Ramirez on health-care “reform”

posted at 10:11 am on June 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Michael Ramirez of IBD Editorials gives Barack Obama’s health-care reform an examination — and discovers that Dr. Obama has the directions backwards on transplantation.  The idea is to transplant what works to replace what doesn’t, but Dr. Obama intends to take the worst of government-run health care and drop it into a living, functioning American health-care system:

What works in the US is free-market economics.  We have a model for successful, plentiful, and inexpensive health care — in fact, a few of them.  Lasik and cosmetic surgery specialties do not get insurance coverage or Medicare, and so patients must pay directly for the services.  That not only forces consumers to choose carefully when selecting a practitioner, it also forces providers to become cost efficient.  The demand and the lower overhead in billings drives doctors into the specialties, so there is no artificial shortage of providers, as a look at any town’s billboards or Yellow Pages will make plain.

Instead of trying to reinvent the broken wheel of statism, we should focus on reforming the rest of the health-care system so that it works more like Lasik and cosmetic surgery, whose markets function properly.

In that same vein, Sally Satel exposes the latest bit of dishonesty from the opponents of a compensation system for live kidney donors, which Satel belives would eliminate the shortage of transplant organs:

Rarely does NKF appeal to reliable data to support their opposition to even pilot trials of incentives (a proposal the foundation actually endorsed in the 1990s). But when they do, they bungle it.

Here is late NKF chairman, Charles B. Fruit, writing in USA Today in 2006:

Payment stands as an affront to those families that have already donated organs of loved ones out of charity. There is evidence to suggest it might prove similarly offensive to future donors. In 2005, the National Survey of Organ Donation found that 10.8% of those polled would be less likely to grant consent for the organs of a deceased family member to be used for transplant if they were offered payment; 68% said they would be neither more nor less likely to grant consent. Thus, there is little data to show that financial incentives would increase donation rates.

The astute and altruistic Virginia Postrel called attention to Fruit’s “misleading math exercise,” as she called it: “to round the figures a bit, 70 percent would be unaffected, and 11 percent would be less likely to grant consent. What happened to the other 19 percent? They were, ahem, conveniently left out—because they would be more likely to grant consent. That’s what’s called a net increase,” she wrote.

Be sure to read it all.

Ramirez has a terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives a fascinating look at political history.  Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here.  And don’t forget to check out the entire IBD site, while individual investors still exist.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Obama’s been spending too much time around the Chinese?

pifactorial on June 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM

This is Economics 101. Pleading your case to this Marxist moron is like arguing with the village idiot. He will not be dissuaded by reason, only by power. God help us but only congress can stop this monster. God help us indeed.

Akzed on June 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Ramirez is great – I check it out every weekday!

rockbend on June 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM

God help us but only congress can stop this monster. God help us indeed.

CONGRESS??????

Are you high???

sonofdy on June 18, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Like I said, God help us.

Akzed on June 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Responsibility. 10,000 B.C. – 2009 A.D.

James on June 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Other good examples are dentistry which is either not covered, or so minimally covered by most insurance that it becomes a mostly cash only industry. Rush had even mentioned vetrinarians earlier this (or maybe last) week as another good example.

DrAllecon on June 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM

change and hope you can believe in

bluegrass on June 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM

From Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life.

MR. BROWN: Yes?

MAN: Hello. Uhh, can we have your liver?

MR. BROWN: My what?

MAN: Your liver. It’s a large, ehh, glandular organ in your abdomen.

ERIC: [sniff]

MAN: You know, it’s, uh,– it’s reddish-brown. It’s sort of, uhh,–

MR. BROWN: Yeah,– y– y– yeah, I know what it is, but… I’m using it, eh.

shick on June 18, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Instead of trying to reinvent the broken wheel of statism, we should focus on reforming the rest of the health-care system so that it works more like Lasik and cosmetic surgery, whose markets function properly.

I have always thought that politicans and writers should use these examples as proof of how free markets work in the medical industry. Keep using them Ed.

