the rich and the poor

doctors making money: the problem

2010-03-05T11:30:00.003-07:00

I'm going to be a doctor. It is an incredibly difficult road. I became a doctor because I know it will be a rewarding and interesting career. However, I also became a doctor because I knew it would be a great way to support my future family. In fact I became a doctor because I expected it to support my family quite well actually. Sure, I wouldn't be making as much as the guy who works a successful pyramid scheme or the successful business owner, or the investment banker, or the dentist... in fact this list could go on. But I became a doctor because it's not about the money... but it is just a little bit.

Then I read THIS ARTICLE in the New York Times. It talks about how part of health reform ultimately must control... gulp... physician salaries.

But I can't help but agree with the author. The author is taking from an article written by Dr. Howard Brody, professor of family medicine and director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston wrote for the New England Journal of Medicine. He talks about the way physicians can quickly run up the cost for medical care by utilizing expensive technology like diagnostic imaging.

This reminded me of a conversation I had with a pediatrician yesterday. I asked her "So, how difficult is it to sub-specialize in pediatrics?"

She responded, "It is a little bit competitive for some specialties. But I would advise against it for you. The field of primary care is where the demand is, and specialties are getting too overcrowded."

This was really interesting. Could this be true? Could medicine in the United States turn its back on expensive frivolous treatments and diagnostics?

I don't know. Most people I meet in the United States seem to think it is appalling that people in Canada have a waiting list for elective surgeries and the fact that access to an MRI sometimes is not as simple as showing up to the primary physician with a complaint of dementia.

As much as people complain about medical costs in America... maybe they complain about them the same they complain about Baseball players: many think it is ridiculous that players make that much, but they continue to buy the merchandise and pay $100 for a mid-level seat.

So what's my opinion? I don't want people to pay for unnecessary treatment. It is dishonest. It is like a dentist I had who performed several unnecessary procedures on my family (ie. "I have good news and bad news. The good news is that you didn't need a root canal. The bad news is that I did a root canal."). I didn't go into medicine to be a businessman. But do I think ultimately greedy doctors are the reason medical costs are up?

No. A big no. I think it is what people expect. It is the lawyers who sue doctors who don't do the MRI of the brain. It is the way insurance pays for CT scans and refuses to pay for physiotherapy. It is the way people expect to be lazy and eat high fructose corn syrup while taking insulin. It is the way drug companies are able to advertise direct to consumer just like a breakfast cereal does to kids.

Ultimately, I think it is the desperation we all have to be healthy, pain free, and to extend life as long as possible that allows capitalist structures to ultimately take everything we have monetarily (and then some) to fulfill these lofty promises.

Holy smokes. We need health reform in America.

The Last Abortion Doctor

2009-12-01T15:19:00.002-07:00

The Last Abortion Doctor

What do you think about abortion? This is an important question. My stance really is just the LDS church's stance. However, I do want to say that I think extremism on both ends of the spectrum is wrong.

I'm just saying...

2009-11-04T22:13:00.004-07:00

Just because Republicans cut taxes does not mean they are fiscally conservative. And even though I'm "left-leaning" on some issues, I like being fiscally conservative!

Sidenote: Do I think we can afford health care? Absolutely. I won't get in to that argument now.

But please let me turn you over to a life changing article written by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman.

I love China.

2009-10-04T18:09:00.001-06:00

Canadian Health Care

2009-09-25T18:13:00.001-06:00

Health Care Quote

2009-09-22T18:31:00.004-06:00

I read a fantastic article about Medicare on NPR. It is basically about how Medicare actually succeeds. This frames my opinion about the Healthcare debate so awesomely well:

"Bernfield says she's not at all worried about claims that the bills now under consideration in Congress might cut back on her Medicare benefits. In fact, she thinks the country would be better off if everyone could have the same Medicare benefits she enjoys.

"I think people don't understand that instead of government in their business, they have health insurance companies in their business," she says. "Somebody is overseeing your health care no matter what your status is. Whether it's to tell you you can have it or you can't have it, somebody is there checking off a box."

I know that insurance has to examine claims to stop fraud. But the profit incentive to deny claims... it sickens me. I hope congress really starts to change things about health care in the United States. Mandated coverage and a public option... it just makes me excited to think about this.

I'm excited about a mandate because it may prevent costly visits to the ER that are paid for by those who actually pay bills / have insurance. Because of a mandate, hopefully we will see more visits to the primary physician to prevent illness and treat disease before it becomes an emergency.

I'm excited about a public option because of its lack of profit incentive and the proven low overhead of government administered health care. That means I'm getting bang for my buck. Plus, Medicare is portable and actually affords extensive coverage. What a dream that a poor student like me can have access to that kind of care... it just makes me happy. And all the people working day after day without health benefits for big companies like WalMart, Target, or small companies like Downeast Outfitters, Cafe Rio, or Yogurt Land -- YOU WILL HAVE GOOD HEALTH CARE IN YOUR REACH!

It just makes me excited! So come on congress! Work together! Bring the great Republican ideas about malpractice, and trimming wasteful government spending (ie. subsidizing drugs at a RIDICULOUS COST). Bring the great Democrat ideas about mandates and a public option! Let's do it!

And to all you lousy, lying, and filthy lobbies, right-wing radio idiots, self-serving politicians, and liberal snobs... stop stirring the pot of contention. Do something useful and actually present both sides of the problem we face in health care! Or better, just go away.

Obama's Speech

2009-09-11T16:55:00.004-06:00

I wish I graduated BYU when Dick Cheney spoke at the commencement. Unfortunately, I needed the following Fall semester to wrap up and finish all my needed classes. Anyways, I bring this up to pose this question to my fellow cougars: Remember the protests?

I remember when I heard Dick Cheney was coming, I though "Really? That is so cool. The vice president." And at the same time I very much enjoyed the protests and the alternative commencement. By the way, I totally went to the alternative commencement and it was awesome (like in a funny and serious way).

So, really, the behaviour that took place happens on BOTH sides. But at the same time, I became really frustrated over the reaction that students had about the president.

I mean, who cares about politics. It is the PRESIDENT. The Commander in Chief. The leader of your country. Doesn't that position alone make him someone worth supporting to some degree. I mean, even if it is just to hear him out. JFK, FDR, and Reagan all belonged to political parties... but they were also something greater.

Obama may not gel with every political belief you may hold... but his motivation is the same as yours. He wants to make this country better. So ya vote him out at the next elections. But when he wants to tell your kid to stay in school, why don't we let them listen to this important historical figure.

Your thoughts?

Thank you Palin...

2009-07-04T14:35:00.002-06:00

... for leaving.

I have debated on what I should write about Palin for the past day. A big part of me said, "You know what, she's a human being. And if you're going to write about her, you should treat her with respect." But another part of me said, "She's a public figure. Public figures should be treated differently. You are allowed to be hyper critical."

The second part of me won.

Now you should know something about me. I am not a dyed in blue liberal. I don't listen to how celebrities tell me how to vote. In fact, I hate it when celebrities act like we should listen to them. I hate Fox News along with CNN and MSNBC.

What I'm trying to say is that, although I LOVE Obama... it's not like I have dug in my heels within the Democratic Party. If Eisenhower were to run, I'd vote for him.

But back to the main point. I am so glad she's leaving. She just irked me. She wasn't very intelligent. Not very politically savvy. It seemed like she just loved the spotlight.

I have to tell you. The Republican Party in general is taking a beating. How can anyone still be Republican? The party of the religious right is scandalized with adultery, kickbacks, corruption, and lies. In a way I want to Republican again, but how can I. The party is so far away from representing my values.

Also, the Republican Party is not even conservative. Under Bush, we saw incredible fiscal irresponsibility. And the moral standing of the party is in jeopardy.

So I will keep voting democrat, but I welcome the return of an actual Conservative (capital C, like William F. Buckley) party.

Rationing Health Care: The US does it a lot

2009-06-17T09:33:00.011-06:00

In conversations with friends about health care in Canada I often hear, "Well in Canada you have to wait months to get a hip replacement. Right?" No one in my family has had a hip replacement, but I can say when we needed primary care we got it. When my Dad injured his elbow he had an MRI, and the appropriate surgery within a week (and then afterwards got months of physical therapy). And for all this health care we have never had to worry about getting a bill in the mail. Ya, it is pretty awesome!

