The Real Reason for US to stay in Afghanistan

Undoubtedly, the President of Afghanistan would like his country to be totally on its own.  That way, he could negotiate the development of Afghanistan's natural resources to the highest bidder!  But the US has over 10 years of investment in that country and has sacrificed its country's blood to establish a vital nation with a central government in place and a social structure that is meeting citizenry's needs to a greater extent each day.  The US ought to have privileged status in reaping the benefits that are bound to accrue to that country--a land rich in natural resources,including its population.  For, we've joined hands in a unified effort.

I recall years ago as Russia was pulling out from Afghanistan, I had several discussions with my Russian friends (who were in Russia), pleading the case that Russia should stay there.  I feared a disintegration of the governmental structure, not to say the return to a pre-dawn civilization, that the land would undergo.  Whatever the reason, Russia was hell-bent to get out--too many helicopters lost?

Anyway, I'm hopeful, as is former President Bush, that the relationship between Afghanistan and the US will flourish in coming years.


  

IX: A Theoretical Version of Obamacare

I studied Obamacare when it was first proposed.  Here's a preposterous, yet I think proper, theoretical version of it.  I'm including this discussion in my Social-X series, Social Uplift topic "Entitlements" as a justification for government control of any universal health care project, such as Obamacare.  Basically, the justification is that it's just too comprehensive and complicated for business or the health care industry to administer on its own. No one agency or corporation could gather all the data and interpret the results yielded from analyzing the data on its own.  Over time, the cost would be prohibitive; the findings too limited and restricted.

What this theory proposes is to find the methods, procedures, medicines, even body structures that enable long life.  No system to date anywhere in the world has been constructed to include a morass of data pertinent to these proposed inclusive variables. With the help of the most advanced, super computers in the world, the system will keep records on the results of using each and every drug, administered or recommended by each and every medical personnel, at each and every hospital, to each and every person; and each and every treatment and procedure performed by medical agents upon each and every patient, etc.  Results will be measured in terms of outcomes: how much or how often and how effective are the drugs to be administered; how many times are procedures repeated with what curative or remedial findings; and performed or recommended by whom.

Using the most sophisticated software (i.e. artificial intelligence), the system will be "self-instructing"--noting from various evaluative studies, what criteria are most illuminating of bodily conditions--and will be "self-correcting"--discerning how to improve the data reliability and consistency of its data. 

The aspect of comprehensiveness explains how difficult it is to even enroll persons in the system, because it needs as much information about a patient (i.e., the individual insured) it can initially gather in order to ascertain where to find lab and test results and operations and procedures on file somewhere over the last, say, 10 years about him!

If this system becomes practical, then the government will pay according to its findings and evaluations.  If some drug company is touting a drug better than aspirin but does actually show little improvement over aspirin over time, results being equal in terms of efficacy, then the government won't pay for it!  And too, with the variance in administering MRIs between $320 and $1,200, the government will look at what differences there are in determining the condition of the patient; and there being little difference, it won't fund the expensive MRIs! 

So, I think it stands to reason that doctors who are specialists, capable of charging premium rates for services rendered, may seek to limit their practice to "sure-thing" results' patients, leaving possible candidates for treatment to others!

Importantly, over time, as more and more data is evaluated according to criteria set by professionals in medicine, medical costs, by definition, must go down because expensive methodologies will no longer be paid for nor reimbursed through the government.   Any costs incurred by the patient's treatments not authorized by the government must come out-of-pocket and be paid for by the patient.

Typically, such a comprehensive system will offer 3 different plans to those insured by it:
1. The premium care plan.  It will provide for health care that is more attentive and upon occasion may be more efficacious than what is typical for particular health conditions and treatment.
2. The standard care plan.  It tests, treats, and monitors health care conditions as would be stated or recommended in a medical textbook or journal update.
3. The patient involvement care plan.  This demands greater participation of the patient in the diagnosis and treatment of any condition he is found to have.

Any of the three should yield results beneficial for the patient, but there may be greater risks in the patient involved health plan, since he must be on top of what he must do.  I've gone to medical doctors who are willing to provide treatments where I must do a good deal in order to improve my condition, but I also noted that I became more aware of that part of my body and made sure to "baby" it!

The "never-done-before" result stands as a surd in the system; and usually, is not government approved unless, I suppose, there's a lot of empirical research behind it.

So, this is my theoretical version of Obamacare; and it will be done at some time or other, if it isn't already underway.