Government – Page 121 – artdiamondblog.com

How Wilson and the Feds Turned “Only Influenza” into “The Great Influenza”

Here is the core of John Barry’s account of how President Woodrow Wilson, and his administration, turned what might have been an ordinary flu, into what, by some measures, was the worst pandemic in human history:

(p. 396) . . . , whoever held power, whether a city government or some private gathering of the locals, they generally failed to keep the community together. They failed because they lost trust. They lost trust because they lied. (San Francisco was a rare exception; its leaders told the truth, and the city responded heroically.) And they lied for the war effort, for the propaganda machine that Wilson had created.

It is impossible to quantify how many deaths the lies caused. It is impossible to quantify how many young men died because the army refused to follow the advice of its own surgeon general. But while those in authority were reassuring people that this was influenza, only influenza, nothing different from ordinary “la grippe,’ at least some people must have believed them, at least some people must have exposed themselves to the virus in ways they would not have otherwise, and at least some of these people must have died who would otherwise have lived. And fear really did kill people. It killed them because those who feared would not care for many of those who needed but could not find care, those who needed only hydration, food, and rest to survive.

Source:
Barry, John M. The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History. Revised ed. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

How Government Universal Health Care Works in India

“Amir Jahan found her health insurance wouldn’t pay for all of her $200 stomach surgery; she continues to work with an untreated tumor.” Source of caption: print version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below. Source of photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A14) PANIPAT, India — Amir Jahan can spin thick, white thread into magnificent cloth, but the 46-year-old weaver has been unable to unravel her health plan to pay for stomach surgery.

Under a health-insurance program introduced a few years ago, the Indian government has provided health-insurance coverage for the country’s hand-loom weavers, a group of 6.5 million workers, 60% of them female, who are mostly illiterate and invariably poor. Yet holding an insurance card hasn’t helped Ms. Jahan, who says the coverage only pays for minor ailments and not for major problems, such as the removal of a stomach tumor.
“The health care is all a sham,” Ms. Jahan says angrily. “I was refused treatment on grounds of huge expense. I won’t ever go to be humiliated again.”
Ms. Jahan’s health-care issues represent the problems that come with trying to provide insurance to India’s poor. Access to quality care remains a distant dream for many in this country of 1.1 billion.
Last year, the Indian government launched the National Health Insurance Program on (sic) promised health coverage of $700 per person for families earning less than $100 a year.
Holders of health cards have to register in their home states to access benefits, thereby precluding a large population of migrant laborers. Those who can get past the complex state-identification and qualification process often can’t cope with hospital bureaucracies.

For the full story, see:
VIBHUTI AGARWAL. “Indian Weavers Shun Health Plan.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Sept., 2009): A14.

Gallup Finds Highest Doubts of Government in Decades

(p. A23) If you want to know why Americans are so fearful of a government takeover of the health-care system, take a look at the results of a new Gallup poll on government waste released Sept. 15. One question posed was: “Of every tax dollar that goes to Washington, D.C., how many cents of each dollar would you say is wasted?” Gallup found that the mean response was 50 cents. With Uncle Sam spending just shy of $4 trillion this year, that means the public believes that $2 trillion is wasted.

In a separate poll released on Monday, Gallup found that nearly twice as many Americans believe that there is “too much government regulation of business and industry” as believe there is “too little” (45% to 24%).
Perhaps most significantly, in both of these polls Gallup found that skepticism about government’s effectiveness is the highest it’s been in decades. “Perceptions of federal waste were significantly lower 30 years ago than today,” say the Gallup researchers. Even when Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980 with the help of the antigovernment revolt of that era, Americans believed only 40 cents of every dollar was wasted, according to Gallup.
. . .
Over the last decade, the federal government has become bloated and inefficient. Voters are on to the scam. Mr. Obama keeps calling federal spending an “investment,” but Americans apparently feel this is the worst investment they’ve ever made. They’ve come to regard Washington as a $2 trillion Bridge to Nowhere. They are right.

