depressio

phenomenal stuff from timothy noah on the public option, why its necessary, and (the worst part) why reform in the absence of a public option just puts more power and money in the hands of insurers. noah eloquently refutes paul krugman's assertion that the current version of reform is similar to that of switzerland's, and in doing so, makes me incredibly depressed about the prospect of true reform:

At the broadest possible level, the public option is necessary simply because it's impossible to identify a successful health system anywhere in the world based on a for-profit insurance model. If profit-driven health insurance could be made to work, then surely somebody would have figured it out by now. Paul Krugman, in an Aug. 17 New York Times column, likens health reform to the reforms Switzerland instituted in 1994: "[E]veryone is required to buy insurance, insurers can't discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies." But there's a significant difference. In Switzerland, private insurers are required to provide basic health coverage on a nonprofit basis. Under Obamacare, private insurers will continue to seek profits, and it's quite possible that the new regulatory restraints imposed on them (take all comers, don't punish the sick with higher premiums, don't seek out fine-print reasons to cancel policies after policyholders get sick, etc.) will inspire them to find ever-more-ingenious ways to avoid payouts. President Obama often says that a public option will help keep the private insurers honest. What he doesn't say, but surely knows, is that private insurers' duties to their shareholders may be irreconcilable with their duties to their customers. Should that prove true, a public option would provide a necessary refuge.

i don't care, i'll say it. don't pass 6 band-aid bills, mr. president. spend some of your political capital to get one thing done properly.

on a non-policy, but still health care note, here's a wacky article on sirtuin activators, which may mimic caloric restriction and slow aging. but count me out as a believer for a number of reasons. first, it definitely looks like an artifact of using mice that are on high caloric diets - clearly, they aren't able to get nearly the same results with wild mice or other species. second, and more importantly, i simply don't believe that the slow buildup of DNA damage over time is ultimately reversible, and I think that manipulations that try and overcome DNA damage (like messing with telomerases) are as likely to be carcinogenic as they are to be life-extending. Basically, I agree with the evolutionary biologists:

In the view of evolutionary biologists, the life span of each species is adapted to the nature of its environment. Mice live at most a year in the wild because owls, cats and freezing to death are such frequent hazards. Mice with genes that allow longer life can rarely be favored by natural selection. Rather, the mice that leave the most progeny are those that devote resources to breeding at as early an age as possible.

So call me a skeptic. Although, I do like that these drugs are present in low concentrations in red wine. Drink up, folks!