The US Healthcare Dilemma
Mirrors and Chains
Versandkostenfrei!
Versandfertig in 1-2 Wochen
90,99 €
inkl. MwSt.
PAYBACK Punkte
45 °P sammeln!
McGuire and Anderson bring the findings of the behavioral biology of group cooperation to bear on the vexatious problem of healthcare reform. One of the few certainties that we have is that the approach of the last 50 years-arguments between advocates of government or private insurance-has led to intractable gridlock. It is thus necessary to ask whether the initial assumptions buried within this controversy might have fatal flaws. In the authors' views, they do. Our modern society would never tolerate funding of any other necessity or convenience by such clumsy methods. In short, McGuire and A...
McGuire and Anderson bring the findings of the behavioral biology of group cooperation to bear on the vexatious problem of healthcare reform. One of the few certainties that we have is that the approach of the last 50 years-arguments between advocates of government or private insurance-has led to intractable gridlock. It is thus necessary to ask whether the initial assumptions buried within this controversy might have fatal flaws. In the authors' views, they do. Our modern society would never tolerate funding of any other necessity or convenience by such clumsy methods. In short, McGuire and Anderson contend we must pay for healthcare the way we pay for food, housing, clothing, and transportation. McGuire and Anderson begin by examining the flaws embedded in each side of the current debate. They offer ten postulates around which any successful system must be devised, and identify the problems from the perspective of patients, professionals, and public and private insurance providers. Finally, they apply the knowledge of the biology of human behavior to the problem of enhancing group cooperation toward a self-correcting system, which avoids the current major pitfalls. A workable system, they contend, will be one that is compatible with human nature; not a perfect system, but better than we have, and more likely to work than competing theoretical constructs.
Andere Kunden interessierten sich für