For the full commentary, see:
STEPHEN MOORE. “Our $2 Trillion Bridge to Nowhere; Americans believe Washington squanders half of every tax dollar.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., SEPTEMBER 23, 2009): A23.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Government Actions Helped Spread 1918 Influenza

Source of book image: http://www.virology.ws/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/great-influenza.jpg

I like John Barry’s The Great Influenza very much, although not entirely for the reasons that I had expected to like it. I wanted to learn more of the details of the worst flu pandemic in history, and the book delivers those details.
But I had not expected that there would be substantial discussion of the epistemology of science and medicine, and of the political and global context that preceded and affected the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.
As an added bonus, the book gives substantial coverage to the life and work of one of my heroes, Oswald Avery. As a result of his research related to the pandemic, he discovered that DNA was the genetic material—a huge milestone in the history of medicine. But he never received the Nobel Prize because the Nobel Committee didn’t want to be seen endorsing controversial work that had not stood the test of time.
On the other hand, the Nobel Committee had no such compunctions about giving the Nobel Peace Prize to President Woodrow Wilson. Barry’s book indicts Wilson for having major responsibility for the severity of the pandemic. His administration drafted huge numbers of young men to fight in WWI, bringing them into close contact in shoddy, incomplete training camps. Some of these young men already had the flu, and they quickly spread it to many of their fellow soldiers. The Wilson administration continued to move these soldiers around the country and to Europe, vastly speeding the spread of the disease.
Barry also documents that the Wilson administration, in the name of patriotism and morale, punished those who told the truth about the severity of the pandemic. The results extended far beyond the trampling of civil liberties. For example, there was a huge parade in Philadelphia to sell war bonds, a parade that could easily have been canceled, but was not—igniting the rapid spread of the disease in that hard-hit city. If the newspapers had been allowed to print the truth about the pandemic, then there probably would have been sufficient outcry to cancel the parade; or at the very least, many better-informed citizens would have avoided the parade, and saved their lives, and the lives of their family members.
There is also a lot in book about the biology of the disease that is of interest, and about the suffering of those who experienced it.
But what I found eye-opening was the extent to which the severity of the disease was due to avoidable actions by Woodrow Wilson and his administration.

Source of book discussed above:
Barry, John M. The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History. Revised ed: New York: Penguin Books, 2005.

For another eye-opening account about Woodrow Wilson and WWI, see:
Raico, Ralph. The Spanish-American War and World War I, Parts 1 & 2: Knowledge Products, 2006.

For a neat little paper on Oswald Avery, see:
Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. “Avery’s ‘Neurotic Reluctance’.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 26, no. 1 (Autumn 1982): 132-36.

Doctors Seek to Regulate Retail Health Clinic Competitors

“A nurse practitioner with a patient at a retail clinic in Wilmington, Del.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

Clayton Christensen, in a chapter of Seeing What’s Next, and at greater length in The Innovator’s Prescription, has persuasively advocated the evolution of nurse practitioners and retail health clinics as disruptive innovations that have the potential to improve the quality and reduce the costs of health care.
An obstacle to the realization of Christensen’s vision would be government regulation demanded by health care incumbents who would rather not have to compete with nurse practitioners and retail health clinics. See below for more:

(p. B1) Retail health clinics are adding treatments for chronic diseases such as asthma to their repertoire, hoping to find steadier revenue, but putting the clinics into greater competition with doctors’ groups and hospitals.

Walgreen Co.’s Take Care retail clinic recently started a pilot program in Tampa and Orlando offering injected and infused drugs for asthma and osteoporosis to Medicare patients. At some MinuteClinics run by CVS Caremark Corp., nurse practitioners now counsel teenagers about acne, recommend over-the-counter products and sometimes prescribe antibiotics.
. . .
As part of their efforts to halt losses at the clinics, the chains are lobbying for more insurance coverage, and angling for a place in pending health-care reform legislation, while trying to temper calls for regulations.
. . .
(p. B2) But such moves are raising the ire of physicians’ groups that see the in-store clinics as inappropriate venues for treating complex illnesses. In May, the Massachusetts Medical Society urged its members to press insurance companies on co-payments to eliminate any financial incentive to use retail clinics.
. . .
The clinics are helping alter the practice of medicine. Doctors are expanding office hours to evenings and weekends. Hospitals are opening more urgent-care centers to treat relatively minor health problems.

For the full story, see:
AMY MERRICK. “Retail Health Clinics Move to Treat Complex Illnesses, Rankling Doctors.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., SEPTEMBER 10, 2009): B1-B2.
(Note: ellipses added.)

A brief commentary by Christensen (and Hwang) on these issues, can be found at:

CLAYTON CHRISTENSEN and JASON HWANG. “How CEOs Can Help Fix Health Care.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., July 28, 2009).

