It has been interesting to watch the Obama administration attempt to tackle the notion of healthcare. Whereas both the exorbitant costs and the poor standard of care flew under the radar for years, both elements seem to be getting greater and greater scrutiny these days.

At the same time there has been a strong push back from the system to retain the status quo. But after a report like the recent one from the Archives of Internal Medicine, it is clear that our healthcare system is in vast need of a major overhaul.

Substandard Care

The issue of quality healthcare came under discussion again this week with the release of a new study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. One startling result involved abnormal patient test results.

The study revealed that 7 percent of such results aren’t reported to patients. That means one of every fourteen patients that undergoes some form of medical tests, often extremely expensive in their own right, may have health issues yet they never are apprised of the potential problems.

Generally, anyone undergoing such tests likely assumes that if they do not hear from their doctor the results must have been routine. Clearly, this new report indicates otherwise.

According to the study, nearly one third of the practices reviewed did not report testing results to patients. This finding came despite the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality insistence that doctors should inform patients of all test results, normal or abnormal.

Fortunately, the study did not appear to reveal any missed cancers. But there were instances of where women were not told of the need for a follow-up Pap smear or mammogram to review an abnormal finding.

The Real Issue and What to Do?

Many insist that the real issue here involves the payment practices of the American system. Here, doctors don’t get reimbursed for the time taken to review test results but do get paid for ordering tests.

Others insist that the issue simply involves doctors that are just too busy to keep up with the demands of the profession. Yet another group insists that the reason that doctors are too busy stems in great part from the system’s structures.

The bottom line is that any patient not receiving test results from their physician must take the basic step of calling to follow up themselves. To have a sense as to when to call, begin by asking when you can expect to hear from the doctor regarding the test results. When you get home, mark that date on your calendar, then if you have not heard call the office.

You should insist on such contact even if the office reports the use of electronic medical records. While systems are designed to safeguard test results, the study found that both practices using electronic records as well as those using paper record keeping missed reporting. In fact, the worst came from those practices using a mixture of the two forms of record keeping.

Lastly, if you cannot get your doctor or the office to return your call, vote with your feet and switch doctors. Experts suggest that if you do not hear within three days then it is a sign that the practice you are using is simply not well-managed.

Healthcare Reform

The more we hear the clearer it has become that we are in need of healthcare reform. What makes the issue so challenging is that even though our care system has been costly, once upon a time that care was considered the best in the world.

Not so today.

And while it is clear that we are in need of healthcare reform, it is imperative that as we wait for must we take the steps necessary to ensure our own health. In the case of the latest data, that means following up on test results whenever your physician fails to contact you.

Top honoree rejects recognition based on choice of Obama as graduation speaker.

It is not often that someone turns down a prestigious award from a college like Notre Dame.

But then again, it is equally unusual that the presence of a newly-elected, highly-popular president, would be the catalyst for rejecting such an honor.

But that is precisely what Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon has done. Citing the school’s invitation to Barack Obama to deliver the 2009 commencement address and plan to award the president an honorary degree, Glendon has politely said thanks, but no thanks to the university.

Initial Acceptance

The issue centers upon the conflicting position of Catholics and the president on the issue of abortion.

In December, Glendon, a former ambassador to the Vatican and a consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had been selected to receive the 2009 Laetare Medal. Described by the university as the “most prestigious award given to Catholics” yearly, the medal recognizes those “whose genius has ennobled the arts and sciences, illustrated the ideals of the Church and enriched the heritage of humanity.”

Glendon, chosen as commencement speaker and given an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, was at first pleased to learn of her selection last December. However, when she became aware that Obama was selected to receive an honorary doctorate and given the opportunity to give the commencement address, she found herself extremely dismayed.

From Critic to Absentee

Still, it appears that Glendon was set to attend, at least initially. Reports had the Harvard Law professor attending the ceremony and accepting her award so that she could take advantage of her opportunity to provide public remarks to criticize the president’s position.

But later, when it appeared that Notre Dame might utilize her presence at graduation as a step towards defending the school’s choice of Obama as commencement speaker, Glendon decided to reject the prestigious honor.

Directly citing the abortion issue, Glendon wrote in her university rejection letter that the choice demonstrated “disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions ’should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles’ and that such persons ’should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.’”

Moreover, in her letter to Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame’s president, she noted that the university appeared to be seeking to use her to balance off the more recent, unpopular selection of Obama.

She first cited one of the Notre Dame talking points regarding the matter:

“We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

Then soundly rejected the idea that commencement was a place for dissenting views to be aired. She wrote:

“A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.”

Tough Position for the President

Given Obama’s ability to see the large picture, the rejection by Glendon, a professor at the president’s alma mater, has to be upsetting to him personally. In addition, the fact that such a prestigious honor, awarded prior to his being chosen to speak, would be summarily rejected on account of his being selected definitely puts the president in a very difficult position.

It is perhaps too late for either Notre Dame or the president to rescind. Most notably, if he does preside at commencement as expected, Obama will need all of his rhetorical skills and speech writing talents to ensure his presence does not undermine the spirit of the day for those graduating.

During the latter stages of the Bush presidency, the outgoing president sought to put a positive spin on his ultimate legacy. In fact, throughout his tumultuous years in office, the outgoing president insisted that as time passed people would judge his accomplishments more positively.

Any chance for such a development seemingly went out the window over the last ten days with the emergence of the so-called torture memos.

Loss of Moral Bearings

With the release of the paper trail authorizing the brutal interrogation of terror suspects, President Barack Obama has opened the door on an administration that gave little thought to the long-term ramifications of its actions.

