Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US is too modern and advanced as a whole for any one major metro's health care system to be that much more advanced than another major metro. The care and options is basically the same for the most part.
This is incorrect. Obviously the nation as a whole has a pretty high standard in comparison to most of the world, but there are certain areas and institutions that provide a superior standard of care and access to more cutting edge procedures and technology.
It is beyond impressive that not only has Boston led in NIH funding the past 14 years, they have also widened the gap between them and NYC (2nd) by $315m dollars, which is a huge gap. Consider also the population difference between Boston and NYC as well.
Once again I did not mean to insult any cities medical system, but there is a reason why Boston hospitals, med schools and research institutions are so highly regarded.
This is incorrect. Obviously the nation as a whole has a pretty high standard in comparison to most of the world, but there are certain areas and institutions that provide a superior standard of care and access to more cutting edge procedures and technology.
I disagree.
Yes certain areas have some extraordinary institutions and facilities but overall, for the average person that doesnt really need such specialized care, its basically the same no matter where you go.
Also, Usually those 'cutting edge procedures and technologies' you speak of spread very quickly from where it first was used to all over. Why would a breakthrough not be shared with other places??
Sure every now and then one place and one place alone can help you, but that's very rare these days.
Quote:
It is beyond impressive that not only has Boston led in NIH funding the past 14 years, they have also widened the gap between them and NYC (2nd) by $315m dollars, which is a huge gap. Consider also the population difference between Boston and NYC as well.
Pharmaceutical and Private Sectore Medical Devices and Research Companies also spend BILLIONS on the advancement of health care.
Quote:
Once again I did not mean to insult any cities medical system, but there is a reason why Boston hospitals, med schools and research institutions are so highly regarded.
I totally concur. Boston is very highly regarded in this field-and rightfully so.
But the advancements made there are thankfully shared with everywhere else.
I'm not so sure about that since there's a huge amount of room for variation within the medical fields. Actually, one of the Obama administrations big goal for health care reform (and a quiet, but incredibly important component of their budget reform) is to force standardization of efficacious procedures since practices are currently hugely divergent across the US.
I'm not so sure about that since there's a huge amount of room for variation within the medical fields. Actually, one of the Obama administrations big goal for health care reform (and a quiet, but incredibly important component of their budget reform) is to force standardization of efficacious procedures since practices are currently hugely divergent across the US.
Perhaps as far as bureaucracy, but a person on Dialysis or receiving Chemotherapy in Houston is most likely using the same injections, devices and machines as someone in Boston.
It makes no sense that simple and basic procedures to common diseases would be that divergent across a first world nation.
Perhaps as far as bureaucracy, but a person on Dialysis or receiving Chemotherapy in Houston is most likely using the same injections, devices and machines as someone in Boston.
It makes no sense that simple and basic procedures to common diseases would be that divergent across a first world nation.
Not usually simple and basic procedures, but even that can be misleading as even with very simple illnesses or disorders, there may be varying opinions on how to proceed or what method to use. There was a fairly recent New Yorker article touching on this about two or three months ago that talked about how divergent practices across the US (or even from region to neighboring region) can be.
Not usually simple and basic procedures, but even that can be misleading as even with very simple illnesses or disorders, there may be varying opinions on how to proceed or what method to use. There was a fairly recent New Yorker article touching on this about two or three months ago that talked about how divergent practices across the US (or even from region to neighboring region) can be.
Good points.
Now that I think about it, even within cities the experience between varying hospitals can be night and day.
Pharmaceutical and Private Sectore Medical Devices and Research Companies also spend BILLIONS on the advancement of health care.
True, but the majority of research funding comes from the government and private donations. It puts your NPO status in jeopardy when you start to receive over a certain percentage of funding from private sources.
Quote:
I totally concur. Boston is very highly regarded in this field-and rightfully so.
But the advancements made there are thankfully shared with everywhere else.
This really gets to the point I was making. Even though these advancements are shared with other areas, they have to originate somewhere and that is why the Healthcare system here is not just of regional importance but national and international importance.