For the full account, see:
Christensen, Clayton M., Jerome H. Grossman, and Jason Hwang. The Innovator’s Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care. New York: NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited above.

Free-Market German Aristocrat Receives Ovation for Opposing Bailout

(p. A7) BERLIN — Could the heir apparent to Chancellor Angela Merkel be a wealthy, handsome 37-year-old baron who loves rock ‘n’ roll?

The baron, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, vaulted to prominence this year when he took over the often dull job of economics minister in the midst of the financial crisis. His independent stand on a thorny economic matter earned him the respect of voters.
. . .

It was his independent streak that earned him the respect of voters, rather than just their curiosity. Mr. Guttenberg broke ranks with Mrs. Merkel over how to handle the troubled German automaker Opel. Mrs. Merkel supported a consortium led by Magna International, a Canadian auto parts maker, and Sberbank, a Russian bank. Mr. Guttenberg favored bankruptcy, and even offered to resign just months into his tenure.
He lost the battle, but gained credibility with voters — an important commodity with a disenchanted electorate that has largely ignored the coming vote. At the big kickoff campaign rally in Düsseldorf for Mrs. Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union, Mr. Guttenberg was the only politician to receive a spontaneous ovation from the crowd of 9,000.

For the full story, see:
NICHOLAS KULISH and JUDY DEMPSEY. “Aristocrat’s Rise Shakes German Doldrums.” The New York Times (Weds., September 22, 2009): A7.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Feds Ignore Birds Killed by Windmills

(p. A19) On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.
Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.
A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds–nearly all protected by the migratory bird act–are being whacked every year at Altamont.
Altamont’s turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon’s tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.
. . .

This is a double standard that more people–and not just bird lovers–should be paying attention to. In protecting America’s wildlife, federal law-enforcement officials are turning a blind eye to the harm done by “green” energy.

For the full commentary, see:
ROBERT BRYCE. “Windmills Are Killing Our Birds; One standard for oil companies, another for green energy sources.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., SEPTEMBER 8, 2009): A19.
(Note: the online version of the commentary is dated September 7th.)
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Jane Jacobs “Rightly Condemned the Arrogance and Elitism of Urban Planners”

Source of book image: online version of the WSJ review quoted and cited below.

(A15) In her day, she was a tenacious activist and an opponent of powerful interests, courting disfavor in high places. But today everyone loves Jane Jacobs, and understandably so. The author of the now-classic “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” (1961) is widely regarded as a common-sense visionary who reminded people about what makes cities livable.

According to Anthony Flint, the author of ”Wrestling With Moses,” Jacobs’s most important contribution was the idea that “cities and city neighborhoods had an organic structure of their own that couldn’t be produced at the drafting table.” Mr. Flint, a former journalist who now works at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, clearly counts himself as a Jacobs fan. His book is a lively and informative valentine to her, aimed at showing us especially how she “took on New York’s master builder and transformed the American city.”
The villain of the story is Robert Moses, the ”master builder” who for four decades–from the 1930s into the 1960s–led several well-funded, quasi-governmental agencies and radically transformed the landscape of New York, building roads, bridges, tunnels, parks, playgrounds, beaches and public housing. Though he never held elective office, he was powerful indeed, establishing a formidable base in the city and state bureaucracies. He might have fallen into obscurity after his death if it were not for Robert Caro, who immortalized Moses in “The Power Broker” (1974), a massive biography that portrays Moses as a despot whose creations helped to destroy the city.
. . .
One roots for Jacobs every step of the way, not least because she rightly condemned the arrogance and elitism of urban planners. And Moses was, in fact, a bully who had acquired too much power and disregarded the concerns of local residents. Slum clearance too often targeted functioning working-class neighborhoods, and urban renewal went far beyond what its utopian aims could possibly deliver.

For the full review, see:
VINCENT J. CANNATO. “Not Here, She Said; How Jane Jacobs fought the ‘power broker’ to save the Village–and a city.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., July 29, 2009): A15.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

The source of the book being reviewed, is:
Flint, Anthony. Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took on New York’s Master Builder and Transformed the American City. New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2009.

Increase Health Insurance Competition by Ending Cross-State Ban

(p. A13) How do we get to a competitive market? The tax deduction for employer-provided group insurance, which has nearly destroyed the individual insurance market, is a central culprit. If we don’t have the will to remove it, the deduction could be structured to enhance competition and the right to future insurance. We could restrict the tax deduction to individual, portable, long-term insurance and to the high-deductible plans that people choose with their own money.

