当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文

历城区中医院官网飞度管家免费平台天桥区妇女医院网上预约挂号

2019年01月24日 14:03:29    日报  参与评论()人

济南市千佛山医院好不好在济南无痛人流手术多少钱济南市中区白带异常多少钱 山东省妇幼保健医院无痛取环

莱芜市莱城区人民医院联系电话济南市公立三甲医院做引产需要证明吗 Dozens crushed to death in a tragic stampede at a place where people congregated to enjoy themselves, not to die. Police blamed for failures in crowd control. Emergency services pilloried for a slow and chaotic response which led to needless deaths.悲剧性踩踏事故发生了,有数十人被挤压至死。人们聚集在这个地方,原本是为了享受快乐,而不是为了走向死亡。事故发生后,人们指责警方未能对人群实施有效管控。应急部门也因应对迟缓且混乱、导致毫无必要的伤亡,而受到公开谴责。Sound like the New Year’s Eve disaster at the Shanghai Bund, in which 36 people died and dozens more were injured? It’s not: it’s a description of the 1989 Hillsborough stadium tragedy in Sheffield, England, in which 96 people died and hundreds were injured in a similar human pile-up. My point? China has no corner on the market for unruly crowds, incompetent police and unnecessary disasters. But you’d never know that, from the way many mainlanders reacted to the carnage.这听起来是不是像是在说新年夜(New Year’s Eve)上海外滩发生的那场导致36人丧生、数十人受伤的灾难?事实并非如此。这里说的是1989年英格兰谢菲尔德市希尔斯堡体育场(Hillsborough stadium)惨案,当时同样发生了人员踩踏,最终有96人丧生,数百人受伤。我为何提到这起事故?在不听管控的人群、不称职的警察和不必要的灾难方面,中国的表现并不突出。不过,从许多中国人对外滩惨案的反应中,你肯定认识不到这一点。When news of the Bund bloodbath surfaced on a frigid bright New Year’s morning in Shanghai, the first reaction of many locals was to blame the Chinese. Only hours after dozens of young people had suffocated to death at the very same spot, Chinese bystanders at the scene of the stampede repeatedly told me versions of the same thing: “Chinese are like that”, or sometimes “young Chinese are like that, they like to push and shove”, or occasionally “Chinese from outside Shanghai are like that, they don’t know how to behave in a civilised fashion”.当外滩惨案的消息在上海寒冷而晴朗的元旦清晨传来时,当地许多人的第一反应是谴责中国人。在数十名年轻人窒息而死仅仅数小时后,踩踏事故现场的中国围观者反复向我诉说着内容不同但主旨相同的话:“中国人就是这样”,有时候还有“中国年轻人就是这样,他们就喜欢挤来挤去”,偶尔还有“上海以外的中国人就是这样,他们不懂文明礼貌”。China is a proud nation that can boast the world’s oldest continuous civilisation, but beneath that strain of arrogance runs something that often feels like a national inferiority complex. Ordinary Chinese are always the first to point out shared character flaws (although usually they impute them to compatriots other than themselves). And what better chance to do that, than when 36 people have needlessly lost their lives in the country’s most modern, best run and arguably most civilised city.中国是一个充满自豪感的国家,以拥有世界上历史最悠久的、不曾中断的文明为傲。然而,在这种自负的气质背后,却存在某种往往让人感觉像是民族自卑情结的东西。中国民众经常是首先跳出来,指出国人共同的性格缺陷的(尽管他们通常会把这些缺陷归罪在同胞、而不是自己身上)。