"A growing number of people on low incomes are now living in shared housing - known as "houses in multiple occupation" - where each room is rented separately. But there's concern that many tenants are living in poor conditions." [SLBBC]
A simple question shows how complex the issue is. Chris at "Cynical C" asks his fellow citizens where they get thier health care (insurance) from and the incredible diversity of the current options and situations is immediately apparent. Quite spontaneously (but surely not unexpectedly), the question of "How much does it cost you?" becomes an essential part of the answers. Outsiders opine and tell stories and commiserate. [more inside]
"In 2003, Americans spent an estimated US$5,635 per capita on health care, while Canadians spent US$3,003... Canada’s single-payer system, which relies on not-for-profit delivery, achieves health outcomes that are at least equal to those in the United States at two-thirds the cost." What do wealthy, educated Americans living in Canada think?
The new lies about women's health (image slightly NSFW) according to Glamour. More on why every egg is sacred to the Bush administration. [via Wired's Sex Drive Daily]
Paul Krugman: The best places to get sick A dozen years ago, everyone was talking about an American health care crisis. But then the issue faded from view: A few years of good data led many people to conclude that HMOs and other innovations had ended the historic trend of rising medical costs. But the pause in the growth of health care costs in the 1990s proved temporary. Medical costs are once again rising rapidly and the U.S. health care system is once again in crisis. So now is a good time to ask why other advanced countries manage to spend so much less than we Americans do, while getting better results.
HMOs sign on with William Morris. "We're not saying it's verboten to attack some part of the health care system. We're saying there is another side to what we do." No word yet on whether the American Association of Health Plans is set to star opposite Tom Cruise in the next summer blockbuster. But, aside from moving beautiful people from casting to marquee, I believe this is the first time in history that the William Morris Agency has been set up as a Hollywood lobbyist. It's bad enough that more than 100 product placement agencies continue to bombard movies with increasing junk. But, assuming the studios take this representation seriously, is it too much to ask that corporate interests be denied any potential sullying of the cinematic voice? Will CAA follow suit and take on the NRA? Or are today's movies beyond salvation?