World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Are there costs or are there savings from the Obama health care bill? Does it affect jobs and how? The Congressional Budget Office says the health care law will save $230 billion in ten years based on a whole set of calculations and assumptions. Commonsense and basic math leads others to question how spending $930 billion on insuring 32 million Americans could end up with significant savings. The different view argues that the Budget Office erred in making some calculations, by counting $70 billion in premiums from long term care because they would be used to pay benefits later, omitted $115 billion in spending to adminster the law, and omitted $208 billion needed to prevent scheduled reductions in Medicare payments to doctors. The money needed on the Stimulus, on two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the uncertain prospects of the US economy in the longer term till debt and other issues are resolved, injects the critical element of difficult choices and priorities. If state and local budgets are severely strained in 2011-2012 would that require federal help and will there be other needs that will have to be met by the federal government that are critical such as another unexpected downturn, or a resolution of unresolved bad debt at the large US banks There is also a sense that the health care law does not do enough to reduce the cost of health care that will be needed over the next decade so that other priorities are not neglected. Both parties are not up to the task in this respect for running the country's finances withot using the numbers to tell different stories....
The Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Share of US Counties where 95% of Kindergarteners are vaccinated against Measles drops to 28% from 50% in Washington Post Investigation of 44 states December 2025. 95% vaccination rate is what experts say is needed for "herd immunity" or overall protection in a class. Washington Post examination of data shows marked deterioration from 2018-2019 school year to 2024-2025 school year data and public records. That is 5.3 million children are exposed from lack of herd immunity from measles now compared to 3.5 million children earlier increase of 1.8 million children. This Wash. Post investigation shows 19,000 schools are exposed and one can go to this article to find on a map how your school district and country are doing in the 44 states. A big problem is emerging from public skepticism and politics in vaccination. For generations schools required vaccination proof- by 1980 all 50 states had laws covering students first entering school. And caught in vaccine politics legislatures are creating religious and other exemptions that have weakened laws. Wash. Post says it's examination shows not a single County in Idaho, Louisiana, Oregon Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin meet the 50% vaccinated requirement for measles required for herd immunity. This could mean more of these diseases will be brought back home including whooping cough to affect elderly and infants. Democratic districts such as in St Louis and Chicago also see drop in measles vaccination rates. In the sense that newly decolonized countries since 1950 such as China and India have emerged with good health systems and mandated vaccination , other public health action, there is a great need for the US to focus on bringing back the public awareness that existed after the 1940's in the US that resulted in significant advances in public health in the US in the FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and Reagan administrations. It shows there is no victory in public health. A lot of work needs to be done, as much of the gains can get undone by events and public awareness is necessary. As pharmaceuticals, chemicals and plastics and bad nutritional habits took over American lives there is an effort under Kennedy at HHS to tackle that health crisis, but it brings with it challenges that date from the pandemic and different responses in different parts of the US to mandatory vaccination which also have to be met through education not social media. ...
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Canada does better with only 28,000 cases of the virus compared to 3 million in the U.S. by early July 2020, 300 infections a day compared to 28,000 a day. Three things Canada got right are its health system that provides universal health care to all Canadians, not having culture wars about accepted practice such as face covering and social distancing, and Trudeau adopting an approach of bringing Canadian opinion around a common fight against the virus.