如今,在中国最现代化、管理最好、可以说是最文明的城市,有36人无谓地失去了生命。对中国民众来说,再也没有比这更好的机会来发出这样的指责了。Shanghai has pretensions to be the 21st century’s new New York, a green, rationally planned, ultra-modern city. For such a place to lose 36 young people in such an old, old way, is a massive loss of face. It feels like — though it is not — the kind of thing that only third world countries do.上海自命要成为21世纪的新纽约——一座合理规划、超现代的绿色城市。但却以一种非常落后的方式失去了36条生命,是一件无比丢脸的事。感觉只有第三世界国家才会发生这种事——尽管事实并非如此。Maybe that’s why so many people were willing to believe one of the first stories that surfaced to explain the crush (later denied by police): that revellers in a building above tossed coupons into the crowd that looked like US dollars.也许,这就是为什么会有如此之多的人愿意相信,是一座大楼上狂欢的人向人群中抛撒看起来像美元一样的优惠券导致了踩踏事故。人们一开始为这起事故找了不少起因,这件事就是其中之一(警方后来否认此事造成了踩踏)。Many Chinese were quick to accept this as the cause — a sign of how worried they are about excessive greed in mainland society. Somehow the whole story tapped into a narrative of national angst.许多中国人不假思索地认为这件事就是起因,说明他们对中国社会的过度贪婪之风有多么担忧。不知怎么地,整件事与一种关于民族忧虑的叙事建立起了联系。In the days that followed, blame was distributed much more widely: the city government was criticised for failing to give adequate publicity to the cancellation of the evening’s main event; police failed to shutter the closest metro stop to control numbers, and did not send enough officers until it was too late; ambulances were slow to arrive; hospitals were slow to kick into gear; relatives were prevented from getting to their loved ones.随后几天,越来越多的人沦为受指责的对象:人们批评上海市政府未充分宣传这个新年夜重大活动取消的消息;批评警方未封闭离现场最近的地铁站来控制人流,未及时调派足够警力;批评救护车迟迟未来;批评医院进入状态太慢;批评当局阻止死伤者亲属接触他们死伤的亲人。Failure all around, fault all around — much of it deserved. But still, four days after the tragedy, at a spot overlooking the impromptu Bund memorial to the dead, bystanders were still blaming the victims, and in some strange way, their Chineseness. Young tourist Wei Ting, recently arrived from Guangdong in southern China, explained in careful English that pushing and shoving on New Year’s Eve is what Chinese people “usually do”.到处是不足,到处是缺陷——其中很大一部分指责是应该的。但在悲剧发生4天之后,在一处可眺望外滩上人们自发悼念遇难者的场所,仍有旁观者在指责事故受害者,并以某种奇特的方式指责受害者的中国人特色。年轻的游客魏廷(Wei Ting,音译)最近刚从广东来到上海,他以斟酌过的英语解释称,在新年夜挤来挤去是中国人“常做”的事情。But the fact is, the Bund bloodbath is not a verdict on the flaws of modern China. People get crushed to death in developed countries too (including a hideously unlucky Walmart employee trampled by a crowd of US Black Friday bargain hunters in 2008).但事实上,外滩惨案并非一份对现代中国缺陷的判决书。发达国家也会发生人们挤压致死的悲剧(包括2008年一名极其不幸的沃尔玛(Walmart)员工被美国一群在“黑色星期五”(Black Friday)抢便宜货的购物者踩死)。 /201501/352895济南省中医药大学附属医院收费怎么样