Leaving the option for prosecution to the attorney general’s office, Obama has clearly differentiated the issue into two categories: those who approved the harsh interrogation tactics and those who carried out the program at the behest of the Bush administration.

The release of the materials has most of the former administration scrambling. In an effort to dissuade the growing criticism, Bush Vice President Dick Cheney has attacked Obama for releasing the Justice Department memos maintaining that the methods helped protect the nation.

Three men currently seem to be most at risk of prosecution because of their role in formulating the legal decisions behind the interrogation methods. The three men are former Justice Department officials Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury.

Bybee is currently a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals while Yoo is a professor at the University of California-Berkeley. The professor has already drawn a great deal of scrutiny on campus with some calling for the firing of the tenured professor.

While the men will clearly take the position they were simply doing their jobs, legal experts have suggested that the men could face charges that include conspiracy to commit felonies including torture. Newspaper reports also indicate that Bybee also could face impeachment in Congress.

New Report

Adding to the issue for the former administration is a new declassified Congressional report. That report offers detailed evidence that the “military’s use of harsh interrogation methods on terrorism suspects was approved at high levels of the Bush administration.”

This report centers upon the interrogations carried out by the military as opposed to those conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency. Offering an extremely damning portrait of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others, the report rejects claims that Pentagon policies played no role in the abusive treatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

According to the Senate investigation, Rumsfeld approved 15 interrogation techniques to be utilized at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The report then tracks Rumsfeld’s authorization through a United States military special-operations lawyer in Afghanistan to the interrogation officer in charge at Abu Ghraib.

This led directly to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez authorizing the use of stress positions, “sleep management” and military dogs to prey upon detainees’ fears.

Not too surprisingly, former Secretary Rumsfeld has dismissed the report calling the findings unfounded allegations.

Time to Right Some Wrongs

While Republicans continue to fight any further scrutiny of these sordid matters, Democratic lawmakers and human rights groups are demanding hearings. These groups want to see punishment for those involved in sanctioning brutal interrogations that were tantamount to torture.

While the focus currently centers upon Yoo, Bigbee and Bradbury and the potential consequences for their actions, there now has to be a call to review the cases of some punished individuals.

If the president continues to maintain that those CIA officers that carried out the harsh interrogation techniques are not to be prosecuted, then it would seem only right to re-examine the military hearings related to the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Clearly, the actions of the military personnel punished for their behavior at the famous prison were not, as the administration contended at the time, the actions of a few rogue individuals.

Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib, who was demoted for her lack of oversight regarding the abuse should have her case re-examined. And the seven soldiers who were convicted in courts martial and sentenced to federal prison should also have their cases opened in light of these revelations.

It is clearly way too early to judge the Obama presidency despite the onslaught of criticism coming from former VP Dick Cheney.

But if our former president was in hope that time was on his side, that his presidency would be judged more positively with the passage of time, it is now clear that time will only cast further clouds on his administration.

Given his authorization to torture prisoners, his name is now being mentioned in the same sentences as Pol Pot considered one of the most evil men of all time.

Let’s face it, some folks don’t give a whole lot of thought to how their web site bloated with advertising appears to the average reader. However, some sites are so littered with selling that you find yourself turning away from the site before really examining specific content.

Then again, perhaps you are someone who really doesn’t care much for the idea of ads in the first place.

If so, you will likely want to download a copy of AdBlockPlus to get rid of as many of those intrusions as you can. And today, if your heart desires, you can go one step further, and make a personal statement with yet another application that replaces those advertising eyesores with art work from a variety of creative folks.

AdBlockPlus

Downloading a copy of AdBlockPlus will block 80-90% of those ads cluttering your favorite reading material. The software features a pre-determined list of ad materials to block depending on your home country.

AdBlockPlus simply whites out the majority of the ads, creating blank space. The feature not only eliminates the advertising that serves as a distraction, it reduces the overall visual clutter that is often pervasive on web sites today.

While AdBlockPlus fails to white out all, it is constantly being updated, a step that allows it to perform better with each passing upload of a site. A typical page features more than a 100 ads - more often than not, with AdBlockPlus that number will be reduced to single digits.

Add-Art

Those who have pursued a download of AdBlockPlus or now think they may want to pursue a download and are also using Mozilla as a web browser may also want to go one step further by pulling in a copy of Add-Art. Developed in the Eyebeam OpenLab, Add-Art is free and in the public domain just as AdBlockPlus.

The program takes the white out feature one step further, replacing the advertising clutter with art. Featuring material from art shows that are hand selected by curators of contemporary artists, the idea is to bring this work to a wider audience in a way that also provides a positive service.

The Add-Art folks insist they will bring new art shows to readers every 2 weeks. As for that art, users must understand that the software platform and the art represent separate entities. It is of course possible that you may like the concept, replacing the ads with art work, but not like the art work that is being chosen to replace the ads.

Techies May Want to Pursue Next Generation Concepts

For most of us, the chance to eliminate the ads and replace them with white space is more than enough. However, those with a creative flair will likely be enamored with the chance to import new art in a random manner as they surf their various internet sites.

But the real future could lie in giving the user more choices as to what they might replace the ads with. A program that allows the user to select from a bank of image clusters (let your imagination run here) would take the experience one step further.

Adding multiple options to get to a variety of styles that users could select depending on their whim is more in line with the current move towards giving the user complete control over their web experience.

Of course, the reverse is also true. Given the importance of advertising for sites, there will likely be yet another generation of programmers who seek to find other ways to ensure those ads appear in some manner.

So, What’s Your Choice?

Below are the 3 Finalists for the 2008 Political Blogging Scholarship. Voting will be closed on March 16th at midnight PST. Support your favorite blogger! Check out their blogs by following this post.