Zen Health Moment of the Day

As part of a "record-breaking influence campaign," the nation's "largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress" to lobby Capitol Hill "in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues" on health care legislation. The industry is "spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html?wprss=rss_politics

Wildfires Are Linked to Global Warming -- But Media Obscure the Relationship

.....

Sam Kornell
July 6, 2009 - Miller-McCune Magazine

.....

Early last summer, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that California's fire season now lasts all 365 days of the year. At the time, nearly 2,000 separate wildfires were burning across the Golden State; the governor made his declaration during a press conference in Santa Barbara, Calif., where a major conflagration was scorching the hills just north of the city.

Since then, Santa Barbara has endured two more major fires -- one in November and one in May, both well out of what in past years was considered the natural fire season. These fires have attracted national media coverage, possibly in part because they threatened -- and often burned — large homes owned by wealthy, occasionally famous people. The Jesusita fire, which began on May 5, was especially fearsome, reducing 80 homes to rubble and resulting in more than 30,000 evacuations, and it was covered by all of the major national media outlets.

With one notable exception, from the San Francisco Chronicle, none of the coverage explored the possibility that the fire might be linked to climate change, despite ample evidence that such a link exists. A few major outlets, such as Time, did posit such a connection after Australia's Black Saturday fires in February, although that country has a former Australian of the Year focusing attention to the connection.

Perhaps editors didn't see the upside of filtering a visually rich story packed full of human drama through the sieve of a politically divisive issue that appears -- although it can be hard to tell -- yet to gain really serious traction among many Americans. This seems particularly plausible in light of a recent Gallup study finding that 41 percent of respondents believe that the press overstates the evidence of global warming.

But whatever the cause, the apparent reticence of some media organizations to address the link between climate change and wildfire is unfortunate, since wildfires provide an intensely arresting visual example of an often abstract-seeming phenomenon. Studies show that people are more alert to the dangers climate change poses when they believe they can see or experience tangible evidence of it in their daily lives. But the most dramatic impacts of climate change, such as disappearing glaciers, are still mainly occurring at a distance. Making it clear that as climate change intensifies, major wildfires are going to increase in the Western U.S. -- as a recent report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded -- could help drive home the danger of a phenomenon still most closely associated with the collapse of distant ice-shelves.

"People can relate to what's happening in their immediate environment -- their town, their community, their part of the state," says Eric Pooley, a veteran Washington journalist currently writing a book about the politics and economics of climate change. "To the extent that people still think of climate change as something abstract and going to happen in the future, it's very powerful if reporters can point to things that are already happening" as a consequence of global warming.

The former editor of Fortune magazine and a longtime reporter and editor at Time, Pooley wrote a widely discussed study this winter for the Shorenstein Center for the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard examining shortcomings in media coverage of the economics of climate change. In the extensive research he conducted for the report, he concluded that climate change in general is "still woefully underreported" by the press. In a phone conversation, he argued that reporters and editors are still "wary" about linking climate change to natural disasters, even when such links are scientifically uncontroversial; he believes this needs to change.

Of course, it is true that no single fire can be directly attributed to climate change in much the same way that climate change couldn't be cited as the cause of Hurricane Katrina. The relevant question is not whether a particular natural disaster can be linked directly to the greenhouse effect, but whether it exemplifies future trends. Was Katrina the result of warming ocean water generating more intense hurricanes? There's no definitive answer.

But there is much more certainty if the question is reframed slightly to ask whether, in the future, climate change will generate more frequent and intense hurricanes. The same is true of wildfires. "No individual event can be linked beyond a shadow of a doubt to global warming, but we do know that a warming world makes those events more likely -- it loads the dice in favor of more wildfires, in favor of more hurricanes, in favor of more dramatic flooding and more drought," Pooley said.

California is now in its third year of serious drought, and according to the Forest Service, this summer is going to be marked by extreme fire danger in many highly populated parts of the state. In the likely event that another fire threatens a large city sometime soon, will journalists and editors accord climate change a more prominent role in their coverage?

