Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
Here's something from a recent article that shows how we can probably significantly reduce societal medical costs if we can help the subset that uses the most medical care.
Lower Costs and Better Care for Neediest Patients : The New Yorker: "His calculations revealed that just one per cent of the hundred thousand people who made use of Camden’s medical facilities accounted for thirty per cent of its costs. That’s only a thousand people—about half the size of a typical family physician’s panel of patients."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
But if you think about it why can't people make their own resource pools that will not be only about money but other resources like food, raw materials for drug production, buildings, tele-medicine(like in India where people get those barefoot doctors assisted by the internet, don't vote yes for metered internet is bad for your health in the future)
People could produce the raw materials for the production of medicines and use volunteer at local clinics and hospitals to produce the final products that is another way to bring costs down, also people could make Victory Garderns and give to hospitals and clinics food reducing the costs not only for patients but for medical workers bringing down costs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
There are some good resources there. I've thought about something like this:
Open-Source Healthcare: "Imagine, for example, a cooperative clinic at the neighborhood level. It might be staffed mainly with nurse-practitioners or the sort of 'barefoot doctors' mentioned above. They could treat most traumas and ordinary infectious diseases themselves, with several neighborhood clinics together having an MD on retainer (under the old “lodge practice” which the medical associations stamped out in the early 20th century) for more serious referrals."
----
I'm in good health and typically never need to see a doctor. I always pay into more in health insurance than the health insurance needs to pay out to cover me. But I understand the concept -- I'm paying into a pool that will be used to treat other people and, if I do need major medical treatment, will be used to cover me. My main concern is that my insurance goes up every year and isn't likely to stop doing that. Unless there are ways to reduce the overall costs of health care, if not across the country, then at least in my region, then sooner or later I can't afford the insurance and no one else can either. Even as they find cost saving measures in one area (like generic drugs), they come up with expensive treatments in other areas, which get billed back to the insurance companies, who then turn around and raise everyone's rates.
I suppose Kaiser is the closest thing we have to a national cooperative, but its rates are actually more than I am paying for Blue Cross.
Thanks for the Adams' link. I actually hung out with him a bit when he was in Boulder for the 2002 and 2003 Conference on World Affairs, but hadn't thought about his communal hospital vision until you reminded me of it.
At the 2003 conference I was standing next to him when he placed a red clown nose and a frog hat on the former president of Zambia, who was also attending. It was a positive gesture on Adams' part and a fond memory of mine.
Right now, my single greatest monthly bill is my health care insurance. I come from a military family, so the idea of universal health care has appeal because that's what I had as a kid. But I don't really care what solution we implement as long as it makes health care more affordable. How do we translate the Party of We into lower health care costs?
Something that has changed drastically over the past few years is licensing music to TV shows and movies. Because so many musicians are now trying to supplement their incomes via this route, music supervisors know they can pay less and still get the music they want. The same with movie composers. The competition has increased and therefore for many composers the payouts are less.
And this recent article gives another reason why getting your music in a movie doesn't pay you as much as it did.
Cutting Edge Tries New Model for Film Music - NYTimes.com: "But music budgets have been dwindling for at least a decade, as piracy, cheap downloads and collapsing CD sales made it virtually impossible for film producers to recoup from hit soundtracks the money they spend on music."
It's really difficult to get any artists/bands to publicly provide their income/expense figures.
I've seen the math for those I have worked with. And I have gotten some numbers from others in casual conversation: "What did you make on that gig?" "Where do you buy your merch and what do they charge you?"
Whatever FMC is able to turn up will be more than we have now. It may or may not be representative of all musicians (and if it isn't, I'm sure people will point it out), but collecting at least a small pool of examples will be helpful for those of us wanting to know who is making what in this business.
The current situation, where people tell us they are successful, but then don't provide actual numbers, isn't very helpful. I'd learn something even if just a few bands/artists are saying: "This is what we make. This is how we make it. This is how we spend it."
