No, that is the definition of "best".

Post #65,451 by Brandioch 11/27/02 11:52:46 AM Reply	No, that is the definition of "best". Not "what you can afford" which seems to be where you're heading with this. If you can't afford the best, it is still the best. Our best bet would be to go somewhere where our resources would buy more care per Euro. So, when WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD isn't good enough.... You go somewhere where you can afford BETTER treatment. Now, if you have UNLIMITED resources, then you are NOT limited by what you can afford.
Post #65,452 by bepatient 11/27/02 11:56:50 AM Reply	Hardly. That is a definition of "best" in crisis intervention only. Wouldn't it be >better< to not allow the healthcare issues get to that crisis? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #65,456 by tuberculosis 11/27/02 12:30:42 PM Reply	All parts of the elephant But I grow weary - his definitions is wacked and I can't help him apparently. I'm sure the view from his side of the argument is equally frustrating. I (and you I think) take the position that the best care would keep a scratch from turning into massive sepsis by effective use of low tech (and cheap) means (basic cleansing, clean dressings, observation). This is the best outcome and hence the best care. His view is, once you've got massive sepsis, the US doctors are more likely to pull you back from the brink of death (most likely with amputation of the affected limb, fancy blood filters, and extensive and elaborate drug regimes) than anyone else. I don't call that good care though and its only a tiny part of the picture. At one single data point, there is a spike in the graph. If you are really screwed up, certain stars might be able to do better than anyone else. I think its fallacious though. If Michael Jordan came to France to play basketball professionally, does that mean that France is now the best in basketball because he brings a million coconuts with him? Er.... you know what I mean. So I think this argument is exhausted and we just don't agree on what "best" is. Next topic. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #65,554 by Brandioch 11/27/02 7:32:13 PM Reply	Because my definition does not agree with your opinion.... When you start calculating the AVERAGE of anything, then you're taking the AVERAGE. Average life expectency, etc. The average is not the best. You can have the highest average. But that isn't the best.
Post #65,581 by Silverlock 11/27/02 11:41:23 PM Reply	Lighten up The US's health system may have the "best" in some areas. Not all. Stop trying to infer that since we have the best in some aspect, we have the best in all. A cheap rhetorical device. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #65,586 by boxley 11/27/02 11:55:42 PM Reply	never let a cheap rhetorical device hold you back :-) will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] Opera was the television of the nineteenth century:loud, vulgar and garish with plots that could only be called infantile. "Pendergast"
Post #65,623 by bepatient 11/28/02 11:23:31 AM Reply	He never does ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!