Month: June 2010

Terence Samuel writes some sane things about the politics of the BP disaster.

Not as easy as it sounds.

Megan and Ezra are fighting over drugs. Here's Klein:

If health-care reform increases total health-care spending — which is McArdle's first contention — then it should also increase profits for pharmaceutical companies, thus juicing innovation. This is what research by MIT's Amy Finkelstein suggested happened after Medicare was formed. In that world, McArdle's concerns that lost profits will lead to less innovation are moot. Profits are going to go up because spending is going to go up. The mechanism here — increased coverage leads to increased usage of health care by people who otherwise would be priced out of the system — assures it.

McArdle isn't so sure:

While it is certainly possible that higher health care spending will end up as more money for innovation, it's hardly a necessary corollary of the higher spending.  My worry is that as costs rise, the sectors that aren't full of frontline health care workers become the easiest to squeeze–which is why you've heard a lot of bashing of Pharma and the insurance industry, and virtually nothing about hospitals, doctors, or powerful health care unions that have squeezed about a squintillion dollars from places like New York State.  If that's the case, then higher profitability in the broader health care sector is the opposite of good news for pharma and medical device manufacturers–because they're the folks who will have their margins squeezed in order to pay for nurses and hospital beds.

Friedersdorf continues his long, doomed campaign against diamond engagement rings:

Why should women want to end diamond engagement rings? Well first of all, it's your money too, presuming the wedding eventually occurs, and more than that, you're the ones who are silently judged by status conscious people every time they look at the size of your rock — in other words, either you've got reason to feel bad about what other people think of you, or else you're complicit in a system that makes people with less wealthy fiances feel bad about themselves.

Larison yawns at the new sanctions against Iran and counters Yglesias's argument that even if "Iran continues to refuse to verifiably disarm, we want to make sure that other leaders of mid-sized powers still feel that a price is being paid that’s high enough to induce them to make other choices":

There are so few states with nuclear programs that need such dissuading that I doubt this matters very much. Even if we all agreed on this point, all of this hinges on Iran actually paying a high price. Aside from Obama loyalists and administration members, no one thinks that this round of sanctions does anything of the kind. Engagement advocates find the pursuit of a new round of sanctions misguided, but recognize weak sanctions when they see them. As the Leveretts correctly observe, this round of sanctions is very weak and had to be very weak to gain Russian and Chinese support. On the other side of the debate, Jackson Diehl points out all the reasons why these sanctions are not very significant. Many governments will not adopt the stricter financial sanctions and ship inspections that the resolution allows but does not require.

Today on the Dish, Andrew took a long look at the complex and troubled history of Israel. He also scratched his head at Michael Oren and Eli Lake. Gadi Taub pleaded with Israel to change course, Yglesias analyzed the latest sanctions against Iran, and John Collins Rudolf revealed the hidden damage of the oil spill. Prop 8 court updates here and here. Get your Palin fix here and here.

In electoral coverage, Josh Marshall checked in on the latest primary results, Ambinder addressed California's new jungle primaries, Taylor Steven made the case for an incumbent victory this fall, and Andrew hoped for a GOP comeback. Kaus campaign update here. In assorted commentary, Jeff Jacoby went to bat for petroleum, Edward Glaeser defended merit pay, David McRaney talked counter-culture and capitalism, Doug McCune visualized San Francisco's various crimes, Patrick examined the demographics of Internet users, and Alain de Botton warned of the perils of tracking the news.

Andrew meditated over death and conservatism while readers sounded off on fag hags. Lesbian PSA here, remixed movie posters here, and more music from the Carpenters here. Our chart of the day showed a shocking rate of incarceration. Recession view here. MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.

We also announced the winner of our first VFYW contest and heard from a bunch of losers.

— C.B.

Always wait for Pareene:

Incumbents are in trouble, unless they are "outsider" incumbents. An incumbent can become an outsider by having an opponent who is friends with insiders, as long as those insiders aren't the Club for Growth or, again, Bill Clinton.

Women are expected to do great in November, unless they are from Washington, or are considered part of the "establishment." (As long as your definition of the establishment does not include eBay.) Again, if you are endorsed by Sarah Palin, none of this applies.

The Tea Parties won big, except that they might've helped the GOP lose big in November, which would be a victory for the Tea Parties. Mitt Romney is in serious trouble.

Voters are very, very angry, so only expect between 90 and 95 percent of Congress to be reelected.

Nan Hunter is made hopeful by them:

If the questions are any indication, the Walker opinion will be a blockbuster, at least in terms of its scope, depth and detail. Court decisions generally take an analysis far enough to resolve the particular issues presented, but no farther. But from the beginning of this case, Judge Walker has indicated a willingness to dig deeper, by forcing both sides – plaintiffs and defendants initially both resisted the demand for extensive evidence on the ground that it was unnecessary – to come up with evidentiary support for the kinds of quasi-philosophical arguments that make constitutional law so fascinating.

Paul Hogarth goes point by point through several of the questions.

(Image: Graph Jam)

McArdle checks the pharmaceutical pipeline:

In many ways, the task facing researchers is simply more difficult than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Back then, chemists had big fat targets like angiotensin, a protein that causes blood vessels to constrict. Scientists knew it caused high blood pressure, and better yet, they were pretty sure they could develop a small molecule (that is, one that can easily enter the bloodstream) that would hit what they were aiming at. Best of all, hypertension provided an enormous market. Driven by similar finds in other areas, an age of blockbusters dawned: the Lipitors and Prilosecs and Allegras.

These days the targets seem smaller, fewer, and farther away. The best-understood diseases already have a lot of good drugs treating them. New treatments need to prove that they have better efficacy, fewer side effects, or something like a longer-lasting dose that makes them superior to the pills already on the market. Longman likens this process to chasing an Olympic sprinter—who has a head start.

A new Gallup poll finds that Americans are most worried about terrorism, the debt, and health care costs. Avent sighs:

We don't need polls asking what the public thinks is a "top threat". We need polls that lay out some realistic choices, and ask the public what it wants to do about them. We have to start structuring our political conversation to lead towards solutions, not to throw back an ever-amplifying reflection of the country's inchoate frustration.