Maybe he is doing this exclusive tour for a while, and then will release the movie in a different way (read: free) in the future? Why can't he have a 2 stage approach to his plan?
Also, he's already got enough fame to draw an audience, so this could be considered his primary offering: the chance to see the film first with him. What purpose would showing the film without him add to the sales pitch? If I have a restaurant and people are already lining up to get in, why would I need to give away free samples?
Finally, his works are deliberately obscure, uncomfortable, and difficult. The fanbase for this kind of thing likes to hear about them "word of mouth"--there's an extent to which obscurity increases the fame of a work.
Exactly. The "give it-away for free so more people will know about it" is only one possible approach. There are a group of people who want to be part of something before everyone knows about it via the Internet. By the time it has become widely known, they have moved on to something else.
If I throw a party and everyone I want knows about it and comes, why would I feel the need to publicize it to everyone?
There are advertisers who choose to advertise in highly targeted magazines and at highly targeted events rather than in mass media because they are only interested in a narrow demographic.
What a gimmicky thing to do. Or did this clown think the iphone is a technical marvel compared to real movie equipment?
Yes, it probably was something of a gimmick. But at the same time, a lot of creativity comes out of limitations. Some artists intentionally constrain themselves to see what they can do. So the challenge may have been how to create something with a particular tool. And as more people push the envelope with an iPhone, that opens up the process to people who may have never tried to make a film with more expensive equipment.
Yes, those who want to go buy an HD camcorder can do so. The point is that now everyone, even those who never thought of it, have that camcorder in their pocket.
That's the revolution I see coming. It has already happened in photography. It is happening in music. It will happen in film. Technology lets everyone be creative. The wall between "amateur" and "professional" disappears.
Re: The military will still be important for energy technology
Pentagon Must ‘Buy American,’ Barring Chinese Solar Panels - NYTimes.com: "The American military is a rapidly growing consumer of renewable energy products, because it is extremely expensive and frequently dangerous to ship large quantities of fuel into remote areas of Iraq and Afghanistan."
This is why politics is more than just providing data
Although I think more information available to the public is always a good thing, I don't expect it to change people's opinions, unfortunately. We've got more information available than ever before in the history of mankind, and yet we have people making decisions based on inaccurate information because it confirms their pre-existing biases. I'm not sure how one addresses this.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The military will still be important for energy technology
It occurred to me that I might still have to explain myself for this person. So let me lay it out as carefully as I can, just in case I'm still not clear to him/her.
The original article said that gaming may have replaced the military as the primary source of technological change.
I said that the US military was moving into clean tech and that I think the military will have the lead there rather than the gaming industry, since the gaming industry doesn't appear to be doing too much with biofuels, fuel cell technology, etc.
Then I tossed in that in the end it probably won't matter what the US military does with clean tech because China has already taken over the lead in clean tech. I said nothing about the Chinese military. I said nothing about war.
I just made an aside that we're falling behind China when it comes to clean tech.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The military will still be important for energy technology
Sorry to burst your bubble, but China is not engaged in any foreign military ventures, unlike the USA, nor does it have history of such adventures.
You're having trouble following me.
China has taken the lead in clean tech.
The US military is also getting involved in clean tech.
Private companies in the US, not so much. Of course, there is private investment, but the big money is still going into other areas (e.g., Facebook) and there has been a pull back in clean tech lately.
What I was saying is that the US military is more involved in clean tech than the gaming industry, so the gaming industry was not going to drive technological change more than the military in all areas. The US military is investing in electric vehicles, fuel cell technology, biofuels, etc.
Re: Re: The military will still be important for energy technology
Better for whom? Certainly not to the peasants in far-away lands that the US military likes to slaughter by remote control.
Don't worry. China has already taken the lead.