Harvard Medicine magazine Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Obama Affordable Care Act ACA and its downfall are covered by two experienced authors over 2 book written over 2 decades. The authors are James Morone and David Blumenthal followed the healthcare issue over 25-30 years through the Clinton, Edward Kennedy and Obama efforts and wrote two books. The first was "The Heart of Power" on the healthcare situation from FDR to 2008. The last titled "Whiplash" in 2026, for which the authors are interviewed in Harvard Medicine magazine. C-SPAN has a book program on this book at a Washington DC bookstore. From the discussion on C-SPAN between Senator Michael Blumenthal, borther of one of the authors, James Morone and David Blumenthal physician, couple of conclusions are seen that may be new to readers. Q. What was the one single factor that doomed the Affordable Care Act? A. The deep antipathy towards the Obama administration influenced the response to the Obama handling of healthcare. The likelihood of Republicans accepting healthcare from a black person was simply not there say the book's authors in the discussion and Q&A on C-SPAN. Yet there were other reasons for the ACA failing. Obama had not gauged the mood of the nation well. UK Labour's Starmer won by a big majority in 2024 yet that does not reflect the mood of the British nation just 2 years later- by election year 2012 Obama's campaign was faltering and had to be rescued with Hispanic votes and a weak candidate in Utah's Mitt Romney. Obama lacked maturity and came in the way Bush came in when the list of candidates were mediocre in the US, similar to the period in the UK with David Cameron and Boris Johnson. To take on the health care issue required someone with the experience and caliber of LBJ, which Obama clearly lacked, coming from the minority community was not going to help in credibility. Obama's presidency was thus premature and to gain experience he would have done better in a key cabinet position such as at Department of State where an intellectual could have influenced world opinion in favor of emerging countries, a doable and necessary. Obama's lack of experience showed when he told Republicans two words in the first months in 2008- "We Won," perceiving arrogance it would set Republicans against him. The years 2008-2016 cost the US dearly in that the US needed a withdrawal from all of the Middle East which would require a strong president  with deep roots of support in all parts of the country including the south, to avoid recriminations. In the end by continuing the wars Obama weakened the US and let China move ahead. Q. Did Obama consider Medicare for All? A. Obama told Congressmen of his party according to Morone- if you can get 60 votes in the Senate for Medicare for All we can try.  Q. Would it take a major upheaval for Medicare for All to be accepted now that the health system is failing all Americans in 2026? A. It will take a world war or a economic depression- some major disaster for Medicare for All to be accepted in the US, say the authors. A pandemic happened in 1918 and again in 2019 the results were not positive, as the authors believe it unleashed the war on science after the vaccination for and against camps, leading to the culture wars in America seen today. Q  Obama's analytical mind thought he learned from the Clinton efforts in healthcare that failed. But he did not see things from the heart. There is good reason to think that the lessons learned of moving fast, letting Congress write the legislation, settling for what can be done not what needs to be done, were exactly the wrong lessons to be learned as opposed to writing off the Clinton experience entirely as Clinton's, and starting from scratch without preconceptions. In the end Obama if he was older, had more experience, and listened to the mood of the country would have realized that healthcare was for another day, and got right down to the most difficult challenge, to end the wars in the Middle East. Even small steps in the right direction would still have earned appreciation him today. Instead Bush and Obama, the most inexperienced of presidents will be remembered for wars they continued that weakened America.       ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Arizona, Utah and South Carolina are 3 states that are cited by the US Labor Department for not adopting any portion of the Occupational and Health Safety Emergency Standard for health care workers. The Labor Department says that by not adopting these standards for social distancing, mask use and paid time off for vaccination, these states are risking the health and safety of health care workers. OSHA sent letters to these states revoking the states abilities to run their own occupational health safety programs.

Texas is one of the states where governors are opposing the Biden vaccine mandate. Airlines based in Texas, both Southwest Airlines and American Airlines, say they will follow the Biden vaccine mandate for federal contractors, as they are required by law to abide by the president's order.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Dean of Harvard Medical School says the Health Reform bill gets an "F" grade. He say its disingenuous to call this reform, and Congressmen and the White House are deceiving the public if they attempt to pass this off as reform. What it will do is accelerate health care spending in the US, and the bill has simply postponed most of the major health care problems, especially the ones that drive cost including the fee for service system and delivery of health care.There are no substantial efforts to control the growth in health care costs or improve the quality of care, which makes this effort unacceptable as reform. In his discussions with other health care leaders and economists, Dean Jeffrey Flier, says he has found the opinion unanimous on this point, that whatever the final legislation looks like in Congress, it will only serve to accelerate health care spending rather than contain it. On the present system's failings he is explicit- the current system he says promotes fragmented care making it difficult to assess outcomes, the true costs of care are disguised, and competition based on price and quality is made impossible. The new legislation while expanding access to coverage makes a terrible tradeoff of an accelerated crisis of health care costs and merely continues the current dysfunctional system. The experience of Massachusetts, where access to care was expanded but spending went up, is that this won't work. He points to the Special Commission on Health Care Payment System in Massachusetts recommendation, that the health care system there must be changed from a fee for service system to one with "capitated" payments. So what is really disingenuous about this whole affair? Congressmen making it look as if reform has happened and congratulating themselves on increasing access to health care, when many of the serious problems of funding health care, skyrocketing costs, and a dysfunctional system, have only been kicked further down the road for some future legislators to tackle. With the national debt about 12 trillon dollars when this plan is factored in, this is cause for serious concern. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. health insurance company WellPoint Inc. will offer higher payments to primary care physicians. This is part of new strategy to reduce emergency room visits and costs after deterioration in a patients condition by relying on primary care physicians for better care at the outset. Payments to primary care physicians will be increased by 10%, with higher payments when the results show better quality and preventive care. WellPoint has a network of 100,000 primary care doctors. Physicians who meet certain goals such as lowering the overall cost of a patient's health care costs will be given an incentive of 20-30% of the savings realized. The new effort will add 1-2 percentage points to the 6-8% of the $100 billion that Wellpoint pays for claims processed each year. WellPoint's management sees a reduction in medical costs of about 20% by 2015 as a result of such efforts.
