Such an intelligent and well thought out conversation you have started Ben.
Ideas that soothe the surface, but likely cover up real punishment for people who need the most help, is unnerving and depressing itself. Makes me feel better that young, compassionate and wise people like you will be watching closely and sounding the alarms when needed.
Speaking of conspiracy theories, anyone else see that Making our Children Healthy Again spells out MOCHA, Starbucks anyone? Just kidding, or am I?
What I find interesting in here are the ways in which this systemically says things, but systemically does nothing. Especially in light of the Big Beautiful Bill, this is another cry into the vacuum. It's a stand alone, "we (I) did something" without actually having to do something. Nothing you described from the report is news to me as a therapist. Where it becomes dangerous (outside the systemic ignorance it displays) is the interwoven conspiracy garbage with stuff that has some research relevance. Putting those together creates a scary narrative for the future of research and systemic interventions.
It's got a little bit for everyone on the ideology to research spectrum, but by equating the two it elevatees pop culture to science status.
A dangerous and slippery slope indeed. I think that learning how to see the signal from the noise will become a new competency for public policy. I share similar fears, and think that more of us need to speak up often on the difference between fact and fiction (and continue to educate everyone along the way)!
This is an important contribution. The temptation, if you are a healthcare provider, is to write off everything from the Administration because of the ideology-infused, anti-science, and budget-centered rather than person-centered actions. Unfortunately, that can put you in the position of defending programs and approaches you might otherwise push to change. Dr. Miller's organization of his review, including his personal responses as part of the narrative, is a model for how to stay engaged with the details of what is said, highlighting elements that could be contributions, distinguishing questionable assertions, and keeping awareness of greater contradictions, all in an accessible tone that heightens the option for dialogue.
Such an intelligent and well thought out conversation you have started Ben.
Ideas that soothe the surface, but likely cover up real punishment for people who need the most help, is unnerving and depressing itself. Makes me feel better that young, compassionate and wise people like you will be watching closely and sounding the alarms when needed.
Thank you for such a wonderful comment! It will definitely take all of us, but I for one plan to stay vigilant while it's my turn to keep watch.
Speaking of conspiracy theories, anyone else see that Making our Children Healthy Again spells out MOCHA, Starbucks anyone? Just kidding, or am I?
What I find interesting in here are the ways in which this systemically says things, but systemically does nothing. Especially in light of the Big Beautiful Bill, this is another cry into the vacuum. It's a stand alone, "we (I) did something" without actually having to do something. Nothing you described from the report is news to me as a therapist. Where it becomes dangerous (outside the systemic ignorance it displays) is the interwoven conspiracy garbage with stuff that has some research relevance. Putting those together creates a scary narrative for the future of research and systemic interventions.
It's got a little bit for everyone on the ideology to research spectrum, but by equating the two it elevatees pop culture to science status.
A dangerous and slippery slope indeed. I think that learning how to see the signal from the noise will become a new competency for public policy. I share similar fears, and think that more of us need to speak up often on the difference between fact and fiction (and continue to educate everyone along the way)!
This is an important contribution. The temptation, if you are a healthcare provider, is to write off everything from the Administration because of the ideology-infused, anti-science, and budget-centered rather than person-centered actions. Unfortunately, that can put you in the position of defending programs and approaches you might otherwise push to change. Dr. Miller's organization of his review, including his personal responses as part of the narrative, is a model for how to stay engaged with the details of what is said, highlighting elements that could be contributions, distinguishing questionable assertions, and keeping awareness of greater contradictions, all in an accessible tone that heightens the option for dialogue.
Thank you so much for your comment, Dr. Blount! I learned from the best on how to do this ;)