And I wonder why would we not consider pursuing this pointer and see if it has more depth and evidence value to it, to actually take an environment transforming political and governance decision.
To me, it seems both heartening and sensible. Much like convergence of two normal, empirically observed phenomena : price differential for same goods or services between up and downtown markets ; and, how sellers make special effort to deliver added value when facing pressures on prices ( because, I suspect, the margins are anyway comfortable). On Sep 4, 7:18 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, the US can do a much better job. And is doing a much better job > in some communities. > The best data I've seen on all this is presented by Atul Gawande > in his June 1, 2009, article in the New Yorker magazine, "The Cost > Conundrum." In it he compares the worst and best US communities for > health care and health costs. He found that the lowest cost > communities offered the best health care. Amazing! Why? Because the > worse ones focused on maximizing doctors' income through testing, > referrals and entrepreneurial strategies. The best ones focused on the > needs of the patient. One is a quantity driven system, the other an > accountable care system. If you'd like to read the article it is at > newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01. > The Wall St. Journal opinion piece is typical WSJ - one side only > but cloaked in a cover of reasonable sayings. I don't really care to > get into it much. > Francis says that the two major issues are (to condense) 1. > costs, and 2. allocating costs. The New Yorker article shows that the > major issue is - will we focus on doctors' income or patient care? > Hopefully it is the latter. Jim > > On Sep 4, 5:54 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I guess what I am saying is that in regard to the price of health > > care, I know the US can do a much better job and determining what is > > necessary and stopping the inordinate use of medical tests as a > > business that so many doctors and hospitals now employ in order to > > make money. We all pay the price constant testing and over > > prescribing of medication as a medical model here in the US. > > > On Sep 4, 8:38 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Yes we do, and water rates and VAT and road tax, and PAYE, and council > > > tax, and congestion charge and numerous other taxes. > > > > On 4 Sep, 13:31, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I suppose you are right, we can't put a price on human life. But we > > > > all pay a price for healthcare, and that price is always quite high. > > > > Even for people who have no insurance, they pay the price in inability > > > > to secure employment that supplies it, > > > > > On Sep 4, 5:51 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I have just read through this article and you are right it is > > > > > chillingly frightening. > > > > > > This bit here is an outright lie: > > > > > > 'Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against > > > > > older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, > > > > > allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 > > > > > year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be > > > > > ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more > > > > > life-years is not.' > > > > > > Treating anybody differantly based on age IS discrimination based up > > > > > on age, not matter how one dresses the logic up. > > > > > > The whole story sums up nicely that at least this bloke belives it IS > > > > > acceptible to put a price on human life, that I would call dispicable. > > > > > > On 4 Sep, 07:38, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > This is a very interesting article. I'm not suggesting we'll end up > > > > > > with something like this but it certainly makes for chilling > > > > > > reading. > > > > > > One major problem with current doctors(according to Dr. Emanuel) is > > > > > > the Hippocratic Oath. It's all very coldly logical and would be > > > > > > very > > > > > > effective in reducing costs I believe. If I got to keep the > > > > > > sweetheart health care our law makers get I'd probably vote for it > > > > > > myself. > > > > > > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020370660457437446328009... > > > > > > > How 'bout you? > > > > > > > dj- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