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ report on Robert Kennedy Jr's efforts to remove artificial dyes in cereals used by Kellogg, General Mills, that are harmful to health and wellbeing of children and adults. RFK Jr is the nominee for Secretary Health and Human Services. Cereal made in Canada for Fruit Loops uses natural ingredients juice from carrots, water melon and blueberries to get the same colors. In the US artificial dyes are still used. When General Mills stopped using artificial dyes in Trix it changed the color and tasted bland according to food scientists in the company, leading to consumers not supporting the change. Large cereal companies are not taking the action needed when it comes to educating the public about the need for the change and making changes for healthy cereals.

- The Washington Post

Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Some features of the U.S. health care law are likely to be retained even if the Supreme Court overturns the health care law- the feature that lets parents carry a teenager on their polcy till age 26, and the feature that private insurers cover preventive services without copays. These are very popular and preventive services make sense for the insurance companies to reduce higher costs later on. Other features such as the discount pharmaceutical companies must give to seniors falling under the Medicare gap, and annual physicals without copays may not be retained. 3.6 million Medicare benificiaries saved $2.1 billion on prescription drugs, $604 per person, from the Medicare gap discount. And 32.5 million Americans took advantage of the annual physical without co-pays in 2011. About 50,000 Americans insured temporarily for people with a pre-existing condition also may lose their coverage. Another provision which prevents states from tightening eligibility rules for Medicaid before 2014, may be questioned also as states feel burdened by these rules during a period of budget cutting in areas such as education....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Problems older workers face as they try to remain active, stay healthy with active participation, contributing to the economy. In societies like the U.S. where age has different meanings compared to Asian societies, older workers have to conceal their age. This goes against the need for greater workforce participation of older workers to make up for the effect of aging societies and fewer younger workers.

It is a good thing that labour force participation rates of workers in their 50's, 60's and 70's are growing, good for the health of the workers, good for their financial health nearing retirement and good for the productive contributions to the economy. Imagine all that experience going to waste.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The US House of Representatives voted 245-189 in favor of repealing the health care law. Only 3 Democrats joined the entire Republican caucus in voting for repeal, compared to 34 Democrats who voted in March 2010 against the health care law. This is a largely symbolic move as the Democrat controlled Senate will not consider the repeal, and even if it did the President would veto it. Republicans favor some aspects of the health care law which allow children to be on the parent's insurance till age 26, and a ban on insurers denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Opinion polls show 46% of respondents opposed repealing and eliminating the law, and 45% favored repealing it. The health care issue ranks third among the economic issues important to respondents, behind unemployment and reducing the federal budget deficit.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Weigel of the Washington Post compares how the Affordable Care Act was passed in Congress in 2012 with the push by Speaker Ryan and the Trump administration for the American Health Care Act in 2017. Republicans he says are making the same mistake as Democrats by rushing this through Congress. There is no broad consensus on whether all Americans should be entitled to health care as in Europe and Japan for their citizens, and health care is priced in a way to make it expensive for the state to provide- until the twin problems are solved by creating a new culture in the U.S. that sees things differently, politicians will come up with their own plans based on their interests and which groups they serve.