WashJeff on June 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM

I heard on Fox and Friends this morning that only 1 out of ten Americans thinks Healthcare is an issue. This is nothing more than another power grab by this Socialist Administration.

kingsjester on June 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Instead of trying to reinvent the broken wheel of statism, we should focus on reforming the rest of the health-care system so that it works more like Lasik and cosmetic surgery, whose markets function properly.

I agree. I work in the health care industry and there are many options at reforming healthcare…the first step is Tort Reform…but of course, that won’t happen.

ladyingray on June 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Hold on now, how is Ogabe supposed to control the population if he can’t control access to healthcare? The Domestic Security Force can only crack so many heads in a day, ya know.

Bishop on June 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Other good examples are dentistry which is either not covered, or so minimally covered by most insurance that it becomes a mostly cash only industry.

DrAllecon on June 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM

I think ObamaCare is going to include full dental so as to ruin that whole field as well.

myrenovations on June 18, 2009 at 10:28 AM

God help us but only congress can stop this monster.

Congress can be made afraid, very afraid, that if it passes the bill it will have new members come 2010 if it goes along with this. Already happened with card check.

With new members in 2010, Obama can be neutralized.

fourier on June 18, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Don’t hold your breath ladyingray

blatantblue on June 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Hey, let’s experiment with the bankrupt medicare and medicaid FIRST. The ONLY track record that the Govt has with running healthcare is a COMPLETE DISASTER. This guy is a dangerous menace.

marklmail on June 18, 2009 at 10:32 AM

c’mon sheeples, we live in the greatest nation in the world, help me change it.

precedent oboobi

SHARPTOOTH on June 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM

I hope my elbow cartilage doesn’t match Hillary’s

CMonster on June 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM

This one gets emailed to my friends.

itsnotaboutme on June 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM

fourier on June 18, 2009 at 10:29 AM

That’s the point. The tiger is getting closer and our recourse is a raggedy rope bridge spanning the abyss before us. God help us.

As evidently corrput and unfit as Obooba has shown himself to be thus far, wait until he adds anger, vengeances, and petulance to his temperamental mix if/when he doesn’t get his way on OboobaCare, cap and trade, card check, etc.

Akzed on June 18, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Ramirez on health-care “reform”

WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE…BARRY???

byteshredder on June 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM

The socialists have been trying to take over healyh care for the last 30 years. One word Kennedy!!!!

Rick007 on June 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Want to register your complaint with ABC?

Contact them. Pass this around. Let’s crash their server too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=ABC%20News%20Specials

UnderstandingisPower on June 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Barry said he had one in his ghost written best seller so I have to believe him. <sarc/

larvcom on June 18, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Health care is going to be “freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee”, or so proclaimed a co-worker after Barry was elected. The other day I asked her how that was going and she proclaimed that the Republicans were holding it up. With the House, Senate and Executive branch firmly in the DemNation she couldn’t answer when I asked her how the Republicans were holding it up. I have a feeling I’m going to get another racist complaint filed on me because I asked about health care.

Limerick on June 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM

I heard on Fox and Friends this morning that only 1 out of ten Americans thinks Healthcare is an issue. This is nothing more than another power grab by this Socialist Administration.

kingsjester on June 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM

It isn’t an issue, except to people who want to use it for power. Think about it – 250 million Americans have health insurance that is acceptable to them, 20 million Americans, mostly young, refuse to buy health insurance because they would rather spend the money on something else, 20 million illegal aliens don’t carry insurance, and 5 million Americans legitimately can’t get insurance due to preexisting conditions or other reasons. Why spend trillions of dollars on those 5 million? Why not rescind the laws that require hospitals to treat without payment, and have them refuse to treat illegals without payment? If those two actions were adopted, we could pay for the 5 million, and still pay less than we pay now.

Vashta.Nerada on June 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Pitch forks anyone? If they pull this travesty off I`m affraid the incoming Repubs will be to late to undo this cluster$$#@.

LSUMama on June 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Get the hell out of my life, Government.

Fletch54 on June 18, 2009 at 10:54 AM

His fiscal irresponsibility proves he doesn’t have a clue about math. Now, he’s doing an immitation of Dr. Death and trying to sound like he knows what he’s talking about. From the sounds of things, they could simply promise to pay every bill submitted by those lacking insurance and still be money ahead.

