One of the smartest things I've ever heard regarding healthcare was:

You can have fast.
You can have cheap.
You can have innovative.

But the system is self-limiting. You can only have two at a time.

It is a sound statement to me. Is there a logical argument against this? If not, how do we "fix" things?

Which one would be best to give up?

Roger

Why should giving up any one of those three be an option Roger?

Why not "fix" the problem where ALL THREE are available?

Can that not be an option as well?

Shalom

Darryl,

No, it can't really be an option. It's a matter of practicality. And we wouldn't be "giving up" any of them. We're have fast and innovative right now. If cheap enters the game, one of the others has to step down.

I was taught it as the Pick-Two Principle. It's an old engineering adage, with "good" being in place of "innovative."

I don't want the discussion to drift into things like Vitruvius and architectural theory to explain why it is a logical argument, but toss it around a bit and you'll realize how valid it is. And it holds true in so many situations. Think of restaurants if you need a quick and dirty example.

Simply saying, "Let's have all three!" doesn't make it viable.

Is there a logical argument against it? If not, which are we willing to give up?

Roger

Yum Yum's is all 3.

Nitpicker,

If good = taste, I'd agree, but good in this situation is quality. And, as much as I like a chili-dog, nothing edible that involves a water hose and a squeegee to create should be considered quality.

Congratulations for throwing a hankerin' on me, though.

Roger

The letter-writer describes 3 systems. How about we have 3 systems in THIS country, one for each combination of two options?

Roger, I understand your concept, in fact I saw a sign once in an auto mechanics shop:

Our service policy, pick any two:

Good
Fast
Cheap

You can have it good and fast but it won't be cheap.

You can have it good and cheap, but it won't be fast.

You can have it fast and cheap, but it won't be good.

Health care fits in to this concept, Yum Yums does not. In fact, socialized medicine as in Europe and Canada may be good, but it's not fast nor cheap. Of course you don't receive a bill for care, but guess how it's paid? TAXES!! Lots of taxes.

To those of you who lament for national health care, are you willing to pay up to 70% income taxes and $7-8/gallon of gas?

A good letter that gives the benefit of experience.

Roger I would substitute Dans 3 choices,

Good/Fast/Cheap.

Innovation will happen whichever path we take. The choices we make will direct the path of the innovation.

Dan,

The more they talk about socialized medicine, the more I see the wisdom behind those Roth IRA's.

Good points Rufus and Nit. I also remember a sign in another mechanics shop:

Labor rates:

$40/hour
$50/hour you watch
$75/hour you help

Rufus,

I agree with "good/fast/cheap." Check my 10:13 post.

But I think innovative was used, and is the correct word in this scenario, because of the field itself.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of new medical technology placed into the market every year comes from each of the three situations the letter writer described. And, for that matter, what percentage of said technology used in all the other countries comes from #3.

I don't know that innovation would come automatically. R&D costs money. Lots of it. I'm afraid that if, through price-controls and the like, companies didn't have financial incentives to develop things like the Ossur Flex-Run, they would just stick with crutches or big clunky false legs.

---

Still, no one has said which one we should sacrifice.

And Dan, the "$75/hour you help" is great.

Roger

"Ossur Flex-Run"

I don't know what it is but I'll bet it's cool. I wonder how many folks get them & how many folks that could use them don't.

For the folks that need them and don't get them what good are they?

Innovation is a good add to the mix because it can move the field in any of the 3 directions "good/fast/cheap" or any combinations of the three. It seems as if our technological drive only goes for the first.

Now here's a good use of taxpayer dollars, giving condoms to seniors:

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/CP_stories.php?id=56007

"You’re giving out condoms," 82-year-old Rose Crescenzo said with a wistful smile, "but who’s going to give us a guy?"

Sex ed for 5 year olds and condoms for 82 year old grannies.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/noplacelikehome/age5.htm

"The time to start this dialogue is early—earlier in fact than many parents would suspect. In today's complex world, perhaps even more so than in the past, children need and deserve thoughtful, purposeful sex education from day one."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3395856&page=1

If govt. can waste money on stuff like this then imagine the amount of waste if it's in control of our health care.

i listened to michael moore in an interview on npr the other day. where does moore go for treatment? not canada. not cuba. not the uk.
the problem with our health care is cost. period. my daughter recently had an outpatient surgery. 75 mins. in the center costs $12,000.
and that doesn't include the surgeons fee. how fix the problem? who knows. but universal health care will make things alot worse.

Michael Moore is a wealthy guy. No one said that there's not excellent health care in the US. The problem is that it is structured to benefit the industry and not the patients.

I just hope that those who feel that the current status quo health care system in the us NEVER lose their ability to afford the "best care money can buy." If they do, these people may better understand why some advocate for a better system whereby all can receive EQUAL medical care. Is it too much to ask/hope/dream that all people receive equal medical care? Why is that such a great hardship for some to believe so?

Shalom

Darryl,

The WORST thing that can EVER happen to this country's medical system is to require that everyone receive "equal" medical care. What you are asking for is called communism. While I have no problems with finding solutions that ensure that everyone can have a basic standard of care (just as we as a society provide a basic level of housing, food, and transportation for all), I think that if you have money you should be allowed to spend it to achieve 'better' outcomes. That is the American way of life.