10 Commandments of the Anti-Christ

.....

Conspiracy theorists and fringe Christians think the mysterious Georgia stones signal the coming of a "New World Order."

Joseph Laycock
July 6, 2009 - Religion Dispatches

.....

Back in April, Wired magazine published a story on the history of a strange monument in rural Elberton, Georgia ("granite capital of the world") known as the Georgia Guidestones. The monument consists of four 16-foot-high slabs of granite arranged around a central column and topped with a capstone weighing 25,000 pounds. Carved onto the face of each slab is a list of ten precepts for creating a better society, written in eight modern languages. On the four sides of the capstone are written the words, "Let These Be Guidestones to An Age of Reason" in Sanskrit, Babylonian cuneiform, Classical Greek, and Egyptian hieroglyphs. The central column and capstone are also equipped with holes, astronomically aligned so that the Guidestones can serve as a compass and clock.

The popular consensus is that these stones were meant to survive a global apocalypse and aid survivors in creating a new, enlightened society. Unveiled in 1980, and built by an unknown party, the monument has stood for nearly thirty years outside of town, attracting the curious to Elberton. However, in the last ten years the Guidestones have garnered the attention of conspiracy theorists, who see their message as anti-Christian and a call for a global government. This new reading of the Guidestones ultimately led vandals to deface the monument sometime in December 2008.

The official story of the Guidestones' origin is that Joe Fendley Sr., president of the Elberton Finishing Company, was contacted in 1979 by one "Robert C. Christian" to commission a monument. Christian was a pseudonym used by someone representing "a small group of loyal Americans who believe in God." Fendley has since died, but Randall Sullivan of Wired interviewed Wyatt Martin, the president of Granite City Bank and the only living man who allegedly met Christian. As the project's banker, Martin allegedly learned Christian's true name but will not reveal it. Martin claims he received letters and phone calls from Christian until "around the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks" and assumes Christian is dead; though some believe Christian never existed. While construction was still underway, Martin and Fendley were accused of perpetuating a hoax, either out of amusement or to promote Fendley's business. Both men took lie detector tests, which they
passed. Sullivan suggests that the hoax rumor may have come from rival granite workers.

According to Jim Miles (author of Weird Georgia), shortly after the Guidestones were unveiled, a local minister stated his suspicion that "Mr. Christian is not a Christian" and that the monument was designed for the worship of the sun as well as the devil. Contemporary Pagans, UFO buffs, and New Agers were naturally attracted by the mystery of the site. New myths were created that the monument was built upon a "power-nexus" or a place sacred to Native Americans. One legend holds that visitors who point both arms at the monument (one palm up, one palm down) will receive a psychic message from the stones. Another Guidestone admirer, Yoko Ono, composed a three-movement score entitled "Georgia Stone."

In 2000, Dr. Reagan R. Davis, a Christian minister, visited the stones and concluded that the Guidestones may well describe the ten commandments of the Antichrist. Particularly upsetting were the precepts to "Maintain humanity under 500 million in perpetual balance with nature," "Guide reproduction wisely encouraging fitness and diversity," and "Let all nations rule internally, resolving external disputes in a world court." Davis interpreted these messages as a call for a world government, a policy of state-sponsored eugenics, and the culling of billions of people. This new interpretation elevated the Guidestones from mere local curiosity to the subject of national notoriety among conspiracy theorists and Christian dispensationalists.

Conspiracy buffs were quick to point out the similarities between the pseudonym "R.C. Christian" and Christian Rosenkreuz, the legendary founder of the esoteric Rosicrucian Order. (Documents attributed to Rosenkreuz were signed "Frater C.R.C."). Christians added that The Age of Reason is also the title of a book by Thomas Paine, which challenges the inerrancy of the Bible. Through numerous Web sites and talk radio programs, a narrative eventually emerged in which the Guidestones (along with ancient esoteric societies like the Masons, eugenics, perceived anti-Christian hostility, and globalization) were all part of a single monolithic entity known as the "New World Order."

