One thing that will never change – human beings are each unique individuals made in the image and likeness of God – “endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When designing any kind of health care system, this truth must be paramount.
Our present health care system developed from gradual improvements in individual treatment. As observation, testing and research revealed common pathways to treatment, companies rose to offer new technologies, equipment and devices to make treatment safer, better and less intrusive. In most cases, this has worked to meet the hurting individual’s needs.
I’m all for gathering data, comparative analysis and whatever technology can bring to the fight against disease and misery. My life was certainly spared 8 years ago after a stage 4 diagnosis leading to a cure from Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. I get uncomfortable with “group-think” when it comes to health care. The exceptions are where population groups share a similar malady that can be dealt with communally. In the case of employer provided health insurance, the typical company has a diverse population and is a proper subsidiary link in the chain.
Microsoft and GE have seldom demonstrated a bottom up view of anything they do, including pushing that horrendous Common Core and moving health care equipment manufacturing to China. Since they are dealing with products and technology it is their proper role to serve the individual through the various subsidiary levels of health care.

The authors propose another 

Those are just some of the species the Revive & Restore “de-extinction” project has under consideration. The California Grizzly Bear, the Carolina Parakeet, the Tasmanian Tiger and Steller’s Sea Cow are also mentioned as potential candidates for revival. Presumably, all the “de-extincted” species are meant to again freely roam the Earth and in large numbers.
But it’s not so strange when you consider the larger message that made Sagan famous.

It was the world’s most famous case of “AIDS.” In June 1984, actor Rock Hudson, the good-looking, crew-cut symbol of perfect American manhood, received his diagnosis of the new syndrome, based on a “positive” result on a test that had been on the market for less than two months.

The recently uncovered work, written in 1931, is reminiscent of a theory championed by British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle nearly 20 years later. Einstein soon abandoned the idea, but the manuscript reveals his continued hesitance to accept that the Universe was created during a single explosive event.
Editor’s Introduction: With another review of the Renewable Energy Target commencing we felt it was important to revisit the results of a modelling exercise assessing potential wind power grid integration technical issues undertaken by the Australian Energy Market Operator back in late 2013. This study attracted little attention but gave strikingly different answers to prior modelling exercises, suggesting greater grid integration costs for levels of wind consistent with achieving the Renewable Energy Target. While this study was fine for its purpose of helping AEMO to explore potential technical changes that might be required to manage high levels of wind penetration, it made simplifying assumptions that made it unsuitable for assessing the likely economic costs of achieving the Renewable Energy Target. To head off the potential for this study to be misinterpreted and misused in the forthcoming review of the Renewable Energy Target, we asked Jenny Riesz to provide this review of the report.
AEMO’s Wind Integration Studies report, released in late 2013, suggests that technical constraints and grid limitations could lead to the significant curtailment by 2020 of around 35 per cent of the wind energy generated in Victoria, and around 15 per cent of the wind energy generated in South Australia.
Have other studies failed to capture the impact of grid constraints that mean meeting the 41,000 GWh Renewable Energy Target will be much more expensive than we thought?