Chocolate lovers 'are more depressive', say experts (BBC News)

Absence of racial, but not gender, stereotyping in Williams syndrome children (Current Biology)

Raising a child with Williams Syndrome (NPR)

Andrew O'Hagan on Self-Helponauts: You have only one chance to be happy (London Review of Books)

Harnessing older people as a resource in the coming population crash (Salon - Be prepared to close obnoxious loud audio ad on loading)

Daily Kos interviews Maryn McKenna, author of Superbug: The Fatal Menace of MRSA (Daily Kos)

Hospital patients most likely to carry MRSA: Long-term elder care, HIV-infected, kidney dialysis (HealthDay)

Putting bacterial antibiotic resistance into reverse (Physorg)

Dying man sells advertising space on his urn (Associated Press)

The opponents of health care reform lost the battle, but their war is not over. They argue, among other things, that the legislation amounts to socialism.

When Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican Party, was asked if the health care plan represented socialism, he replied: "Yes. Next question."

In a recent Bloomberg National Poll, 90 percent of those who favor the Tea Party said the US was "verging more toward socialism than capitalism."

Tony Judt, the historian and author, was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) in 2008. He describes his condition as "progressive imprisonment without parole." The life expectancy of ALS patients is normally two to five years after diagnosis.

Judt, who contributes regularly to The New York Review of Books, has been publishing brief memoirs that touch on the many meaningful aspects of his life. Since he has been passionately involved with history and social democracy, the essays reflect on historical change and what the future will bring.

David Remnick's new book, The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, deals with the question of race relations in America as seen through a biographical account of our current president.

Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers a quotation from The Bridge, which will be released tomorrow. Here is Obama's reply when asked about the racial component of opposition to his presidency, including the reaction of the Tea Party supporters:

When President Obama filled out his census form last week, he had to decide how to answer the race question. Even though his selection was only half true, he settled on the "Black, African American, or Negro" option.

I noticed Facebook friends struggling with the same issue: If my father's parents were born in Central America, but my mother's parents are from two disparate European countries, what does that make me? This is what Americans are famous for: We welcome the tired, hungry, and poor into the ultimate melting pot.

There have been nasty and violent responses to the passage of health care: Spitting on members of congress; chanting the "N" word at black congressmen on their way to vote; images of Nancy Pelosi surrounded by flames; death threats to members of Congress; Republican congressmen on the House floor cheering protesters in the gallery; bricks hurled through Democratic campaign offices; Palin's call to "reload" and her use of firearm crosshairs to "target" congressional seats; and calls for an armed militia to prepare for the coming battle -- labeled "Armageddon" by House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Governors of 30 states were threatened ("resign within three days or face removal from office)" by Guardians of the Free Republics, a group that aspires to "restore the U.S. republic by peacefully dismantling parts of the government."

This is a local story for me: I pass this school frequently and have a niece and nephew who are graduates. It's also a heartening one that counters some of the more depressing stories from the right end of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, this event seems to have received only local media coverage.

The following is from Hugh Kramer at The San Franciso Examiner:

Westboro Baptist Church is famous for picketing soldiers' funerals, Jewish institutions, schools that are tolerant of gays and just about anything else in America that they don't like; but when they came to Gunn High School in Palo Alto, CA on April 1, they got a big surprise. They were greeted with song.

Constance A. Nathanson is an American historian of public health. She recently wrote an essay for The Lancet that explains why the public option is such a hot button - one that threatens to confront us with the underlying issue of health inequality.

Early in the twentieth century, industrialized nations - with the glaring exception of the US - acknowledged that national governments had a responsibility to protect the health of the poor. In practice, this took the form of health insurance, wholly or partially paid for by the state. The motivation was primarily self-interest. Contagious diseases don't distinguish between the rich and the poor. Also, there was a fear that poverty would provide a breeding ground for social revolution.

If statistical analysis shows conclusively that morbidity and mortality are directly related to income, what should a (presumably) enlightened government do with this information? One approach, consistently popular throughout history, is to blame the victims.

In the Reagan/Thatcher years we saw an enthusiastic promotion of taking personal responsibility for one's health. Personal responsibility follows naturally from a neoliberal agenda: Deregulation, privatization, a free market economy. Neoliberalism champions the autonomous individual, whose responsible or irresponsible behavior relieves the state of any responsibility.

This theme is vigorously echoed today by Sarah Palin. You can even buy her "personal responsibility" bumper stickers, mugs, and t-shirts to promote the cause.

Personal responsibility is the conservative answer to public ownership of the structural inequities in society. As a political position, it has deep roots. Just as health inequalities are timeless, so is resistance to improving the health and welfare of the poor.

Whenever there are disparities in income, inequities in health are inevitable. Today in the US, the gap between the rich and the poor is much greater than in most other highly developed democratic countries, and so are the health inequities. The roots of this inequality lie deep in the histories of developed nations.

When children in impoverished countries die of famine, dehydration, and HIV/AIDS, the images are shocking and unacceptable, but somehow not unexpected. We understand that there will be health differences between rich and poor countries. It was not that long ago, however, that the gap between the rich and the poor within highly developed nations - Britain, France, Germany, the US -- was as appalling as what we now see in third world countries.