24K lady on June 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM

As I’ve said on earlier related posts, there are obviously areas where improvement is needed. Particularly among the working poor. To throw away the entire system instead of just focusing on the areas that need improvement is unnecessary, and will only result in worse health care for all of us. Physicians can’t always heal themselves, you know.

DrAllecon on June 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Last night, I heard Glenn Beck with an analysis of what’s proposed to give private health care the terminal government disease. Basically, the government will tax or make it nearly impossible fror employers to give private insurance to employees. That will supposedly “free up” money to go into the government disaster. The first problem (of many) is that the government projections only cover 20% of the projected costs. Plus, all the “poor” will NOT be covered.
Yup- an Obama comprehensive plan that’s not any where close to comprehensive.

Amendment X on June 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM

“We’ve come for your liver”

“But, I am still using it…!!!???”

“Don’t argue, You signed a doner card”

Kuffar on June 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM

He’ll never get this through. From what Rove writes in the WAPO the GOP is working on a viable alternative.

There sure seem to be a lot of negative articles about Mr. President this morning. People getting fed up after a short 6 months? Imagine the state of the nation after 4 years of this feckless rump. He’ll have a rating the size of Pelosi’s!

scalleywag on June 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Tort reform will never happen as it takes a roomful of lawyers to make a law to change it. But it is always funny to me that they are always trying to make our healthcare like Englands, but not our LEGAL system. In England, if you file a lawsuit and lose, YOU have to pay court fees.
That virtually eliminates in one fell swoop frivolous lawsuits. Doctors in England usually only get sued if they have committed grave acts of malpractice which is what the law was always SUPPOSED to be about, not a get-rich-quick scam.

Oh, addressing illegal aliens would be kind of nice too. You know, when they sort of get around to it. (Of course, they’ll likely address it by giving them all amnesty [again] so maybe we’re better off if they don’t.)

DrAllecon on June 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM

WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE…BARRY???

byteshredder on June 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM

That’s on topic. Yawn.

shick on June 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Akzed on June 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Amen to that, because it’s not only Congress that’s deluded, it’s the majority of the public as well. Despite mountains of evidence of the rampant inefficiency of our nation’s leadership over the past several decades, more and more people simply cannot get it through their heads that willingly giving the government control of healthcare is a nightmare waiting to happen.

Heaven knows I’ve tried debating people on this over on less conservative sites. My efforts are usually rewarded with condescending snark and regurgitated liberal propaganda, and that’s on the good times! Never mind that this isn’t some lofty debate on theology or the earth’s origins or whatever that can be argued until the sun burns out, but one that can be solidly proven with hard, recent evidence.

I completely despair of convincing ANYONE in an honest debate that free-market healthcare does not equal throwing all the poor and elderly to the wolves (the usual ‘argument’ that gets dredged up), and that making Uncle Sam our doctor will not somehow magically solve everything.

I have tried without result to show comparisons to current government-run debacles like the postal system – my best line is still “Imagine the lines at the P.O. at your hospital!”…for all the good it does. Showing relevant historical examples (like the WW1-era steel plant) gets ignored or tritely dismissed. Not surprising, sadly enough, as Americans have shown a profound lack of learning from past history.

Without direct divine intervention, which IMO we are not going to get, the United States as we know it is doomed within a few decades. If anything will give us the kick over the cliff, this’ll do it.

Dark-Star on June 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

From Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life.

Don’t worry, Obamacare will save us all when they invest in the machine that goes, “PING!”

TheMightyMonarch on June 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Dark-Star on June 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Ask them if they’ve been to the DMV lately. Maybe that will help.

scalleywag on June 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Too bad we couldn’t send Hillary into the future to see how her elbow would be treated under Obamacare.

Daggett on June 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM

I think I`m getting an ulcer! This quagmire Admin Lies so easy I don`t think they even know where the truth begins or the lies end. Whats sad is the ones who will suffer the most are the ones who believed his BS.

