Gilbert Kaplan is obsessed with Mahler’s Symphony No. 2 (Resurrection), and that’s becoming a problem for some.

The business tycoon has studied the piece his whole life and is recognized as a leading authority on it. He owns the original manuscript and co-edited a recent edition that Vienna’s International Gustav Mahler Society points to as the official score.

Kaplan has also conducted the symphony with at least 50 orchestras around the world and recorded the work with the Vienna Philharmonic and the London Symphony Orchestra. The latter is the all-time best-selling recording of the Resurrection.

But people have a problem with the conducting part because Kaplan is an amateur who essentially willed his way onto the stage, and musicians who play for him don’t think he’s very good.

That disdain rose to a boil last month when Kaplan led the Second at the New York Philharmonic. Before the show, musicians demanded a special meeting with orchestra president Zarin Mehta and railed the whole time about Kaplan’s shortcomings.

But the matter remained more or less private until trombonist David Finlayson decided to lace into Kaplan on his blog.

“My colleagues and I gave what we could to this rudderless performance but the evening proved to be nothing more than a simplistic reading of a very wonderful piece of music,” he lamented.

Then he really got into it, belittling Kaplan’s obsession and career-odyssey as a “woefully sad farce,” subtily accusing orchestra governing bodies of supporting the folly, and hinting that an extra donation here or there might have greased the skids.

This sort of thing would seem a bit off-putting to many who exist in the genteel world of the New York Philharmonic, but Kaplan took it in stride.  “I don’t think anyone will confuse me with (music director) Lorin Maazel when it comes to technique…but I do get the results I want,” he told the New York Times.

“If some people are displeased, I can’t help it.”

Meanwhile, Times critic Steve Smith praised the Philharmonic’s performance. Smith wrote that the amateur conductor beat time and rendered cues adequately and that “his efforts were evident throughout a performance of sharp definition and shattering power.”

And the audience gave it a standing ovation.

US state and federal governments spend $15 billion per year on substance abuse treatment programs and private insurers drop $5 billion more.

Yet few rehab programs have data showing they work. The high-end private clinics generally do not permit investigators to validate their claims, and publicly supported programs don’t have the time or money to undertake verification studies.

Even the well-known Alcoholics Anonymous refuses to publish data regarding program efficacy.

It’s not like we don’t know which approaches are effective. Prescription drugs like naltrexone and buprenorphine can help people shake alcohol and narcotic addiction, for example.

Certain behavioral techniques including intake interviews that galvanize patient commitment are effective, as are certain counseling and behavioral techniques that help people cope with mood shifts, promote self esteem and promote healthy interests and creativity.

In 2003, Oregon began requiring that rehab programs use evidence-based practices in order to qualify for state funds. Now, nearly 54% of the state’s $94 million budget goes to programs claiming to use these approaches.

That’s twice as high as before the mandate, but some doubt all those programs are really using proven techniques. Inspection programs don’t have enough resources to monitor the 400 programs receiving state support.

And then there’s the ground war involving rehab counselors who, after devoting 100% effort for years to forge an approach that makes sense for them, don’t want to hear what others may think.

“The challenge is to build a bridge between what the science says is effective and what people are already doing,” according to Brian Serna, director of outpatient services at Adapt.

Tom Daschle’s confirmation as Secretary of HHS is not in doubt so he used yesterday’s hearings to reinforce the need for massive health care reform beginning now.

“As we face a harsh and deep recession, the problem of the uninsured is likely to grow,” he said. And the uninsured “can’t get sick without total economic destruction.”

Daschle’s encounter on the hill was generally friendly. No one asked how he’ll beef up community health centers, support primary care providers, speed approval of generic drugs, and improve medical information systems.

Those details can wait for another day, but it’s now apparent that the honeymoon phase is over when it comes to the Big O’s plans for a new federal entitlement plan that would compete with private insurers.

Daschle told Congress “a government-run insurance program modeled after Medicare” would provide alternatives to private coverage for all consumers, including the uninsured.

The public plan might even be able to provide better benefits and service at a lower cost than UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Aetna and the rest, and at a minimum the competition should motivate private insurers to control costs more effectively.

Well! This does not sit well with Big Insurance, some employers and some Republicans. After all, a new entitlement program like that might have advantages in the market that are so profound–it could drive private insurers right out of business.

Yep, that’s pretty much it guys!

Jacob Hacker, a political science professor at UC Berkeley believes the new option is necessary if the Big O’s plans to save money and cover everyone are to succeed.

“Public insurance has a better track record than private insurance when it comes to reining in costs while preserving access to care,” Hacker told the New York Times.

Big Insurance knows it’s playing winner take all and that public opinion isn’t on its side. No one can predict how an animal reacts when it’s backed into a corner.