I would be all in favor of a private and complete electronic medical history for each person, but the EMRs I have seen are neither private nor complete, and tend to reinforce formulaic medical practice, as opposed to discovery, discussion, and intelligent understanding.

Broadly, my concerns with EMRs:

First, GIGO. I was enthusiastic about Kaiser-Permanente's electronic medical records until I saw garbage being put into the system by well intentioned folks. This translated into outputs that incommensurable over time.

Second, ownership. I should own my EMR, because I own myself and manage my own care.

Third, format. My preferred EMR would have a wiki template, because I should be able to add my observations to my EMR, and anyone who sees it will know how to access the most relevant information. I would keep mine up to date with a current status report up on top.

Fourth, interpretation. This is fundamental. Regardless of data quality, ownership or format, new doctors (say the harried folks in the ER) will not know how to interpret and use the data from all the other doctors. In fact, I've seen this first hand. It is very hard to practice medicine wisely in the short-run. Doctors disagree with one another on observation and diagnosis of the simplest things. Even when there's agreement, notes are always incomplete and cryptic, many times providing negative information.

If you were to look at my KP medical records, you will have almost no idea of interventions or medications or lifestyle changes that I've ever taken, or why all my basic measurements improved drastically over a one year period.

We should be looking at how patients, doctors, bureaucrats, politicans, and insurance companies use EMRs in the real world. This cannot be a pretty picture. Personally, I now focus far more on the meaning of test measurement, how doctors know what they say they do ( when and why they started believing it as well as causes of justified variance in opinion), and far less the alleged expert opinion that I should just trust.

Some top notch economists insist we have a crisis of trust. True enough. Yet it seems to me that the market is trying to fire quite a number of the poor-judging risk-takers in the financial sector -- basically, those that we cannot trust. However, Mr. Obama and Mr. Geithner appear to be doing a damn fine job keeping them there, I think partly because of successful lobbying, but also because they cannot envision the market and political orders that would ensue should AIG, Citi, BoA, and a host of other international conglomerates suddenly disappear.

Last week President Chavez ordered troops to rice processing plants after accusing producers of sidestepping the law on controlled prices by producing a higher grade of rice.

...

Mr Chavez is attempting to reduce the cost of the basic shopping basket of ordinary Venezuelans at a time of soaring inflation, says the BBC's Will Grant in Caracas.

I don't think inflation fighting is an even remotely acceptable explanation. Here, we have Mr. Chavez's military assets seizing other people's productive assets, because they followed the law to the letter. Who will now retain any profits from the use of these assets? Mr. Chavez's government. So who gets immediate benefits from this seizure? Plainly, Mr. Chavez! Will more rice be produced, and at lower cost? The reporter doesn't seem to realize that it doesn't matter. He won't be reporting the actual results of the seizure either way...

But business leaders and food producers are furious at what they see as a further attack on their ability to turn a profit, our correspondent says

Now I get it. We must judge Mr. Chavez not on the morality of means taken, but stated ends. And we simply shouldn't believe what producers say at all.

Facilitating access is concerned with helping people to command appropriate health care resources in order to preserve or improve their health. Access is a complex concept and at least four aspects require evaluation. If services are available and there is an adequate supply of services, then the opportunity to obtain health care exists, and a population may 'have access' to services. The extent to which a population 'gains access' also depends on financial, organisational and social or cultural barriers that limit the utilisation of services. Thus access measured in terms of utilisation is dependent on the affordability, physical accessibility and acceptability of services and not merely adequacy of supply. Services available must be relevant and effective if the population is to 'gain access to satisfactory health outcomes'. The availability of services, and barriers to access, have to be considered in the context of the differing perspectives, health needs and material and cultural settings of diverse groups in society. Equity of access may be measured in terms of the availability, utilisation or outcomes of services. Both horizontal and vertical dimensions of equity require consideration.

And here I thought "access to healthcare" meant you could get whatever medical services you want, and somebody else would pay for them.

"If you go up 270, from Chevy Chase out to Frederick, you will see building after building with big signs on them that said: 'Space.' Or you will see ground that is not being built on where you will see signs, 'Build to Suit.' The next year is going to be very tough," Charlie said. "Those who have the ability to keep up payments will be able to make it. The government has to step in and help."

The government -- local, state, and national -- has to, and should do, NO SUCH THING.

Commercial property owners should realize that their gains from when times are good are to more than cover their losses from when times are not. And if their firms have less than zero long-run profit, perhaps their management skills are best honed in other industries.

H/T: UrbanTrekker

Unless you must have a car now, if you are considering a domestic car–or even any car that directly competes with a domestic car–I would wait. Many proposed measures to save the domestic auto industry would have the effect of cutting car prices by thousands of dollars. If you buy a car now, you could pay thousands more.

Debates about bailing out automobile companies: Free

Same debates incentivizing people to stop buying cars: Priceless