And before you say we pay for it in taxes, I just want to remind you of a post I had written a long time ago that argued Canadians actually pay quite similar tax percentages. Here's the proof again! These are all taken from Canadian and American federal websites (please click and make the pictures larger).

First Canada, the above numbers the federal tax rates. The second set is the provincial tax rates:

Second, the United States. Here are the Federal Income tax brackets:

And here are the State income tax rates (roughly, since we only see the bottom and top tax bracket. It also shows deductions, but please know that Canadians claim thousands in deductions and credits every year as well):

So there you have it. Tax wise, we are really not much different. However, with what the average middle-class US citizen gets out... don't you feel a little cut short. I mean, no universal form of health care. An essential right, is sold much like any other form of insurance. You mean, there is a company placing bets that you won't or will get sick and charge you the appropriate fees per month.

I'm going to be bold and just say it. Health insurance in America is sickening. Detestable. Gross. Abhorrent.

So back to my original point about rationing. You think this is only a Canadian phenomena. Read THIS.

The NY Times article I linked above talks about health care rationing in United States. Here are some highlights:

Today, I want to try to explain why the case against rationing isn’t really a substantive argument. It’s a clever set of buzzwords that tries to hide the fact that societies must make choices.

In truth, rationing is an inescapable part of economic life. It is the process of allocating scarce resources. Even in the United States, the richest society in human history, we are constantly rationing. We ration spots in good public high schools. We ration lakefront homes. We ration the best cuts of steak and wild-caught salmon.

Health care, I realize, seems as if it should be different. But it isn’t. Already, we cannot afford every form of medical care that we might like. So we ration.

We spend billions of dollars on operations, tests and drugs that haven’t been proved to make people healthier. Yet we have not spent the money to install computerized medical records — and we suffer more medical errors than many other countries.

We underpay primary care doctors, relative to specialists, and they keep us stewing in waiting rooms while they try to see as many patients as possible. We don’t reimburse different specialists for time spent collaborating with one another, and many hard-to-diagnose conditions go untreated. We don’t pay nurses to counsel people on how to improve their diets or remember to take their pills, and manageable cases of diabetes and heart disease become fatal...

Milton Friedman’s beloved line is a good way to frame the issue: There is no such thing as a free lunch. The choice isn’t between rationing and not rationing. It’s between rationing well and rationing badly. Given that the United States devotes far more of its economy to health care than other rich countries, and gets worse results by many measures, it’s hard to argue that we are now rationing very rationally.

The article contains itemized reasons as to why America actually does ration health care. The author is much more balanced then I am on the health care issue, so don't be scared.

Obama & Health Care

2009-06-15T13:46:00.003-06:00

The New York times ran an interesting editorial on health care that got me thinking about health care reform again.

First of all, Obama spoke to the AMA today. The reaction was chilly. Obama's proposed changes to malpractice, electronic health records, and anti-smoking legistlation were met warmly. However, the push for health cost savings was met with ice cold stares. So why the resistance from the AMA?

Fortunately, the NY Times expanded on this and provided an explanation. Essentially, health cuts really hurt physician salaries because they get less money for doing the same thing. Does this idea need to be expanded? Probably not.

So what is the solution? I think we need to simplify the system. I think materials and procedures should have a consistent cost and a clear system of billing. Is this possible? If so, it would provide a clearer picture as to how Obama's plan would change things. Because I think right now, everything is just speculation. We don't know how physician compensation would change. We don't know how our costs will change. Everything is a step in the dark.

Hopefully, President Obama will continue to make more steps to inform us about his proposed changes. I will be listening carefully for any numbers that he reports. So if you're interested tune in June 24th for Obama's "Health Care Town Hall" on ABC.

President Obama "CNN...MSNBC... It is like watching the WWF"

2009-06-04T20:23:00.012-06:00

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant. I think he says something like, "You know, all these guys have roles to play. It's like watching the WWF."

You know what... how correct. How useless is Cable News? Well, maybe they are not so useless when they do something like this... [edit] I don't like the look of the video here so I am just putting the text of the transaction I'm talking about:

During the first part of NBC's "Inside the Obama White House," Brian Williams asked Obama if he watches cable news debates about him. (TVNewser caught the exchange).

I generally don't. Mainly because I don't find most of the cable chatter very persuasive. I've used this analogy before, it feels like WWF wrestling. Everybody's got their role to play. I know a lot of these guys. And if Pat Buchanan is having a conversation with Chris Matthews or talking to Keith Olbermann, everybody's got their set pieces and, so, I don't feel as if I'm learning anything from the debate.

Consumerism and Planned Obsolescence

2009-06-01T10:13:00.004-06:00

Please. Please. Please. Do not think I wholeheartedly agree with this idea. But for our benefit let me present it: Planned Obsolescence. This concept or idea is that companies plan for their products to fail eventually, so that the consumer will buy *new upgraded* version of the product days, months, or years later.

This concept can be applied to television sets, cars, fashion, light bulbs, and many other products. Planned obsolescence argues that companies purposefully limit the lifespan of their products so consumers will buy more later.

Do you think this is true? Well then think about this. For a company that wants to make money, what about this idea makes it seem unattractive. Sure you don't want to have a consumer revolt against a lemon... BUT what if you found a way to cleverly make this idea work. It is genius! Keep us the consumer coming back for more!

I know. I know. It is a a little conspiracy theory. But let's face it... we buy too much. Don't you ever just get frustrated with yourself and think "Am I just going to work, buy, work, buy, work, and buy for the rest of my life".

Surely money and stuff does mean happiness.Now here's my opinion in this concept. I think there are several elements that drive planned obsolescence and it puts all of us on the hook.

First! Media. Newspapers, radio, TV, magazines, internet, and so on... all of them advertise. And they have gotten not just good, they are FANTASTIC at convincing us that what we have and who we are is obsolete, uncool, or unsafe. Thus, we are all suckered into buying and upgrading. We get rid of stuff that does not need to be upgraded.

Second! We are suckers. First we support products that we don't actually need. Nay, we demand these products. In fact even if we don't have the money we demand them. Thus, we have created the incentive for inferior products. From inferior toolboxes to McMansions we want big, cool, shiny as cheap as you can give it to me... RIGHT NOW. We don't want to save and invest, we want it now.

Third! Now blame manufacturers. They sell us stuff, they advertise, and they are always looking for ways to skim cream off the top. Not because they are evil, it is because companies are designed to make money. There is nothing wrong with that. However, can money making get out of control? Absolutely, no incredulously, yes! Just look at what happened to our economy. Greed. Greed. Greed.

So, join with me. Escape consumerism! I'll leave you with this awesome excerpt from a talk given by Joseph B. Wirthlin. It is about debt, but even if we're not in debt the message rings true, don't let consumerism control you:

"In spite of the teachings of the Church from its earliest days until today, members sometimes fall victim to many unwise and foolish financial practices. Some continue to spend, thinking that somehow the money will become available. Somehow they will survive. Far too often, the money hoped for does not appear. Remember this: debt is a form of bondage. It is a financial termite. When we make purchases on credit, they give us only an illusion of prosperity. We think we own things, but the reality is, our things own us."

The Supreme Court Nomination

2009-05-26T10:52:00.004-06:00

I remember an interesting conversation I had with friend's family. It took place before the 2008 presidential election. The father expressed his view that he would be voting Republican mostly because he wanted conservative judges to be appointed to the supreme court.

I thought this was interesting. I guess I had never really factored that into my vote for president. Maybe it is because I wear these rose colored glasses that believes the supreme court acts impartially and makes it judgments based on precedent and what's in the constitution.

However, maybe this view is not so rose colored. Now I am not an expert on the Supreme Court, but I feel like there is an incredible respect for the constitution among the judges. In addition, I feel like it is extremely, exorbitantly, and remarkably rare that the Supreme Court drastically changes moral or social values.

So how much does the Supreme Court nomination's political affiliation matter to me? I guess it ranks low, unless I had reason for concern.

