The Money Traps in U S Health Care by Boffey

The second article ‘A Sharper Mind, Middle Age and Beyond’ argues that whereas some form of human intelligence – fluid intelligence – declines in age, another form – crystallized intelligence – actually increases. The article neither out rightly dispels nor supports the argument that brainpower, creativity, and innovation have an early expiration date. According to Cohen (2012), a large research that she refers to as the Manhattan Project of middle age has uncovered several new observations on fluid intelligence and aging. Whereas it was typically assumed that fluid intelligence reduces with age, from the result gathered so far from the ‘Midlife in the United States’ study, it has been seen that continued education does increase the longevity of this form of intelligence among senior citizens.
When we look at the two articles critically we identify that both seek to dispel commonly held beliefs. On the one hand, Boffey (2012) disapproves of the notion that the American healthcare system is more costly than other advanced nations because it is better. American healthcare is excellent in some areas, average in others and poor in other areas as well. On the other hand, Cohen (2012) uses the results of the continuing ‘Midlife in the United States’ study to disapprove the late Sir William Osler’s assertion that brainpower, creativity, and innovation have an early expiration date. Both authors provide sufficient examples and arguments within the articles to, at the very least, through these commonly held notions into doubt.
The difference between the articles emanates from how each other concludes their arguments. Boffey (2012) does not provide a clear answer at the end of his article. He makes suggestions of the possible “money traps” within the US health care that could be causes of the inflated costs in comparison to other OECD countries. In contrast, Cohen (2012), probably due to the length of the article delves deeper to back the claims on instances of improved fluid intelligence among how senior citizens. Though the ‘Midlife in the United States’ study is still undergoing, Cohen’s article provides more depth that could easily endear it to a researcher more than Boffey’s. In our analysis, though both articles are thought-provoking, we find Cohen’s article to be more conclusive than Boffey’s.