Two months ago:
When bad news can also be good news.
The Palin ExperienceWhat is it about this modest, feminine, soft-spoken private citizen that has the left so frightened? The combat boots? Her 7mm magnum?
These days, where you fall on the crucial issue of Sarah Palin tells the rest of us all we need to know about your character. You're either a:
A) Scum-sucking, terror-loving elitist, or a
B) Radical, tea-bag-loving simpleton.
Yet, believe it or not, one can (as I do) admire Palin's charisma and roots, appreciate her dissent on the policy experiments brainy folks in Washington are cooking up and at the same time believe she has no business running for president in 2012.
In fact, all you haters out there force me to root for her.
There's nothing wrong, for instance, with The Associated Press assigning a crack team of investigative journalists to sift through every word of Palin's book, "Going Rogue" (HarperCollins, November 2009) for inaccuracies. You only wish similarly methodical muckraking was applied to President Barack Obama's two self-aggrandizing tomes — or even the health care or cap and trade bills, for that matter.
The widely read blogger and purveyor of all truth, Andrew Sullivan, was impelled to blog 17 times on the subject of Palin on the same day Americans learned that the Obama administration awarded $6.7 billion in stimulus money to non-existent congressional districts — which did not merit a single mention. To see what is in front of one's nose demands a constant struggle, I guess. [link]
As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I'd give it a failing grade.In other words it's degenerated into being nothing more than another welfare program. Only worse. It will have a detrimental effect - in a profound way - on our health care delivery system as a whole.
In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system.
Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.
In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all. [link]