Coveny’s plan for health care

[Coveny]

Your idea that my plan was reckless.

I think it is . Your not helping those many people . If they die or are mutilated by malpractice. Exposing them to shoddy doctors and treatments .And then denying them justice when they get hurt . Just so they can afford to get through the door. You might as well let them pay low costs to be escorted to a slaughter house . 

By the way i'm not just thinking of myself . Using my own experience as a example of the pit falls of your plan . Does not mean i'm only thinking of myself.
But of the danger to people who may suffer like myself .

Well a case could be made that currently the 250k or so of people who die a year because of medical errors aren't exactly getting the gold treatment, but I'm more concerned about the millions who suffer slowly and die because they can't afford to see anyone. I've always said morals are something you can afford, and if you can afford medical treatment it's easy to say "If they can't afford it, give them NOTHING!!", but I find that pretty harsh. Personally if I were sick I would rather take a chance rather than just dying alone, but I get how some people just want the poor of this country to quietly die.

[Cecelia]

Typically when responding to critiques from people on proposed ideas, you respond to their critiques with a well-reasoned rebuttal, not psuedo ad hominem attacks.

The tier system you propose is reckless, and just doesn't work. It doesn't benefit poor people at all, and only benefits the wealthy--while making them feel better about poor people having doctors to see (ignoring the quality of said doctors). It also mitigates the risk in a frankly ridiculous way. As I stated earlier in the topic, if a tier 1 doctor does significant damage to a person--costing them their job, their livelihood, and even possibly the use of a limb... $10k isn't going to even begin to cover the damages done. Thus putting more of an onus on the poor, while allowing the rich to afford more expensive doctors and have less wait times--which means they get all the benefits, while the poor's only benefit is getting to see an un(or under)qualified doctor who has extremely limited liability.

Doctors have to attend school for so long for a very good reason--because medicine isn't something you can understand in two years time.

Your only response for this is "Well, there's already malpractice so what's the harm?" The harm is that malpractice will increase exponentially, and disproportionately effect the poor. Including your friends who can't currently afford health insurance.

[Coveny]

Typically when responding to critiques from people on proposed ideas, you respond to their critiques with a well-reasoned rebuttal, not psuedo ad hominem attacks.

The tier system you propose is reckless, and just doesn't work.  It doesn't benefit poor people at all, and only benefits the wealthy--while making them feel better about poor people having doctors to see (ignoring the quality of said doctors).  It also mitigates the risk in a frankly ridiculous way.  As I stated earlier in the topic, if a tier 1 doctor does significant damage to a person--costing them their job, their livelihood, and even possibly the use of a limb... $10k isn't going to even begin to cover the damages done.  Thus putting more of an onus on the poor, while allowing the rich to afford more expensive doctors and have less wait times--which means they get all the benefits, while the poor's only benefit is getting to see an un(or under)qualified doctor who has extremely limited liability.  

Doctors have to attend school for so long for a very good reason--because medicine isn't something you can understand in two years time.  

Your only response for this is "Well, there's already malpractice so what's the harm?"  The harm is that malpractice will increase exponentially, and disproportionately effect the poor.  Including your friends who can't currently afford health insurance.

You'll understand if I don't agree that "it's reckless" is a well-reasoned critique rebutting my solution.

I didn't say "Well, there's already malpractice so what's the harm?" or imply that. Please don't strawman me.

[Cecelia]

You said, and I quote:

"Also let’s be clear, medical malpractice is the 3rd cause of death in this country (at over 200 thousand a year) so it’s not like the people who go through all those classes are providing. So, let’s make it easier to break into the medical profession."

Which as explained makes way for even more malpractice. You'd have to be okay with it to be okay with this idea.

[Amarok]

I think it is . Your not helping those many people . If they die or are mutilated by malpractice. Exposing them to shoddy doctors and treatments .And then denying them justice when they get hurt . Just so they can afford to get through the door. You might as well let them pay low costs to be escorted to a slaughter house . 