More importantly, health care and insurance are overly protected and regulated businesses. We need to allow the same innovation, entry, and competition that has slashed costs elsewhere in our economy. For example, we need to remove regulations such as the ban on cross-state insurance. Think about it. What else aren’t we allowed to purchase in another state?

For the full commentary, see:
JOHN H. COCHRANE . “What to Do About Pre-existing Conditions; Most Americans worry about health coverage if they lose their job and get sick. There is a market solution.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., AUGUST 14, 2009): A13.

Creator of Cap-and-Trade Now Says Plan is Ineffective and Inflexible

“When he was a graduate student in the 1960s working to reduce pollutants, Thomas Crocker devised a cap-and-trade system similar to one being considered in Congress.” Source of photo and caption: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A7) In the 1960s, a University of Wisconsin graduate student named Thomas Crocker came up with a novel solution for environmental problems: cap emissions of pollutants and then let firms trade permits that allow them to pollute within those limits.

Now legislation using cap-and-trade to limit greenhouse gases is working its way through Congress and could become the law of the land. But Mr. Crocker and other pioneers of the concept are doubtful about its chances of success. They aren’t abandoning efforts to curb emissions. But they are tiptoeing away from an idea they devised decades ago, doubting it can work on the grand scale now envisioned.
“I’m skeptical that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to go about regulating carbon,” says Mr. Crocker, 73 years old, a retired economist in Centennial, Wyo. He says he prefers an outright tax on emissions because it would be easier to enforce and provide needed flexibility to deal with the problem.
. . .
Mr. Crocker sees two modern-day problems in using a cap-and-trade system to address the global greenhouse-gas issue. The first is that carbon emissions are a global problem with myriad sources. Cap-and-trade, he says, is better suited for discrete, local pollution problems. “It is not clear to me how you would enforce a permit system internationally,” he says. “There are no institutions right now that have that power.”
Europe has embraced cap-and-trade rules. Emissions initially rose there because industries were given more permits than they needed, and regulators have since tightened the caps. Meanwhile China, India and other developing markets are reluctant to go along, fearing limits would curb their growth. If they don’t participate, there is little assurance that global carbon emissions will slow much even if the U.S. goes forward with its own plan. And even if everyone signs up, Mr. Crocker says, it isn’t clear the limits will be properly enforced across nations and industries.
The other problem, Mr. Crocker says, is that quantifying the economic damage of climate change — from floods to failing crops — is fraught with uncertainty. One estimate puts it at anywhere between 5% and 20% of global gross domestic product. Without knowing how costly climate change is, nobody knows how tight a grip to put on emissions.
In this case, he says Washington needs to come up with an approach that will be flexible and easy to adjust over a long stretch of time as more becomes known about damages from greenhouse-gas emissions. Mr. Crocker says cap-and-trade is better suited for problems where the damages are clear — like acid rain in the 1990s — and a hard limit is needed quickly.
“Once a cap is in place,” he warns, “it is very difficult to adjust.” For example, buyers of emissions permits would see their value reduced if the government decided in the future to loosen the caps.

For the full story, see:
JON HILSENRATH. “Cap-and-Trade’s Unlikely Critics: Its Creators; Economists Behind Original Concept Question the System’s Large-Scale Usefulness, and Recommend Emissions Taxes Instead.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., AUGUST 13, 2009): A7.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

In Economic Policy, as in Medicine: “First, Do No Harm”

(p. A13) Consider someone rushed into an emergency room in severe cardiac distress. After starting acute life-support measures, doctors still apply the rule stated by Galen of Pergamum more than 1,800 years ago: primum non nocere, or “First, do no harm.” Treatment interventions are selected carefully from a battery of technologies and potent drugs while recognizing that any one of them, or a combination, could hurt the patient if misapplied or given in the wrong dosage. Economic interventions require no less care.
. . .
Our economic doctors should permit America’s uniquely effective immune system to take over as companies and financial institutions deleverage their balance sheets. With people and with capitalism, the tincture of time is often the best medicine.

For the full commentary, see:
MICHAEL MILKEN and JONATHAN SIMONS. “Illness as Economic Metaphor; The first rule, as always, is do no harm..” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., June 20, 2009): A13.
(Note: italics in original; ellipsis added.)