Will the hospital take MediCal and Medicare patients? How about patients with no medical insurance flooding its ER? How long will it take before the costs of seeing patients begin to outweigh what little reimbursement it gets from the state government, insurance companies and HMOs that refuse to cover all sorts of office visits, medicines and procedures?
Will the hospital take MediCal and Medicare patients? How about patients with no medical insurance flooding its ER? How long will it take before the costs of seeing patients begin to outweigh what little reimbursement it gets from the state government, insurance companies and HMOs that refuse to cover all sorts of office visits, medicines and procedures?
Our problem is not the lack of tertiary medical facilities... we have enough of those. It is affording insurance, prescriptions, getting coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc. An ER visit can put somebody in bankruptcy if they do not have insurance. Most so called non profits cost even more.
A good deed does not need publicity, that's what I'll say
I think that is exactly Steve Jobs' standard philosophy about philanthropy, yet all the blind haters out there accuse him of being a Scrooge compared to Bill Gates, whose style of philanthropy is much more in-your-face.
Oh, "Snodfart". Why is it that Cal people always have to put their two bitter cents in to any discussion pertaining to Stanford? Petty jealously, most likely. For the record, I'm a Peninsula native who didn't attend Stanford or Cal (though I did graduate from another UC school). I was a neutral most of my life, but the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of many Cal fans is just too much for me to bear (no pun intended!).
And I agree 100% that the architecture is disappointingly lame. But I guess I'd rather they spend the money on high tech toys than on a Frank Gehry or Santiago Calatrava or whoever.
However; "If you look at the history of Stanford health care, the products that have been created here and their impact on the world is much greater than Apple: radiation therapy used to cure cancer, the MRI."
Pedantically; a number of scientists claim to have invented MRI; none worked at Stanford.
Peter Mansfield, at the University of Nottingham (UK) was rewarded with the 2003 Nobel Prize for discoveries concerning MRI.
That is a very generous gift and I hope it results in a lot of good. But at the same time, Stanford is already one of the wealthiest universities in the country and I doubt their hospital is lacking for too much. I would think that instead of giving $2 billion to one single hospital, imagine how many more people could have been helped had they split that money to possibly a hundred or more poorer hospitals around the country that really need basic medical equipment to help their patients. $2B could have bought a lot of MRI, ECG, and other life saving equipment for many poorer hospitals that either lack that equipment or are using machines that are literally falling apart. Seems like a case of some rich companies helping a rich hospital that didn't even need the money.
Will the hospital take MediCal and Medicare patients? How about patients with no medical insurance flooding its ER? How long will it take before the costs of seeing patients begin to outweigh what little reimbursement it gets from the state government, insurance companies and HMOs that refuse to cover all sorts of office visits, medicines and procedures?
Talk about "finding the cloud behind every silver lining" .... jeeeze louise even!
That is a very generous gift and I hope it results in a lot of good. But at the same time, Stanford is already one of the wealthiest universities in the country and I doubt their hospital is lacking for too much. I would think that instead of giving $2 billion to one single hospital, imagine how many more people could have been helped had they split that money to possibly a hundred or more poorer hospitals around the country that really need basic medical equipment to help their patients. $2B could have bought a lot of MRI, ECG, and other life saving equipment for many poorer hospitals that either lack that equipment or are using machines that are literally falling apart. Seems like a case of some rich companies helping a rich hospital that didn't even need the money.
I think you're missing the point here. It seems to me that Apple & friends are trying to help design, from the ground up, a medical facility that takes advantage of the very latest in hi-tech available. If done properly, there's no doubt in my mind that the level of efficiency and success will increase to the point that that knowledge will be included in future designs. That can only help the whole medical profession. In other words .... Apple is trying to "skate where the puck is going to be .... rather than where it is".
Talk about "finding the cloud behind every silver lining" .... jeeeze louise even!
I work in a so called modern health care center, and while it has a lot of the latest whiz-bang technology, a health care facility is only as good as the people running it and is useful to patients only if they can afford its services, which is dictated by their insurance companies.
Comments
Will the hospital take MediCal and Medicare patients? How about patients with no medical insurance flooding its ER? How long will it take before the costs of seeing patients begin to outweigh what little reimbursement it gets from the state government, insurance companies and HMOs that refuse to cover all sorts of office visits, medicines and procedures?
Our problem is not the lack of tertiary medical facilities... we have enough of those. It is affording insurance, prescriptions, getting coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc. An ER visit can put somebody in bankruptcy if they do not have insurance. Most so called non profits cost even more.
A good deed does not need publicity, that's what I'll say
I think that is exactly Steve Jobs' standard philosophy about philanthropy, yet all the blind haters out there accuse him of being a Scrooge compared to Bill Gates, whose style of philanthropy is much more in-your-face.
Oh, "Snodfart". Why is it that Cal people always have to put their two bitter cents in to any discussion pertaining to Stanford? Petty jealously, most likely. For the record, I'm a Peninsula native who didn't attend Stanford or Cal (though I did graduate from another UC school). I was a neutral most of my life, but the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of many Cal fans is just too much for me to bear (no pun intended!).
And I agree 100% that the architecture is disappointingly lame. But I guess I'd rather they spend the money on high tech toys than on a Frank Gehry or Santiago Calatrava or whoever.
However; "If you look at the history of Stanford health care, the products that have been created here and their impact on the world is much greater than Apple: radiation therapy used to cure cancer, the MRI."
Pedantically; a number of scientists claim to have invented MRI; none worked at Stanford.
Peter Mansfield, at the University of Nottingham (UK) was rewarded with the 2003 Nobel Prize for discoveries concerning MRI.
Will the hospital take MediCal and Medicare patients? How about patients with no medical insurance flooding its ER? How long will it take before the costs of seeing patients begin to outweigh what little reimbursement it gets from the state government, insurance companies and HMOs that refuse to cover all sorts of office visits, medicines and procedures?
Talk about "finding the cloud behind every silver lining" .... jeeeze louise even!
That is a very generous gift and I hope it results in a lot of good. But at the same time, Stanford is already one of the wealthiest universities in the country and I doubt their hospital is lacking for too much. I would think that instead of giving $2 billion to one single hospital, imagine how many more people could have been helped had they split that money to possibly a hundred or more poorer hospitals around the country that really need basic medical equipment to help their patients. $2B could have bought a lot of MRI, ECG, and other life saving equipment for many poorer hospitals that either lack that equipment or are using machines that are literally falling apart. Seems like a case of some rich companies helping a rich hospital that didn't even need the money.
I think you're missing the point here. It seems to me that Apple & friends are trying to help design, from the ground up, a medical facility that takes advantage of the very latest in hi-tech available. If done properly, there's no doubt in my mind that the level of efficiency and success will increase to the point that that knowledge will be included in future designs. That can only help the whole medical profession. In other words .... Apple is trying to "skate where the puck is going to be .... rather than where it is".
Talk about "finding the cloud behind every silver lining" .... jeeeze louise even!
I work in a so called modern health care center, and while it has a lot of the latest whiz-bang technology, a health care facility is only as good as the people running it and is useful to patients only if they can afford its services, which is dictated by their insurance companies.