On a second note, I am actually pretty excited about Sotomayor mostly because President Obama picked her. Why? Because of this introductory paragraph from a NY times article about the Sotomayor nomination:

When talking about the Supreme Court, Barack Obama has resisted the familiar ideological categories that have defined our judicial battles for the past several decades. He has made clear that despite his progressive inclinations, he is not a 1960s-style, Warren Court liberal — someone who believes that the justices should boldly define constitutional rights in an effort to bring about social change. It’s true that Obama has cited Chief Justice Earl Warren as a judicial ideal, emphasizing that Warren, a former governor of California, had a sensitive understanding of the real-world effects of Supreme Court decisions. But at the same time, Obama has suggested that liberals in the Warren Court mold may have placed too much trust in the courts and not enough in political activism. “I wondered,” he writes in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” alluding to Senate battles over George W. Bush’s court appointments, “if in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy.”

President Obama has an excellent grasp on what the court's role should be. Let's not forget that before his presidential career he taught constitutional law! So I'm excited for who ever he nominates. I know this sounds dumb but... President Obama is awesome.

Atheists, yawn

2009-05-22T10:55:00.004-06:00

I just read an Op-Ed from the Los Angeles Times by P.Z. Myers called "Why is Charlotte Allen so mad at atheists?".

I can't answer as to why Charlotte is mad at atheists, but I can share why I am mad at atheists: they don't have all the answers.

I will tell you about my experience meeting atheists. It is always the same arguments. The best way for me to convey this is to make a list of these boring, redundant arguments:

1. God doesn't exist because the world is older than 6000 years...
2. God doesn't exist because he wouldn't allow this suffering...
3. God doesn't exist because there's no evidence of his existence...
4. God doesn't exist because of all the various religions and their non-consensus...
5. God doesn't exist because [insert evolutionary science]...
6. God doesn't exist because [insert morality argument]...

Yawn.

Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Yawn.

I'm religious. I believe in the existence of God, wholeheartedly. Do you think I have not asked myself EVERY SINGLE question you write about, speak about, and think about? It's very insulting that you think I haven't.

I do not have the time to write out my answers, but my is this: Stop sitting on your high horse acting like you have this bag of "doozies" to stump the "believers".

Notre Dame Abortion

2009-05-18T14:45:00.004-06:00

Do you remember when Cheney came to BYU? Well reverse the side that reacted. One of the big deals headlining the president's visit was the issue of abortion. Before I begin my little opinion on the matter, I just want to convey as to how INEFFECTIVELY the religious right conveys their message/viewpoint.

Dear cross-carrying-acid-spewing religious right,

Look I'm religious, but don't you realize how badly you alienate people without AND within your faith by doing this. Do you want to reverse Roe v. Wade or continue to sit on your prideful high horse casting aside any possibility of meaningful dialogue.

You can't fool me. What you do is self-gratifying? You do it to make yourself feel better. I'm the sinner because I'm not "Christian" and your going to heaven. I get it. Does it make you feel better to vilify people?

Now back to the issue of abortion. Is the issue of abortion black and white? Well from a Latter-day Saint perspective it is not. In cases of rape, incest, or in the interest of the life of the mother: abortion is an option. Notice I said option, as some Latter-day Saints will vehemently push their personal opinion that NO FORM of abortion is acceptable.

As for me. I go by what I listed earlier. Abortion can be considered in special situations of moral and physical dilemma. So do I advocate abortion for unplanned pregnancy: no. Absolutely not.

But, do I advocate turning over Roe v. Wade? No. This boggles lots of my friends in the LDS church.

Point One: I don't advocate overturning Roe v. Wade because I'm sincerely interested in the health of women. I think there should be a safe option for women who wish to have an abortion. It doesn't make what they do right. But think of the severe emotional and mental duress many women are under when they have an abortion. Think of that desperate girl who sees her life crumbling before her. Yes of course, I advocate counseling and support for these prospective mothers, but ultimately some will choose to have an abortion. I would prefer a safe option, as some will choose a very unsafe option because of desperation.

Point Two: I believe in separation of church and state. Many arguments surrounding abortion revolve around this idea of when the spirit inhabits the fetus. What if the prophet definitely said "When the baby takes its first breath, the spirit enters its body." Would your opinion of abortion change? If not, good stick to your guns. If it does, does this make your stance against abortion a religious issue? I want a just and moral society, but I believe this should be done without creating a theocracy. So I hesitate overturning Roe v. Wade if it is JUST a religious/spiritual issue.

Anyways, I'll stop there. Once again, I think it is terribly wrong for women to have abortions merely because of family-planning or as a way of rectifying an accident. Terribly and horribly wrong. There are so many who wait, and wait to adopt. But I think the best action to take is not to overturn Roe v. Wade but to continue to do our best to influence and sway society (show them why abortion is a harmful choice) and provide a support network for single mothers (especially one that encourages adoption for single teenage mothers).

Wait, wait, wait...

2009-05-13T09:57:00.004-06:00

I watched something interesting today. And I want to explain what I felt. When I watched the Story of Stuff, I initially felt "This is just a radical environmental agenda." and "Are they showing this to kids? This is way too political. It is going to make parents angry." And arguably, I am pretty left leaning politically.

But the message of the video rings true. It is unarguable. Industrialized nations over-consume. Is this not true? I'm not saying go back to living in straw huts. I'm saying, is every dollar you spend necessary. Is every dollar you spend at least on things you really, really want? Or sometimes are you buying, just for the sake of buying: over-consuming.

That specific message is one that Republicans and Democrats, not corporations, can all agree with. We all need to save more money. And by doing so, we are actually helping the environment. I know that I unnecessarily consume... and I am LDS. Of all religions, we should know that owning stuff doesn't bring us happiness. I have never seen that in the Book of Mormon or the Sunday School manuals. Unlike many churches today equivocating righteous living with boats, cars, and houses.

Nature vs. Nurture: Homosexuality

2009-05-06T10:23:00.004-06:00

During a break in class, I was reading a Huffington Post article about Joe the Plumber and his (extremely) ill-spoken views on homosexuality.

However, what I thought was most interesting was a comment from a reader who sought out to argue for the GLBT (gay-lesbian-bisexual-transexual) side. He tore into Joe the Plumber's comments by citing research from U.S. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, which found that most "homophobes" have gay tendencies.

Basically I believe the study sets out to get in the"Nature vs. Nurture" argument over homosexuality. Now the reader on Huffington Post definitely thought it to mean "See, we're born with it. And sometimes the people who hate it most, are actually gay and upset and confused."

But to me, this actually WEAKENS the GLBT cause. To me this study says, "Many men have these urges, but they choose not to indulge them."

Once again, I am far from being an expert, but like many people I am just trying to answer the question as to why some people are gay and some people are not. Why is it this way? Maybe what I just wrote about is part of the answer. Possibly, it enrages people who think differently.

Either way, I think both the religious-right and the GLBT community have not definitively answered the question surrounding sexual orientation. Something to think about.

The United Nations

2009-04-29T12:51:00.005-06:00

Just a little history lesson. The following is taken from the United Nations website:

The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organization conceived in similar circumstances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." The International Labour Organization was also created under the Treaty of Versailles as an affiliated agency of the League. The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War.

In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.

Why do I insert this lengthy block quote from the United Nations? It is because I heard someone complain about how much the U.S. has to give the United Nations. Well, as it turns out we don't give them anything... although we should be. The Better World Campaign (a US interest group) reports the following:

United States debt to the United Nations, in both the regular and peacekeeping budgets, exceeded $1.5 billion at the start of 2009. By far, the largest amount of debt is for peacekeeping, which is more than $1.3 billion. These arrears make the United States the largest debtor to the United Nations and threaten its ability to leverage the international community toward achieving key U.S. national security priorities.

This is ridiculous and shameful. We bail out auto-makers in Detroit for billions more, and the United States fails to contribute properly to the United Nations. The amount owed by the United States has been accruing for several years. It is a pittance of the United States GNP.

To me, foreign policy matters. Let's give this wonderful organization some legitimacy. I hope Obama keeps shaking hands with Chavez. Let's make friends not enemies. Yes, be firm with countries doing terrible things. But lets talk before we make a press statement about the "Axis of Evil".

