability is mainly not from insurgents attacking U.S. soldiers, a lot is Shiite vs. Sunni and the risk of civil war. It's all the militia groups that would like to gain power through force. Granted this instability is because the U.S. led a poorly organized invasion but that's all the more reason to insure that we fix the mess we made. Now on to your next e-mail... can't keep up here.


From Brent on October 23rd, 2008:

If you're reading about his survival expectancy from the New York Times, the
newspaper that made false, unsubstantiated claims about an affair he was having
and about his involvement in the Keating 5 incident, I'd be interested to know
how they made those calculations without his medical records...

The article was critical of all candidates not giving FULL disclosure of their health records, and was written by a physician who has covered the health of presidential candidates for the past 36 years:

"If Mr. McCain's 2000 left-temple melanoma was a metastasis, as the Armed Forces
pathologists' report suggested, it would be classified as Stage III. The
reclassification would change his statistical odds for survival at 10 years from
about 60 percent to 36 percent, according to a published study." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20health.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&sq=doctor&st=cse&scp=2

I'd be interested to see more details on the Iraqi oil because there are
people (like Obama) upset at Iraq's not using their newly found oil wealth.

Yeah, I wish I could remember where I read that ... I'll find it eventually. Also I was reading about the falling prices of oil affecting oil rich countries:

"Now, plummeting oil prices are raising questions about whether the countries
can sustain their spending — and their bids to challenge United States
hegemony." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/world/21petro.html?scp=1&sq=oil%20rich&st=cse

"And Iraqi stability hinging on US presence is only necessary because the
instability was brought on by US presence." How is that relevant now?

It's relevant now because some people present US presence like it is a selfless act without recognizing that it was one of the main causes to instability in Iraq. And I agree that the US should not leave until they have righted that.


From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

What people also forget is what was there before the U.S., someone guilty of genocide. The problem was not that something was done, it's what was done and how it was done. Just saying something else that's often overlooked and forgotten.

i thought it would get a good reaction out of ya. sorry. - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008:

Were you reading the republicans for change thing? I can't read it at work, it won't show up on the screen, but i thought it would get a good reaction out of ya. Sorry.

So fucking sad that this is what politics is. "I want change... blah blah blah."
My dad put it really well, Obama has pretty much just become a screen onto which
the world is projecting what they want from a president. It doesn't matter what
he wants to do, what his proposals are, what he's done. He's presented himself
in such a way, that people see whatever it is that change means to them.

I agree again, 100%. And it is very sad. The GLCP will hopefully bring real change, here and abroad. And about the election machines, I know what you mean. I recently read an article about the election campaigns here and I had to save the paper. Its a really good read, I'll give it to ya when i see ya. And again, I agree that a well run campaign does not equal a good president. Usually the opposite is true - if they need to dump so much money and manpower into the campaign they are covering up something, hiding something, or present themselves favorably when they in fact are not...

Also, this from the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002:

Sec. 323
'(a) NATIONAL COMMITTEES-'(1) IN GENERAL- A national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds or any other thing of value, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.'

(2) APPLICABILITY- The prohibition established by paragraph (1) applies to any such national committee, any officer or agent acting on behalf of such a national committee, and any entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such a national committee.


From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

Dammit Brent. You have the best job ever. I'm not even working and I can't keep up!

john edwards' haircut was $400, not $4000 - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008:

I was reading the articles you posted on facebook, although trying to give the appearance i'm working at the same time lol.

John Edwards' haircut was $400, not $4000.

And it wasn't Palin's "own , hard earned money", it came out of the pockets of the National Republican Party.

I recently read an article saying that the us had negotiated something like 87% of Iraqi oil for itself and the other 13% for Iraq to do what it would with it. Hardly seems like a sovereign governments idea of independence. And Iraqi stability hinging on US presence is only necessary because the instability was brought on by US presence.

lol, the pumpkins are hilarious. i know what i'm carving up this hallowe'en!

"Good news is that McCain will not hit the average U.S. life expectancy during
his first term, nor will he even be the oldest president in his first term (that
would hit during his second term when he would pass Reagan). Not only that, but
the life expectancy isn't totally applicable as he will probably have access to
the best doctors in the world."

I was just reading an article in the NYtimes yesterday about the lack of full disclosure of medical data from all candidates, but that McCain would be the oldest president to take the office, and that his survival expectancy for his first term was 60%. And if he was lying about one of his melanoma's, which a military biopsy suggested, that it would drop to 36%.