济南无痛保宫人流价格Private equity firms engaged in an unusual bidding battle this year: slugging it out over an upmarket chain of private hospitals in China.私人股本公司今年投入到了一场不寻常的竞标战中:它们要在中国民营医院的高端产业链上一决胜负。TPG and a consortium that included Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical, emerged the victor in the fight for US-listed Chindex International after sweetening its bid and shelling out 1m. Chinese media and people close to the deal named Carlyle as the rival bidder, although it declined to comment.在对美国上市公司美中互利(Chindex International)的竞购中,德克萨斯太平洋集团(TPG)和一家包括上海复星医药(Fosun Pharmaceutical)在内的财团提高报价并付4.61亿美元之后,成为最终赢家。熟悉此次交易的中国媒体和知情人称凯雷(Carlyle)也参与了竞购,不过凯雷拒绝置评。Chindex is the top of the pyramid of hundreds of potential private hospital deals, as investors chase a Chinese gold rush.随着众多投资者前来淘金,中国可能会有数民营医院成为并购对象,美中互利成为首当其冲的一家。Guo Guangchang, chairman of Fosun Group, parent of Fosun Pharma, said recently that the group might invest in as many as 500 hospitals in China – although people close to the company say this was more an expression of enthusiasm than an exact number.复星医药的母公司、复星集团(Fosun Group)的董事长郭广昌最近表示,该集团要在中国投资500家医院,尽管接近该公司的人士表示,这更像一种热情洋溢的表达方式,跟确切数字无关。Either way, investment is set to pour into the sector, continuing a trend begun when Beijing lifted restrictions on foreign investment in private hospitals in 2012.无论是哪种情况,投资已准备涌入该领域,延续了2012年以来的趋势。2012年,中国政府解除了外商投资民营医院的限制。As demand for medical care has risen in line with prosperity, demand for investment opportunities has spilled over into other appendages of a wealthier lifestyle: dentists, rehabilitation clinics and cosmetic surgery centres.人们对医疗务的需求随着与经济繁荣同步增长的同时,对投资机会的需求也有所增加,且已蔓延到高品质生活方式的其他附属领域:牙医、康复诊所和整容手术中心。While many investors are coveting hospitals that are aly private, dozens of other local and foreign private equity investors are looking into the harder task of privatising public hospitals or building new ones.虽然许多投资者觊觎的是已经民营化的医院,但还有数十家中外私人股本投资机构将目光投向了更艰苦的任务:公立医院私有化及兴建新医院。The total value of healthcare deals in China exceeded bn last year, nearly five times the level of 2006, according to statistics from Dealogic.根据Dealogic的统计数据,去年中国医疗业并购总额超过100亿美元,近乎2006年水平的5倍,Sweeping reforms of the sector are under way, including doubling the private hospital share in treating Chinese patients to 20 per cent by 2015.该行业正进行大刀阔斧的改革,包括至2015年,实现民营医院的床位数占比和务量占比翻一番,达到总量的20%。Spending on healthcare is about 5 per cent of gross domestic product, compared with about 9 per cent in Japan and nearly 18 per cent in the US, according to a report from McKinsey. “Perhaps an even bigger difference is that in China, services account for only 30 per cent of spending versus 70 per cent in Japan and the US,” says Gordon Orr of McKinsey Asia.根据麦肯锡(McKinsey)的报告,中国的医疗出约为国内生产总值(GDP)的5%,相比之下日本的出约为9%,美国的出近于18%。麦肯锡亚洲的欧高敦(Gordon Orr)说:“或许更大的区别是,在中国,医疗务仅占医疗出的30%,而在日本和美国要占到70%。”According to a survey by Bain amp; Co, healthcare was identified by private equity funds as the most attractive sector for China investment this year.根据贝恩咨询公司(Bain amp; Co)的一项调查,私人股本基金已将医疗业确定为本年度在中国投资的最具吸引力行业。“We are seeing a lot of interest in medtech and private hospitals but the challenge in China is that there are few large deal opportunities,” says Vinit Bhatia, head of China private equity for Bain amp; Co.贝恩咨询公司中国私人股本部门的负责人威尼#8226;巴蒂亚(Vinit Bhatia)说:“我们看到许多机构对医疗科技和民营医院感兴趣,但中国的挑战在于大的交易机会并不多。”Several investors say it may prove hard to identify profitable deals in a sector where corruption is rife among doctors and administrators, and hospital finances are opaque.一些投资者表示,在一个医生和管理人员普遍涉嫌腐败,且医院财务状况不透明的行业,想识别有利可图的交易恐怕不容易。Perhaps the biggest problem is that private hospitals must stick to charges held down by the government or risk losing their eligibility for public reimbursement.或许最大的问题在于,民营医院必须遵守政府压低的收费标准,否则将可能被撤销医保定点资格。Improving management and achieving economies of scale in drug procurement may help profitability; but attracting high-quality doctors, retraining staff in a more service-orientated culture and matching doctor salaries inflated by bribes may all prove costly, health analysts say.