As for the first question I would answer: no the market is not solely responsible for the difficulties with our health care situation. The real problem in places like McAllen is poor ethically conduct and a lack of personal responsibility from both doctors and patients. The doctors that treat their practice as simply as way to amass personal wealth are in the wrong business. As for the patients, it is their (our) responsibility to be discerning when submitting to tests and procedures. For example, a few years ago it was recommended that I go through a complex series of procedures for an orthodontic correction. It seemed a bit over the top and unnecessary so I got a number of professional opinions and I eventually decided not to undergo the procedures. They cost and hassle of the procedure would not have been worth the result.

I like much of the concepts that are implemented at the Mayo clinic and its locally oriented collaboration and ethical approach and apparent genuine care. I think it could be possible to hash out reform somewhere along this path but ,like Eric said above, I think that this needs to happen at the state level. The Federal Government needs to stay as far as possible from health care. Of course regulation is necessary but this regulation would be more efficient and practical and ethical on a smaller level.

I would not feel comfortable intentionally misleading people to get them to comply to my will in politics or otherwise. I would rather present open easily understandable statistics, facts, and/or arguments to persuade people to my position. That being said I don't think that it is "unfair" in the traditional sense to provide potentially misleading data be it that the consumer doesn't' know the full context or what have you. Obviously, however, as I said before I would much prefer a world in which everything was honest and clear cut but since this is the political climate that exists I don't think it is unfair for campaigners to utilize a common method. If anything it is unfair to us, the consumers of the data.

Certainly there are those in the west who's hearts are in the right place when it comes to "saving Africa" but as for the authors claims about celebrities and those concerned with America's international image I think he has a point.
As far as I am concerned the US government should stop "aiding" africa all together. The author seemed to think Africa was doing a jolly good job on its own anyway.

I loved this article and and the question. It really illuminates the way in which we are coned into buying products or, more importantly, electing politicians and legislature. I thought the way that Lovell would make people feel at ease by portraying himself as somebody who understands the victim and has common problems and interests strikingly resembles the way that many (some much more than others) of the upcoming presidential candidates attempt to make us feel like they are one of us and have similar interests and are therefore going to look out for us. The reality is of course that (with exceptions) they are nothing like us and their interests probably don't really line up with ours. It is just part of their con to win votes and get elected. The other point of note is the way that political factions, politicians, and causes try to achieve that "in-crowd" effect. A lot of people get rather smug and self satisfied when they think they are the intellectual elite and believe what they do because they are "in on it" and the others are not.

Great thought provoking question. It's interesting to see such obvious similarities when presented with this con-man perspective.