Vaccines and Autism

2009-04-22T17:52:00.004-06:00

I was about to get ready and rip into THIS ARTICLE. First of all, I thought it would just be another one of those "I'm a celebrity and thus I'm a scientist as well" type article... but it wasn't. It was actually very, very well written. It is by Jim Carrey. It is about vaccination and autism. Which makes sense, as Jenny McCarthy has long been the major spokesperson against the over-vaccination of children.

Now, let me say that this movement has kind of irked me a bit. It reminds me of the people that keep my beloved fluoride out of my water. But while I still doubt the link between vaccines and autism (and other developmental issues), Carrey highlights the fact that these huge concerns about vaccines still haven't been investigated properly.

Now I do NOT take my notes from Jim Carrey, but it reminded me of special I saw on Larry King about a week ago that highlighted the vaccine issue. Pretty much everyone there acknowledged that the concerns over vaccines still have not been properly investigated. This seems fair, right? Even many on the "pro-vaccine" side (if you can call it that) acknowledge that we should just bite the bullet and do a study comparing rates of autism among the immunized and non-immunized.

To this I agree. Why don't we put this whole issue to rest and get some definitive findings. What is stopping us? Why hasn't this research been conducted?

I wonder...

2009-03-31T09:56:00.003-06:00

Sometimes I sit and think about the financial crisis and wonder how big the bubble was that we (the United States) were in. Was the way the majority of Americans were living unsustainable? Then I read THIS ARTICLE about Canada. Here's just a snippet:

And he gives top marks to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Canada's banking regulator, for being more conservative than those in the U.S. or Britain. “I think that, from a regulatory point of view, you can say that the Canadian banks were more appropriately regulated.”

The final key is the structure of the mortgage market.

While U.S. banks sold a large proportion of their mortgages, Canadian banks held the bulk of theirs on their balance sheets, giving them an incentive to make sure they were good loans. Riskier ones are backed by government insurance. And the law here makes it tough for consumers to walk away from a mortgage because banks can go after other assets.

Still, the banks are wary of getting cocky when a careful approach has worked well.

“It's a good thing for us to recognize the things we do very well, but maybe do it in what is appropriately a Canadian way – with modesty,” said Bank of Montreal CEO Bill Downe.

If America acted like Canada, how much would the life of the average American change? Would they be less prosperous? I grew up in Canada, and from my experience I would say "No." However, something has to be said for American prosperity. America is the richest nation per capita in the world. But how much of that is merely buoyed up by the amount of billionaires and millionaires?

To Lisha, Tara, Mike (and Whit), Stephen, Emma, and Jeff. We need to get the thinktank together again.

AIG: I don't know

2009-03-24T12:16:00.003-06:00

Bernanke, Geithner Testify On AIG For Congress

If there is one thing I don't have a handle on, it is the financial crisis. Sure I can appreciate it to some degree: we were living in an inflated economy where our actual growth was not able to afford our debt.

At least that's what I think is going on to a small degree.

So with that thinking, the conservative part of me jumps out "Why should we try and inflate our ecomony to its previous level again? Is this unrealistic?" But then the leftist part of me comes out, "Hurrary! Increased education and healthcare spending!" (check out the government's new website).

So here's my opinion on the financial crisis. To me, the problem is consumer confidence. Eventually we'll pull out of it one people are more willing to start spending. But even so, I think it would be wise for us to stay out of unnecessary debt. Either way, I'm glad that the government is injecting more money into education and stepping into health care. I think the majority of the recent stimulus package is going to good causes and will help things.

The Wild West

2009-03-11T09:27:00.002-06:00

Beckel Admits To Hannity: Fox's Health Plan Rejected Me

Sean Hannity doesn't understand much about health care, and why should he? Disease has always existed, yet AMERICA has endured! Doesn't that mean that universal health care is just unnecessary? Hannity calls to mind a simpler time, where men were men, and women were respectful, and people with scarlet fever and tuberculosis had the decency to say, "No, no! Let me just quietly die in this alley! I don't want to be a part of some depressing set of statistics!"

The above is taken from an article on Huffington Post, and I could not have said it better. I remember listening to Harry Reid during a devotional at Brigham Young University. He spoke about being a Democrat and Mormon. He put his speech in the context of his family's life before the New Deal. He grew up in a coal mining community where people worked hard, but despite how hard they worked they still had a severe lack of health services, education, transportation service, among many other necessities. However, he spoke about how Democrats ushered in a wealth of government programs to provide equal opportunity for even the poorest of Americans. This is what I believe in as well.

And you know what? I would like to think that most Republicans think this way as well. When it comes down to it, they want poor kids to access to good education like rich kids, right? They want poor people to have access to health care, right? However, many Republicans paint a picture that would take the government COMPLETELY out of the equation.

This is the type of thinking that puts people like Hannity in awkard situations like this:

HANNITY: I'm on the Fox Plan and the AFTRA Plan. I have no clue what insurance I have. I don't have a special health care plan! I have the same plan that you do.

BECKEL: No you don't. I don't have a health insurance plan.

HANNITY: You work for FOX, you're on the FOX plan.

BECKEL: I don't qualify for the Fox plan, because I have a pre-existing condition.

GOP: Rest in peace

2009-03-03T10:41:00.004-07:00

Republicans are digging their own grave. It is sad. I like Republicans. I love lower taxes, and economic freedom. However, do either of these represent anything that has happened under Bush? Well, maybe a tax cut. But economic freedom?

...Hardly.

Time Magazine ran a piece about how Bush's interventionist policies arguably nationalized our financial market AND subsidized our housing market more than France.

So, what is the point of having a Republican Party? None, unless you are also staunchly conservative regarding social issues. But to all Republicans who read this. I don't think this is smart. Please understand, I know where you are coming from. I don't support abortion or same-sex marriage. But I also understand that both these issues are NOT just black and white from a legislative standpoint. I think I'll expand this argument in another post sometime.

Either way, back to my point. Republicans have long deserted there conservative economics, and have become a party of fear. Fear of the enemy. Fear of change. Fear. Fear. Fear. Here's an excerpt from the recent CPAC:

"Ronald Reagan must be turning over in his grave," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, which sponsored the three-day conference to explore ways of leading conservatives out of the wilderness. "But the American people will soon discover that Obama is no FDR or JFK, but a 21st century reincarnation of Marx and Lenin who is determined to lead the nation down the path of socialism."

Honestly. Did anyone in the GOP actually go to school? Do you know what Marx even wrote about? He didn't write about establishing social programs. He talked about capitalism imploding itself. And Lenin? Do you realize the disservice you are doing to America by associating Obama with a man who purged his political opponents and forced people into labor camps?

What ever happened to great Republicans like Eisenhower, Lincoln, and William F. Buckley? Oh I know. People like that became Democrats.

Is health care a business?

2009-02-10T08:58:00.001-07:00

According to Betsy McCaughey of the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, health care should be treated as a business:

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

There were many ridiculous points made in this article including the allusion that old people with osteoporosis would not be taken care of because of costs. Anyone with any actual medical knowledge knows that current SAFE treatments do not hurt the pocketbook and are not privy to the few and privy in "socialist" nations. But I digress...

Should health care be treated as a business? No. To better illustrate, I ask this question, do I want government making my shoes, or my toaster? No. Government has a role. There are obviously sectors where private interests thrive. I want private companies making the non-essential products I enjoy. I want private companies making the products in arenas where than can be beneficial competition.

However, I do not want private interests in an area that deals with how we deliver something as important as health care. I apologize beforehand because what I am about to say is strictly opinion and experience. I grew up in Canada, and I experienced its shortcomings but I also experienced its benefits. I don't mint paying higher taxes, and by the way they are not much higher. It makes me feel good to know that health care is not something I have to worry about for my family or friends. I like the way it allows doctors to practice. Sure some doctors in Canada wish they could be Doctor Beverly Hills. But who cares, I want the doctors who actually want to take care of people, heal people.

Health care should never be thought of as "Man I need a job so I can afford to buy medicine for my son," or "I better not barely make more than the poverty line because then I won't qualify for Medicare." It is called equality of opportunity. Even if some one can barely afford the premiums on health care, who is to say they will be able to afford the $5000 deductible before the insurance company "graciously" pays 70% of the health care costs after that. It is not fair. And I don't desire to sound like "Everyone should have a flat screen TV, it's not fair." I need it to sound like, "Everyone should have a good K - 12 education."