LSUMama on June 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Hell, just based on his cartoons I think Michael Ramirez has a better understanding of what’s going on and how to better handle things than our Pres.

Ramirez 2012!

LOL!!!

Yakko77 on June 18, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I don`t think they even know where the truth begins or the lies end.

Yes they do. BO is smart if nothing else. He knows all of this is crap. He also knows that the plan to gain supreme power is almost complete. He truly beleives that he is the gifted One and was sent here to distroy the America we all know and love. His plan to form a new nation in his image is well on its way.

HoustonRight on June 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM

This has nothing to do with ‘’fixing’’ Health care/insurance – it’s all about control.

sannhet on June 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Then he may be in for some change he did`nt plan on. It is not the American way to roll over and play dead.

LSUMama on June 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM

scalleywag on June 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM

That was my second best one after the P.O. comparison. It got dismissed with such tripe as “a minor inconvenience for the privilege of driving” and “waiting for a license won’t kill you.”

Dark-Star on June 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM

ABC refuses to permit paid advertisement to air on its network in opposition to Obama’s Health Care SPECIAL propaganda programming.

maverick muse on June 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM

What amazes ME is that Obama wants to “pay” for this with benefit cuts in Medicare, the existing Government program for the elderly!

Cut benefits for the elderly to pay for Government health care insurance for younger, healthier people who can get private health care insurance relatively cheaply, and sometimes don’t even want it?

If this message got out to the general public, the elderly would be out with the pitchforks, at least those who could still pick one up! Obama already threw his own Grandma under the bus, as a “typical white woman”. Now he wants to throw everybody else’s Grandma under the bus, out of the hospital, and six feet under.

Time to bring back that old ad about Bush pushing Grandma over the cliff in a wheelchair, and put Obama’s face on the wheelchair pusher.

Steve Z on June 18, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Other good examples are dentistry which is either not covered, or so minimally covered by most insurance that it becomes a mostly cash only industry.

DrAllecon on June 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM

When I lived in Canada in the late ’90s I took my kids to the dentist and the doctor for care, and noticed that the dentist could afford to offer patients all the bells and whistles, but the doctors could not, because dentists were subject to the free market and doctors were not.

txmomof6 on June 18, 2009 at 12:24 PM

AnninCA was quoting survey results posted at WebMD to support her view that America must accept nationalized health care so that her non-profit is not required to spend its funds (tax dollar funding) to provide 2 employees with health benefits (as if the non-profit has the right to make a profit, or does not have the right to deny its employees health coverage).

© 2009 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved. The Sponsor is responsible for the accuracy and objectivity of Sponsored content. SOURCES:

Center on Longevity: “Politics, Scholars, and the Public, Key findings from a survey conducted among U.S. voters.”

Laura Carstensen, PhD, director, Stanford Center on Longevity.
http://longevity.stanford.edu/about/directorsmessage

Geoff Garin, president, Peter Hart Research.

The Peter Hart Research webpage did not post its findings quoted, substantiating the WebMD posting, nor Laura Carstensen’s Stanford Center for Longevity. Instead, the Peter Hart Research webpage is still posting the Obama popularity poll from April online.

America already funds Medicaid and Medicare for elderly citizens; they already enjoy tax subsidized health benefits. Yet, Dr. Carstensen determined the NEED to focus on BETTER federally subsidized via everyone/everything taxation to further the duration of human life via technology and science. Note well the premise she makes in her mission statement for her center’s existence.

Those who age well do not do so accidentally or because it was dictated by their genes. Rather, it is the achievement of deliberate actions, good planning and culture. By “culture,” I do not mean simply the languages that people speak or the attitudes they hold. Science and technology are very much part of culture. When Congress decides to allocate funds for research, it does so because citizens perceive particular needs.That has to change.

WHY? At some point, we all must die. Why should everyone be taxed in order to prolong the life span that already is longer than at any time historically (disregarding any literalism from Genesis), providing via tax dollars (or whatever the Chinese determine to be our currency in America) mechanical joint replacements, mechanisms to prevent falling, every pharmaceutical produced, organ transplants, etc.? We KNOW that such pies in the sky are never provided to everyone, regardless of promises and propaganda.

