May 26, 2006
Bloomberg Thinks Science is Good!
Mayor Bloomberg was in Baltimore yesterday to pick up an honorary doctorate from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (Dr. Bloomberg!) and give a speech. And what a speech: He criticized political efforts to belittle science and medicine. The NY Times's headline says he "diverges from GOP line" but it's just reminder that's he's only a Republican because he wanted to be elected Mayor (okay, he's donated to Republicans and made NYC host the RNC). And the speech was good - here's an excerpt:
Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don't happen to agree with their agendas. Some call it "pseudo-science," others call it "faith-based science," but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it "political science."For the love of being a second term mayor! You can read the rest of his address here. And Mayor Bloomberg has also been speaking about immigration (asking for amnesty for the undocumented) and slamming the gun industry. We wonder if the GOP will make him turn in his Republican Party card when his term ends.You can see "political science" at work when it comes to global warming. Despite near unanimity in the science community there's now a movement - driven by ideology and short-term economics - to ignore the evidence and discredit the reality of climate change.
You can see "political science" at work with respect to stem cell research. Despite its potential, the federal government has restricted funding for creating new cell lines - putting the burden of any future research squarely on the shoulders of the private sector. Government's most basic responsibility, however, is the health and welfare of its people, so it has a duty to encourage appropriate scientific investigations that could possibly save the lives of millions.
"Political science" knows no limits. Was there anything more inappropriate than watching political science try to override medical science in the Terry Schiavo case?
|
I love Bloomberg. What a great mayor. I think he's doing a great job.
Maybe the GOP should let him run for president. Maybe he can save their souls after all.
I'm not a Bloomberg fan, but thank him for the comments. The real question here is why no other politicians have had the sense (or balls) to come out against the Bush administrations "war on science."
I now completely forgive him for the Jets stadium debacle.
He, McCain, and Giuliani could really bolster the libertarian-leaning Republicans in the GOP.
Gotta say, I'm not a big fan of Mayor Bling either, but you gotta take your hat off to him.
It's interesting, because Bloomberg went to Johns Hopkins and has been a huge benefactor of the medical school and research arms (which we all know are some of the best in the world) for years and years. His support was both financial and philosophical. It is good to see that now that he's ventured into politics he hasn't left that behind... and had the balls to state so.
'Course, it doesn't hurt that he's not looking to a higher office after being elected mayor of the most liberal city in America.
He talks the talk, but....he's given and raised lots of money for Bush et al.
Now I'm starting to like the guy again. But I wish he had said these things at the RNC.
think twice, bloomberg, guiliani, and mccain are hardly libertarian. both bloomberg & guiliani are super authoritarian, and not exactly "guns & dope" people, and mccain-feingold speaks for itself.
Oh c'mon! Everyone knows that science is an anagram of Satanism (with a few letters swapped in & out). Fossils were buried by Jews in the 30s! That fish with legs is the bumper sticker of The Beast.
God has given us pogroms, Inquisitions, crusades and witch burning. All science could manage was flying to the moon and iPods.
funny, that speach sounds similar to the one Al Gore gave yesterday here at Town Hall for the Wired/Inconvenient Truth
Question to liberals: Does this "science is good" approach apply to medical treatment and medical malpractice lawsuits as well?
Latest Businessweek has a great article about medical guesswork. Basically, 75% of medical treatment is based on urban legends, myths and guesswork instead of science. In most cases, the less expensive treatment was better for the patient but patient organisations and democratic activists/lawyers always want the most expensive treatment. Likewise, medical malpractise trials are based purely on guesswork and greedy trial lawyers (one example was hinting that jurors may be invited to Oprah if they win the case).
Why science is not tolerated here? You guessed it. The reason is democratic party which is bribed by trial laywers and various organisations who have financial interest in this.
I'm all for "science is good" approach. Let's just apply it everywhere even if the funding for democratic party drops 90%. I can live with it. I doubt you support "the science is good" anymore:)
Yep, Johns Hopkins university is not science.
Fox news is science.
How bout you go to a hospital in god knows where instead of the institutions in this country?
Let's see your chances of science vs. urban legend.
Why can't Democrats speak as eloquently about these issues as Bloomberg?
I wouldn't call a Buisinessweek article "science". Blaming the state of American health care on Democrats and Oprah is an interesting thesis, though. Run with that.
Sounds like someone wants to be operated on by
John Stossel.
medicine and science bad.