During last year's immersion in matters of health care, the US system was frequently compared to those of Canada, the UK, Japan, Australia, and Western European countries. Whether the comparison involved infant mortality, lifespan, or comprehensive coverage, the US fell far behind these other developed countries.

The lack of universal coverage is perhaps the most disturbing difference. There are clearly economic advantages to universal health care: Diseases cost less in the long run when they're prevented or caught early; insurance costs less when it draws from a pool that includes both the healthy and the less healthy.

Universal coverage is an ethical issue. The US claims to be a country that values equal opportunity. If you lack adequate health care from the time you're conceived, however, your opportunities will never be equal.

Part two of this post discussed disillusion with the idea of progress and a yearning for a higher purpose. How did we end up in this unsatisfactory situation and is there hope that things will change for the better?

I recently read Robert Reich's book Supercapitalism. I was impressed with the clarity with which he described economic history, from the "Not quite Golden Age" (between the end of World War II and the 1970s) to the supercapitalism that followed.

Supercapitlaism refers to the technological, globalized, deregulated, and privatized economy of the present. Under supercapitalism, politics is dominated by business firms and financiers who successfully lobby government to act in their narrow interests. Meanwhile, this leaves no one responsible for the broader public interest.

Part one of this post noted Paul Krugman's take on the health care legislative process and the political practice of soliciting money in exchange for votes. Beneath these surface issues, however, there's a deeper sense of disillusion with 20th century progress and with a lack of purpose to modern life.

We may tinker with a dysfunctional political process - whether it's the filibuster or corporate lobbying - but our efforts may amount to little more than putting a finger in the dyke. Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the inability of their government to be effective. The problem is not simply a matter of two political parties with opposing ideologies and the influential economic interests that politicians represent.

The typical diet in Afghanistan is bread with a watery soup, some onions, a potato, perhaps a bone and some yogurt or oil. One third of the population is hungry or in danger of starving - humanitarian groups call this being "food insecure." Another third of the population is on the border of food insecurity.

In the old days, before their country was overrun by foreigners, Afghans could produce enough to eat by subsistence farming - growing enough to feed one's family. Between the disruptions of armed conflict and an inadequate, unpredictable rainfall, that's no longer possible. Afghans must earn money to buy food.

Raphael, The School of Athens

Source: Paula Muhlestein

I loved this post from the Widener Law Health Law Institute blog. It's both wise and entertaining. Here are a few excerpts, but I recommend reading the whole post.

A country's health care system reflects its character, ethics, and cultural values. Politics, medicine, and economics may shape the particular design of a system, but when it comes to deciding who will be included, that's a moral question.

The United States is the only industrialized democracy that does not guarantee health care to all its citizens. For some Americans, this is consistent with our Jeffersonian heritage of a limited and frugal government. The wealthy should not have to pay for the poor, even in matters of life and death.

For many Americans, however, our health care system is disturbing. 45,000 Americans die every year from treatable diseases because they lack health insurance. We're the only country with medical bankruptcies. This feels morally wrong, just as some wars seemed wrong and made it difficult to feel good about being an American.

There's an unfortunate parallel between the politics of climate change and the politics of US health care reform. They differ in scale -- global vs. domestic. But consider this: Who suffers the most from the lack of universal health care in the US? The poor and unemployed. Who will suffer the most from climate change? The poor and unemployed. There are many reasons for this, but largely it's a matter of where the poor live: the tropics, underdeveloped countries, overcrowded slums.

The world's poorest populations will be the first to suffer from climate change. When they can no longer survive where they currently live, they will leave their homes and migrate. The Indian government is presently constructing a seven-foot-high fence made of double-thickness razor wire and steel. It will be 2,800 miles long (4500 km) and line the entire border between India and Bangladesh. Its purpose? To keep out terrorists, yes, but according to the BBC, it's also meant to keep out immigrants who will flee the impact of climate change.

A child's health depends on the child's environment. Children who live in poor households are more likely to die, more likely to suffer the irreversible effects of poor nutrition, and less likely to benefit from a health-care system if one is available.

It's estimated that 9.2 million children under the age of five die each year in developing countries due to easily preventable or treatable diseases or medical conditions. The international organization Save the Children has published a new report called Lasting Benefits, The role of cash transfers in tackling child mortality. (PDF) It explains why regular donations (cash transfers) to poor communities make a difference, whether the money comes from sponsoring a child, making an online purchase, or a simple donation.

There's been plenty of coverage of the Obama and McCain health plans during the presidential election campaign. I debated whether to contribute my opinion and decided against it. I think everyone is exhausted with media coverage. There's a nice Time Magazine article this week on "The 24-Minute News Cycle." It was reassuring to read that I'm not alone in refreshing the Google News page.

I can recommend some sources on the health care debate that go deeper than the rivalry of two candidates. There is a page put together by The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) called Election 2008. I especially liked the article "Three 'Inconvenient Truths' about Health Care" by V. R. Fuchs. I may write about that article later. Health care is not an issue that's going to disappear simply because the election frenzy is over.