Have you read this "study?"

I haven't because you provided no link, so I couldn't scrutinize it.

Who's going to pay for the "conversions?"

We've had automation in medicine for years now....what if a company/hospital refuses to automate?

Is it cost effective for small groups to automate?

Who pays for their conversions?

What does the study say about "reduced hospital stays, avoidance of duplicative and unnecessary testing, more appropriate drug utilization, and other efficiencies" of hospitals already utilizing "automation?"


That was my question.


Automation?.....sounds like "inflating tires" to me.


Hmmmm.

I suppose you have the answers on automation I posted above?

Or was that a chip-shot from the peanut gallery to show everyone how witty you are?

How much more efficient, on average, is government-provided health insurance than private health insurance? It must be an impressive figure, because the cost is far less.

We dysfunctional Americans pay half again as much as everyone else because of the stubborn opposition of conservative ideologues who refuse to admit the obvious: that the reason we're paying half again as much as everyone else, while getting middling results, is because of our silly reluctance to put government in charge of providing health insurance for all of us.

(By the way, isn't Patton's sudden concern for balancing the budget touching?)

Why of course not...this is just the first layer of questions concerning costs....we havn't even ventured into the other questions mentioned earlier....

As for who pays for it, I don't know

Well.....I think it only seems prudent to understand everything before jumping off the cliff.

Ahk
Do you have a point besides the one at the top of your head? Yes the population desity is low -- but more to the point there is 100's of km's between the population centers. You could have 3 people on a desert island and the population density would be low but transporting anything between those three people would be easy. That's the point. Y'know -- the sheer distance, the lack of roads in many cases, the cost of air transport, not simply the number of people. You know that (maybe) but you just can't think of anything else to say to quell that overwelming urge to "say anything".

Fact of the matter is, and remains, that most countries in Europe with free health care can fit inside half of either of our nations with even more population density. The point is, for either the US or Canada is that providing that same level of health care to any citizen no matter where they live is a harder burdon here than it would be in Belgium, Spain or France. Period. I don't say it can't work, i don't say it shouldn't be done, I'm simply pointing out the realities. You're not keen enough to devine my opinion on whether it can or can't work, whether it should or shouldn't be, which explains your complete lack of anything worthwhile to say in response. I can picture you looking at my post with your head slanted to one side like a confused puppy. Slow down and read what I say instead of reading into it....and for crissakes don't start getting emotional over nothing on us again,k?



Ahk

And what else have you known to be true for a long time?

That millions of American citizens have no health insurance, which for other civilized countries is a right of citizenship? Did you know that?
That those other civilized countries pay far less per capita than we do? Did you know that?
And that those other civilized countries get as good or better results that we do? Did you know that?

Or do you just know what's comfortable for you to know?

That is one interesting fact.  You wouldn't happen to have a source?