By the way i'm not just thinking of myself . Using my own experience as a example of the pit falls of your plan . Does not mean i'm only thinking of myself.
But of the danger to people who may suffer like myself .

Well a case could be made that currently the 250k or so of people who die a year because of medical errors aren't exactly getting the gold treatment, but I'm more concerned about the millions who suffer slowly and die because they can't afford to see anyone. I've always said morals are something you can afford, and if you can afford medical treatment it's easy to say "If they can't afford it, give them NOTHING!!", but I find that pretty harsh. Personally if I were sick I would rather take a chance rather than just dying alone, but I get how some people just want the poor of this country to quietly die.

And the reason their are only 250k a year is regulations . I imagine we would see a increase if we enacted your plan. I never said anything close to" give them nothing " I support universal healthcare (i'm Canadian) But the concept of  a "buyer beware" notion of healthcare does not seem like a solution. It's just trading one problem for another and i think people deserve better.

[Coveny]

You said, and I quote:

"Also let’s be clear, medical malpractice is the 3rd cause of death in this country (at over 200 thousand a year) so it’s not like the people who go through all those classes are providing. So, let’s make it easier to break into the medical profession."

Which as explained makes way for even more malpractice.  You'd have to be okay with it to be okay with this idea.

So by saying the current system isn't working, somehow you take that to mean "Well, there's already malpractice so what's the harm?".

[Cecelia]

You're basically saying that malpractice happens anyway, so why not lower the requirement for becoming a doctor. (Which will only lead to more malpractice)

[Coveny]

You're basically saying that malpractice happens anyway, so why not lower the requirement for becoming a doctor.  (Which will only lead to more malpractice)

It's an interesting perspective. So are you saying that people who don't have the money and resources to afford to become a doctor aren't going to be "good" at it? It sounds like you are implying that having money makes you better than people who don't have money. Am I hearing you correctly?

[The Grand Nudger]

 
1) Deregulate medical buildings
Did you know that in an abortion clinic it’s required to have hallways big enough to fit two gurneys side by side? Did you also know that they don’t use gurneys in an abortion clinic? The point being there are many laws in place that regulate what a medical building must have, and these laws double if not triple the cost require to build these facilities. By removing these regulations, we could have doctors who saw patients out of their homes completely removing the overhead costs of having a hospital at all. Obviously, this opens concerns about infection and hygiene but if we want to lower costs and allow more people to make money in the medical profession we need to be able to treat it like any other profession. If you want to pay the extra money for a nice that is always an option, but for the poor this gives them other options to get the treatment they need. And as with everything else, as the demand in the hospitals drops, the cost of going to the nicer facilities will drop as well. This is what capitalism excels at. Once we’ve done that we can setup classification of facilities by standards.

I did, yes.  I also know that the reason for this regulation is specifically to shut down abortion clinics.  That doesn't mean that every regulation is a bad idea, or is meant explicitly to shut down a clinic.   I'm not interested in setting up an experiment in third world medicine in this country through deregulation.

Doctors can still make house calls.  There's no law against it.  They don't do it because insurance generally doesn't reimburse for it - which means they don't get paid, that and because their volume is lower.   You see more patients when they come to you..and you can handle more patients in one of those regulated buildings.  

You know what the old american term for an unregulated medical facility was?  An alley. 

[Cecelia]

It's an interesting perspective. So are you saying that people who don't have the money and resources to afford to become a doctor aren't going to be "good" at it? It sounds like you are implying that having money makes you better than people who don't have money. Am I hearing you correctly?

Nice attempt to twist my words, but your strawman (and projection earlier) just don't work here.

I said, verbatim, that Doctors have to attend school for so long for a very good reason--because medicine isn't something you can understand in two years time.    Lowering the number of years required would only lead to more malpractice.  That much is obvious.  That says absolutely nothing about the social status of the people who choose to become doctors.

It's clear that you're so in love with your idea, that you aren't willing to take criticisms on it seriously.  So I wonder then why you posted it here.  In hopes of praise, perhaps?  Sorry, but you aren't going to get that here.