The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Jacobs and Richtel of the NYT give this exceptional story of how Mexico changed between 1980 and 2016. Following the joining of NAFTA free trade zone the Mexican diet and food ecosystem began to more closely resemble the food diet system in the U.S. bringing with it severe health consequences. Soda and coke are now more entrenched in Mexico, as are fast food outlets. In 1980 only 7% of Mexicans were obese, compared to 20% in 2016, according to Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington. And diabetes kills 80,000 people a year, becoming the top killer according to the World Health Organization. A trade expert at Tufts University, Timothy Wise, says Mexico took on the worst aspects of a first world country like the U.S., with few protections. A similar problem is taking place in India and China as obesity grows, according to the T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard, as low nutrient highly processed foods of large food companies with huge advertising budgets take a prominent place in diets. This is a growing problem for countries from Colombia to Ghana and Nigeria. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Most CFO's in a Duke University survey don't see a recovery until 2009 and then also late 2009. About 75% did't think the interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve haven't helped thier companies and one third see the effect on their firms directly in the credit markets. Most are reducing expansion plans and see new capital investment at 3.3% barely keeping up with replacement needs this year. This suggests the Fed's rate cuts havent helped business that much and the credit crisis has hit businesses directly and the full impact is still to come.
The Agenda, Politico magazine Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. healthcare spending of about $3 trillion comes with poor results. The cost per person is about three times that of countries such as France, Britain, yet the results show U.S. doing extremely poorly. The author points out that less spending on healthcare and more on social services in areas such as education, nutrition, housing and other services would improve the outcomes and results. It is this missing factor that is helping other countries in Europe, Japan and China achieve better outcomes and returns per dollar spent.  Social spending can affect such things as nutrition, exercize levels, lifestyles, housing and result in dramatic improvements in obesity levels for instance, or inflammation levels in the population that play a role in many diseases. The idea is prevention. This is not happening because higher health dollar spending has lobbies to support it. Social spending also is a dollar expense that shows up immediately whereas results are spread out into the future as a longer term benefit with healthier populations that need to consume less healthcare and treatment. Elizabeth Bradley, president of Vassar College is an expert on this subject. She says social services spending gives more bang for buck  in health outcomes.  The point is relevant also for countries in South Asia and Africa that have taken some on some aspects of the U.S. health system resulting in health care spending that does not deliver the most for the dollar spent, and ignores the critical role of prevention.  The solution lies in moving these health care dollars out of the health care spending and into education for health outcomes, lifestyles, exercize habits education, and into social services that enable prevention and better health. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Cass Commission of the National Health Service in Britain looked at the serious risks to health of children and mental health of parents from transgender medical activities.

The Cass Commission in Britain of the National Health Service NHS has raised serious concerns about transgender medicine and its impact on the health of young people. Parents across the US and in European countries are very seriously worried about the impact on their children creating a great deal of stress, coming so soon after the pandemic when elder care caused much distress.

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A critical part of the Affordable Care Act is the setup of marketplaces or exchanges to let people without insurance buy individual health plans. Some states setup their own exchanges, and some states let the federal government step in and run them. To help the lower middle class and poor the Act provides health subsidies to buy insurance in the exchanges, and 85% of customers in the exchanges qualify for this benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in 2015, compared to a tight vote in 2012 on the Affordable Care Act, to maintain the health subsidies. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." Justice Scalia dissented calling it "interpretive jiggery-pokery." Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented. Voting in favor were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Justice Kennedy dissented in the 2000 case. The challengers petition to the courts was based on a reading of phrases in the Affordable Act which had not occurred to the writers of the law. The reading suggests only people enrolled in state setup exchanges are eligible for subsidies. If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs the 6.4 million Americans who are enrolled in the federal exchanges would lose the subsidies provided under the law and lose health insurance. And the economic foundations of the Affordable Act would be undermined with insurance companies required to provide insurance to all regardless of pre-existing conditions and subsidies removed, leaving the companies with sicker pool of customers resulting in destabilizing the exchanges and higher premiums. The court ruled in favor of an interpretation that is compatible with the whole law and the intentions of the statute to help the middle class and the poor buy health insurance. The chaos in the insurance markets that would result in going with the plaintiffs because of a careless writing of a phrase, was uppermost in the majority's mind. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized this, saying- "The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners' interpretation, because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange and likely create the very 'death spirals' that Congress designed the act to avoid." This case originated with 4 plaintiffs from Virginia who challenged the IRS regulation that said subsidies were allowed regardless of whether the exchanges were run by the state or the federal government, arguing that this was at odds with the particular phrase in the law that was ambiguous about federal exchanges eligibility for health subsidies. Judge Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virgina, ruled that the phrase was indeed ambiguous, but the IRS was owed deference in its opinion. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that this was not a case for the IRS, saying "it is instead our task to determine the correct reading." ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ looks at Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for All plan that marks a major shift for the U.S. economy.  Households would see their costs go down by $11 trillion, boosting their ability to spend on other goods and services. Because income and wealth was highly skewed in the past three decades in one direction, the spending capacity of lower and middle income households was pushed down. This and other similar plans would help restore a higher level of spending and with it an essential element of inflation of 2-3% to the U.S. economy which was missing in the last decade. This sets the tone for the kind of broad based recovery that happened after 1950 that strengthened America's middle class and made it the core of the economy, the core of the post World War II recovery in America and Europe. The plan would be paid for by higher taxes on corporations, tax rate of 21% for corporations going back up to 35%, and reverse depreciation schedules in the 2017 Republican tax law. The argument that this would reduce business investment does not hold that much says the WSJ because amid new trade tensions business investment has declined over the last 2 quarters, and has been sluggish overall. The other source for the estimated $13 to $20 trillion cost of Medicare for All plan of Elizabeth Warren is a 6% annual wealth tax on billionaires, in an attempt to have all pay their fair share and reduce wide disparities in wealth. Mark Zandl, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, says his sense is at the end of the day from a macroeconomic view- because $11 trillion in the hands of 80% of households who could boost spending after lagging behind in the last decade- the negative effect on business investment will be cancelled out by the higher consumer spending. The overall effect and today's context is infused in this analysis. Private insurance, premiums for insurance, and out of pocket cost that the public pays would disappear in this new system where all health payments pass through the government. Health insurance premiums paid by employers would convert into a new employer Medicare contribution to the government starting at an amount employers pay now and adjusting gradually toward national averages over time. Smallest businesses are exempted. Mr. Zandl says the most important aspect of this now is that Mrs Warren has shown that her plan's revenue sources match the cost so that the plan would not lead to deficits increasing and pushing interest rates higher, leading to negative effects on the economy. Republicans under Mr. Trump have paid little attention to expanded deficits caused by their tax law, and economists across the landscape have also shown less concern. Still attacks are made if the plans don't add up. For this reason a sound assessment in today's context of depressed consumers and an overall impact becomes essential. The WSJ quotes from a pre- assessment of Warren's plan by Simon Johnson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who co-wrote it with Mr. Zandl and Betsey Stevenson of the University of Michigan. What they point out is that putting cash in the pockets of the lower and middle class for spending makes a lot of sense today, and taking money out of the pockets at the way upper wealthy end,  does not contract the economy at all. Other effects they say are constructive by letting all workers get health coverage from the government instead of employers, this makes it easier to change jobs increasing labor mobility and productivity. A worker getting a better job and better utilization of skills could then shift without looking at the employer health care plan. Warren says there would be a five year transition so that workers in health care insurance industry can work in other insurance fields and in Medicare, no one would be left behind. The important thing being to build America's middle class again. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The startling truth about health "reforms," - they won't control spending, and without that the whole system of health care will rapidly become unaffordable and unsustainable. Obama's Council of Economic Advisors points out in new report that since 1975 annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. At this rate health spending which was 5% of the GDP in 1960, and is 18% of GDP today, would grow to 40% of GDP in 2040. Medicare and Medicaid would increase from 6% of GDP now to 15% in 2040, or equal to three fourths of federal spending. Employer paid insurance premiums for families which grew 85% in inflation adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040. This would force employers to reduce take home pay. Samuelson says the uncontrolled health spending is singlehandedly determining national priorities, reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs, while it is producing large amount of waste in medical spending. See the link to Prof. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University in NYT, 6/14/ 2009, who cites the habit of doctors to write many expensive tests as one of the prime culprits in the wasteful spending. And in the process it delivers higher cost for lower overall quality of health for the American people. This at a time when many European countries provide live examples of doing it in a better way- lower cost, better health. The serious problem with the Obama health reforms says Samuelson is that it talks about restraining spending but may end up increasing spending. Its talk about controlling spending he says is good intentions, but based more on hopeful thinking, public realtions and risks becoming cosmetic reform. Because to really control spending will require coming to grips with its fundamental cause- hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, private or governmental. Such a system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services, expensive tests, favors heavy use of expensive medical technologies to increase profits, and for patients to expect them. Samuelson puts his finger on the root of the problem - there is no incentive and every disincentive for all the players in this game , doctors, hospitals and patients to seek reform of this system. For doctors and hospitals the hope would be that this cosmetic "reform" would leave the system basically unchanged, and patients to continue with a lifestyle and expectations that do not not acknowledge the fact that a lot of healthcare does not come from spending but from preventative care, education, good eating and exercize habits, and healthy lifestyles. And the uninsured are no exception, they would simply start consuming the expensive care for lower quality of overall health like everyone else. With this kind of situation confronting us, the views of Samuelson, and Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, as welll as a growing chorus of informed public opinion on this subject, is that insuring the uninsured is a good idea, but doing it within the bounds of the present system, can only increase the costs. And too much is at risk, to rely on what Samuelson calls a scattershot of measures to control costs made up by Congress such as "evidence -based guidelines," "electronic record-keeping," "bundled payments to hospitals, to give the illusion of progress that won't make a serious difference. A sweeping restructuring of health care is needed, that would overhaul "fee-for-service" payment and reduce the fragmentation of care. It will also need what has not even be touched on adequately in the debate. This is the massive need for education in the schools about nutrition, eating, exercize, healthy lifestyles. It would also require opinion leaders in each field from sports and other fields to lead by example and with constant public presence, the media, and companies to form a partnership with private institutions to change existing eating habits and lifestyles that encourage obesity, smoking, fast food eating habits, large portions in restaurants....
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
How the French health care system works. France comes in first and the USA 37th in aWHO health care ranking. THe difference in deaths from respiratory disease is half that in the USA, and lower rates of death from heart disease and diabetes. IT has more hospital beds and doctors per capita than the USA. 65% of French people are satisfied with their health system compared to 40% in the USA, and yet France spends 10.7% of GDP on health care and the USA spends 16% for poorer results. THe French system is more generous to its seniors. Unlike Medicare there are no deductibles, just modest co-payments that are often dismissed for chronically ill. And diabetes and critical surgeries are covered 100%. French also buy supplemental insurance like Medigap for extra expenses like dental and eyglasses. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Avastin treatments costing $48,000 a year are provided at no charge. France's PMI or Protection Maternelle et Infantile, is rated highly. It is anetwork of thousands of healthcare facilities, that ensure that every mother and child in the country receives basic preventive care. Mothers even receive afinancial incentive for attending their pre and post natal visits. France makes this care affordable by reibursing doctors at a much lower rate. The average yearly net income for doctors is around $55,000, about athird of what doctors in the USA make. But French doctors don't have to pay back huge student loans as medical school is paid for by the state and malpractice insurance premiums are only a tiny fraction of that in the USA. And again the French government pays two thirds of the social security tax for most French physicians- which is typically 40% of income. So the $55,000, is more like $92,000 taking that into account and more like $110,000 when student loans and malpractice is taken into account at US levels. Specialists who have 4 or more years experience can charge what they want, but as one gastroenterologist says, there in an unspoken and undefined limit to what you can cahrge or what is socially acceptable. Yet even in France there is inflation in health care costs that the government deals with through price controls and more spending. The French national insurance system is running increased deficits each year and this is now $13.5 billion, and it has led to higher taxes for employers and workers. ...
The Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Tory MP's rebels in the southern part of England are opposed to prime minister Boris Johnson's second lockdown for the whole of England. This report in The Times of London looks at how Johnson's conservative government might have to get Labor party support to pass the lockdown measures in parliament. Or Labor may decide to abstain from the vote. Mr. Gove says the NHS risks being overwhelmed if the lockdown does not take place. Responding to the statements that southern England does not have high or has falling rates of coronavirus Mr. Johnson says it has been shown that a low rate catches up in one area when it is next to a high rate area for coronavirus so that the result is the spread of the virus to the point where the NHS cannot cope.  The NHS like the French health system and other health systems in the European Union, U.S.  India, and other countries are strained to the limit. Most healt care workers in hospitals have felt severe strain on themselves and their families during the first wave. Most are exhausted and are in a situation of fatigue with the added factor of some healthcare workers on leave from the virus illness. This puts additional burdens on the system. Without the action taken the health system may be overwhelmed in many countries leading to disaster.   ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A new CBS-New York Times opinion poll in June 2012 shows 44% of those polled approve the job the Supreme Court is performing and about three fourths say the decisions of justices of the court are influenced by their political and personal views. By comparison only 15% approve of the job done by the U.S. Congress in the most recent poll. Only one in eight say the justices make decisions based solely on legal analysis. About 60% say they agree that life tenure for justices is bad because it gives too much power to justices. On the health care law two thirds of those polled say they hope some or all of the 2010 Obama health care law is overturned.
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The situation in farms and orchards in the U.S. as growers face shortages of labor to pick vegetable and fruit produce. A special visa program provides U.S. farms for vegetable and fruit produce with agricultural workers from Mexico. In 2019 this program brought in about 268,000 agricultural workers from Mexico.This report looks at the effort of companies to ensure that agricultural workers are well taken care of. This includes delivery of groceries to limit trips to nearby towns, offering food trucks with prepared meals. Problems of overcrowded housing and lack of access to health care are problems that are being tackled. Some companies are reconfiguring field work for health safety, and funding overtime work at local health clinics.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Typical of so much of what is written about the World Health Organization and its role in the pandemic, this podcast in the WSJ fails to quickly convey the critical function of the WHO as an early warning system the world has depended on, including China. The H1N1 epidemic originated in Mexico. Asian countries including China and India depended on very quick response from the country where the epidemic originated  in allowing entry into the affected area for experts from advanced countries such as the U.S. The global response was then coordinated across countries quickly with complete transparency. The head of China's CDC himself faced a problem with transparency with the provincial authorites in Wuhan. 1.    Fundamentally this quick entry was denied the U.S. Request by U.S. to China was made on Jan. 6 for U.S. team to go to Wuhan, quick permission was denied and given only about 6 weeks later on Feb 16. This delay is the crux of the problem for the U.S.. Taiwan confirmed human to human transmission on Jan. 1, the WHO was saying this was not clear as late as Jan. 14. These costly delays are what the U.S.  letter is about.  The head of the CDC China Gao Fu called Dr. Redfield head of CDC in the U.S. on the next day after he suspected Wuhan provincial authorites were vague about what was happening. Gao Fu was alarmed when scanning the internet on December 30, 2019, about rumors of a vaguely worded lung disease in internal memos of Wuhan. He called Wuhan authorites and was not getting clear answers on that day, then deciding on December 31 to send his own team to Wuhan, as reported in German magazine Der Spiegel- Hackenbroch, Zand, 05/20/2020.  Der Spiegel says in its special report on the early period in Wuhan that Gao Fu was so alarmed about what was happening enough to be in tears in his series of calls with Dr. Redfield in the immediate days that followed. The date was shortly after the GAO Fu sent the team to Wuhan, December 31 and New Years Day 2020, as reported in Der Spiegel. See the link to Lyrarc gist of Der Spiegel's "A Failed Deception: The Early Days of the Coronavirus in Wuhan."  2.  President Trump points out the standards of the WHO- in the concluding point of his letter to WHO- when a three time prime minister of Norway, Gro Brundtland was head of the WHO during the SARS crisis of 2003. She acted quickly and decisively and no time was lost. It is this failure of the early warning system under the new president of the WHO after 2017 Dr. Tedros that alarms the U.S.  with about 100,000 deaths.  3.  This failure it can now be said was partly a result of a election in 2017 for the position of WHO president which was flawed. This was the first time a WHO head, an important position was put up for an election. The Executive Board was responsible for this appointment since the founding of the WHO as part of the UN, based in Geneva, Switzerland, after World War II. This system worked. The election was clearly a bad process for appointing the president of the WHO which should be done entirely on the capabilities of the person holding this position not on a flawed voting process. It is flawed because India and Bangladesh hit by a cyclone during the coronavirus have suffered greatly, as have other countries, but had only 2 votes for 1.5 billion people, when Barbados (385,000 population) and Laos (7 million) which had less than one  hundredth the population had the same number of votes. The U.S. had one vote. The election resulted in lobbying and a process in which many candidates stayed away because they simply would not go through such a process. The position was too important to the world- most of the advanced countries had forgotten about the danger of epidemics to let this happen by 2017, as shown in the way the austerity years led to cancellation of the preparations for pandemic in France and Britain. The austerity years and neglect of public health during these tech boom years in the western world made it possible for this to happen. 3.   Along with the 1 month ultimatum action is already being taken to restore the effectiveness of the importance of the Executive Board. The head of the health ministry in India, Dr. Harsh Vardhan, has been appointed the new chairman of the Executive Board on May 22. This restores the voice of billions of people in Asia in the process, and brings the major countries with the greatest risk in a pandemic into the decision process for tackling the pandemic, this includes the rest of the world.     ...

