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.
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.
The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to woman is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
