I thought that the NY Times was getting better, honestly. After all Gina Kolata, a major offender in the dogs licking sores series of last year, did feature Jack Wennberg this summer. But then recently the Times published an op-ed written by a big Pharma PR flack. At least that was an op-ed, even if it should have been on the op-ed pages of the WSJ. Now, we have “economic view” on health care written by Greg Manikw, the former chief Bush economic adviser who appears to be reinventing himself as a Romney flack. Manikw has some interesting ideas about carbon taxes (which of course never saw the light of day while he had any influence in the Administration), but why does the Times “economic view” on health care means regurgitating a bunch of Manhattan Institute talking points?

For that matter, if he’s an economist, why isn’t Manikw making any attempt at balance? And why is the Times letting him get away with this. As I said, it’s not the WSJ.

OK, so what are the points he makes. Standard Manhattan talking point stuff, so let me add the standard talking point answers.

Continue reading…

More from the 25th anniversary celebrations at Health Affairs. Health Affairs named Jack Wennberg as the most influential health policy researcher of the past 25 years.

Totally obvious choice, but nonetheless richly, richly deserved.

My favorite parts of the magazine are the book reviews and the letters. One book, the reviewer loves; another (with a different reviewer) not so much. Cue letters, is my guess. (Inside joke. I’m sorry)

Meanwhile, it’s about time Health Affairs made its charts a) more easily understandable, and b) ready for online publication. (This editions are not even readable in some cases). We’ve learned something about communication of complex data in the last 25 years and it’s about time the magazine that is the bible of health policy caught up.

This from a May 2001 discussion article in The Guardian about the new definition the Bush Administration introduced

Using the definition preferred by the state department, terrorism is: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

<SNIP>

The key point about terrorism, on which almost everyone agrees, is that it’s politically motivated.

Despite Californians voting for Prop 215 in 1996 and in every survey since clearly being in favor of medical marijuana, this is how the DEA treats those running dispensaries. It violently raids their homes with massive firepower, takes their money, assets and possessions, and destroys their families by taking away their children. And of course this is designed—for purely political purposes—to send a message to anyone wishing to protest the Federal government’s insane policies, or trying to help patients. Both of which are legal under state law.

If that’s not terrorism under the Administration’s definition, then I don’t know what is. When we get a change of Administration the DEA needs to be abolished. And we need, at the least, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission where those involved in its policies and actions can confess their sins. I have no idea how these people sleep at night.