Testing, testing. Here come the hotspotters (murderer!)

[Aimless]

Gawande writes great essays, and my distaste for you lot was overcome by a couple of his essays that I'd missed. Here's one, in which I was most thrilled by his brief and probably biased but cheery tour through the successes of the USDA:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_gawande

It's a longish read, so load it up on your rooted Nook Color, flop down into a bed or a couch, and enjoy.



The next one is a much longer read, but it's also more interesting:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_gawande



These ideas are relevant to improving healthcare in Sweden as well, so it's not just that I have an irrational obsession with US healthcare.

[Dreadnaught]

I think we actually all argued that specific article a year ago. My basic point is I have no problem with government funding tests and experimental payment schemes to find new best practices and reduce costs. But I do have a problem with government agreeing to fund everyone's healthcare no matter what happens.

But more generally, I think agricultural innovation that cuts costs is relatively easier than medical innovation that cuts costs. We've seen two very distinct cost curves in each industry. Agricultural innovation has tended to yield more crops for less money. Medical innovation has tended to yield more/better treatments that cost more money.