
The health-care bill has no master plan for curbing costs. Is this a bad thing? - kcy
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/091214fa_fact_gawande?printable=true
======
lastheme
This article is worth a read before making bland comments about the tagline.

Edit: To provide a little value, the article digs into some history of how the
US managed amazing increases in productivity in agriculture in the early 20th
century. That portion of it alone is fascinating. Whatever version of the
healthcare bill the article's using includes similar techniques to how the
government approached agriculture.

~~~
joe_the_user
Uh,

The article's headline is sort-of plausible.

The article's body is a pathetic absurdity. An massive integrated,
interdependent industry can't be plausibly compared to the motley collection
of itinerant farmers roaming America in 1900. I'd laugh if this article wasn't
such a pathetic failure to address the oncoming gigantic failure that is the
looming health care bill. As it is, I want to cry...

Edit: The history of agriculture improvement are interesting. But cryingly
inapplicable - health care processes are absolutely not the product of the
decisions of individual health care providers but the massively complex
interactions of multiple sub-industries, regulations, etc. Sheesh.

~~~
lastheme
I don't know that I'd disagree. In its current state, I'm afraid there are too
many pressures on each individual actor for them to try new things.

The advantages in agriculture were that they were suspicious of trying new
things, but once they did they demonstrated profit advantages. I have more
trouble seeing how the pilot programs the article mentions would profit
individual practitioners, or how insurance companies would provide the same
kind of demand signals that direct consumers would.

------
orangecat
In the long run the only ways to control health care costs are to let old
people die, or cure aging. I'd prefer the second.

~~~
abyssknight
Unfortunately, the second would ensure rising health care costs as there would
then be more patients. Also, overpopulation would then be a much larger issue
than health care and as such we'd have to find creative ways to cull the
masses. Darwin Awards or not, the numbers would rise indefinitely.

------
manbearpig
Yes. This is the major problem with leaving out a public option. There is no
way to control costs without one. Preventative medicine has been shown to
improve patient outcomes but has also been shown to increase, not lower,
costs.

~~~
joe_the_user
A lot more than a public option is needed.

