On the Art of Choosing What to Read: Essay Inspired by Iyengar's New Book

So many books, so little time.
I am 47 years old. Assuming, in a near best case scenario, that I live 40 more years, and that I read around one book per week the rest of my life, I will finish 2,000 more books before I die.
That’s a lot of verbiage. But think about all the wonderful books that have already been written-not hard to come up with 2,000 that would be nice to peruse before I perish. And now think about all the wonderful new books likely to be written over the next 50 years. How do I choose which books to read?
With so many books and so little time, the choices become daunting.
But choose I must. For if I remain frozen in indecision, my reading efforts will stall. Then, time will pass me by. Time, after all, doesn’t pause, even if my reading efforts do.
But moving forward is better than standing still. Indeed, we all need to move forward, even if the “best” direction forward is not totally clear. That is one of the take home points of Sheena Iyengar’s wonderful new book-The Art of Choosing. Iyengar is a behavioral scientist at Columbia, most famous perhaps for her “jam study”-in which she showed that people facing a choice between too many flavors of jam walk out of the grocery store without buying any jam, too frozen by indecision to make a choice even though any of a dozen flavors would have made them happy.
Iyengar’s book ranges widely over the kinds of choices we make in our lives, from grocery store decision making to the momentous choices that lead us to wedding chapels. Her discussion of arranged marriages is touching and illuminating.
Her book is what we need more of in popular psychology-an accessible eloquent and even moving tome that is nonetheless grounded in the most rigorous of psychological science.
2,000 books left in your life? I suggest reading Iyengar’s The Art of Choosing before you allow yourself to be bogged down in indecision.
View original post and comments at Scientocracy

It's Healthcare Reform, Stupid!

Common wisdom ain’t always that wise.
The pundits have concluded that Obama made a big mistake by focusing on health care reform this past year, when he should have focused on the economy. Politically speaking, the pundits are correct. Obama has appeared to be ignoring the economy at the expense of health care reform, and his popularity has consequently plummeted.
But Obama is right to have stuck by his desire to reform health care. Sometimes the good of the country is more important than this year’s approval ratings. And here are 7 reasons why Obama was correct to focus on health care reform this year, and why we can only hope that his efforts will come to fruition soon.
1. The federal government can’t do very much to change the course of recessions.
If stocks are overvalued, the stock market will drop. If houses are overpriced, the housing market will plummet. The government cannot change these realities. The best it can do is to soften the economic blows thrown at us by the recession.
2. The Obama administration did take aggressive steps to attack the recession.
While the government cannot stop recessions from happening, it can go into deficit spending to minimize the depth of the recession. That’s what Obama did. Paul Krugman wished the Obama administration had spent more money. Members of the Tea Party wish he’d spent less. Looks to me like he got about as much spending out of Congress as he could have at the time, given the circumstances.
3. The recession is going to end sometime soon — hopefully — and then we’re going to have to look at how we can minimize the depth of the next recession.
Having pushed a stimulus package through Congress in the opening months of his administration, Obama rightly turned his attention to future threats to our economy.
4. The biggest long-term threat to our economy is our health care system.
If we don’t reform health care, our future will be disastrous.
5. If health care costs continue to rise, the middle class will move toward poverty.
Do the math. If more of our money goes toward health care, our wages will decline, our taxes will rise, and our employers will have a harder time offering us any health care benefits. This will lead to economic disaster, for all those middle-class Americans who are struggling right now to make fiscal ends meet.
6. The health insurance industry can’t solve this problem on its own.
Health insurance companies are making great profits, despite rising health-care costs. Their primary goal is not to reduce how much money people spend on health care. If we want to control health care costs, we need the government to use its clout to negotiate better prices for the healthcare industry.
7. If we don’t reform health care now, we won’t be able to touch this topic for another decade.
And we can’t afford to do that. Ten more years of rising costs, of people losing their insurance, of stagnating wages, of Medicare expenditures squeezing federal budgets, of Medicaid expenditures squeezing state budgets… and the American economy will be headed toward long-term decline.
Obama and his team have made plenty of political mistakes. Their public relations efforts have not fared well against Fox news, et al. But under Obama’s leadership, the administration is staying the course in health care reform — looking for enough votes to pass some kind of bill that will move our country in the right direction.
I desperately hope that the administration succeeds.
View original post and comments at Huffington Post

Rational Rationing in Western Michigan

See a nice TV news segment from Grand Rapids Michigan last night (March 8th), that followed up on a symposium on health care rationing, where Norm Daniels (one of my heroes–a philosopher from Harvard) and I address the need to discuss how to set appropriate limits to contain health care costs. Click on my picture to link to the colloquy coverage.

What are health insurance companies good for?

They take our money, and hand it over to hospitals and doctors, while keeping a good portion for themselves. What a waste, huh?
Well, yes and no. To see a really illuminating discussion of health insurance companies, and what they really do, see this blog http://michaelbrownmd.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-does-not-earn-its.html by Michael Brown– the Chief Information Officer at Harvard University Health Services. Brown shows that, in our current health care “system” (my quotes), insurance companies play a crucial role of negotiating prices with health care providers.
Of course, ideally we wouldn’t need a middle man to control prices–but then again, U.S. law forbids Medicare from even considering costs when making decisions about what services to offer to enrollees.
More on this topic later, but I’m back on hospital service now, and I’ll be busy taking care of patients.

PeterUbel