Also, if we're going to question McCain's judgement, what about Obama's? He's
associated himself with people like Rezko, Ayers, and Wright for many many years
and now has taken council from people like the former C.E.O. Fannie Mae. I'm
just saying, "let's focus on the issues that the American people really care
about, like the Economy."

I agree 100%.

conservativesforchange.com - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008:


lol, and this: http://www.conservativesforchange.com/


From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

Oy, had to stop half way through. Some of things were uneducated. It's really clear that not only has McCain run a poor campaign that doesn't reflect how he would be as a President (because I've read things about him now and how he was before that are drastically different then how he presents himself through his campaign) and also how clever and brilliant of a campaign Obama has run. It's really sad.

Quick note, how well you run a campaign surely does not reflect how good of a president you will be. Bush ran brilliant campaigns in 2000 and 2004, one of the best campaign machines in decades, and well... we know where that got us.

So sad that this is what politics is. "I want change... blah blah blah." My dad put it really well, Obama has pretty much just become a screen onto which the world is projecting what they want from a president. It doesn't matter what he wants to do, what his proposals are, what he's done. He's presented himself in such a way, that people see whatever it is that change means to them.

The guy that said he wants Obama because we've moved too far to the right and so he hopes this will move us back in the other direction, is clearly a bit misguided. First both candidates are more to the left and McCain disagrees with Bush on many key conservative issues. Second, there's going to be a Democratic majority in congress even larger than there is now! maybe even a veto proof 60 in the senate. C'mon

the U.S. doesn't really believe that the situation in Iraq is fully stable yet - 10/23/08

From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

But the U.S. doesn't really believe that the situation in Iraq is fully stable yet. They don't want a timeline for withdrawal but a withdrawal with preconditions that can be reversed if things get bad and unstable again. Thus since they don't believe the country is stable enough for their own standards, they want to make sure that if things go wrong in the country, at least the embassy and its residents will be safe and with power.

I don't think it seems like the U.S. is trying to secure resources for themselves. This can be seen in the fact that first, there were free elections in Iraq and someone was voted in who is now trying to negotiate the withdrawal of U.S. troops. More evidence of U.S. not only being in it for themselves is the fact that there are contracts and agreements being made with Chinese oil companies. Granted the U.S. does hold a lot of influence and steers more deals towards themselves, but this sort of does make sense since for a large part of the past few years, Iraqi stability has been hinging on U.S. presence and intervention. But still, I don't see how one large embassy is being built to ensure political dominance over resources, money, the country etc... when the gov. that was voted in that has been doing things that don't necessarily benefit the U.S. but rather that it shows U.S. lack of faith in Iraqi stability as well as wanting to maintain an influential presence in a country that we hope to maintain as a strong ally in the region.

Oh, and those pumpkins are nauseating.

And as for the Palin stories...Did you know John Edwards got a 4,000 dollar haircut??? His whole platform and stump speech was about fighting for the poor and class equality and all that. How do you spend 4000 dollars on just a haircut??? That's ridiculous. It does seem a little hypocritical of Palin, but at the same time, she's a self-made woman. Owned her own business, built herself up in politics, and had 5 kids all at the same time. She has the right to indulge herself with her own hard earned money. I don't see the Republican party as so much "looking out for the little guy" but more the party of "we want to make this possible for the little guy to one day achieve, and once you achieve it you can do whatever you want with your hard earned money." Of course that doesn't come off as sympathetic/empathetic. Unfortunately though, it is going to hurt her with the public because that how the public is and politics has to react appropriately: the guy who can mold his image the best is going to win, not who's honest.

Also, I do question McCain's judgement a bit about Palin. Initially, it proved to be a brilliant pick. He pulled way ahead after the announcement. Unfortunately that's wearing down now. It's true though, that I don't think I'd like Palin as president but for the same reasons as I wouldn't want Obama as president. She's got ties to an extreme pastor, she's inexperienced in many areas (still more experienced than Obama though), and she's a bit too far right in the spectrum (where as Obama is left). Good news is that McCain will not hit the average U.S. life expectancy during his first term, nor will he even be the oldest president in his first term (that would hit during his second term when he would pass Reagan). Not only that, but the life expectancy isn't totally applicable as he will probably have access to the best doctors in the world.

Also, if we're going to question McCain's judgement, what about Obama's? He's associated himself with people like Rezko, Ayers, and Wright for many many years and now has taken council from people like the former C.E.O. Fannie Mae. I'm just saying, "let's focus on the issues that the American people really care about, like the Economy."

