Health Care PRN

Will all of our pre-election excitement be lost to follow-up?

Now that there's a new guy headed to the White House, it's time to put some of those ideas about improving access to health care on the line.

I ramble about this and other topics over on The Differential today. Thanks for reading.

It is Finished

And so it came to pass that on Nov. 4, 2008, shortly after 11 p.m. Eastern time, the American Civil War ended, as a black man — Barack Hussein Obama — won enough electoral votes to become president of the United States.

Read the rest of Thomas Friedman's editorial here.

Obama

Good for health care

Good for peace
Good for science & innovation
Good for education
Good for the environment
Good for a better society

I guess those are the main things I care about when I go to the polls. My remaining hope is for:
An Obamaslide

Make your own logo at Logobama.

And no matter your political preference, make sure you vote today.

Powell Endorses Obama

This entire segment on Meet the Press is worth watching, but I want to direct your attention to the part of his statement beginning at minute 4:27.



Right on, General Powell!

"What if he is?" and "Is there something wrong with a 7 year old Muslim-American kid who believes he or she could be President?"

These are the questions we SHOULD be talking about. And "Muslim-American" in that question should be interchangeable with atheist or agnostic or Hindu or Jewish...

2008 FOSEP Enegy Forum

In 2004, Seattle's Forum on Science Ethics and Policy (FOSEP) hosted an informational event about stem cells that attracted more than 700 people to the University of Washington Campus. This election year, a new group of graduate students has put together what promises to be even more timely. If you are in or near Seattle on Thursday, October 16, this event will be worth your time. Check out more at FOSEP's web site, or click on this poster for more information.

Register Today!

Have you registered to vote yet?

If not, today is your last day to do it if you want to vote in the most important election in my lifetime.

Rock the Vote has a really easy online registration in whichever state you're in.

Just Do It!

Palin, The Alaskan

My favorite local editorial cartoonist points out that just because you're from Alaska, doesn't mean you have the interests of wilderness in mind. And by one perspective, it's likely that your idea of custodianship is more akin to pillaging. We Washingtonians have an interesting relationship with Alaska politics: we're big trading partners, AK is a frequent vacation destination, most of the fishing fleet docks in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood, we share a medical school - okay that last one's not SO big a deal... This is the third or fourth consecutive shot at Go. Palin that Horsey has taken this week. I guess it's one way we look out for or meddle in the business of our neighbor to the north.

Rotten Politics

The time has come for two more states to weigh in on who will be the presidential candidates in November. My state has already caucused, so my opinion was heard. Technically it hasn't been counted yet. In such a state of limbo, I am forced to rely on my prognosticator of elections past present and future. This tool is also known as:

"These Colors Don't Run (they grow mold, ferment, degrade, are infested with insects, turn to slime and just plain smell bad):
A Long Term Study Of The Forces Of Nature On Assorted Fruits From The Western United States"
Wood, Glass, Found Berries
Thomas Robey
January 8, 2008 - May 6, 2008

Refresh your memory of what these candidates... I mean samples... looked like on Day 1. Of note is that the berries on the far right were collected in Hawaii, one of the places Barack Obama calls home. Also note how the other blue sample is molding from the bottom up. The red berries are white with mold, and the white berries are either a slimy mess or a tinge red... In past installments, I have ruminated extensively over the meanings of the relative degradation of the various red, white and blue berries, resulting in predictions that have ranged in accuracy. Obama appears aged, hardened and perhaps stale. Clinton is increasingly foul. More than that, all I have to offer is:

They're all rotten.

Let's get it over with, already. We need to start from scratch! It's beginning to be berry season in the Northwest and I'm anxious to move on with this piece of art...

Autistic Politics

Autism is a real disease. Its prevalence in the United States and other Western nations is increasing. It causes suffering for many parents and children each year. I do not intend in this post to downgrade the significance of autism in society today. I wish to use autism as an example of the wrong way health policy is made in our country.

In reviewing the candidates' health care plans, I noticed that two of them make specific prominent mention of one disease: Autism. McCain says on his website,

As President, John McCain will work to advance federal research into autism, promote early screening, and identify better treatment options, while providing support for children with autism so that they may reach their full potential.

He also has an entire policy platform built on autism which you can read here. I noticed that autism is the only disease he specifically mentions in his health platform. Basically he argues that federal money needs to be spent on learning about and combating autism. Pretty harmless, right? I'll get back to McCain in a minute. Obama has also pledged support of autism research. He says he will:

Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.

I like this statement better. Instead of just spending money on research, he recognizes that the autism epidemic can be attributed to "broadened diagnostic criteria." Rather than to promise cures and treatments, he suggests "we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism." Oh yeah, he also supports spending a billion dollars on autism research.

