In today’s News Update, we have links referencing the American economy, nuclear security and another health care update.
The American economy appears to be in a cyclical recovery that is gaining strength. Firms have begun to hire and consumer spending seems to be accelerating.
That is what usually happens after particularly sharp recessions, so it is surprising that many commentators, whether economists or politicians, seem to doubt that such a thing could possibly be happening.
After months of frosty dealings between the U.S. and Chinese governments, the two countries’ presidents plan to meet in Washington, D.C., on the sidelines of a nuclear security summit. There are signs that both sides may make concessions on the Iranian nuclear issue and trade and currency policies.
China’s explanation for the chill in recent relations is that by meeting with Tibetan religious leader the Dalai Lama and selling arms to Taiwan, President Obama and his administration have trampled on China’s core national interests, a term Chinese officials have been using a lot these days to denote issues they see as nonnegotiable.
The May issue of Health Care News leads with President Barack Obama’s signing of the federal health care overhaul legislation … and a report on Virginia’s passage of a “health freedom law” that aims to protect the state’s citizens from government-imposed individual mandates.
Also in this issue:
* The treasurer of Massachusetts warns the national equivalent of Commonwealth Care could bankrupt the country.
* Business, unions, and pharmaceutical interests pour cash into advertising.
* Reform in the name of more-efficient data collection could force patients to disclose more than they wish.
* The rationale may be public health, but data indicate it’s just a new revenue stream.
* Language in the federal health care overhaul keeps committee and leadership staff who drafted the bill from being forced to purchase insurance in new exchanges.
* The future of health care reform could be altered dramatically by lawsuits over whether the individual mandate is constitutional.