Regarding polls, the information presented by the pollster prior to the survey determines the responses, hence the results. Read on if you like.

About 40% of registered voters polled by the Center on Longevity at Stanford University said they favor one proposal: expanding government programs like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid to give more people access to coverage. But a roughly equal number, 37%, opposed it.

Researchers polled nearly 2,000 registered voters, roughly split between Democrats, Independents, and Republicans and also split between self-identified liberals and conservatives. [Roughly split means exactly what figures?]

Before asking their views, pollsters gave voters briefings on the pros and cons of several reform options now floating around Washington. And a pattern of ambivalence was evident throughout, researchers said. [Provide the exact briefings.]

Laura Carstensen, PhD, director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, said the results show there is no single policy that will solve the problem and that voters know it.

Carstensen said she was encouraged that voters don’t seem to swing wildly on reform options according to their political affiliation. “When voters hear about possible reforms, they’re hearing it from someone who either wants to sell them something or wants them to be afraid of it.”

Here’s how voters came down on a variety of options for reforming health care:

* Requiring everyone to have health insurance, either individually or through an employer, while delivering subsidies to help pay for coverage if people can’t afford it: 43% were in favor, 40% opposed, 17% undecided. Six in 10 said they like the fact that a so-called “individual mandate” would expand access to coverage, but four in 10 worried that it would increase taxes.
[Subsidy delivery via taxed dollars: additional cost to everyone]

* Changing how health care is paid for, so that doctors and hospitals are paid for episodes of care or for quality care, instead of being paid separately for every test and treatment they order: 38% viewed that option positively, 40% negatively, and 28% were evenly divided between advantages and disadvantages.

* Forming an independent board to compare the effectiveness of different treatments, tests and procedures, and encouraging that only the best be used widely: 36% were positive, 40% were negative, 20% were undecided. “People like the idea of identifying the most effective treatments,” Garin said. “There is some concern that once you create this body of information that insurers or Medicare will not cover treatments” that are deemed less effective.
[There's no such thing as an independent board to make independent comparisons.]

© 2009 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved. The Sponsor is responsible for the accuracy and objectivity of Sponsored content. SOURCES:

Center on Longevity: “Politics, Scholars, and the Public, Key findings from a survey conducted among U.S. voters.”

Geoff Garin, president, Peter Hart Research.

Laura Carstensen, PhD, director, Stanford Center on Longevity.

Those who age well do not do so accidentally or because it was dictated by their genes. Rather, it is the achievement of deliberate actions, good planning and culture. By “culture,” I do not mean simply the languages that people speak or the attitudes they hold. Science and technology are very much part of culture. When Congress decides to allocate funds for research, it does so because citizens perceive particular needs.That has to change. Fortunately, many of my Stanford colleagues throughout the campus are working on research that offers hope that we can help a greater number of people age healthfully and happily. These steps include changing our health-care system, our entitlement programs, our personal behaviors and lifestyles, and our appreciation of not only the unique challenges of aging but the great value older people contribute to a society. Achieving change on a scale this big requires a wholesale shift in the culture. The center is issuing an invitation to the best minds in academia and to our business and government colleagues to target the most important challenges an older population faces, and come up with solutions.

Ambitious? Absolutely. There is nothing like the Center on Longevity anywhere. We are not a gerontology center, nor are we even focused solely on aging. We are a laboratory studying the nature and development of the entire human life span, looking for innovative ways to solve the problems of people over 50 and improve the well-being of people of all ages.

Today, we are proud to say that more than 100 Stanford faculty members have joined the center as affiliates. Their research spans a remarkable gamut, from examining strategies for developing healthy nutritional habits, to building assistive robots, to pursuing stem cell research offering insights into the healing process. Unlike most academic enterprises, the Center on Longevity also aims to speed the development of commercial solutions and rational policies to improve the lives of people worldwide. In that vein, few conversations are as important today as the need to reform health care to make it more affordable and accessible to people of all ages. We are bringing together renowned academics and political experts to talk about practical solutions in our Health Security and the Presidency Project.