I couldn't find Clinton's position in her health policy material, but I bet she supports autism research...

Why is this physician scientist concerned about political leaders' pledges to fund research for a specific disease like autism? The physician in me sees hundreds of other disease that aren't adequately studies that cause pain and suffering to millions of people. The scientist in me imagines thousands of questions about the natural world (answers to which invariably contribute to tomorrow's medicines) that remain unanswered. There is only a limited pool of cash that researchers draw from every year. Why does autism get such a big chunk???

The answer is (drum roll pleas...) patient advocacy groups. Using the most sophisticated research tools available to me (Dr. Google), I found the Autism Society of America, Autism Speaks, Unlocking Autism, the National Autism Association, and many more. Almost all of these sites pledge to support research, make a difference in Washington and provide information about vaccines. And this is where McCain comes back into the picture. At the end of February, McCain's response to a question from a mother of a boy with autism was,

"It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines." He added that there’s "divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with "many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that’s not the cause of it."

What's wrong with this? Plenty of other people will tell you what's wrong with this. The upshot is that he is using language of the controversy to lend scientific credibility to an idea that is not scientific. It is therefore ironic that McCain wants to

dedicate federal research on the basis of sound science resulting in greater focus on care and cure of chronic disease.

Sound science. That's a good name for a nerd rock band.

So why is the autism lobby bad for health care policy in America? The first reason is that it puts contingencies on basic science funding. The second is that American health policy is so inept at keeping Americans healthy that we cannot even treat diseases we know how to cure. Your best chance at staying healthy is to be rich. While autism is a disease that affects many social and economic classes, its the rich parents that are driving the emphasis on a national autism program. I believe that disease advocacy groups should focus their resources on identifying worthwhile recipients for research funding. The Feds have much bigger fish to fry if the United States is to develop a health care system that affords access to all Americans.

In the end, autism is an important disease that should have access to national resources. But what I hear is "Vaccines cause autism" (which is not a scientific claim) and "We need more money for scientific research on autism." Autism advocates can't have it both ways.

Do you want to vote for health in 2008? Read my other posts about presidential health policy.

Race and Religion in 2008

Barack Obama made a speech this morning about race and religion in America. It cheered me after a rough and tumble day and a half on the wards. On a tip from a friend, I started listening to it in the background while I studied lung cancer. I had to put down the book to consider the elements of our life, culture and nation bigger than the little problems I'm facing today. If you have half an hour, I encourage you to listen. Here's a link to one recording of the speech. Don't worry -it's not a campaign speech until minute 27, and even then, it really doesn't have that feel. His words are part sermon, part lecture, part address to the nation, and yes, part campaign speech.

Debating Health Care

My piece about the remaining presidential candidates' positions on health care is up over at The Differential. Since I refrained from offering any of my opinions over there, I'm using this space to point out more opinionated perspectives that wouldn't be appropriate for a non-partisan site. The one liner for me about the three remaining candidates plans is:

Each of the plans has good ideas built in, but the Democrats' proposals far better at addressing the critical challenged faced by our health care system today.

By the way, I think one plan is the best, I voted for a different person than who I think has the best plan and see many good ideas in the third person's plan. Stick with me, and you'll learn which names go where. Unfortunately, I cannot devote enough time right now (exhibit A: the 80 hour work week) to post all of the information about the plans, so I'll periodically post follow-ups and link them here. The first post (maybe you've read it) is my primer on the health care platforms over at The Differential. When I write a new article, I'll link it from the list below, or you can click on the Vote for Health link on my Readers' Favorites sidebar.

1. Vote for Health in 2008
2. Autism
3. Walk-In Clinics
4. Electronic Medical Records
5. "Socialized Medicine"
6. Paying For It
7. "Increasing Quality"
8. Generic Drugs
   

That's a fair start. Now you know what to expect. I hope you come back to visit early and often. When you do, be sure to chime in when I'm off my rocker or when I'm right on.

Oh yeah: my biases are: Clinton's plan is the best, I voted for Obama, and McCain has good ideas that the other two should pick up on.