P.S. you should check out the articles I posted on facebook last night. I got a bit of an urge to get some stuff out there all of a sudden. One is the Kennedy article I sent you. The other is a pretty non-partisan article on how foreign policy rhetoric has changed for the two candidates, and the third is about Obama's tax policy.

getting more disillusioned with chomsky - 10/10/08

From Buck on October 10th, 2008:

I gotta say, I'm getting more and more disillusioned with Noam Chomsky. So much of what he says seems so one sided. It would take a very big time commitment for me to research the whole Israel/Palestine issue, including, like I said in the previous e-mail, to simply find out more on the history of "palestine" which is more specifically a name for a general area in the middle east, literally. It seems to me the more apocalyptic image he can create and horrific situations he can describe the more he'll be believed because he's an MIT professor. There's a lot to be said about this strategy, sometimes you need to exaggerate a situation to get the necessary amount of attention in order to help form a solution, sort of over shoot things in the hopes of reaching a middle ground. However, at least in my eyes, he's losing some credibility. Like I said, I'd need A LOT of time to look into the history of the Israel/Palestine issue, but what I am aware of is that Israel did agree to grant Palestine sovereignty if Hamas took out those sections of their constitution, they refused. I also know that Israel started evacuating the settlements which constitute a significant point of contention within this conflict, not to mention that Hamas has recently fired rockets at an Israeli school. Chomsky says Israel uses the West Bank as target practice, and doesn't mention that Palestine does the same thing. C'mon, this is so one sided! This is against the founding principle of our party, the thing that the two of us are in total agreement, there are two sides to a story, and usually, both sides are to blame. Chomsky, in his role as one of the most influential intellectuals in the world, should make it a priority to tell the whole story. Given his status in the academic word, the simple act of ommision communicates a tremondous amount. The impression I got from this excerpt is that the state of Israel should be dissolved (not to say that that's what he believes, but that is the honest impression I got from the language he was using).

On to the next thing:

That is fair, but I did say that this was a superficial point and that I didn't agree with it for those reasons. I don't think either candidate will bring about any major change, but the appearance to the rest of the world of a democrat of mixed race as president after 8 years of bush comes as no surprise to be popular. Its too bad for McCain because the deck is already stacked against him, just being an old, white, republican following eight years of the very unpopular Bush.

The point I was trying to make about this, wasn't quite that it's a superficial reason to vote for him but that the opinion polls themselves and peoples reasons for saying he would be better for the U.S. or that they would vote for Obama are superficial. What I mean by this is that there does not seem to be any legitimate, solid foundation for why the international world would prefer Obama (other than "he said..."). The initial boost to U.S. favorability as a result of Americans voting for a black man would wear off after a few months and return back to regular levels. The same would happen after any drop as a result of McCain winning because again peoples reasons for not wanting him are purely superficial. So when faced with the reality of McCain and his pro-green environmental policies, favoring diplomacy, better leadership for the economy, the drop would be offset and return back to regular levels, and most likely better than Bush. What it seems like you think I meant by it being superficial is the same way people would vote Liberal in Canada just so Conservatives won't be in power, sort of like that's not a good reason to vote for a guy just because people have irrational desires to have Obama as next president of the U.S. But the reason i think it's superficial is because beyond possibly 6 months it won't really be any more of a boost to international opinion than McCain winning.

And third, the Space race.

A few things I take issue on with the Chomsky quote. First of all, he says:

"Nobody really believes that the US is trying to protect itself from North Korea. That's not serious"

Well I agree that that's not the reason we're developing our space program, but to dismiss N. Korea so easily is almost just as foolish. They have spent time working on missiles that could reach the western U.S., Hawaii and the coastal areas. That is pretty serious, and should not be so easily dismissed. Next, is his comparison to the development of Navy technology, which is an extremely good example:

You know, the development of space technology, including space warfare today, is similar in its technological-industrial significance to the development of navies a hundred years ago. If you look at say, England and Germany a century ago, which had the most advanced navies then, they were dealing with extremely tricky technological problems. Putting a huge gun on a moving platform and ensuring that it could hit another moving target was one of the hardest technical problems of the early twentieth century.

In fact, Clinton-era publications of the US Space Command describe control over space as a parallel to control over the oceans a century ago. Then, countries built navies to protect and enhance their power in commercial and strategic interests. Today, the militarization of space is intended to protect US investments and commercial interest and US hegemony around the world.