Research is our most potent tool in the quest to help our culture adapt to the phenomenon of more people living longer than ever before. At the Center on Longevity, we are determined to make sure that research findings do not stay locked away in academia but reach the people who can most benefit from them.


Seed Grants

The Stanford Center on Longevity received many applications, from departments and Schools across the University, in response to our RFA for seed grant proposals. Among the applications received, 11 were selected to receive a University Research Award of up to $50,000 for one year. The purpose of a University Research Award is to fund projects that fit well with SCL’s aim to support research that can help illuminate increased well-being in the population over 50 years old, with a special focus on solutions that improve life at all ages. It is hoped that the studies supported by these awards will lead to future support from external sponsors or have tangible impacts, either in the private sector or the public sector.

Congratulations to:

Thomas Andriacchi, Biomotion Laboratory
Project: Developing and testing a device to reduce falling

Steven Artandi, Medicine/Hematology
Project: Restoring fitness and extending lifespan in a mammalian model of aging

Jay Bhattacharya, PCOR
Dena Bravata, PCOR
Project: The longevity and health impact of gardening [As if we don't already know the positive influence being in nature gardening has on everyone's mental and physical health.]

Helen Blau, Microbiology and Immunology
Juan Santiago, Mechanical Engineering
Project: Drug delivery micropump for rejuvenatioin of muscle stem cell function on old mice

Kate Bundorf, Health Research and Policy
Jay Bhattacharya, PCOR
Rui Mata, Dept. of Psychology
Michael Schoenbaum, NIH/Institute of Mental Health
Project: The financial implications of health plan choices: The case of Medicare Part D prescription drug plans

Chang-Zheng Chen, Microbiology and Immunology
Project: The role of miRNA’s in T-cell aging and thymic involution

Michael Grecius, Neurology/Neurological Sciences
Brian Wandell, Dept. of Psychology
Robert Dougherty, Dept. of Psychology
Project: Cognitive effects of disrupted structural and functional connectivity in the aging brain

Daniel Kessler, GSB/Hoover Institute
David Brady, GSB
Project: Health reform in the U.S. from the 1990s to 2009-10

Ruth O’Hara, Psychiatry/Behavioral Science
Natalie Rasgon, Psychiatry/Behavioral Science
Heather Kenna, Psychiatry/Behavioral Science
Project: Sleep apnea and insulin resistance: A Role in cognitive decline

Alan Pao, Nephrology
Sun Kim, Endocrinology/Gerontology/Metabolism
Glenn Chertow, Nephrology
Gerald Reaven, Endocrinology/Gerontology/Metabolism
Project: Pathogenesis of accelerated vascular aging: Insulin resistance and chronic kidney disease as model systems

Jessica Rose, Orthopaedic Surgery
Scott Atlas, Radiology
Gary Glover, Radiology
Catherine Chang, Electrical Engineering
Dennis Grahn, Biology
Vinh Cao, Biology
Project: An investigation of physiological mechanisms underlying health benefits of Tai Chi

EVENTS

Early Detection of Osteoarthritis-1/28- 1/30 2009
SCL hosts international joint health symposium

The Stanford Center on Longevity (SCL), which has “Joint Health” as one of its primary focus areas within its Mobility Division, is hosting an international joint health symposium: Early Detection of Osteoarthritis.

The goal of the workshop, which will include experts in various aspects of osteoarthritis (OA), is to identify research questions that will lead to improved and early detection.

SCL believes this is an important and challenging problem and the workshop should stimulate interesting new questions. It will focus on exploring interdisciplinary approaches and opportunities to develop future research partnerships. The lead SCL faculty affiliate is Dr. Thomas Andriacchi, and the workshop is presented in collaboration with the School of Mechanical Engineering. [Hence, the alignment with joint replacement pharmaceutical therapeutic industry, not prevention.]

maverick muse on June 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Holy crap maverick. What was that?

Jimmy Doolittle on June 18, 2009 at 9:05 PM

Nothing fails as long as a government program.

darktood on June 19, 2009 at 2:36 AM