ObamaCare's Reality Deficit

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about the true cost of the Obama health care legislation and the assumption that the legislation cuts the deficit by billions of dollars. This WSJ editorial says one has to look at this closely, and not merely look at CBO projections, which may be based in a certain context and not reflect the true costs, especially because many accounting gimmicks and use of numbers to present a particular picture is taking place. The information this editorial cites is that: it uses 10 years of taxes to fund six years of subsidies, Social Security and Medicare revenues are double-counted to the tune of $398 billion, a new program funding long-tem care frontloads taxes but backloads spending, and the assumption of an automatic 25% cut to physician payments that Congress is unwilling to authorize. Rep. Rand Paul has tried to present an alternative view which needs to be studied just as closely, because of the enormous impact of a jump in spending at a time when the public finances are fragile. WSJ also cites the work of Richard Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, as an alternate perspective of how things could turn out, Doug Holtz-Eakin, and Eugene Steuerle. It calls for common sense in evaluating programs, entitlements, defense or other government spending. They not only cost money, but costs escalate over time as history has shown over decades, till they eventually are discovered to be not affordable unless the middle class is willing to dig deeper into its finances to pay for them. Alternate perspectives from a range of informed opinion, Howard Dean, Martin Feldstein, and the head of Harvard's Medical School show that the issue needs to be looked at closely and carefully and cannot be something in which CBO numbers can be trusted to tell the whole story. Especially when common sense, history, and informed opinion across a spectrum of thought advises caution, and fragile public finances also suggest caution. Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, says the health care bill is not real reform, and may do more harm than good. He says in a Washington Post article, December 17, 2009, the Obama health care bill does not insert competition into insurance markets, does not significantly reduce costs, and does not improve the delivery and use of health services. It was he says done with a political calculus and crafted for votes not real reform. Jeffrey S. Flier, Dean of the Harvard Medical School, gave the Obama health reform bill an "F" grade, saying in a Nov 18, 2009, WSJ article, that it was disingenuous to call this reform, Congress and the White House were simply deceiving the public. He said the bill will accelerate US health care spending, postpone most of the major health care problems, expecially the ones that drive cost, including the "fee for service" system and delivery of health care. He says in his discussions with economists and other health care leaders the opinion was unanimous that the bill will accelerate health care spending. He cites Massachusetts as an example, where access to care was expanded under the same dysfunctional system, and spending went up, and it doesn't work. Feldstein, who in early 2008 suggested proactive solutions to the mortgage debt crisis which were never adopted, says that the Obama health care law means higher taxes in the long run to pay for the $1 trillion cost of health care for the uninsured group over 10 years. Feldstein says that the Obama plan is to cut Medicare to cut spending, and will reduce the amount of medical services, as reduced spending comes from fewer services, not reducing payments to providers. And he asks if the cost reductions are weighted too heavily towards reduced services and not reduced payments to providers ,would this result in large cuts to services to affect the quality of healthcare for the 85% of the American people who are accustomed to a different pattern of healthcare. ...

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us