Decision Tuesday

Another Tuesday, another decision. Pundits say that by tonight, we could have nominees in both parties. If my political decision making device is accurate, however, I wouldn't be so sure. Past readers will recall the back story of this science/art experiment/installation. Basically, I've employed red, white and blue berries collected from various Western states to predict the outcomes of the presidential primaries. At various major elections, I present a snapshot of the electorate and offer a critical review of the candidates' positions. Since setting this up back in January, I have not uncapped the tubes. You can track the changes on this collection of posts. But for contrast's sake, just take a look at what politics does to the voters in just 3 short months:


This compares to January 8:

The entire collection of specimens has dulled, even accounting for the differences in lighting. (The artist apologizes for having a day job.) This clearly represents the dulling effect that the increasing rancor has on common citizens. Another striking finding is the bold assault of the red berries with mold. Earlier observations identified some of the mold as being blue, suggesting the possibility of formerly red voters crossing over. (If no one has coined the term, "Obama Republicans," let me take this opportunity to do so.) Today, however, the white snowberries show intense degradation. In fact, it appears as though small gremlins have spun cocoons in that sample. Snow. Fresh. Pure. These all could be represented by this specimen. These all are no longer present in the race. Biting attacks, political dirt and stale refrains now dominate. It is still unclear which berry correlates to which candidate. Perhaps the dear reader can offer a suitable explanation.

But what of my predictions? Or shall I say, what of the experiment's predictions. It is obvious to this observer that neither set of blue berries shows a dominating difference of decay. At the end of the night, neither will have sufficient reserve to claim victory. On the red side, however, both samples are bathed in mold. My guess is that a more intensive analysis than observation will be needed to correlate the presentation at hand with the apparent victory about to be handed to John McCain. And by 'more intensive analysis,' I am thinking 'taste.'

Neal Lane on ScienceDebate 2008

Both the Washington Post's and the NYTimes' Live Blogs have noted tonight's debate to be the last of the primary season. Clearly, they are forgetting about ScienceDebate 2008. Or else they think the primaries will be locked up by April 18, 2008.

In November 2006 I had the pleasure of hosting Neal Lane for a visit to the University of Washington. The UW's Forum on Science Ethics and Policy invited the former NSF Director and Bill Clinton's science advisor to speak about the future of science in America. He and a large number of science superstars have come out in support of ScienceDebate 2008. Here is a video of him making a case for it.




Find your favorite science star at this page.

A Democratic Jesus

It's been a while since I've posted anything in overt reference to religion on this page. A piece in the Washington Post today got me fired up, though. I'd encourage all the liberals (religious, skeptic and/or atheist) out there to read this nice article by Amy Sullivan.

She uses some great examples of people from different backgrounds and intentworking together toward a common goal and wraps up with the following account:

Walking through Dulles Airport not long after losing the 2004 election, John Kerry was stopped by a supporter. The man shook Kerry's hand and told the senator that he was an evangelical. "I voted for you," he said, "and so did a lot of evangelicals. But you could have gotten more of us if you'd tried." Kerry was floored. Evangelical Democrats?

No wonder Kerry fared worse among evangelicals than any other Democratic nominee in modern history, losing the votes of nearly four out of five. To engage a constituency, a campaign needs to at least know it exists.

Even so, the Democratic nominee this fall will have advantages Kerry never did. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lifelong Methodist with years of experience teaching Sunday school in Arkansas who's married to the party's most prominent evangelical Democrat. Obama, a committed Christian, is more thoughtful and relaxed talking about religion than any other Democratic politician. Most important, they'll have the support of a party that is slowly starting to see that there are many faces of the faithful.

There is a reason to make friends on the other side of the aisle. We may not all agree on everything, but a lot of us agree that something needs to change. Let's find that small voice of hope and use it to tie us together in common cause.

Just Ignore Him

Sheesh. Not again! In announcing his bid this time, Ralph Nader almost endorsed Barack Obama.

He called Mr. Obama a “person of substance” and the “first liberal evangelist in a long time.”

Let's hope the trend of his support by the electorate follows from his past two bids:

2.7% in 2000
0.3% in 2004
0.04% in 2008

Fair

Fair is a principle I have been concerned about as a kid. It's probably why I'm interested in ethics, social justice and even medicine. It's also what got me to reading George Will's recent opinion piece in the Washington Post. I appreciate the last paragraph:

The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.

And I was just rewarming to Hillary Clinton...

Science Debate 2008

Science is important. It will be more important in April because of:
You don't know how catchy that sounds until you speak it aloud. Say it with me, "Science Debate 2008." Now with syncopation. Now in a group with your friends. There we go - that should be enough to convince you. If not, continue reading.

A couple of units of time ago (I'd put my money on months), I signed up to support Science Debate 2008. I have to be honest, though: I wasn't entirely sure what I was supporting. In principle, the idea is easy: collect the remaining standing presidential candidates to answer questions about science, health and the environment. Among my many questions about this concept were: Would candidates for president actually all come together to debate science? How would you involve Democrats and Republicans before the nominations were set? Would people care?