健康产业分析师指出,提高管理水平、实现药品采购的规模经济或许有助盈利,但吸引高素质医生、以务型文化对员工进行再培训,还有将医生工资提高到被贿赂抬高的水平,这些可能都要投入大量资金。Alexander Ng of McKinsey says the pay-off could take longer than usual for a private equity fund. “If you have an investment horizon of 20, 30, 40 years, China is the right place but if you have a seven-year timeframe then, unless you buy cheap, it may not be the place to be as the valuations are going up because of more bullish expectations.”麦肯锡的Alexander Ng表示,私人股本基金想获得成功要比平常花费更长时间。“如果你的投资期限为20年、30年、40年,投资中国是选对了地方,但如果你的时间表为7年,那么除非你买便宜货,否则中国不是合适的地方,因为看涨预期较强,估值会往上走。” /201408/321616 What would make a smoker more likely to quit, a big reward for succeeding or a little penalty for failing? That is what researchers wanted to know when they assigned a large group of CVS employees, their relatives and friends to different smoking cessation programs.想让吸烟者戒烟,是对戒烟成功大加奖励还是对戒烟失败小施惩戒更加有效?为了搞清楚这个问题,研究人员让CVS药店(CVS)的一大群员工及其亲朋好友接受了不同的戒烟方案。The answer offered a surprising insight into human behavior. Many more people agreed to sign up for the reward program, but once they were in it, only a small share actually quit smoking. A far smaller number agreed to risk the penalty, but those who did were twice as likely to quit.他们得到的展示了人类行为中令人惊讶的一面。有很多人都愿意参加奖励方案,但在加入之后,真正戒了烟的人寥寥无几。而在同意冒险尝试惩罚方案的那一小部分人当中,成功戒烟的可能性却是前者的两倍。The trial, which was described in The New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday, was the largest yet to test whether offering people financial incentives could lead to better health. It used theories about human decision making that have been developed in psychology and economics departments over several decades and put them into practice with more than 2,500 people who either worked at CVS Caremark, the country’s largest drugstore chain by sales, or were friends or relatives of those employees.这项试验于5月13日发表在《新英格兰医学杂志》(The New England Journal of Medicine)上,它是迄今为止规模最大的一项以测试经济奖励能否改善人们健康为目的的研究。该试验采用了心理学和经济学部门在近几十年来建立起来的人类决策理论,并将其应用于美国最大的连锁药店CVS Caremark公司的员工及其朋友或亲戚。合计参与人数超过了2500人。Researchers found that offering incentives was far more effective in getting people to stop smoking than the traditional approach of giving free smoking cessation help, such as counseling or nicotine replacement therapy like gum, medication or patches. But they also found that requiring a 0 deposit that would be lost if the person failed to stay off cigarettes for six months nearly doubled the chances of success.研究人员发现,与传统的戒烟方法,即通过各种方式免费帮人戒烟(如提供咨询,使用口香糖、药物或贴片等尼古丁替代疗法)相比,提供奖励的效果要好得多。但他们也发现,如果要求参与者交150美元保金,且告知他们在6个月内无法戒烟就拿不回保金,戒烟的成功率几乎可以翻一番。“Adding a bit of a stick was much better than a pure carrot,” said Dr. Scott Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, who led the study.该研究的负责人,宾夕法尼亚大学医学院(University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine)健康激励和行为经济学研究中心(Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics)副主任斯科特·哈尔彭(Scott Halpern)士说:“胡萝卜加一点大棒的效果比纯用胡萝卜更好。”The finding is likely to get the attention of large companies as they sort out what types of benefits to offer employees in an era of rising health care costs. Most large employers, which bear much of those costs, now offer incentives for health-promoting behavior in the form of employee wellness programs, but until now, they have had little evidence of what types of programs actually work to guide them.在这个医疗费用不断上涨的时代,上述发现很可能会引起那些正在考虑该为自己的员工提供何种福利待遇的大公司的关注。大多数大型用人单位承担着员工医疗费用的绝大部分,他们现在多以员工保健计划(employee wellness programs)的形式来激励促进健康的行为,但到目前为止,还没有多少据能实哪种方案可以真正有效地指导他们。CVS, which helped conduct the study, is using the findings to design a smoking cessation incentive next month for its more than 200,000 employees.CVS(也就是协助进行该研究的公司)下个月将利用上述研究成果为其20多万名员工设计激励戒烟的方案。“These large employers are spending an average of 0 to 0 per employee per year, but in ways that are often blind to normal human psychology,” Dr. Halpern said, adding that the spending on wellness had nearly doubled in five years.