I do not think people understand how important the work that is done locally healthcare wise is to the rest of the country. There is a reason why almost 7% of all NIH dollars go to ONE city, no where else is even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Not usually simple and basic procedures, but even that can be misleading as even with very simple illnesses or disorders, there may be varying opinions on how to proceed or what method to use. There was a fairly recent New Yorker article touching on this about two or three months ago that talked about how divergent practices across the US (or even from region to neighboring region) can be.
I agree that these are excellent points. It is not as simple as sharing new treatments and advancements with the rest of the nation, it comes down to having the adequate funding and the expertise to put this into use.
I looked back and couldn't find any sources from you on the matter. I would be curious to see what they are because Boston 's economy just doesn't' seem that global.
I was referring to these two rankings. One is the GaWC ranking. It ranks San Francisco as a Beta+ World City, Boston as a Beta World City, and Houston as a Beta- World City.
The other is Foreign Policy's 2008 Global Cities Index. It's a ranking of what they found to be: "the world’s biggest, most interconnected cities help set global agendas, weather transnational dangers, and serve as the hubs of global integration. They are the engines of growth for their countries and the gateways to the resources of their regions." On that page, they show the Top 30 cities. San Francisco is ranked #15, Boston #29, and Houston is un-ranked.
I was referring to these two rankings. One is the GaWC ranking. It ranks San Francisco as a Beta+ World City, Boston as a Beta World City, and Houston as a Beta- World City.
This particular ranking is very misleading--as far as what it calls itself.
Its a look at what cities have office locations of certain insurance, banking, accounting companies and law firms. Nothing else.
That it pretends to be an overall ranking of world cities is quite laughable and really does a disservice.
I'm a little confused, because you used the same ranking earlier in this thread. I see that the city rankings are different in yours than the rankings I posted. What's the difference between the two and why is one more accurate than the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
San Francisco is among the most influential cities in the world.
THE WORLD'S MOST WELL ROUNDED CITIES by GaWC released in 2004
Five levels of global city are identified. First, and clearly above all others, there are London and New York. All previous research has highlighted the dominance of these two cities in the world city hierarchy (Taylor 2004a) and they emerge here as the most important 'all-round' global contributors. They are followed by three cities that make smaller all-round contribution and with particular cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco. Finally, among 'all-rounders' there are seven incipient world cities identified in Table 11. In the second category of global niche cities, the three leading Pacific Asian cities are critical economic nodes in the world city network and there are also three critical nodes that are non-economic: Brussels, Geneva and Washington, DC. Thus a total of 18 cities are deemed to be global, actual or incipient.
The remaining world cities encompass articulator and niche cities. The former are focussed upon subnets and there are 13 distributed between the three non-economic spheres. Classic examples are Vienna at the centre of a UN agency subnet and Nairobi at the centre of a NGO subnet. There are 21niche world cities identified of which seven have important concentrations of economic activities and 14 concentrations of non-economic activities. Frankfurt is typical of the first group with its concentration of banks while Manila is typical of the second group with its concentration of NGOs.
These two sets of cities represent the upper echelons of the hierarchical tendencies in world city networks. To reiterate a point made in the introduction, they do not encompass all globalization processes, all cities
GLOBAL as so involved, but they are the key locales that network formation agents are using in their everyday activities that are creating world city networks. CITIES
Well rounded global
Very large contribution: London and New York Smaller contribution and with cultural bias: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco
ii Incipient global cities: Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Toronto
Global niche cities - specialised global contributions
i Economic: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo
ii Political and social: Brussels, Geneva, and Washington
WORLD CITIES
Subnet articulator cities
i Cultural: Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Rome, Stockholm Political: Bangkok, Beijing, Vienna
ii Social: Manila, Nairobi, Ottawa
Worldwide leading cities
i Primarily economic global contributions: Frankfurt, Miami, Munich, Osaka, Singapore, Sydney, Zurich
ii Primarily non-economic global contributions: Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Atlanta, Basle, Barcelona, Cairo, Denver, Harare, Lyon, Manila, Mexico City, Mumbai, New Delhi, Shanghai
San Francisco is a world city that happens to be surrounded by a Metro Area that is very difficult to beat. Sorry haters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
