Let's build a better health care system

If a flu vaccines 'cures', why do we need one every year? Besides, vaccines don't cure, they prevent. So vaccines are great for recurring revenue. Every time I go to the doc, the whole office up-sells flu vaccines like the oil n lube places up-sells air filters.

 

Our best and brightest will not go into hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, go to a dozen extra years of schooling, fellowships, and training to come out and have the federal gov't dictate their pay. Quality of doctors will go down. Standard of care will go down. Availabilty to good doc's will go down.

Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) would want to go into hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to work for the federal gov't? "Hey you!! $35 bucks per visit, thats it, thats all you can charge!!" "But, but, I owe a quarter mil?" "Shut up, just see 400 people a day, give em 2 asprin and kick em out!!"

No thanks. I like being seen right away by my brillant doctor who can refer me immediately to the best surgeons and specialist in the state.

 

Awesome! That is another point I wanted to bring up. One would think corps/companies would want to shed the burden of providing health insurance.

No doubt. But for new growth to take place, some old grow needs to die off.

But that would essentially expand single payer, wouldn't it? Which single payer is still insurance by definition, that caters to a for profit system. But as you said, maybe as an interim until a not from profit system is established.

 

You missed a key component of this not for profit system. But I'm glad you brought it up.

Under the system I envision, medical practitioners wouldn't pay for their education, or at least the bulk of it. But their license to practice would be valid only within the not for profit system. You wanna practice in the private sector? Great, just go back to school in the private/for profit sector and pay for your education.

Also, malpractice insurance wouldn't be needed. If a doc f's up(bad enough at least), he looses his license to practice. And one doesn't need to sue for the extra health care that may come from botched care, since it's being paid for anyway.

 

So you envision 2 seperate systems? The regular private sector like before Obamacare, and the new one set up by the feds and payed for with tax dollars? Do I have it right?

If so, I envision all the people that have money sticking to to the private system (cause they will have the best docs because their pay will not be limited and determined by the Fed), and all people without much or any money sticking to the federal system because it doesn't cost them anything.

Am I going wrong?

 

Polio and small pox say Hi............

 

They do not give you the same flu shot every year..............the Flu is an every evolving virus that has a new strain every year.......thus requiring a new vaccine.

And besides the flu is a temporary illness...........not a disease.

 

Basically yes. I see no reason to dismantle the private sector. There will always be a need for it because there will always be folks you who want a boob job or face lift. Let the private sector handle such medical procedures. But I do think medical innovations should be shared between the two.

Higher pay =/= best docs. Doctors who work fundimentally on commision won't necessarily provide care in YOUR best interest. But a doctor who adheres to the Hippocratic oath that works on a salary and isn't hampered by 'what's it gonna costs' probably will.

 

Elaborate please. This can be interpreted two different ways.

 

These two were all but eradicated in the US

There will always be a financial drive to fin a cure..............as well as a financial drive to treat while they search for the cure.......

 

How do you think the surgeon who is making 750K a year is going to react when you tell him that in the interest of "doing the right thing," he will now have a reasonable salary of, say...125K?

Unfortunately I have to vote no on your well intentioned plan.

This is probably the greatest example of redistributing wealth that can be imagined. You are proposing that the half of the country pays federal income tax pay for a healthcare system for that is just as good for the half that doesn't contribute as it is for them. If i'm paying the bills, why should I have to stand in line for treatment behind others that are not?

 

Oh ok, thought for a moment you were implying those two diseases have been 'cured'. But until they find a cure (and if it's made available) vaccines will have to be manufactured on a continuous bases. Thus recurring revenue.

But for this line of discussion, vaccines don't fall into the category of symptom treatment medications. Those are for more lucrative than one's that cure.

 

The vaccine is the cure............ and that is technically "recurring" revenue..............because new people are born...........but its a "one and done" with individuals.

if people do not get the disease, they need no cure.

attempting to stamp out a disease world wide is a fools errand.

Remember, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

 

Never said a private sector doc had to give up his lucrative practice since there is no need to dismantle the private sector to begin with. He can continue on as before. However, he could switch.. and not worry about malpractice ins. I do think such a doc or nurse in the new system should get a healthy salary.

Never said it should be funded by income tax. If I had my way, I would abolish income tax altogether. IMO, we should stick to property and sales tax. That way even the illegal alien can't escape contributing to the system.

 

To be tedious, vaccines are not cures. There is no cure the smallpox.

I agree with the above, thus why in my last post I added vaccines didn't fit this line of discussion of treating symptoms versus curing.

 

and again...........vaccines are realistically the best we can hope for...............

for the record.........pick a specific disease you wish to discuss.....one that require symptom treatment........................it will make these discussions more productive and less vague

 

Your OP talks about a socialized (government-run) system where we would pay taxes to the government for them to pay out to providers. How is that not a middleman? And what’s worse is, rather than an insurance company simply paying out to providers as you get treated, the government would – in order to save dollars – determine who gets what treatment. Even worse you proposed a ‘sin’ tax in which the government could virtually anything a ‘sin’ and tax the living crap out of us. This is worse than just a middleman; this is a medical dictatorship.

For now. That’s until you hand over power to the government to determine what this ‘sin’ tax would be. You put someone LIKE Michelle Obama in charge and there’s no telling what would be a ‘sin’ tax.

I think you’re splitting hairs. I see no difference between 'right to healthcare' and 'right to access healthcare'. We’re talking about the system in which you would see a healthcare provider, not you personally maintaining your health. Just like I have a right to go into Safeway, or a gas station, or any other establishment for services I need. The point behind discussing rights is from the framework of what government is limited to do in regards to those rights. These rights don’t have to be specified in the constitution either. If it relates to my right to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ in any way, government is limited by constitutional constraints.

 

Yes, but I'm not making a point either way with respect to vaccines.

Well, take cancer for example.

 

MD Anderson is working on this daily.

See the story where a woman's cancer was "cured" with a dose of the measles.

These "cures" are in research, but in the interim, treatment in necessary.

 

Your stuck in how a for profit system works. There is no 'billing' that takes place. Rather funds are allocated to healthcare institutions for them to operate off of. Not much different than how a school systems are funded. So doctors are not required or even necessary to itemize the care they are providing. There would be no bureaucrat deciding who gets what. Those decisions are left up to the doctor based on what resources are available to them.

I would concede a risk/sin tax could be a slippery slope. If we were to go that direction, those decisions should be made by educated health care professionals, and not a Moochelle.

I do think we are on the same page here. What I'm getting at is, we don't have a right to force someone else to provide us with goods and services.

 

Not any more.

 

What do you mean not any more?

 

Obumurrcare has made it law that no one can be turned down for health insurance. Including those with per-existing conditions.

And I've stated here, that is one of only a couple of aspects of the ACA that I endorse.

 

...through the free market and genuine charity...

Government has no answer, never has, never will.

 

Do you think our national defense should be left up to the free market?

Then why have a government? Anarchy is cool and all... as long as you got the most and biggest guns.