“这些大型用人单位每年平均要在每名员工身上花费800到900美元,”哈尔彭士说,5年内医疗出增加了近一倍,“但他们花钱时却往往对人员心理层面上的因素视而不见。”The trial was intended to change that. Researchers randomly assigned the participants to a number of program options and let them decide whether they wanted to participate. About 14 percent of people assigned to the penalty program accepted it, compared with about 90 percent of people assigned to the reward program.这项试验就是为了要改变这一现状。研究人员向参与者们随机分配了多种戒烟方案,并让他们自己决定是否参加。分配入惩罚方案组的参与者中约有14%表示接受,相比之下,分配入奖励方案组的参与者中接受者高达90%。The penalty program required participants to deposit 0; six months later, those who had quit smoking would get the deposit back, along with a 0 reward. In the reward-only program, participants were simply offered an 0 payment if they stayed off cigarettes for six months.惩罚方案要求参与者缴纳150美元保金;6个月后,成功戒烟者不但得以退还保金,还将获得650美元的奖励。而在纯奖励方案中,参加者戒烟6个月就可以获得800美元的奖励。The success rate for those who joined the pure rewards group was low, about 17 percent, compared with more than 50 percent for the penalty program, though the figures had to be adjusted to account for the possibility that those who opted for the penalty might have been more motivated to quit to begin with.纯奖励方案组的参与者中戒烟成功率很低,约为17%;相比之下,在惩罚方案组中成功率则超过了50%。不过,考虑到愿意接受惩罚方案的参与者有可能从一开始就有较高的戒烟积极性,仍需对上述数字加以校正。Even after that adjustment, those who signed up for the penalty were nearly twice as likely to quit as those who opted for pure rewards, and five times as likely to quit as those who just got free counseling or nicotine replacement therapy. Even so, the largest overall effect was among the group that was assigned to pure rewards, simply because so many more people took part.但即使经过这么一番校正,愿意接受惩罚方案的参与者戒烟的可能性仍是选择单纯奖励方案者的近两倍,是只接受免费咨询或尼古丁替代疗法者的五倍。纵然如此,整体效果最好的仍要数纯奖励组,因为这组的参与者人数要多得多。“This is an original set of findings,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a Harvard law professor who helped develop some influential ideas in the field of behavioral economics, notably that if the social environment can be changed — for example, by posting simple warnings — people can be nudged into better behavior. “They could be applied to many health issues, like alcoholism, or whenever people face serious self-control problems.”哈佛大学法学院的教授卡斯·R·桑斯坦( Cass R. Sunstein)说:“这些发现很有独创性,可以应用于酗酒等很多健康问题,或是人面临严重自我控制问题的时候。”桑斯坦教授曾帮助建立起行为经济学领域的某些深具影响力的观点,其中特别值得一提的是:改变社会环境(例如,张贴简单的警告)可以敦促人们改善自己的行为。Professor Sunstein, who oversaw regulatory policy for the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012 and now directs the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard, wrote an opinion article on the study, but was not involved in it.2009年至2012年期间,他负责了奥巴马政府的管控政策,现在是哈佛大学行为经济学和公共政策项目(Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy)负责人。他为上文介绍的研究撰写过文章,但并没有实际参与其中。Over all, success eluded most of the study participants. More than 80 percent of smokers in the most popular pure rewards group were still smoking at the end of the study. Even so, researchers say, their success rate was far greater than for those who got the traditional treatment, signaling that there could be substantial public health benefits in offering financial incentives.总体而言,大多数研究参与者都没能成功戒烟。在研究结束时,最受欢迎的纯奖励组中有超过80%的吸烟者依旧在吸烟。但研究人员表示,即便如此,他们的成功率仍远远超过了传统疗法,这表明提供经济奖励有可能带来重大的公共卫生效益。And even a small decline could have a big health effect. Smoking is the largest cause of preventable death in the ed States. Diseases linked to it kill more than 480,000 Americans a year.在美国,吸烟是可预防性死亡的首要原因。每年因吸烟相关疾病致死的美国人超过48万人。因此,哪怕是吸烟率的小小降低也将带来巨大的健康效应。 /201509/399512济南是中心医院做人流好吗济南做人流的医院那家好

临沂市第二人民医院专家
肥城市中医院门诊怎么样
山东省中心医院电话周末有上班吗飞度管家快速问医生
临沂市人民医院妇科咨询
度排名医院大全济南妇幼保健院是几级
济南市省立医院地址在哪
去济南哪家医院人流比较好呢
山东中医医院不孕医生飞度管家三甲医院济南市妇幼保健医生值班
飞管家医院表济南做人流去哪做好飞度咨询免费问
(责任编辑:图王)
 
五大发展理念

文化·娱乐

龙江会客厅

济南紫荆花妇女儿童医院人流收费标准
平阴县妇幼保健院挂号预约 济南市历城区人民医院怎么样好吗飞排名搜病网 [详细]
济南山东省中医院人流
济南去哪做人流最好 济南机车医院在线咨询 [详细]
济阳县中医院院长
济南哪里可以做人流 飞度新闻名院山东省妇幼保健院无痛人流好吗飞排名医院大全 [详细]
济南第三人民医院人流收费标准
飞管家云管家济南人流在线咨询医生 济南无痛人流安全的医院飞度技术搜病网济南长清区妇幼保健院做彩超多少钱 [详细]