If you like lowest-common-denominator care, it would be just fine.
"Like tobacco industry executives before them, they have to lie in order to defend a flawed product."
". . . the new work is a 'tour de force,' says microbiologist Lynn Silver, who for more than 20 years developed antibiotics at Merck and is now a consultant based in Springfield, New Jersey."
Being super-aggressive doesn't seem to always be best.
Some sage advice from Captain Kirk. With a cautionary note about medical testing. (And at least this time, the doctor was wrong.)
Fixing the supply of health care strikes me as the policy win-win. Instead of the standard left-right screaming match, "we're spending too much," "you heartless monster, people will die," a more competitive health care market giving us better service at lower cost, making a cash market possible, makes everyone's goals come closer. . . .
One pattern I see is that lack of competition is necessary to buck up government-mandated cross-subsidies. (Previous posts here and here.) The government mandates that hospitals cover indigent care, and medicare and medicaid below cost. The government doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for it. So the government allows hospitals to overcharge insurance (i.e. you and me, eventually). But overcharges can't withstand competition, so the government allows, encourages, and even requires strong limits on competition.
I like this one and totally agree with the author over Pollan: "Embrace the Improvements We've Made Since Your Great-Grandmother Was Cooking".
Wouldn't this be an interesting? (Lest you scoff, look up the history of stomach ulcers.)
Link via Marginal Revolution.
"Implausible estimates of benefits or risks associated with diet reflect almost exclusively the magnitude of nutrition researchers' cumulative biases."
At the very least it would be smart to supplement cross-section studies with longitudinal ones.