Coveny’s plan for health care

[Coveny]

Universal healthcare isn't about regulating doctors pay, and doesn't prevent a red carpet private practice from charging a higher price to patients who have the money to spend for a red carpet service.  People in Canada and the UK still get private insurance to cover things not covered by their systems...and still yet opt for out of pocket expenses for things not covered by their system -and- their private insurance combined.  

If you think that we don't have enough doctors..the answer probably has more to do with reducing the cost of education than with lowering standards of care or accreditation.  I'm guessing that there are more people who would have been doctors, if they could have afforded the required education in the first place.  Beyond that, there needs to be a greater incentive for medical practitioners who either come from or wish to practice in rural areas to overcome density problems in countries that do have a relatively high amount of physicians per capita.  

The solutions to these problems are direct and explicit.  The solutions you offered only serve to perpetuate and incentivize the very root of the problems we have with healthcare in this country.  We already -have- access to lesser qualified and cheaper medical personnel and services.  It's called your cousin with a tube of superglue and a bunch of horse pills working out of his trailer.   Even at the professional level we already have it.  My kids immunizations aren't performed by an MD at a hospital..hell they get their flu shots at school, during recess...., and there's no surgeon aboard the ambulance.  

Universal healthcare operates on the same idea as insurance..it uses the same personnel, it pays for the same services, it just pays for them in a different way.  If you have decent health insurance, you don't have our healthcare problem.  The trouble is that a significant portion of us can't afford that insurance or those services, not that there isn't enough medicine or doctors to go around, or that we couldn't produce more of both if we found the need and the funds to pay for them

No, it's not a magic bullet, but it does solve our most pressing issue, that poor people have spotty access to shitty services....because they're poor..and this isn;t just an issue that effects the poor....theprice a richer person pays is directly related to defaults on payments...and the effectiveness of antibiotics decreases as people stockpile and administer them in an unregulated and undereducated fashion...just for starters.  Pain management "clinics" are a de facto "lower tier" service aimed almost entirely at the rural poor..and look at where that got us?  The cost of bad medical advice, in and of itself, is incalculable.....and I doubt that anyone would ask their cousins medical opinion if they could..you know, just go see a real doctor.

All of those problems listed above, however, have the benefit of being incredibly profitable.  The point of our government, of our laws...as stated in the preamble to the constitution, is to promote the general welfare..not to promote the wealth of specific citizens and corporate entities by creating tiers and underclasses.

You go from "People in Canada and the UK still get private insurance to cover things not covered by their systems...and still yet opt for out of pocket expenses for things not covered by their system" to "Universal healthcare operates on the same idea as insurance..it uses the same personnel, it pays for the same services, it just pays for them in a different way." Now if you understand that people opt for private healthcare because of "things not covered" then you should understand that it's a contradiction to say "it pays for the same services". This is one of the issues with universal healthcare, it doesn't cover everything, and people are still left in need a treatment they can't afford.

You admit and understand that medical professions with limited knowledge are effective in our current system.  (immunizations, and ambulances were your examples) But the idea of expanding this to lower costs equates to getting your cousin with a tube of superglue. You can't view the people giving shots to your children this way, and I doubt you feel that way about EMTs and Paramedics. So again you contradict yourself. On top of that you do see the costs as a roadblock for some. Yet you can't accept the idea of making the costs lower for someone with less knowledge to allow them to break into the field.

I agree with you that the less competition you have in a market the more of a monopoly it creates, and that the medical industry is full of huge companies that are incredibly profitable and have used those profits to corrupt our laws/government/media in their favor. However you don't understand the contradiction of wanting more laws/regulations, and expecting that to lower costs and create more companies, and more medical professionals. 

---

You addressed nothing i said  Coveny

I've addressed your arguments with arguments. I've addressed your smack talk with smack talk. I'm paying attention to you, don't you worry.