People don't choose to get sick. Yes, I fully know America by no means has a horrid health system. The right insurance, and the right savings account can get many people through health care emergencies. But I argue that, America should look at the successes and failings of others to create a fair system of access. And a better system for doctors to practice without fear of massive lawsuits, insurance company hassle.

Mormons are being DUPED by the Republican Party

2008-09-09T17:35:00.002-06:00

It frustrates me so much to see that Utah is a red state. If I had to take a guess as to why this is, I would quickly point to classic social conservative issues such as Roe v. Wade and gay marriage. I would also point to free market-classic liberalism... even though Bush has been an even bigger spender on government programs than his previous successor Bill Clinton. Slate reports:

"Those conservatives who sincerely believe that government needs to spend less—a small but important Republican constituency—are furious at Bush right now because he's increasing domestic discretionary spending more rapidly than Bill Clinton did. During his two terms in office, Clinton increased domestic discretionary spending by 10 percent. Bush, in not quite one full presidential term, has already increased domestic discretionary spending by 25 percent. This according to the White House's own budget charts! (The numbers are adjusted for inflation.)"

So back to the social issues... I had a great discussion with a socially conservative Mormon who says he will ALWAYS vote Republican mainly on the basis of appointing conservative appointees to the Supreme Court. I have also had crap discussions with socially conservative Mormons that went something like this, "Gay people marrying... gross". I am not here to argue on either side of this argument but I am here to argue that voting Republican or Democrat based on these issues is absolutely, wholly, and completely irrational.

First: I have incredible difficulty recapitulating any memory of a Republican majority or President proposing any kind of legislation to BAN Gay marriage nationwide, OR to actually challenge Roe v. Wade. I am not saying that this hasn't happened. I also have a difficult time recalling any federal proposition from Democrats to make abortion easier, or force states to recognize Gay marriage. SURE I have heard the scare factor from my fellow Mormons "If Hillary was president she would make it so children could sue their parents over domestic matters." But I am here to say to my fellow, and sorely beloved fellow Mormons. Ditch the Republican Party and vote Democrat.

Let the social issues take a back seat, and think about what you would do to make our country better. If you think we should throw money in the pockets of rich CEOs because eventually it will trickle down to the middle class: by all means vote Republican. And what about the Marriot School of Business Libertarians and Constitutionalists: if you believe our government should run like a business, and that we are misinterpreting our constitution; by all means vote for them. However, I just want to remind people, life in the Wild West was crap. And I love cowboys! It's a romantic idea of America living on the frontier, fencing off our land, and relying on our own two hands. But break your hand, and life sucks. Ya, we can accept it as a trial and humble ourselves. But for some reason, and maybe it is due to my weird Mormon beliefs, that I would not mind having government programs in hand to educate, heal, and protect all citizens despite their economic situation.

So leave your circle of ignorance and realize the limits of a desperately free market AND of single issue voting (social conservatism). And another thing... WAKE UP! The Republican Party HATES Mormons. They hate us. The Religious Right hates Mormons. They hated Romney, and they hate us. On the other hand, Obama loves Mormons. And Apostles love Obama.

This is why I like Russia

2008-07-03T09:49:00.001-06:00

I like politicians that are quirky and heavy fisted. Sure, I appreciate democracy... but ideally I am like Socrates. When Socrates spoke about government he felt that the most superior form of government would be under ONE perfect leader. Thus, I love seeing leaders take control. Wait, before you burn me. Yes, I despise evil dictators whether "elected" or non-elected (Mugabe is sucha waste of a human. He is despicable!).

But you got to love the leader that just stands up and sticks it to other countries... anybody? How about THIS. It is an article describing Russia's new president Medvedev says that America is in no position to give financial advice and gloated about how fast Russia's economy was growing at the moment.

When I read this I just thought, "Man this is awesome." Because it is just the most ridiculous statement I have read today. Ya sure, the American economy is in a slump but last time I checked the GDP per capita of the U.S. it was 6 or 7 times more than Russia. Amazing.

Yes, this is the state of health care

2008-04-22T15:49:00.004-06:00

So I have graduated college and have started working, which I will do until I enter medical school. One of the interesting things about this is that I have no health insurance. Why? Because I honestly cannot afford it. I can't afford health insurance. I cannot afford to get sick. I cannot afford to get injured. I cannot afford to get preventive care.

This infuriates me. I am disgusted that I have to actually say these things. I live in arguably the most advanced, democratic, and rich nation in the world and I cannot afford to see a doctor. If I get really sick, I could die because I cannot afford to live. Sure one day I will make enough to pay for insurance and health care, but right now I can't. I simply can't afford medical bills. Have I emphasized this enough, I can't afford to see a doctor when I'm sick.

Just recently our brand new roommate who currently works at a old folk's home got really sick. It had been a few days, but he couldn't afford to see the doctor. Eventually this all culminated in one horrible, and I mean horrible, night where he puked his guts out and, literally, was scared for his life. He, as it so sadly happens in America, was brought to the emergency room and discovered a simple throat infection had spread to around his stomach. He was prescribed antibiotics and eventually recovered.

Is this how health care should work for the poor? Do I need to "chance it" every time I get ill and then go to the emergency room once I am close to death? Really, is this how America's beautiful spirit of free markets and capitalism is supposed to bless my life and lives of those who work at the cash register, the factory, and many other occupations?

Don't you punk republican BYU Marriot School accounting majors get it? Free markets have this inability to "bless" everyone. Apple Computers does not make money making their products accessible to everyone, it makes money by balancing supply and demand. Think back to your Economics 110 class and think about what happens as demand goes up, and think about this: Some estimates project America is in need of 40, 00 more physicians... NOW.

In addition, insurance companies' bottom line is making money. Despite the crap we here in the commercials, they can only exist if they make money, and just like any good corporation their survival depends on making profit NOT helping me or the third, THE THIRD, of Americans who simply can not afford health insurance. Is this really how you want to deliver health care? Like a television, or a toaster.

Obama's Speech on Race

2008-03-19T11:04:00.004-06:00

As I research and prepare for America's Presidential Election this year I have found that I have jumped into several camps. First it was Mitt Romney, then Ron Paul, then Mitt Romney, then Hillary Clinton, and now finally Barack Obama. Yesterday (Tuesday March 19, 2008) Obama delivered a definitive speech that centered on the race relations of America. However, it was not his stance directly on race issues that made me take notice. In his speech I found a tone of forgiving the past and moving forward to do better things. He did not really deliver specific policy on how he would attack certain issues, but I beg the question: does that really matter?

I would argue that it does not. After his speech, I feel like his mere presence as a president would just magically solve problems. I know, maybe I'm just too easily manipulated, but at the same time I can't deny that right now I feel Obama represents a new beginning. Strangely enough, his supposed "lack of experience" makes me like him more. I don't want somebody who has been a part of the thinking of American politics for the last 20 years, I want a revolution of sorts. Here is my favorite excerpt from Obama's speech:

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

Not this time. This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time."

You can find a transcript of this remarkable speech HERE.

Damned Market, Stop Ruining Medicine!

2008-02-12T15:55:00.000-07:00

One of the key issues leading up to the 2008 elections in America is health care. I know I have written on this topic, but I find it to fascinating not to write again. I heavily lean towards a single-payer system, or in other words: universal health care. Honestly, when people think of this system there are two major concerns: waiting time and quality. So I would like to lessen both of these worries and then present a short list of amazing benefits.

Waiting Times:

I know, Canada is a bad example of waiting times. The problem is notorious, however, who says Canada should be the benchmark for universal health care. A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times in the U.S., a system that boasts prompt and responsive health care, were severely lagging. One of the saddest statements made about the report includes this terrible news:

“The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close.”

Quality:

The same commonwealth report also noted that “one-third of U.S. patients wih health problems reported experiencing medical mistakes, medication errors, or inaccurate or delayed lab results—the highest rate of any of the six nations surveyed. While sicker patients in all countries reported safety risks, poor care coordination, and inadequate chronic care treatment, with no country deemed best or worst overall, the United States stood out for high error rates, inefficient coordination of care, and high out-of-pocket costs resulting in forgone care.”

