Then, we're told, Japanese media are to blame: 

Left-leaning news outlets have long been skeptical of nuclear power and of its backers, and the mutual mistrust led power companies and their regulators to tightly control the flow of information about nuclear operations so as not to inflame a spectrum of opponents that includes pacifists and environmentalists.

So the too-critical media helped create this crisis of  "mutual mistrust"? The Times had previously led me to believe that the problem with Japanese media was that it was too cozy with powerful institutions.  Now I'm being told they're too critical, which makes them part of the problem.

Finally we come to this:

The close links between politicians and business executives have further complicated the management of the nuclear crisis.

Powerful bureaucrats retire to better-paid jobs in the very industries they once oversaw, in a practice known as "amakudari." Perhaps no sector had closer relations with regulators than the country’s utilities; regulators and the regulated worked hand in hand to promote nuclear energy, since both were keen to reduce Japan’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

Now hold on a second. They live in a country where there is a revolving door between corporations and the regulators who oversee their industries?

I'm glad the Times gives us the  Japanese word for this, since most U.S. readers have no frame of reference with which to comprehend such a bizarre practice.

Majority local opposition to the base is noted second, after the Japanese prime minister's view that the base is "a critical deterrent against regional security threats--a message driven home by North Korea's deadly artillery strike on a South Korean islet on Tuesday." Can you "drive home" something that isn't true? Sounds more like the Times thinks the deterrence capability's crucialness is a fact, not a "message," and that the artillery strike just proves it. One could just as easily point out that the U.S. presence there could be part of what keeps North Korea on edge. The fact that South Korea can conduct mock invasions and war games with the assistance of the most powerful military on the planet might not seem like peacekeeping to everyone.

Also, I guess the Okinawan governor's opponent's proposal that the base be moved out of Japan altogether is "strident" by definition, since the paper doesn't point out any way he was particularly loud or shrill about it. He has the wrong opinion; that makes him a screamer.

a century-old, cartel-like arrangement in which reporters from major news media outlets are stationed inside government offices and enjoy close, constant access to officials. The system has long been criticized as antidemocratic by both foreign and Japanese analysts, who charge that it has produced a relatively spineless press that feels more accountable to its official sources than to the public. In their apparent reluctance to criticize the government, the critics say, the news media fail to serve as an effective check on authority.

The mind reels.

Fire insurance transfers wealth from people who don't have house fires to people who do. Car insurance transfers money from people who don't have car accidents to people who do. This is the basic concept of insurance. It protects people from bad events, transferring money from people who don't have bad events to those who do. In other words, this quote is telling us that Japan's health insurance system is operating like a health insurance system.

The article is also quick to tell readers that Japan's system may be unsustainable. Its subhead is: "Aging population could strain system." It is worth noting that Japan's population is already far older than the U.S. population.

"If the United States had the same age distribution as Japan," writes Baker, "its healthcare costs would almost certainly already be above 20 percent of GDP, compared to the current 17 percent." Listen to the FAIR radio program CounterSpin: "Trudy Lieberman on Healthcare Reform" (8/14/09).