Back to Nature or Forward into our Civilization?

I have often felt that our current worship of Nature, ie taking care of the environment, has pantheistic proportions. However, saying so means that politics is mixed with religion and science which is not helpful. Politics has that primate character that religion and science lack. It concerns power.

Making the dichotomy is of course not easy. Francis Bacon already in the 16th century claimed that knowledge is power and the Church has meddled a lot in politics since then. It is not possible even recently to separate religion and politics. We have the faith bound George W. Bush and Tony Blair couple and their position against political Islam.

Presently, in Sweden, the Church is using religion to go against the government on a healthcare issue. I feel this is quite OK since it is simply an issue of helping the sick and the poor and how much this is supposed to cost.

Returning to the pantheism above it is important to stress that we don't want to return to the caves in order to save energy. Solving the energy question is currently a race between the different power centers. Who is going to succeed first? As I said the other day, I think Europe is in the right mood and has the best set up. The US and China are too caught up in their economies. We need an idea. Europe is rich enough for that. Ideas are cheep, they say.

Congress more Responsible Today

Senate Panel Clears Health Bill With One G.O.P. Vote - NYTimes.com: "“Is this bill all that I would want?” Ms. Snowe asked. “Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time.”"

I wonder if Ms Snowe also checked the RCP job approval rate for Congress? Apparently it is not nice if the bill does not become bipartisan for the reason that it have been that before at the earlier improvements of health care in the US.

Otherwise I do not quite understand why this is a problem and why it is cover story stuff. The democrats have a clear majority in Congress. However, it is hoped that Ms Snowe's vote will make others vote for the bill. It is also possible that moderate Democrats that have been hard to convince now will side with the majority.

See also Washington Post and Bloomberg.

Ted Kennedy

Op-Ed Columnist - The Great Gradualist - NYTimes.com: "This culture, this spirit, this system is not perfect, but it is our own. American voters welcome politicians who propose reforms that smooth the rough edges of the system. They do not welcome politicians and proposals that seek to contradict it. They do not welcome proposals that centralize power and substantially reduce individual choice. They resist proposals that put security above mobility and individual responsibility"

The above is the reason for why Ted Kennedy did not become president, if I understand David Brooks right. People have been writing for three days about him now and it is clear from the bipartisan response that Chappaquiddick is forgotten. In America you get a second chance. Brooks don't even mention it.

The above is also an interesting description of the American society that is useful to compare with the Swedish and with the "Föregångsland" thing that Fredrik Reinfeldt did yesterday. In Sweden we want to improve the quality of the welfare state, a concept the Americans don't even talk about with their 46m uninsured.

Brooks seem to say that the US is united. It have not seemed like this during the health insurance debate. I still have hopes that President Obama will make the US more "European" by passing a good health care bill. I still think Dangerous Nation needs to modernize its social sector while keeping up its competitiveness. Otherwise we might see in Europe that the welfare is going to loose out to the competitiveness.

The Mystique of Obamacare

I realized today while listening on the Weekly Address of President Obama that the readout from his note is that the equation does not add up.

He says initially that costs are skyrocketing and have to be controlled. Costs increase at three times the rate as wages. Later he says we are going to make these changes that all sound like they are going to cost money, i.e., prevent a cap on costs for care and insure more people.

The economical man of the US balk at these statements. They don't add up.

The European punch line here is that we provide the care at half prize. Without reform.

The American Presidency II?

"I was against Obama before it was cool" is apparently a bumper sticker these days. When Obama was elected I thought that it will not be long before they start yelling at him as they yelled at George W. Bush.

I myself was hesitant to Obama in the beginning but I have begun to like him. It was hard to understand what his policy was in the beginning but now when he has started out it is looking good. The world is cooling down and you need a cool policy.

In today's White House address he make a good case for the health insurance reform. He repeatedly stress the important issue of reforming health insurance so that people don't loose cover when they need it the most. That people don't get turned down when the have previous conditions. That costs have to be controlled.

He also points out that Republican critics never mentions the problem of skyrocketing costs something I have diagnosed myself. The discussion if the health care they have is worth twice the cost would probably be interesting to listen to.

Is Health Care a Right?

John David Lewis: Health Care, Why Call it a 'Right'?: "These two concepts of rights -- rights as the right to liberty, versus rights as the rights to things -- cannot coexist in the same respect at the same time. If I claim that my right to life means my right to medicine, then I am demanding the right to force others to produce the values that I need. This ends up being a negation of personal sovereignty, and of individual rights."

This definition of liberty, not being able to provide for the health of others, thus generating a right, is interesting, because it goes against the biology of giving which is liberating. Doing good deeds stimulates the pleasure center in the brain. Thus it is liberating.

Providing for health care, i.e., morally declaring it a right is enhancing liberty. It does not limit it.