Benefits:

Single-payer health care systems have some indisputable benefits: two in particular stand out in my mind. First, no one is denied health care: the unemployed, the terminally ill, the poor, the rich, the young, and the old all have access. It is a beautiful thing. Nothing frustrates me more than the idea that insurance companies are have profit margins at the forefront of their agenda, and thus must discriminate who they cover and what procedures they cover. Second, universal access leads to more preventive health care. Because people will not pay out of pocket for examinations, men and women from all elements of the economic spectrum will be more likely to get check ups and seek advice for little problems before they become bigger. This could be the possible solution to America’s shameful ranking among the World Health Organization’s Healthy Life Expectancy rankings.

In conclusion, I think it is criminal to have profit-based health care. Market incentives have no place in the personal and beautiful practice of medicine.

I'm so frustrated with Health Care in America

2008-01-23T18:18:00.001-07:00

Although I heavily lean towards single-payer systems of health care, I am always open to solutions involving the private market that promise fair and accessible coverage for everybody. However, today I just want to put little fact on the market. I have been spouting off recently to friends how frustrated I am about something I heard on NPR. Rudy Guliani's policy advisor recently said something to the effect that the U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than Canada. To it was very well known that the U.S. spends more, as a nation, per capita by a long shot but to actually hear that government spending was more per capita as well was a shock. Well today, I'm backing this radio message I heard with hard data. Here's the table:

From this table we glean to main fact in our comparison between Canada and the United States. First, Canada and the United state have about the same percentage of GDP spending per capita on health care, but once you look at the actual amount of money spent, the United States spends over 50% more than Canada per capita!

I think this should frustrate any American paying for health insurance. Per capita the government is spending $36,006 but you still have need of your own private insurance on top of that? There must, MUST be a better way!

For example, for me this is what I demand: universal health care. There are two main reasons why: 1) the moral argument and 2) the practicality.The moral argument needs little elaboration, so I will just quickly elaborate on practicality. Do not look at Canada as an example for universal health care. There are problems, and it can be done better. For example, encourage and allow greater role for physician assistants and nurses in primary care and encourage doctors to continue training for more specialized roles. That's just one of my great ideas. Check out this article for more good reading.

Wait, what just happened?

2008-01-09T23:00:00.000-07:00

The U.S. primary elections and caucuses are an interesting event. It is through these that we can pretty much accurately predict what candidate will be selected to run for both the Democratic and Republican Party when both parties decide at their respective national conventions. I don't think I've ever seen so much buzz surrounding the primary elections. Anyways, to the important stuff! What do I think New Hampshire's results mean? It's a crapshoot. McCain was the only big surprise for me. I'm definitely voting democrat this upcoming elections.

I do not heart Huckabee

2008-01-04T13:21:00.000-07:00

Romney was the ONLY hope the Republican Party had for me to even consider me voting conservative this year. Why? First, although Romney is pandering to America's cursed Religious Right, his presence on the ticket would be their worst fear: I quite enjoy that thought. Second, although Romney was pinned as a political flip flopper, his real life reflected what family-oriented Americans wanted in a politician. Basically, Romney to me was a genuine character and if elected would be like a John F. Kennedy, minus the philandering, in that he would have a lot to prove and thus introduce careful and calculated policy.

However, I believe what we saw in Iowa is the future of the 2008 U.S. Elections. We will have Obama and Huckabee on the ticket. But you know what, I am not that disappointed. Why? I love Obama. I think he shares many of the characteristics that Romney possesses. He is a young, charismatic, and handsome politician who would have a lot to prove in office. Obama will do wonders for America's perception abroad. For domestic issues I would have preferred Clinton, but overall Obama has some good ideas for important issues such as health care and his pledge to start cutting into the pockets of CEOs.

Something I would really like to see happen in the 2008 elections (if it does turn out that Obama will take on Huckabee) is for Utah to become a blue state. I think the odds have never been better: wake up Mormons, the Republican Party hates you. REAL conservatives need to take back their party from intolerant religious bigots and fear-mongering neoconservatives.

September Dawn, what will this do to the LDS Church?

2007-08-22T10:25:00.000-06:00

Film Review of September Dawn

I just watched the trailer for September Dawn. It encapsulated what I expected: idiotic. I applaud the PBS documentary "The Mormons" for its fair and introspective look at what Mormonism is about, but I'm flabbergasted by September Dawn for completely ignoring compotent historical facts.

The movie claims to reveal the truth about the Mountain Meadows Massacre that has been hidden... UNTIL NOW. Oh really? So completely ignore the academic research done on this historical event and listen to a small production company from Canada.

This is an exerpt of the linked review of the movie, "If only it had been that easy to escape September Dawn's steaming pile of historical tar-and-feathering. Cain doesn't even pretend to try to make the Mormons human; here, they're homesteading Nazis. His operatic nonsense accomplishes something I don't think he intended: By treating the Mormons with such laughable contempt, he actually made me feel sorry for them."

What do the CIA, the Vatican, and the Democratic Party have in common?

2007-08-15T13:17:00.000-06:00

BBC NEWS Technology Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'

They all edit articles on Wikipedia. The BBC reports that all three organizations have altered articles about their opponents maliciously.

This has got to be reason number one why you need to be careful on Wikipedia. I'm not at all against Wikipedia but never, never, never use it as a direct source. It's a great place to get started on research but it's a complete joke to cite it.

Computerizing Health Records

2007-08-14T20:52:00.000-06:00

Google and Microsoft Look to Change Health Care

As we approach the 2008 election year we are bound to hear bold promises concerning health care reform. What do the people want? Lower costs and greater access. I have some suggestions:

1) Just as the linked article above shows, we need to computerize records and create a better infrastructure for sharing information. Such a system will help us better monitor our health and eliminate costly paperwork that is much too common in our hospitals.

2) Reform medicare. What exactly are our goals concerning medical care? Do we want all to have sufficient access and manageable payments? Then lets make a committed effort to allowed increased government funds to actually reach the end of the row! Elminate costly administration.

Romney Faces the Mormon Challenge

2007-08-06T17:23:00.000-06:00

Romney Argument on YouTube

Will the question of Romney's faith ever stop? Honestly, I don't see an end in sight. It's an issue that's as salient as having a black or female president. America was founded by Protestant Christian men and largely has been run by Protestant Christian men. Anything that deviates has always been an issue.

Here's another interesting article I just recently read. I think Evangelical Christians honestly need to put aside their dogmatic beliefs and instead focus on the enormous amount they hold in common with Romney.

How frank should we be about Church History?

2007-08-02T16:43:00.000-06:00

I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I honestly believe I'm part of the best thing on the planet. One of my passions is being completely frank about church history and addressing pressing issues, or at least discussing them. Never at any time during my questioning of church doctrines or church history have I ever felt the church wasn't God's true church. I was reading today on lds.org as a break from my regular MCAT study and read this statement from Boyd K. Packer. This statement is from the FULL transcript from an interview given for the PBS documentary "The Mormons". And I quote:

---------------------------------------------------------------

Helen Whitney: Is there a conflict between a faith-promoting work of scholarship and factual scholarship? Is there a conflict at all?

Boyd K. Packer: There can be. Some things that are true aren’t very useful. And
there are those in the past who have looked at the leaders of the Church,
for instance, and found out that they’re human and want to tell everything.
There are steps and missteps that don’t help anything. Some think that to be
totally honest they have to tell everything. They don’t. If they’ve got the
mindset for that, then they’re always grumbling — they have an appetite for
it. They’re free to do that, but it isn’t really productive, it doesn’t
really make anybody happy.

Someone you knew, say when you were in college, made a terrible mistake. You knew about it, and it was forgiven and lived beyond. There’s little purpose in going back and digging that out and speaking of it when their children might be present — a lot of things that are true historically aren’t very useful and don’t generate happiness.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Fantastic! These are my exact feelings when I'm asked tough questions about my faith, and I think Elder Packer puts it wonderfully here. Here's the link to the article.

President 2008: It's a win-win situation!