The goal of the New World Order is the creation of a single world government and the destruction of national sovereignty and religion. A significant number of Christian dispensationalists subscribe to this view and believe that the New World Order was foretold in the Book of Revelation. In 2005, Mark Dice (using the pseudonym "John Connor" in reference to the Terminator film franchise) organized a Christian group opposed to the New World Order called "The Resistance" and began a campaign to have the monument destroyed. In 2007, radio personality and filmmaker Alex Jones released a documentary entitled Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, outlining a plan by the Bilderberg group and other global elites to exterminate eighty percent of humanity. The Georgia Guidestones are cited as primary evidence of this plot.

The call of The Resistance was eventually answered with an attack on the stones by vandals who used a can of red spray-paint to write messages such as, "The elite want 80% of us dead," "9-11 inside job," "Obama iz a Muslim," and "Council on Foreign Relations is ran by the Devil." The stones were also splashed with polyurethane, which is especially difficult to remove. The vandalism has been celebrated on numerous Web sites discussing the New World Order's agenda; with only a few dissenting voices pointing out that any assault on free speech, even the free speech of an anonymous cabal, threatens the rights of all. The vandalism of the Guidestones seems to be a classic case of an eccentric and lofty idea under assault by the hoi polloi. In fact, a letter from the monument's benefactors printed by the Elberton Granite Finishing Company predicted just such a scenario. They ask that the people of Elberton County restore the stones should they be
"scattered by people of little understanding."

The short history of the Guidestones has parallels with the history of other mysterious messages and prophesies. It seems plausible that whoever invented the name "R. C. Christian" -- be this an actual cabal or Fendley and Martin -- had some knowledge of Rosicrucianism. (Fendley was active in the local Shrine Club where he could have been exposed to Rosicrucian lore.) There are interesting similarities between the Guidestones and the origin of the Rosicrucian legend.

A European preoccupation with the mysterious Rosicrucian order began in Germany with the appearance of two anonymous documents in the early 17th century: Fama Fraternitatis and Confessio Fraternitatis. Clearly someone wrote these documents although, much like the Guidestones, there is little evidence to determine whether these messages were a legitimate manifesto from a secret brotherhood or an elaborate hoax. But regardless of their origin, the excitement generated in the wake of anonymous messages is very real. Numerous modern esoteric groups claim a connection to the Rosicrucians just as conspiracy theorists regard the Guidestones as vital evidence of a demonic globalist agenda.

Another interesting parallel can be drawn between the Guidestones and the Book of Revelation. Both are texts of little-known origin warning of future peril. These conditions allow for historical-critical as well as dispensationalist readings of both messages. Scholars believe the Book of Revelation was written sometime in the first century and is a warning to early Christians not to conform to the evils of Greco-Roman society. Although the Guidestones were constructed relatively recently, they too have a historical context. The letter from the Guidestones' benefactors describes the problem of global overpopulation and warns that, "Armageddon can be prevented."

Whoever planned the monument in 1979 most likely imagined that Armageddon would take the form of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. "R.C. Christian" could not possibly have predicted the events referenced by the vandals, such as the attacks of September 11 or the election of Barack Obama. But Dice, and others like him, read the Guidestones much as they read the Book of Revelation: not as historical artifacts but as important clues to understanding current events. Stripping the messages of their historical contexts allows them to converge, so that they mutually confirm a dualistic cosmology in which Christians must battle the New World Order. Thus, evidence of the New World Order's unfolding plot can be found both in the Book of Revelation and in the Georgia Guidestones. Likewise, Dice's use of the pseudonym "John Connor" is very telling. Like the character in Terminator, he likely sees himself as one who knows the future and is fighting to prevent it
from happening.