What I meant was that any country or company that moves into clean tech, the better for the world. If the push into clean tech comes from the US military rather than commercial companies, so be it. I'd rather have the US military and the Chinese than no one. Investors in this country seem to prefer putting their money into Facebook. :-)
The military will still be important for energy technology
The military is investing in various technologies to improve efficiencies for machines that run on batteries and fuel. I don't think the gaming industry is going to beat them at that yet. But if they can, great. The faster anyone moves into this area, the better.
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
Lower Costs and Better Care for Neediest Patients : The New Yorker: "His calculations revealed that just one per cent of the hundred thousand people who made use of Camden’s medical facilities accounted for thirty per cent of its costs. That’s only a thousand people—about half the size of a typical family physician’s panel of patients."
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
People could produce the raw materials for the production of medicines and use volunteer at local clinics and hospitals to produce the final products that is another way to bring costs down, also people could make Victory Garderns and give to hospitals and clinics food reducing the costs not only for patients but for medical workers bringing down costs.
Actually that does sound good to me.
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
Open-Source Healthcare: "Imagine, for example, a cooperative clinic at the neighborhood level. It might be staffed mainly with nurse-practitioners or the sort of 'barefoot doctors' mentioned above. They could treat most traumas and ordinary infectious diseases themselves, with several neighborhood clinics together having an MD on retainer (under the old “lodge practice” which the medical associations stamped out in the early 20th century) for more serious referrals."
----
I'm in good health and typically never need to see a doctor. I always pay into more in health insurance than the health insurance needs to pay out to cover me. But I understand the concept -- I'm paying into a pool that will be used to treat other people and, if I do need major medical treatment, will be used to cover me. My main concern is that my insurance goes up every year and isn't likely to stop doing that. Unless there are ways to reduce the overall costs of health care, if not across the country, then at least in my region, then sooner or later I can't afford the insurance and no one else can either. Even as they find cost saving measures in one area (like generic drugs), they come up with expensive treatments in other areas, which get billed back to the insurance companies, who then turn around and raise everyone's rates.
I suppose Kaiser is the closest thing we have to a national cooperative, but its rates are actually more than I am paying for Blue Cross.
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
At the 2003 conference I was standing next to him when he placed a red clown nose and a frog hat on the former president of Zambia, who was also attending. It was a positive gesture on Adams' part and a fond memory of mine.
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Can you reduce the cost of health care?
On the post: Future Of Music Coalition Looks To Catalog Artist Revenue Streams
Re: List of revenue streams
And this recent article gives another reason why getting your music in a movie doesn't pay you as much as it did.
Cutting Edge Tries New Model for Film Music - NYTimes.com: "But music budgets have been dwindling for at least a decade, as piracy, cheap downloads and collapsing CD sales made it virtually impossible for film producers to recoup from hit soundtracks the money they spend on music."
On the post: Future Of Music Coalition Looks To Catalog Artist Revenue Streams
Financial numbers of any sort will be useful
I've seen the math for those I have worked with. And I have gotten some numbers from others in casual conversation: "What did you make on that gig?" "Where do you buy your merch and what do they charge you?"
Whatever FMC is able to turn up will be more than we have now. It may or may not be representative of all musicians (and if it isn't, I'm sure people will point it out), but collecting at least a small pool of examples will be helpful for those of us wanting to know who is making what in this business.
The current situation, where people tell us they are successful, but then don't provide actual numbers, isn't very helpful. I'd learn something even if just a few bands/artists are saying: "This is what we make. This is how we make it. This is how we spend it."
On the post: Crispin Glover Using Scarce Resources To Sell His Film... But May Be Limiting His Opportunities
Re: Maybe....
Also, he's already got enough fame to draw an audience, so this could be considered his primary offering: the chance to see the film first with him. What purpose would showing the film without him add to the sales pitch? If I have a restaurant and people are already lining up to get in, why would I need to give away free samples?
On the post: Crispin Glover Using Scarce Resources To Sell His Film... But May Be Limiting His Opportunities
Re:
Exactly. The "give it-away for free so more people will know about it" is only one possible approach. There are a group of people who want to be part of something before everyone knows about it via the Internet. By the time it has become widely known, they have moved on to something else.
