This week, Jimmy Kimmel went viral. Not for the jokes for which he is typically known, but for a 13-minute video where he told the story of his son’s birth and subsequent emergency surgery. The boy was born last week with serious heart defects, and was ultimately saved by a dedicated team of doctors, who Kimmel thanked on-air. He then expressed relief that Congress did not green light President Trump’s proposed $6 billion cut to the National Institutes of Health, praising its move to instead increase the NIH’s funding by $2 billion. Finally, Kimmel argued, through tears, that no one should be denied coverage in the US for a preexisting condition like the one his son, Billy, has. As Republicans create uncertainty around this very issue, Kimmel’s appeal has been viewed four million times and counting.

In 1947, Dylan Thomas composed his most famous poem, “Do not go gentle into that good night,” exhorting the reader to resist the end of life. “Rage, rage against the dying of the light,” Thomas wrote. Seventy years later, this sentiment infuses much of America’s investments in medicine. The US spends far more on health than any economically comparable country, with much of that money going towards healthcare for older Americans. In 2012, those over 65 years old spent an average of $18,988, which is more than five times the expenditure per child, and about three times the expenditure per working-age individual. This investment feeds into the broader trend of US health spending, which, in 2015, grew 5.8%, amounting to $3.2 trillion total.

On April 22, scientists will march on Washington, D.C. in support of empiricism, data and fact-based policy making. The young Trump administration has already shown itself to be at best skeptical, and at worse hostile, to these principles. From its flirtation with climate change denial to its dim view of the proven effectiveness of vaccines, this presidency has worried the scientific community, galvanizing political action.

The Trump administration's recently released "skinny budget" delivers on its name, save for one key area. Described as a "hard power budget," it cuts many social programs while allocating an additional $54 billion for defense spending. The central idea behind this budget seems to be that we can create a safer country by heavily investing in defense, while ignoring spending on all else. But can we?

The Trump administration’s plan to cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has drawn criticism from both Republicans and Democrats. In the days since the administration released its proposed budget, which would also cut funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), 24 senators from both parties signed a letter asking the president to reconsider eliminating these agencies. The letter cites the power of the arts to forge cultural bonds, stimulate the economy, and enrich our education system. The senators might have included another reason for keeping these programs alive: By influencing the cultural context in which we live, the arts also help to promote health.

The healthcare debate unfolded rapidly last week, with the story changing at a dizzying pace, until it ended with the defeat of the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Ultimately, Congress chose not to vote on “Trumpcare,” due to Republican division over the substance of the widely unpopular bill. As we watched these events play out, traditional forms of commentary often felt a step or two behind the moment. We are, after all, used to seeing situations unfold linearly, with one event leading to another, following the standard pattern of cause and effect. Yet, in the blur of last week, developments emerged almost simultaneously. We saw President Trump lobby for the AHCA, even as Republicans worked to amend the bill to make it more palatable for their caucus prior to a scheduled vote on the legislation. Republicans then delayed the vote, before, ultimately, rescheduling it for Friday, then calling it off. For those of us who are invested in navigating the complex subject of healthcare, these events begged the question: how do we make sense of such wild times?