I underestimated the mobilizing power of Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum of The Intersection. They have collected a wide range of Nobel Laureates, university presidents, politicians, science bloggers and regular Joes to endorse the idea. And now with the help of the AAAS, the National Academies and other major institutions of science, a date has been selected and the four remaining candidates have been invited Philadelphia's Franklin Institute to talk about science.

How appropriate! In the tradition of Franklin's Junto, these four leaders will come together to debate questions of morals, politics, and natural philosophy. Yes, I too can dream.

Is your name among the list of supporters? It isn't? Head to this site to sign up. Don't think it matters? You're wrong! There are currently 13,000 signed on to this idea. The networks and media folks need to see an interest among the people to make coverage effective. That's you! They're current goal is 20,000. If you want to do more, contact the campaigns or write letters to your newspaper. If you wish to consider this more carefully, head over to Nature magazine's story about Science Debate 2008. They remain skeptical of the idea, but I believe their criticisms are mostly hollow.

This debate could have an impact on Pennsylvania's primary or could be one of the first formal interactions between the presumed nominees from each party. Either way, I think Ben Franklin would be proud.

RADAR

Sorry I've dropped off the radar the last few days. I had a last minute trip back to Seattle to take care of about a hundred things - all of which needed taken care of and some of which couldn't wait until March. I'll fly back to Spokane tomorrow morning. Meanwhile, I'm hanging with the undergrads at the UW's Odegaard Library while I finish up a response to reviewers.

The reason I decided to make a post is an observation from Saturday's caucuses. About 160 folks from my precinct showed up. 5 delegates went to Obama & 3 to Clinton. The strange thing about the speeches people gave was that several individuals decided to vote for Clinton because the media had wronged the Clinton family, made fun of Chelsea, or otherwise unfairly represented Hillary. Few people actually detailed the candidates' positions. The most interesting speech was by a man my age who had lived in Obama's state legislative district in Chicago before moving to Seattle.

I've procrastinated enough. Back to the grind.

This post was brought to you by the Doctor.

Voting in Washington State

Washington voters: You're up!

My last post about how to vote in Washington State was convoluted and heavy on personal commentary. Here is a simple explanation, with appropriate links.

Are you a Republican? If so, half of the delegates will be determined by a primary election, and half will be decided in the caucus this Saturday. Go to the state party webpage. That site will connect you with each county's party, but you will need to figure out your precinct in advance. If you are in King County, use this tool.

Are you a Democrat? All of the elected delegates are decided this Saturday at the caucus. You might as well tear up your absentee ballot. Democrats in Washington have never used a primary to decide a presidential candidate; hey probably never will. To find your caucus location, go to the state party caucus finder. You only need a name and a zip code, and that server will tell you where to go for the caucus and will remind you of your precinct number.

What's my precinct number? Good question. If you know your precinct number when you get to the caucus, it will save you from waiting in a long line. Most counties have web lookup tools like this one for Martin Luther King County.

Haven't registered to vote? It's too late for you to vote in the primary/caucus, but it's never to early to register for the vote that counts the most. In the state of Washington, you can register online.

Want to know your voting history and information about where to vote? Go to the Washington Voter's Vault. There you can be reminded of which elections you have participated in back to 2004. Which is pretty cool.

Want to Reed more about the primary and caucus system in Washington state? Check out this useful FAQ sheet prepared by the Secretary of State.

Were you thinking of trying to spoil the other party's election by crossing over between the caucus and the primary? Think again! From the FAQ sheet:

Voters can participate in both the party caucuses and the Presidential Primary as long as they participate on behalf of the same party.

Both major parties plan to hold their caucuses on Saturday, February 9, 2008, ten days before the primary. The parties will invite voters to participate in the caucuses and will require participants to sign an oath declaring their party affiliation.

Voters participating in the Presidential Primary will be asked to sign an oath submitted by the political parties indicating that the voter has not participated in the other party’s caucus process. Each party will receive a list of voters who chose to affiliate with that party in the primary.

Is there anything else you need to know? Well, you should probably have a good idea of who to vote for pretty soon. If you haven't made up your mind, Clinton (Pier 30 warehouse Thursday), Obama (Key Arena Friday) and McCain (Before the 2/19 primary) will all be visiting the state in the coming days. Michelle Obama will visit Spokane and Janet Huckabee will be in the state for two nights. Ron Paul may also be making another stop. (He's been in WA quite a bit already.) Look for them! This Seattle P-I article has the most current details so far.

This post may not have been any shorter than my last one. Hopefully it is more informative.

Nuevo Mexico

This is the last state for me in my little live blogging adventure. While 30% of the precincts have Clinton winning 51% of the vote, the exit polls break pretty hard for Obama. So, without any press agency calls, I'll dispense with that part of my entry and skip straight to the nostalgia. For that, I have one word: Philmont.