On the post: Crispin Glover Using Scarce Resources To Sell His Film... But May Be Limiting His Opportunities
Mass marketing is not always the way to go
There are advertisers who choose to advertise in highly targeted magazines and at highly targeted events rather than in mass media because they are only interested in a narrow demographic.
On the post: Famed Korean Director Shoots Movie With Just iPhones
Re:
Yes, it probably was something of a gimmick. But at the same time, a lot of creativity comes out of limitations. Some artists intentionally constrain themselves to see what they can do. So the challenge may have been how to create something with a particular tool. And as more people push the envelope with an iPhone, that opens up the process to people who may have never tried to make a film with more expensive equipment.
On the post: Famed Korean Director Shoots Movie With Just iPhones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the revolution I see coming. It has already happened in photography. It is happening in music. It will happen in film. Technology lets everyone be creative. The wall between "amateur" and "professional" disappears.
On the post: Has The Video Game Industry Surpassed The Military In Driving The Next Wave Of Technological Change?
Re: The military will still be important for energy technology
On the post: The Amazing Ability Of People To Simply Ignore Data That Proves What They Believe Is Wrong
This is why politics is more than just providing data
On the post: Case Study: How Dave Matthews Band Has Embraced The Modern Music Industry In Extraordinarily Profitable Ways
What up-and-coming bands must deal with
Everything costs more now, so why is it still $5 to see a local rock show in Nashville? | Nashville Scene: "'As far as local, up-and-coming bands cutting their teeth, three bands for five bucks has not changed in 20 years,' says Mike Grimes, co-owner of The Basement."
Alt Press | Feature | Expensive White T’s: The Politics of Price Matching This article explains that an opening band is often not allowed to price their merchandise lower than the headlining band. So they can't offer their fans a bargain and therefore may not sell much merchandise.
On the post: Has The Video Game Industry Surpassed The Military In Driving The Next Wave Of Technological Change?
Re: Re: Re: Re: The military will still be important for energy technology
The original article said that gaming may have replaced the military as the primary source of technological change.
I said that the US military was moving into clean tech and that I think the military will have the lead there rather than the gaming industry, since the gaming industry doesn't appear to be doing too much with biofuels, fuel cell technology, etc.
Then I tossed in that in the end it probably won't matter what the US military does with clean tech because China has already taken over the lead in clean tech. I said nothing about the Chinese military. I said nothing about war.
I just made an aside that we're falling behind China when it comes to clean tech.
On the post: Has The Video Game Industry Surpassed The Military In Driving The Next Wave Of Technological Change?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The military will still be important for energy technology
military clean tech - Google Search
On the post: Has The Video Game Industry Surpassed The Military In Driving The Next Wave Of Technological Change?
Re: Re: Re: Re: The military will still be important for energy technology
You're having trouble following me.
China has taken the lead in clean tech.
The US military is also getting involved in clean tech.
Private companies in the US, not so much. Of course, there is private investment, but the big money is still going into other areas (e.g., Facebook) and there has been a pull back in clean tech lately.
What I was saying is that the US military is more involved in clean tech than the gaming industry, so the gaming industry was not going to drive technological change more than the military in all areas. The US military is investing in electric vehicles, fuel cell technology, biofuels, etc.
On the post: Has The Video Game Industry Surpassed The Military In Driving The Next Wave Of Technological Change?
Re: Re: The military will still be important for energy technology
Don't worry. China has already taken the lead.
What I meant was that any country or company that moves into clean tech, the better for the world. If the push into clean tech comes from the US military rather than commercial companies, so be it. I'd rather have the US military and the Chinese than no one. Investors in this country seem to prefer putting their money into Facebook. :-)
On the post: Has The Video Game Industry Surpassed The Military In Driving The Next Wave Of Technological Change?
The military will still be important for energy technology
Next >>