2007-07-21T16:58:00.000-06:00

The presidential race has never been so exciting. However, I will not humor the overdone the woman/black/mormon reason as a reason for doing so. It is exciting because I believe there are candidates within both parties that could be great presidents.

Top of my list for the Democrats is Obama. I make this choice despite the fact that I hate feeling like I'm jumping on the bandwagon along with likes of so many inept high school students on facebook who "support" Obama (see this article for an explanation of what I mean). However, I think he'll be a great face for a new America which can hopefully resolve the horrible situation of America's foreign policy.

Top of my list for Republicans is Romney. I make this choice with a little hesitancy also because he is quickly becoming the choice for my church, the LDS church, and is almost assuming an essential part of a member's testimony: "I know that Mitt Romney is a true candidate." However, as much as that bugs me, Mitt Romney, faith ignored, is the best candidate hands down for, wait for it, non-abraod American issues. Mitt Romney and the Iraq war has me a little concerned. But Mitt Romney's ability to improve health care, taxes, poverty, and education is actually believable. With Mitt Romney I feel like these issues will not just be empty promises. Not convinced, please read the linked Economist issue.

Should we blame foreign policy or extreme Islam?

2007-07-04T10:32:00.000-06:00

Comment is free: Not in our name

Recently in the UK there have been demonstrations against British government demanding withdrawal from Iraq. These demonstrations have been put together largely by UK Muslim groups. These groups blame the terrorism and extremism found in several locations around the world as the result of Western military philandering.

However Asim Siddiqui, the writer of the above linked article "Not in our name" argues that fingers need to be pointed at extremism itself. He argues that Muslim groups ALSO need to be pointing the finger at Islamist thinking.

Fantastic argument! I want to to let it be known that I would never think his argument is fantastic merely for the reason of shifting blame of our government, but because those who love peace need to withdraw support from any regime that uses violence/scare-tactics as a method to get what they want.

Poll of Democrats reveals Gore could still steal the show

2007-06-29T01:42:00.000-06:00

Poll of Democrats reveals Gore could still steal the show Guardian Unlimited

If Mr Gore were to seek the Democratic nomination, 29% of Ms Clinton's backers would switch their support to him, the poll found. When defections from other candidates are factored in, the man who controversially lost to Mr Bush in the 2000 election takes command of the field, with 32% support.

Mountain Meadows Massacre

2007-06-26T13:08:00.000-06:00

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Mountain Meadows Massacre

The church will be publishing an article in the September Ensign about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I think this is an absolutely incredible move by the church to not just pass by uncomfortable moments in church history. I also think such an article will also be inspirational because it helps us as church members recognize that while the members and leaders of the church are not perfect, the doctrine is.

The church has actually posted the article on the website already and you can follow the link above to get to it.

Bloomberg stokes rumours of 2008 presidential bid

2007-06-20T22:38:00.000-06:00

Bloomberg stokes rumours of 2008 presidential bid | Guardian Unlimited

Yesterday he insisted he had no plans to stand down as mayor before the end of his term in 2009. "I am not a candidate. I have said that my intention is to be mayor for the next 929 days," he said. But that failed to quell the debate. "If he didn't think that he had some political future there would be no motive for ending his relationship with the Republicans," David King, lecturer at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, said.

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

2007-06-20T16:23:00.000-06:00

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill - New York Times

“I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line,” Mr. Bush said, exercising the third veto of his presidency.

This is the second time Bush has vetoed Stem Cell Research. The thing that frustrates me about Stem Cell Research is that most Americans support stem cell research. Bush's veto is undemocratic. He represents the religious right and frankly I can't wait till he's out of office.

And honestly, let's say if stem cell research found a cure to cancer, I seriously, seriously doubt that the religious right will take a firm stance against the treatment.

I truly believe that stem cell research should be treated as a completely different case than abortion, not that I have similar feelings as the religious right have on this matter (abortion) either.

Highlights from the 2007 Quality of Living Survey

2007-06-19T17:08:00.000-06:00

Highlights from the 2007 Quality of Living Survey

Fantastic! It looks like Canada isn't such a bad place to live after all. I knew it!

Romney Steps Up Advertising Push

2007-06-13T13:02:00.000-06:00

Romney Steps Up Advertising Push - New York Times

Romney’s campaign advisers say their early airtime is necessary because relatively few people across the country know who he is compared with his chief competitors, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, Senator John McCain and even Fred D. Thompson, the actor and former senator from Tennessee who is considering entering the race.

Romney’s Run Has Mormons Wary of Scrutiny - New York Times

2007-06-10T23:09:00.000-06:00

Romney’s Run Has Mormons Wary of Scrutiny - New York Times

Great article on Romney! Hopefully I'll get to commenting on this article more another time.

Is there a God? | To believe or not to believe | Economist.com

2007-06-05T10:25:00.000-06:00

Is there a God? | To believe or not to believe | Economist.com

"Francis Collins is a scientist and a Christian. He confronts Darwin daily in his work as head of the human genome project. He writes well about how, as the code on which DNA is written began to reveal itself, his faith and sense of wonder increased. He stood by Bill Clinton (and worked with his speechwriters) when the then American president talked about DNA as “the language in which God wrote creation”. Mr Collins has no time for intelligent design but conceives God to be of the non-interfering sort, a kind of divine CCTV camera. Yet he believes that Jesus was His son and he prays regularly."

This is a quote from the article. It contrasts two recent books about the existence of God. I find their take on Mr. Collin's beliefs fascinating.

'You have nothing to fear, Vladimir' | Russia | Guardian Unlimited

2007-06-05T10:22:00.000-06:00

'You have nothing to fear, Vladimir' | Russia | Guardian Unlimited

George W. Bush's diplomacy is severely lacking. Possibly someone can help me out with this, but for some reason there has been a lot of media attention towards China and Russia in making them out to be enemies of the U.S.

I sincerely believe there is no good reason for this. China is slowly becoming more liberal, with few signs that would indicate any reverse trend.

Although Putin is consolidating an enormous amount of power within the presidential office, the Russian people ACTUALLY want him there.

I hope the American media will not be so quick in the future to just point fingers and create fear.

Intelligent design has place in science lessons

2007-06-01T10:55:00.000-06:00

Intelligent design has place in science lessons, says CofE | News crumb | EducationGuardian.co.uk

I would love to hear what any readers of this think about intelligent design. Personally, I don't like the idea at all IF treated as a science. I argue my opinion based on two ideas. First, I think it is ignorance to just treat the unexplainable in science as something we'll NEVER understand. Secondly, I believe there are dogmatic beliefs within intelligent design that are against my religious beliefs and others.

I definitely believe God created this world, but as some of you know I am very convinced of evolutionary mechanism. Natural selection, genetic drift, and and gene flow are all ideas that are very agreeable to me. I don't think the fossil record is a result of gathering materials from other worlds. I see nothing insulting about thinking that humans evolved from a lesser form (see human vestigial organs). Basically I believe God is the master scientist.

U.S. immigration change could suck tech talent from Canada

2007-05-31T12:08:00.000-06:00

U.S. immigration change could suck tech talent from Canada

I wonder if this will really happen.

League tables and the NHS | Top of the class | Economist.com

2007-05-28T08:53:00.000-06:00

League tables and the NHS | Top of the class | Economist.com

Is it wrong to provide National Health Care? It seems many on the right wing, and some on the left, say "Yes". However, what is the logical reasoning behind it?

Most of the time the answer to this question comes in the form of "long lines" to health care and then "poor quality" of health care when you get there. However, America is continually ranked lower than developed countries with single-payer health care systems. My question is then, why do seemingly most Americans dislike single-payer health care? Are the people making these reports biased? I can't honestly give a completely researched opinion on this matter, however, I can say that I truly do believe that no one should have to be burdened with the cost of medical attention so much that it leads to longterm debt. It should be a cost shouldered by the public. Profiteers and corporations should have no place in treating people in dire illness.

Rosie O'Donnell's Racist 'Ching Chong' Chinese | NewsBusters.org

2007-05-26T13:55:00.000-06:00

Rosie O'Donnell's Racist 'Ching Chong' Chinese | NewsBusters.org

What do you think? Is this article a fair criticism of the "liberal" media? Personally, I'm angered when with ANY BIAS at all in the media. don't get me wrong I LOVE editorials, but I also love hearing the other side.