The history of the Guidestones is ultimately an interesting study in the heterogeneous nature of symbols. To build something so extraordinary with so little explanation created a vacuum of meaning. Much like the Guidestones' inspiration, Stonehenge, this caused new meanings to be invented. The Guidestones are essentially a spiritual and political Rorschach test onto which any number of ideas can be imposed. Pagans and New Agers created new myths and rituals, imbuing the stones with sacred reverence. For others, the monument is not the marker of a sacred space but the evidence of a demonic plot. Should the Guidestones survive for centuries as their creators intended, many more meanings could arise, equally unrelated to the designer's original intention.

Plenty of Countries Get Healthcare Right

.....

Jonathan Cohn
July 5, 2009 - The Boston Globe

.....

"I don't want America to begin rationing care to their citizens in the way these other countries do."

That was Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, speaking last month about healthcare reform. But it could have been virtually any other Republican, not to mention any number of sympathetic interest groups, because that's the party line for many who oppose healthcare reform. If President Obama and his supporters get their way, this argument goes, healthcare in America will start to look like healthcare overseas. Yes, maybe everybody will have insurance. But people will have to wait in long lines. And when they are done waiting in line, the care won't be very good.

Typically the people making these arguments are basing their analysis on one of two countries, Canada and England, where such descriptions hold at least some truth. Although the people in both countries receive pretty good healthcare - their citizens do better than Americans in many important respects - they are also subjected to longer waits for specialty care and tighter limits on some advanced treatments.

But no serious politician is talking about recreating either the British or the Canadian system here. The British have truly "socialized medicine," in which the government directly employs most doctors. The Canadians have one of the world's most centralized "single-payer" systems, in which the government insures everybody directly and private insurance has virtually no role. A better understanding for how universal healthcare might work in America would come from other countries - countries whose insurance architecture and medical cultures more closely resemble the framework we'd likely create here.

Last year, I had the opportunity to spend time researching two of these countries: France and the Netherlands. Neither country gets the attention that Canada and England do. That might be because English isn't their language. Or it might be because they don't fit the negative stereotypes of life in countries where government is more directly involved in medical care.

Over the course of a month, I spoke to just about everybody I could find who might know something about these healthcare systems: Elected officials, industry leaders, scholars - plus, of course, doctors and patients. And sure enough, I heard some complaints. Dutch doctors, for example, thought they had too much paperwork. French public health experts thought patients with chronic disease weren't getting the kind of sustained, coordinated medical care that they needed.

But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren't filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn't afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.

The Dutch and the French organize their healthcare differently. In the Netherlands, people buy health insurance from competing private carriers; in France, people get basic insurance from nonprofit sickness funds that effectively operate as extensions of the state, then have the option to purchase supplemental insurance on their own. (It's as if everybody is enrolled in Medicare.) But in both countries virtually all people have insurance that covers virtually all legitimate medical services. In both countries, the government is heavily involved in regulating prices and setting national budgets. And, in both countries, people pay for health insurance through a combination of private payments and what are, by American standards, substantial taxes.

You could be forgiven for assuming, as Kyl and his allies suggest, that so much government control leads to Soviet-style rationing, with people waiting in long lines and clawing their way through mind-numbing bureaucracies every time they have a sore throat. But, in general, both the Dutch and French appear to have easy access to basic medical care - easier access, in fact, than is the American norm.

In both the Netherlands and France, most people have long-standing relationships with their primary care doctors. And when they need to see these doctors, they do so without delay or hassle. In a 2008 survey of adults with chronic disease conducted by the Commonwealth Fund - a foundation which financed my own research abroad - 60 percent of Dutch patients and 42 percent of French patients could get same-day appointments. The figure in the US was just 26 percent.

The contrast with after-hours care is even more striking. If you live in either Amsterdam or Paris, and get sick after your family physician has gone home, a phone call will typically get you an immediate medical consultation - or even, if necessary, a house call. And if you need the sort of attention available only at a formal medical facility, you can get that, too - without the long waits typical in US emergency rooms.

