6 votes

Mask off: Crisis and struggle in the pandemic

2 comments

  1. [3]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [2]
      skybrian
      Link Parent
      I don't know, it seems like abstract, empty theorizing to me, unlike the writing about medicine in the New Yorker, which is usually excellent.

      I don't know, it seems like abstract, empty theorizing to me, unlike the writing about medicine in the New Yorker, which is usually excellent.

      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. skybrian
          Link Parent
          Although a large number of things are mentioned, I still find the result to be kind of incoherent. For example, "fee for service" is explained this way: It might be more accurate to say that this...

          Although a large number of things are mentioned, I still find the result to be kind of incoherent. For example, "fee for service" is explained this way:

          Of all the types of billing structure in healthcare systems around the world, FFS squeezes the most out of patients, shunting the risk of business onto them, as providers can recuperate costs through increasing the variety of unbundled billable services.

          It might be more accurate to say that this system creates risks for everyone. As we've seen, fee for service is also a risk for health care providers. The sudden cancelling of elective procedures means that many rural hospitals may be forced to close, if they aren't bailed out. I guess they can't easily recuperate costs after all?

          But that's just one point of all the things mentioned. It seems like biggest problem with the article is that it's not about any one thing. Even health care, with all its complexity, is just one subject it passes through in an attempt to mention everything going on this year. You get glimpses of complexity, but not enough to really understand anything. Writing multiple articles with a smaller scope would be a better way to do this.