At 10:11 AM -0500 11/2/09, Charles Bennett wrote:
>On Feb 11, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Patrick Coskren wrote:
>
>> On Feb 11, 2009, at 1:35 AM, David Cake wrote:
>>>
>>> PS yeah, Chuck, you are just completely, objectively, wrong on the
>>> whole US vs UK thing. Admit it like a man.
>
>I wasn't saying that the US is better I'm simply saying that the UK is
>not what we should be holding up as the way to go.
For the rest of us, it isn't. But you said
At 12:23 PM -0500 10/2/09, Charles Bennett wrote:
>I agree, but having the government set the standard lead to the UK
>NHS, which by any objective standard is a disaster.
And sorry, by any objective standard, going to the UK NHS
would improve the standard of health care in the US while reducing
spending. So, the opposite of disaster - a distinct improvement.
>Indeed, the US has problems in it's cost structure. Back in the
>Clinton days one of his (valid) arguments was that 1/3 of
>the health care dollars go to administration.
It is a valid argument, but only goes so far. Administration
of health care IS a big issue, a modern hospital system is a very
complex beast with a lot of administrative overhead -- as is any
large organisation that performs a complex task with a lot of
oversight.
>I find it impossible to believe that adding a government layer to that
>is going to help.
But, as we have already shown, what you find impossible to
believe doesn't have much to do with objective reality. Why would
replacing a for-profit insurance layer with a government layer not
help?
> "learn to operate less like solo practitioners" and be willing to
>accept mandatory government controls and guidelines.
the implication is yours, not his. Doctors need to learn to
be more part of a health system, yes.
>Actually, it's anti-stimulus no? IF you go completely electronic,
>you will fire all those filing clerks that you no longer need.
>Sure you hire the computer guy to set it up, but that's a one off
>expense.
I never understand how the Right ever fooled people into
thinking they were the ones who understood economics better. Because
this kind of thing is nonsense.
Yeah, you get increased efficiency. So, perhaps you redeploy
the filing clerks to be records clerks on the wards, and reduce the
amount of time doctors and nurses spend chasing charts. Or perhaps
you fire them all, and use the money to hire nurses, and thus produce
more health care for the same money, with no aggregate loss of jobs.
Productivity increases are a net improvement - are you actually
arguing against them?
Cheers
David
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
