Syria would seem to be a situation with no good options.  If we don’t intervene, there is every likelihood of a continuing civilian catastrophe.  If we do intervene, what can we really do?

I have no source of information other than news coverage.  I don’t know the bad guys from the good guys.  I suspect that the people in charge of our Syrian policy, while having more details of the destruction, have little more actionable information.

From the outside, it is apparent to me that the US policy establishment does not understand the Arab world.  We clearly broke Iraq.  While it is hard to argue that Saddam Hussein should have remained in power, it is not clear to me that the present situation can soon lead to a positive outcome.  In Egypt, we have few options, even fewer good options.  Afghanistan is clearly still a mess.

It may well be that this messy process in the Arab world is the only path forward as they sort out for themselves what they want to be.

Many times that hardest decision is to do nothing.  This seems to be where we are right now.  I think we need to not intervene, particularly, when such intervention is likely to exacerbate the mess.  All we can do is provide humanitarian assistant to the refugees and wring our hands.

John

Obamacare is a huge law with potential long range effects to the US healthcare system.  Some of these effects will prove helpful, some harmful.  That being said, fair minded people are likely to have lots of problems with many of the aspects of the law.  Personally, I don’t like that most coverage is tied to ones employer.  Another is privacy.

I ,also, don’t understand the reluctance to let go of the current system.  It is expensive and (to the population as a whole) does not provide adequate coverage.  It is virtually impossible to shop for medical services.  In most states, the health insurance companies are a duopoly (two competitors control a majority of the market) which tends to foster cooperation, not competition.

So, as I said, fair minded people can have problems with Obamacare.  All I ask is that the concerns are explicit and that options may be considered to address those concerns.  Please keep in mind the requirements I mentioned in a prior post that any solution must not improve one measurement, while damaging another measurement.

Thanks – John

The solution to any problem requires a clear definition of the problem and an understanding of what kind of outcome is a valid solution.

First, a couple of facts about the US healthcare situation.  According to the World Health Organization, the US has the highest healthcare costs in the world, but is only ranked 37th  in the quality of care.  The US, currently, has over 48,000,000 people without heath insurance.

Without digging into the details of the ranks, we can start with the high costs/low quality as a basis for finding a solution.

To me, any solution must improve one of the factors with without causing the other to deteriorate, e.g. we cannot lower the cost, if it has a negative impact on quality.

In future posts, I will make an attempt at possible solutions.

I look forward to your suggestions.