people later dislike. Some of the most outstanding programs on TV started out with terrible focus group ratings. Apparently having to explain one's reaction leads to subconsciously trying to please the authority figure and suppressing the actual reactions to the thing being focus group tested. So it status quos things--and real success needs risk takers who don't depend on focus groups.

(I was also trying to pay attention to the Kucinich hearings, so may have missed some nuance....)

From Malcolm Gladwell, the guy who wrote The Tipping Point, based on studies of students offered free posters, one was of the kitten hanging onto a bar with caption of "Hang In There" and the others were art posters. When students were told to simply take the one they liked, most took the art posters. When told to give an explanation for their choice, they tended to take the kitten poster (HUH??. Six months later they were asked if they still had the posters and how they liked them. Those who did not have to explain said they loved their posters and still had them; the explainers, if they still had the posters, said they hated or did not like them.

From this, the experimenters drew the conclusion that having to explain leads to cutting off genuine reactions to those more easily explained and/or acceptable. Probably more to it that what I heard in the interview, but interesting nonetheless.

On RadioLab, a fascinating program on WNYC, always available on the web site. Third segment.

I love the program on why unusual music bothers people so much there was rioting at the premiere of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. But, by the time it made it to a second production, people knew somewhat what to expect and applauded it!

Also, thanks so much for this find, Amberglow. Or Amberglow On Fire. I've been wondering about this--you did the digging and found some nuggets. Again, T/U. And thanks to everyone who brings great things here.

~~~~
I don't know how the URL copy got underlined. Whassup?

1 from Column A, 1 from Column B...

with this, we have 1 from Heritage Foundation, 1 from Hillary, 1 from McCain, 1 from here, 1 from there... --and the only sure thing is that the result is never intended to be true single-payer or real change.

AHIP basically said as much. Thank you amberglow for getting on top of this. I have been distracted today by other issues.

To me the white paper reads like a catchall wish list—a veritable legislative Christmas tree that offers a glimmering ornament for everyone. Baucus talks of a “high performing health care system.” Those are the words The Commonwealth Fund, a New York City-based research and philanthropic organization, uses to describe its proposals. There’s a section on long-term care, which had been virtually ignored during the presidential campaign. Here, Baucus mentions giving states “new tools and incentives” to make home care more available. There’s talk of making information about cost and quality of medical services more transparent that should gladden the hearts of consumer groups; and for the business community, his ideas sound Republicanesque in spots.

The cornerstone is individual responsibility: People must have coverage, he argues, and if they don’t have it from their employers, they’ll have to buy their own. That’s a combination of Hillary Clinton’s mandate to buy coverage and George Bush’s notion of every man and woman for himself and herself. The Health Insurance Exchange, which was part of Massachusetts’s health-reform legislation and resembles the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, sprang from the conservative Heritage Foundation years ago when Heritage began pushing the privatization of Medicare. Baucus’s ideas to tax some portion of the value of the health insurance you get from your employer sure sounds a lot like John McCain’s proposal. Although Barack Obama attacked this idea in his campaign ads and in stump speeches, we told our readers that some Democrats supported such a plan.

Now, which reporters will step up to anlyzing this? And do compare and contrast? To cover the whole gamut of what can be done?

I remember the terrible difficulty the MCM had back in the early 90's in trying to find out what was actually happening with the Canadian healthcare system. It was so harrrrrd to learn anything about that distant, difficult to access culture! Ha!

The best reporters are way overstressed--the run of the mill accept what they're told. The worst...?