So what is Chomsky saying here? What I can gather is that since he believes the U.S. should abandon its ambitions for space and he is making this comparison, then he similarly believes England, which is the closest parallel to the U.S. today, should have abandoned their naval ambitions. Seriously? Do you think that would've been a good idea? Do you think the Germans would have abandoned their naval development if England did? Aside from the civilian benefits that come from military research, this is a ridiculous idea. It would have been terrible for England to stop developing their navy, and silly to think that Germany would have stopped if England did. In fact the best proof of this is the exact example that Chomsky himself uses about the U.S. and the militarization of space:

We're looking at the dawn of a new arms race. For example, Germany technically opposes the US space militarization program, but is bound to get involved. Otherwise it will be left behind in the development of advanced technology. Germany understands that very well. The US understands it too, and they fully expect that Germany and other countries that they want on board will go along with the program. The Bush Administration recognizes that US power is so overwhelming that it can't really be opposed, even if countries object to US actions.

So in the case of Germany, they would've been happy to continue developing their navy, including their devastating U-boats used during WWII, if England had stopped. It just means that they get a bit of time to get ahead while England watches on, until they realize they might as well hop on the bandwagon. That brings me to my third point, that none of this addressed what I said about China, that China would be happy to continue their space research even if the U.S. were to stop theirs. They don't pursue militarizing space just to make sure they keep up with the U.S. They also do it because there is a strong Chinese belief that not only should they keep up with the West but also that China is the center of everything and the most important, and they have the right to supremacy, see their central belief of "The Mandate of Heaven" which parallels very nicely to "Manifest Destiny." Again, all you have to do is look at their treatment of Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong. They believe they have every right in the world to those sovereign states, they historically "belong" to China, and so it is one of their central goals to bring that forward.

Finally, there's this point:

"Destruction of the environment is not only rational; it's exactly what you're taught to do in college. If you take an economics or a political science course, you're taught that humans are supposed to be rational wealth accumulators, each acting as an individual to maximize his own wealth in the market."

This is another example of Chomsky looking at only one part of the picture, and the more apocalyptic he sounds the more authority he seems to have, because why would you exaggerate the "destruction of the species"? What Chomsky failed to mention here is that what we're also taught in economics are theories of externalities and the "tragedy of the commons." Basically they outline how to deal with the environment etc... that we actually are better off, from an economics perspective, caring for the environment etc... and not exhausting resources and all this. I'm in a bit of a rush right now, but I can write more about it in another e-mail if you want.

Anyway, you're up!

p.s. How beautiful has the weather been/going to be this weekend?? It's awesome, definitely wanna go for some motorcycle rides... stupid homework...

after the presidential debate - 8/10/08

From Brent on October 7th, 2008

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/07/content_10159106.htm


From Buck on October 8th, 2008

Well, this Argentina & Brazil thing doesn't seem like that big of a deal. They're still tying the exchange rate to the U.S dollar anyway. Good for them that they want to start using their own currency.

This link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24467159-5013460,00.html) is really good. It's pretty in the middle, criticizes both sides, and pretty much expressed my feelings exactly on the economy, etc...

Also I'd like to say that I think Obama is 95% hype. What makes you think that he'll bring change or improve things? And if the answer (as with most people I believe) starts with "he says" or "he said" or some other version of him saying something, well you can guess where I'm gonna go with that...

Haha, sorry I was just brooding a bit over it, thought I'd vent.


From Brent on October 8th, 2008

Well this Argentina & Brazil thing doesn't seem like that big of a deal. They're still tying the exchange rate to the U.S dollar anyway. Good for them that they want to start using their own currency.

"Although the SML seeks to gradually eliminate the dollar from the bilateral trade, the currency will continue its presence in transactions between Brazil and Argentina, as their central banks will set the exchange rate for the real and the peso with respect to the dollar."

"The new paymnet system has more political importance than technical importance because it will strengthen ties between Argentina and Brazil, the biggest economies of the Mercosur."

"If the mechanism works out without incidents between Brazil and Argentina, it will be adopted by other countries of the Mercosur, like Paraguay and Uruguay, Brazilian authorities said."

Pretty interesting to me. I think it is a trend that might spread...

Also I'd like to say that I think Obama is 95% hype. What makes you think that he'll bring change or improve things? And if the answer (as with most people I believe) starts with "he says" or "he said" or some other version of him saying something, well you can guess where I'm gonna go with that...

Well, Obama said ... lol. Just teasing.

I don't think he'll necessarily improve things or make 'big' change, but I think he will do more for global perception of the USA than his rival. This is coming from someone who has a strong opposition to US foreign policy - particularly over the past 8 years.

If you have time, check out this lecture from Noam Chomsky (I think it is almost 2 hours but is definitely worth a watch. You can get it as a podcast from the iTunes store for free as well):

http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=224

If you don't have time to watch that, there is a little clip here of more or less the same stuff:

http://www.bigthink.com/the-world/the-middle-east/9128

A particularly strong point I think he presents is that policy should reflect the opinions of the population. He also points out that this is not the current state of things, and that the opposite is actually true. This is one of the things I think should change, but I don't think either candidate will do that.