Watch the McLaughlin Group!

Marriage in America | The frayed knot | Economist.com

2007-05-24T14:17:00.000-06:00

Marriage in America | The frayed knot | Economist.com

Incredible synopsis of a study conducted in the United States about divorce rates and births out of wedlock. Things are looking up for the educated but looking much worse for the uneducated and lower class.

Evangelicals Opinion on Romney

2007-05-16T21:36:00.000-06:00

Brody File Readers Speak Out About Romney's Mormonism - The Brody File: David Brody Blog - CBN News

This article highlights the religious right debate over Romney. Anyone who takes the side of the first letter noted in this article is seriously ridiculous. Absolutely fanatical, irrational, and oblivious to politics. Absolutely and utterly oblivious.

Romney Popular?

2007-05-10T23:38:00.000-06:00

Romney Criticizes Bush War 'Errors' - washingtonpost.com

The article linked above shows that Romney matters. The question is: how much? Popular polls say not very much. He has a small amount of support. But do these polls really represent real opinion? My guess is that they're probably not far off. However, I think Romney is getting stronger every month!

Stop, hammer time! I dislike that he has changed his stances on abortion and homosexual marriage just for the mere fact that he gave into the lousy far right Republican agenda. I like many of the Republican Party stances but I believe religious issues get involved far too much.

So why do I like Romney? His business sense. I think he has a great track record and would like to see how he does in office. Plus, I would like to see if his ideas towards medical care work (Romney's Health Plan).

So, I feel really optimistic for Romney's chances! As far as the democrat ticket, I actually think they have a lot of great candidates. Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would be great

Amid the chaos, Scotland takes historic step

2007-05-05T10:21:00.000-06:00

Amid the chaos, Scotland takes historic step | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics

Last year I interned for the Scottish National Party. It was a great experience. There are a lot of really good people in the SNP and it's exciting to see such great results. It's a huge jump from the previous election in 2003. They almost doubled their seats in Parliament. Unfortunately, for the SNP the Labour Party did not lose as many seats as the SNP would have liked.

The SNP cannot form a majority and is now looking to form a coalition BUT even if they do it will be just a slim majority. This means that an SNP government can easily fall, and that means that elections will again take place.

I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church - FARMS Review

2007-05-01T23:36:00.000-06:00

I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church - FARMS Review

I found it! This pretty much sums up how I feel about the church and its quirks.

FRONTLINE American Experience: Mormons | PBS

2007-05-01T23:18:00.000-06:00

FRONTLINE American Experience: Mormons | PBS

Absolutely fantastic! That is my review of this PBS special on the Mormons. Fantastic! It summed up perfectly how I feel about my religion. Which basically is summed up by this:

There are tough issues that the church has to deal with like homosexuality, blacks and the priesthood, lack of archaeological data which supports Book of Mormon events and people, plus a few others. BUT in my mind it does not stop it from being true.

I think that's what the program presented, almost. It at least portrayed the church as an institution that does incredible good in the lives of most members, along with many who are not members, BUT is only just that, an awesome "invention".

However, I don't think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is just an good "invention" I truly believe it is a restoration of Jesus Christ's gospel. I could write PAGES more about my feelings on this subject (not necessarily my testimony, BUT about how I reconcile the quirks and gospel together in faith).

Why Mitt Romney Will Win the Republican Primary?

2007-04-19T23:37:00.000-06:00

Jacksonville.com: Opinion: Watch out for Mitt Romney

You heard it right. Watch out for Mitt Romney. I won't be so bold as to say he will win the primary BUT I will be so bold as to say Rudy Giuliani has NO chance of winning the Republican Primary.

I'm frustrated that Romney has flip flopped to now being pro-life, pro-NRA, and anti-gay marriage. Not so much because I think their are invalid arguments to have such opinions but it's a shame that the Republican ticket is based on such trivial matters and that Romney has given into it.

However, if that's what it takes then so be it. I can only see great things happening in domestic affairs if he became president. Romney has a great track record in turning things to gold. Check out his biography.

Here's the summary of the article that started this rant:

"Yes, McCain has name identification. And unannounced candidates Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich could capture Republican voters desperate to re-establish the party's pre-George W. Bush philosophical ground.

You can take this to the bank: Romney will end up being the man they all have to beat. He will spend his mountain of money on television, and that will allow him to hide his ultra-sophisticated personality from those wary of having an urbane president.

Once he's known, he'll have the might of the GOP's old guard behind him."

Scottish elections | Upheaval in the north

2007-04-19T08:45:00.000-06:00

Scottish elections | Upheaval in the north | Economist.com

Some of you know that I interned in Scottish parliament last year. Well just to let you know a bit more, I worked for the party that wants to separate from Scotland, the Scottish National Party. Elections are coming up soon and it looks as though the SNP will be able to form a coalition government. I think if they get in power, it will either be the best thing ever for them or the worse thing because I think people will really base any future voting decisions on how they perform in parliament this time around.

---------

“THERE are just 30 days to save devolution,” proclaimed Jack McConnell this week. Scotland's first minister was firing Labour's opening shots in the campaign leading up to elections for the Scottish Parliament on May 3rd. By awkward coincidence, these fall two days after the 300th anniversary of the formal union between Scotland and England. Mr McConnell has every right to sound alarmed.

Most recent opinion polls have given the Scottish National Party (SNP), which seeks independence from Britain, a hefty lead over Labour. Those who were squelched years ago for giving wa

rning that devolution was less a solution to separatist sentiment than a fast track to secession are laughing up their sleeves. Is the union, in fact, in peril, with Scotland the first of the four nations that make up the United Kingdom to walk free?

That risk is not, for all the sound and fury, imminent independence for Scotland, however. Relatively few Scots actually want it, for one thing. No more than 30% support independence, says John Curtice of Strathclyde University—roughly the same as at devolution in 1998 and notably less than the 36-39% who back the SNP.

And even that sturdy backing is unlikely to translate into enough votes to let the SNP run Scotland on its own. Mr Curtice reckons the roughly five-point lead over Labour that opinion polls give the Nationalists might yield them 45 regional and constituency seats (up from 27 now) to Labour's 40 (down from 50)—well short of the 65 seats needed for an outright majority. As the Liberal Democrats, the SNP's only possible coalition partners, are opposed even to holding a referendum on independence, the chances that the SNP will achieve its dearest wish remain remote.

Canadian Health Care

2007-04-18T10:42:00.000-06:00

Well, as many around me know I'm majoring in Political Science, Canadian, and want to be a doctor. One of the topics that comes up a lot is Canadian health care. I just want to provide an interesting article about Canadian health care and jsut say this. The Canadian health care system has been great for my family and I've never heard any horror stories unlike ones that you sometimes hear in America. At the same time however, I want to acknowledge how fantastic the health care in America is also.

--------------

Canadian survival advantage

Devereaux said the Canadian public is barraged by people who argue that the solution to problems in the health-care system is to move toward two-tiered medicine and for-profit health-care delivery.

He said the researchers in the meta-study wanted to provide facts that can be used to make decisions about the system, instead of the debate being steered by beliefs and ideologies.

Researchers began by asking the question: Are there differences in death and disease rates in patients suffering from similar medical conditions treated in Canada versus those treated in the United States?

Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while five favoured the United States. The other 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed results in the two countries.

"What it [the study] shows is that despite an enormous investment in money, we do not see better health outcomes [in the U.S.]," Devereaux said.

"And importantly, where our two systems do diverge is that America has a mixture of private insurance in terms of the funding for health care whereas in Canada we have medicare system for hospital and physician services.

"The medicare system allows us enormous efficiencies in terms of cost-saving relative to private insurance."

Some explanations for the results include the fact that U.S. health care has administrative inefficiencies that public funding — without multiple competing insurance companies — eliminates. Canadians also save on prescription drug costs because drug prices are controlled.

Few uninsured patients in the United States, who probably suffer the worst quality care, were included in the studies examined.

Devereaux said the Canadian health-care system has problems and needs improvement, "but certainly using medicare funding and not-for-profit delivery is the best way to actually maximize health outcomes and in a cost-effective manner."