This is particularly true in the Netherlands, thanks to a nationwide network of urgent care centers the government and medical societies have put in place. Not only do these centers provide easily accessible care for people who use them; they leave hospital emergency rooms free to concentrate on the truly serious cases. Tellingly, a Dutch physician I met complained to me that waiting times in her emergency room had been getting "too long" lately. "Too long," she went on to tell me, meant two or three hours. When I told her about documented cases of people waiting a day, or even days, for treatment in some American emergency rooms, she thought I was joking. (In a 2007 Commonwealth Fund survey, just 9 percent of Dutch patients reported waiting more than two hours for care in an ER, compared to 31 percent of Americans.)

Dutch and French patients do wait longer than Americans for specialty care; around a quarter of respondents to the Commonwealth Fund survey reported waiting more than two months to see a specialist, compared to virtually no Americans. But Dutch and French patients were far less likely to avoid seeing a specialist altogether - or forgoing other sorts of medical care - because they couldn't afford it. And there's precious little evidence that the waits for specialty care led to less effective care.

On the contrary, the data suggests that while American healthcare is particularly good at treating some diseases, it's not as good at treating others. (In some studies, the US did pretty well on cardiovascular care, not so well on diabetes, for example.) Overall, the US actually fares poorly on measures like "potential years of lives lost" - statistics compiled by specialists in an effort to measure how well healthcare systems perform. In a 2003 ranking of 20 advanced countries, the US finished 16th when it came to "mortality amenable to healthcare," another statistic that strives to capture the impact of a health system. The Dutch were 11th and the French were fifth. These statistics are necessarily crude; diet, culture, and many other factors inevitably affect the results. But, taken together, they make it awfully hard to argue that care in these countries is somehow inferior. If anything, the opposite would seem to be true.

Critics of health reform frequently point to cancer as proof that American healthcare really is superior. And, it's true, the US has, overall, the world's highest five-year survival rate for cancer. But that's partly a product of the unparalleled amount of government-funded research in the US - something healthcare reform would not diminish. Besides, it's not as if the gap is as large or meaningful as reform critics frequently suggest. France (like a few other European countries) has survival rates that are generally close and, for some cancers, higher. Much of the remaining difference reflects differences in treatment patterns that have nothing to do with insurance arrangements and everything to do with idiosyncratic medical cultures. This is particularly true of prostate cancer, where a staggeringly high survival rate in the US seems to be largely a product of aggressive US treatment - treatment that physicians in other countries, and increasingly many
specialists here, consider unnecessary and sometimes harmful.

None of this is to say that either the Dutch or French systems are perfect. Far from it. In both countries, healthcare costs are rising faster than either the public - or the country's business interests - would like. And each country has undertaken reforms in an effort to address these problems. The French have started to introduce some of the managed care techniques familiar to Americans, like charging patients extra if they see specialists without a referral, while developing more evidence-based treatment guidelines in the hope that it will reduce the use of unnecessary but expensive treatments. The Dutch overhauled their insurance arrangements a few years ago, to introduce more market competition and reward healthcare providers - that is, doctors and hospitals - who get good results.

But cost is the one area in which France and the Netherlands are a lot like Canada and England: They all devote significantly less of their economy to healthcare than we do. The French spend around 11 percent of their gross domestic product on healthcare, the Dutch around 10. In the US, we spend around 16 percent. And, unlike in the US, the burden for paying this is distributed across society - to both individuals and businesses - in an even, predictable way.

Of course, reforming health insurance in the US isn't going to turn this country into France or the Netherlands overnight, any more than it would turn the US into Britain and Canada. The truth is that the changes now under consideration in Washington are relatively modest, by international standards. But insofar as countries abroad give us an idea of what could happen, eventually, if we change our health insurance arrangements, the experience of people in Amsterdam and Paris surely matters as much as - if not more than - those in Montreal and London. In those countries, government intervention has created a health system in which people seem to have the best of all worlds: convenience, quality, and affordability. There's no reason to think the same thing couldn't happen here.

.....

Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor of The New Republic, where he writes a blog called "The Treatment." He is also the author of "Sick: The Untold Story of America's Health Care Crisis - and the People Who Pay the Price".