some discussion

In the interest of journailistic integrity, I don't believe that I should let the figures speak for themselves. What follows is a selection of quotes (many paraphrased) culled from the "dicussion" section of the previously cited article:

Certainly, administration is an integral element of good healthcare. The leaps and bounds in patient outcomes that society (western, at least) has witnessed over the past century are due mostly to the implementation of principles known since the turn of the twentieth century (not, as touted by industry, technological advances). Implementation may not be synonomous with administration, but the two are very much related.

The question is two part, how much administration is optimal, and what form should it take. Does the high administrative spending in the United States relative to that in Canada (or that in the US 30 years ago) improve care? No studies have directly addressed these questions, however analyses of investor owned HMOs and hospitals have found that for-profit facilities have neither higher-quality care nor lower costs than not-for-profit facilities.

There is certainly more to be said, but I'm about to go eat some Raisin' Cane's chicken, hands down the best fast food chicken on god's green earth. Actually, some of the best chicken you'll ever eat. Add some sweet tea, texas toast, crinkle cut fries, and slaw, and you've got yourself one heart satisfying meal.