I don't know about your obsession with Fox News. They haven't been caught faking or falsifying documents (remember national guard memos?) like NY Times or CBS. I understand that you are angry. In your fantasy far-left country all media is controlled by Micheal Moore and other far-left liberal activists.
Anyway, Businessweek has a great article about this.
Some excerpts: (http://www.businessweek.com and search guesswork)
great many doctors and health-care quality experts have come to endorse Eddy's critique. And while there has been progress in recent years, most of these physicians say the portion of medicine that has been proven effective is still outrageously low -- in the range of 20% to 25%. "We don't have the evidence [that treatments work], and we are not investing very much in getting the evidence," says Dr. Stephen C. Schoenbaum, executive vice-president of the Commonwealth Fund and former president of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc. "Clearly, there is a lot in medicine we don't have definitive answers to," adds Dr. I. Steven Udvarhelyi, senior vice-president and chief medical officer at Pennsylvania's Independence Blue Cross.
What's required is a revolution called "evidence-based medicine," says Eddy, a heart surgeon turned mathematician and health-care economist.
More important, the lack of evidence creates a costly clash. Americans and their doctors want access to any new treatment, and many doctors fervently believe such care is warranted. On the other hand, those beliefs can be flat wrong. As a consultant on Blue Cross's insurance coverage decisions, Eddy testified on the insurer's behalf in high-profile court cases, such as bone marrow transplants for breast cancer. Women and doctors demanded the treatment, even though there was no evidence it saved lives. Insurers who refused coverage usually lost in court. "I was the bad guy," Eddy recalls. When clinical trials were actually done, they showed that the treatment, costing from $50,000 to $150,000, didn't work. The doctors who pushed the painful, risky procedure on women "owe this country an apology," Eddy says.
I think the article is pretty convincing (of course, it has been known for a long time so nothing new here).
blah blah blah blah blah
LOUDER
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
EVEN LOUDER
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
truthiness.
You just proved that science does not matter as long as democratic party gets its funding. Not that I'm surprised.
Long live trial lawyers and heck with the science!
Science is overrated anyway. Surely trial lawyers know things better. Results from clinical trials and tests can be ignored (in anycase, they are so boring)
I've tried to follow your line of thought, Rob, but I have to say, nothing here you've written makes a lick of sense.
Call Nola if you want to learn how to make a reasoned right-wing reply. In the meantime, might be time to ask that guy in white by the door when the med sched is coming up.
think twice, bloomberg, guiliani, and mccain are hardly libertarian. both bloomberg & guiliani are super authoritarian, and not exactly "guns & dope" people, and mccain-feingold speaks for itself.
[8] Posted by: will | May 26, 2006 10:04 AM
I said libertarian-leaning. How else to describe someone who's socially liberal & fiscally conservative but not, as you say, "guns & dope" people?
Bloomie believes in science so much...he wants to track us all through a DNA databsase!
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fprint%3Fid%3D2000968
Tim, I don't know what is your problem. It is well-known fact that trial lawyers are bribing democratic party and that's why democratic party rejects science in medical field. Both in malpractise suits and medical treatment the science is irrelevant to democratic party.
Businessweek article mentions Hopkins as well, they are supporting science based medical treatment. Great to know that medical institutions are fighting against democratic party. Funny you express support for Bloomy here:) Bloomberg kills 90% of the funding for democratic party if science wins over trial lawyers.
The consequences for the U.S. are disturbing. This nation spends 2 1/2 times as much as any other country per person on health care. Yet middle-aged Americans are in far worse health than their British counterparts, who spend less than half as much and practice less intensive medicine, according to a new study. "The investment in health care in the U.S. is just not paying off," argues Gerard Anderson, director of the Center for Hospital Finance & Management at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. Speaking not for attribution, the head of health care at one of America's largest corporations puts it more bluntly: "There is a massive amount of spending on things that really don't help patients, and even put them at greater risk. Everyone that's informed on the topic knows it, but it is such a scary thing to discuss that people are not willing to talk about it openly.
Let's hope that science wins.
Tim: Next you claim that Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health is working for the Fox News and cannot be trusted :)
Maybe it is just right-wing propaganda from Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Let's see if you still support Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health or not once you realize that supporting it means the financial destruction of democratic party.
So easy to make people gush all over, because he talks the good talk.
"Government's most basic responsibility, however, is the health and welfare of its people..."
Interesting how so many love Bloomberg, yet don't even bother to notice how he cut funding for shelters and he broke his late campaign promise for providing health insurance for all children.
Actions [or lack of action] speak louder than words, only if you choose to listen.
