But I'd rather an argue of quality. If you're convinced the U.S., provides horrible care, then that's what you think.
More than anything, I just have no words for this blind faith that Obama is going to solve health care in the U.S. Or any president. It's like the slogan should be "MORE RED HOT IDEAS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT YOU THE CURRENT MESS -- NOW, MORE EXPENSIVE THAN EVER!!!"
What does this have to do with recovery in the Midwest-- specifically relating to infrastructure, planning, development and architecture?
If anything, architects should be opposed to the healthcare reform. If I remember right, something like 35%ish of the architectural industry is based off of healthcare.
In fact a little more than 20% of the healthcare industries costs are listed as "administrative costs." This is mildly amusing considering that healthcare budgets also list "workforce" as another quarter slice of the pie.
This suggests to me that 'administrative costs' are comprised of a few administrators, building cost & maintenance and property taxes (for private healthcare facilities).
So, if we're going to make healthcare affordable, we're going to have to migrate away from expensive real estate.
And this isn't necessarily attacking hospitals that are pretty but hospitals that are non-functional from an urban planning point of view. We could technically reduce a large portion of our healthcare costs by no longer guaranteeing health services to those living in exurban and rural areas.
Also, I think bringing the Cato Institute into this argument is low-ball.
I agree with many of the points that Cato brings up in their research... but then they often contradict themselves.
They have a lot of good ideas when it comes to managing development, real estate taxes, approaching urbanization et cetera... but their conclusions always feel like a cop out.
I think also using a libertarian argument is contrived without addressing the issue at hand with a populist argument. The United States has no functioned in a populist capacity in a long time.
The reason I say this is because libertarians seem to think everyone in a given situation is bright enough to handle everything without intervention... but the truth is, there are some people out there wholly dependent on intervention.
Recession Recovery - Any Signs in Midwest?
so yes, the quailty of our health care is low compared to the rest of the 1st world...
And so you want "free" health care within our horrible system, why?
;-)
You're quoting the WHO... a branch of th UN... hmmm, any idea where i might head with that?
I'm sure you hate Cato, but this link (if it works) at least shows that there is DEFINITELY some space between the WHO and scientific objectivity.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf
But I'd rather an argue of quality. If you're convinced the U.S., provides horrible care, then that's what you think.
More than anything, I just have no words for this blind faith that Obama is going to solve health care in the U.S. Or any president. It's like the slogan should be "MORE RED HOT IDEAS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT YOU THE CURRENT MESS -- NOW, MORE EXPENSIVE THAN EVER!!!"
What does this have to do with recovery in the Midwest-- specifically relating to infrastructure, planning, development and architecture?
If anything, architects should be opposed to the healthcare reform. If I remember right, something like 35%ish of the architectural industry is based off of healthcare.
In fact a little more than 20% of the healthcare industries costs are listed as "administrative costs." This is mildly amusing considering that healthcare budgets also list "workforce" as another quarter slice of the pie.
This suggests to me that 'administrative costs' are comprised of a few administrators, building cost & maintenance and property taxes (for private healthcare facilities).
So, if we're going to make healthcare affordable, we're going to have to migrate away from expensive real estate.
And this isn't necessarily attacking hospitals that are pretty but hospitals that are non-functional from an urban planning point of view. We could technically reduce a large portion of our healthcare costs by no longer guaranteeing health services to those living in exurban and rural areas.
Also, I think bringing the Cato Institute into this argument is low-ball.
I agree with many of the points that Cato brings up in their research... but then they often contradict themselves.
They have a lot of good ideas when it comes to managing development, real estate taxes, approaching urbanization et cetera... but their conclusions always feel like a cop out.
I think also using a libertarian argument is contrived without addressing the issue at hand with a populist argument. The United States has no functioned in a populist capacity in a long time.
The reason I say this is because libertarians seem to think everyone in a given situation is bright enough to handle everything without intervention... but the truth is, there are some people out there wholly dependent on intervention.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.