For those wishing to experience some of the luxuries of a time gone by, this type of hotel with a nautical flavor definitely appeals. One can feel a part of the many who journeyed across oceans in this particular type of splendor. She looks like a ship, floats like a ship and really is a ship.

So why buy a ship, a true maritime icon, if one plans to lop off a critical piece of its distinctive appearance, (in this case, her majestic red funnel) and replace that with a "glass penthouse?" Other than for one nightly occupant to boast to his friends and colleagues that his personal wealth enables him to stay in "the most exclusive hotel room in Dubai," this dismembering move certainly will not attract other potential visitors to the ship. And for that "lucky" person who stays in a part of the ship that was never intended to be any aspect of its accommodation, just what is the point?
It is clear that criteria of attraction to this formerly great ship becoming a hotel simply have not been examined from the majority of potential customers' points of view:

Of course, these criteria will be in addition to experiencing the numerous luxuries found in land-based hotels.

The key comes in determining which are more important in the context of attraction to a maritime icon. It is perhaps the lack of knowledge of relative merit of these types of criteria from a customer viewpoint that has led to the proposed sad disfigurement of this particularly beautiful ship.

Quite a number of political advertisements are appearing on television about health care reform.

One such spot focuses on the dangers of not being able to "choose one's own doctor." I admit, this ability to choose my own doctor is something I would sorely miss. My doctor has known me for over 25 years. I respect her abilities. She knows my health issues and my personal medical philosophy. She knows my behavior towards seeking medical help. When she went on a sabbatical, it was somewhat difficult seeing other doctors. Many made assumptions about me based solely on their experiences with other patients of the same age, class, race, and gender.

Judgment of any new health care system cannot, and should not, be made due to one factor alone. A few components people say they want in a new system (stated in somewhat more positive terms) are listed, randomly, below:

All are important. But there is a relative importance for each of us. As a quick exercise, I went ahead and determined their relative importance for me. In reviewing the results, as important as "being able to choose my own doctor" was, there were many things more important than it. And it made sense. If I can't afford seeing a doctor, what would it matter if I were able to choose a doctor that I wanted to see, but was unable to actually see? If I could see my doctor, but if needed tests or procedures she ordered were

not covered, where would I be? If I lost my coverage, what would it matter? Seven other factors (almost equally important to each other as indicated by the lengths of the bars on the chart), were more than twice as important to me. This does not mean that "choosing my own doctor" is unimportant to me. It clarifies that the other aspects are extremely important.

Of course, this is just my own personal ranking. It does explain, however, why the approach to health care must comprehensively address more than one issue, and why acceptance or rejection of change cannot be decided by one element alone.