Blike: You should also check the Businessweek article mentioned above. We are already spending more money than any other nation per patient yet the results are worse. Extra money is not going to solve this since most of the money is going to democratic party and its lawyers and medical treatment based on guesswork and myths.
UK spends 50% less money per patient but they have much better results since they do not have similar trial lawyers and they actually support science.
I think people are confused as to what "Libertarian" means. It's not the mixture of Dem and Repub you think it is. Being Libertarian is not an a-la-carte picking of the "good stuff" from both major parties. Libertarianism is based on less government intervention for all aspects of life, not just the things you like.
Rob, leave your truthiness to the professionals I.e. The O'Reilys and Hannity's...
Climax: I can leave it to the great doctors at John Hopkins..Why can't you? (btw, what it is with your obsession with Fox News? It's not that they have been falsifying federal documents like left-wing media. Anyway, it has nothing to do with this thread).
I would take UK hospital anyday over US hospital. I actually prefer science unlike you.
This was funny thread..First you lefties are supporting science, Bloomberg and John Hopkins but once you realize what it means to the democratic party everything changes..Can't say I'm surprised, though.
I thought one of the issues on the Brit vs. US comparison was that the Brits don't get tested as much as USers do - i.e., they're not identified as being in bad health simply because they aren't tested.
Rob,
I also tried to follow your train of thought and remain a little stumped. It seems you are blaming Democrats for the large amount of costly malpratice suits. I guess that leads you to the conclusion that Democrats don't trust medical treatment (or "science-based" medical treatment) and therefore are against science. If that is your argument, it is pretty lame. What motives some Democrats to take a weak (or no) stance against malpractice suits is probably something entirely different from their distrust of science. I don't know what you mean by "science-based" medical treatment, but aside from, like, leeching, I think pretty much all medical treatment is science-based. If the Businessweek article stated that half the Democrats in the House preferred had had leeching treatments in the past 5 years, I would be concerned and probably concluded that they are anti-science.
"I think pretty much all medical treatment is science-based. "
As it was clearly stated by John Hopkins people and the businessweek article this may be true in the UK but not here. Only 20-25% of all treatment cases are based on science. Similarly, in malpractise cases scientific proof is irrelevant. Why? Because democratic senators and congressmen have been bribed by the trial lawyers. You don't need any scientific proof in malpractise suits. You just need a weeping victim and a hint that jurors may be invited to Oprah if they support trial lawyers.
If democratic party supports science it will reject trial lawyer lobby and demands scientific proof in medical treatment and in malpractise cases. As we all know, this will never happen. It is much more fun to get millions from the trial lawyer lobby.
Rob, you are putting a lot of trust behind one Businessweek article. Remember the thing was written by a journalist, not an expert.
The reason why US spends much more on healthcare and doesn't have the same results as the UK is twofold.
1) Britain has nationalized medicine which means there is likely more preventative medicine and fewer /no people without access to healthcare. This cuts the costs of medical care considerably!!!
2) The British don't sit on their fat lazy asses and eat McDonalds as much as Americans. No matter what kind of healthcare we have, the average health of most Americans is poorer than other industrilized countries because of our bad habits (you can add in smoking, drunk driving, lack of excercise, TV watching, etc...).
The US medical profession is deeply grounded in science. If one wants to look at inefficiencies, waste, and "non-science" based decisions in the US medical system, look no further than drug companies pushing super-expensive drugs when other generic drugs will work just as well or better.
Just read the article, folks. It's pretty short, and it doesn't really say most of the things that rob is claiming.
In particular, trial lawyers aren't really the focus. Instead, the article points at doctors themselves:
More troubling, many doctors hold not just a professional interest in which treatment to offer, but a financial one as well. "There is no question that the economic interests of the physician enter into the decision," says Kirsh.
Which is actually a very reasonable critique that doesn't break so neatly into party lines. It's been said before - for instance, an article a year or two ago claimed that heart surgeons are overly gung-ho about cracking people open, when they could rely more on medication.
And, while the lower expenditure in the UK is cited, there is no claim that medicine there is more science-based than here.
Of course, if we just keep posting we can make Rob repeat his argument over and over, all day.
As a matter of fact, the article doesn't seem to even contain the words "lawyer" or "malpractice."
Aw cmon, rob, won't you come out and play some more?
The article doesn't even contain the Oprah anecdote.
im sick of this self esteem problem americans seem to have. you are no sicker, fatter, less educated than anyone else in the world. you just like to display your ills to the world, something no other country does. you people dont seem to appreciate the fact the others want to become part of your country.