Even on a completely superficial level (which you know I don't prescribe to) having Obama in office would be a major boon to America in terms of global opinion. Admittedly this is a sad point that I wish were not true, but the choice between him and an old, wealthy, white, ex-military man with a not so stellar academic record (never mind him joking about making North Korea extinct, bombing Iran, and "never forgiving gooks") - I think the point I'm trying to make is obvious.

Haha, sorry I was just brooding a bit over it, thought I'd vent.

Fair enough! I too was brooding last night and decided not to be so inciteful, particularly when it is not a point I agree with, and that we should not bicker unless it has a beneficial direction.

And it is funny because I can't vote.

the truth is somewhere in the middle - 7/10/08

From Brent on October 7th, 2008

Yeah, I realized afterwards that it wouldn't make much sense to send each other stuff that supports the others view. So yeah I think I was just tired after working last night haha. I just don't like those sort of independent websites, conspiracy theory type places, for both sides. They're just too biased and not at all credible.

When I read anything I honestly think that you should read the left and read the right, the truth will be somewhere in the middle. I don't take anything at face value without reputable sources.

I did read the links you sent me, but don't have the time right now to find out how Obama voted. I'm attaching two things for you: one is my current background (lol), and the other a political cartoon, hopefully inciteful.

From Buck on October 7th, 2008

Haha, I think I may have to snag that Obama pic, it's awesome! And McCain looks like a giant tumor in that cartoon.

And no worries, I know you read both sides, just like I know you know I do. I guess you hadn't really read/watched that video you sent me but just a warning it's not nearly reputable enough to be as far left/as smearing of the right as it is.

Gonna have to be offline for a bit now. All this browsing/chatting while at work has killed my battery. See you tonight!

debate night - 7/10/08

From Buck on October 7th, 2008

Haha, yeah I guess you did hit a bit of a nerve. I actually didn't watch it either, but I read what it said on the side and dismissed it pretty quick. As I said, this "Keating 5" scandal is history, something that McCain was found innocent of and he personally admitted the mistakes he made. The New York Times wrote a big article a while back when he clinched the nomination trying to bring it back up, bundling it with a totally unfounded accusation of adultery... they were attacked pretty hard for the blatant biased slander and they never did a follow up story. There's a reason the media's not talking about it.

Looking into the scandal, you'll see that it doesn't so much show his probable approach to the current crisis but more how politics can get messy and sometimes people make mistakes. What will more accurately show probable approaches is what they have actually done, and even before he was running for President or the crisis blew up McCain was leading the call for more oversight. You should at least look at the last link I sent you because it's short and it shows what McCains actual (not probable) approach was. Also if you can, see if you can see which way Obama voted.

Yeah, I realized afterwards that it wouldn't make much sense to send each other stuff that supports the others view. So yeah I think I was just tired after working last night haha. I just don't like those sort of independent websites, conspiracy theory type places, for both sides. They're just too biased and not at all credible.

I actually just had the bike out cause I had work immediately after class so needed to get there fast. Took a coworker home though after. Fun drive at 1 in the morning, for sure.

See you tonight then. Should be a good debate too, townhall-style!

strike a nerve - 7/10/08

Sent by Brent on October 7th, 2008

Oh, did i strike a nerve here? You seem quite upset over this one, and I haven't even watched the video yet lol ...

You got to read both sides, and something like this is just pure propaganda.

I might say the same to you ... a quick review of what we have sent back and forth shows you've sent nothing critical of McCain. I do read both sides (admittedly more lefty) but I just don't see the fun in sending you pro-McCain articles. We both know that all sides are guilty of slandering the opposite side (for example, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/dishonorable.html and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_stem_cell_spinning.html) ...

The intro to the website you sent says: "The current economic crisis demands that we understand John McCain's attitudes about economic oversight and corporate influence in federal regulation. Nothing illustrates the danger of his approach more clearly than his central role in the savings and loan scandal of the late '80s and early '90s." This implies that McCain was negligent towards oversight and regulation and therefore played a very important role in the current financial crisis.

I think, rather than accusing him of "play(ing) a very important role in the current financial crisis", it demonstrates his approach to such matters and his probable approach to the current financial crisis. Again, I'm not saying that either candidate has a better approach as I haven't studied them, but that's the way I read it ...

Were you out on the motorcycle last night? I was and took a ride by your place - your Harley was gone ... good day for a ride! We still on for the debate?