rhino: 10-point healthcare plan
I think all of us (the human race) can agree on two things with regards to health care.
A. Let us assume that health care cost per capita is much higher than it should be in this country.
B. Let us further agree that it would be a benefit to society as a whole if all individuals could afford access to basic health care needs.
Can we agree to that?
Now here is my plan that could potentially achieve these two goals:
1. Allow anyone to open a medical clinic and practice basic medical care, but they must clearly identify what their credentials are in this field and severe fraud penalties should be in place. (A nurse or a PHD in chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, health and fitness, etc., etc. should be allowed to practice health and wellness on the same playing field as medical doctors.)
2. Put the pharmaceutical industry on the same legal playing field as supplements and OTC products. No immunity on the down side, but no FDA requirements on the up side. (Go ahead and sell your drugs over the counter, but there is no federal immunity of liability, which there currently exists.)
3. Fast track schooling for family practitioners and other less compensated fields of medicine. (Maybe it only requires two years of medical education and 2 years of residency to practice Family Care.)
4. Allow foreign public plans to come in and compete for dollars in our domestic healthcare industry. I.E. Allow the Canadian Health Care system to penetrate this market.
5. Absolutely no tax loopholes for any person or entity involved in this industry, unless of course there are no taxes at all, then they could participate in that loophole. In other words, no targeted loopholes like the ones they have for drug R & D. Drug companies can write off their R & D, but doctors can not write off donated time to clinics. Why is this fair?
6. Allow importation of drugs. I.E. online purchases of prescription drugs from Canada.
7. Elimination of any and all tort reform regarding medical malpractice. If someone wants to guarantee their work, let them charge more. If someone does not want to guarantee their work, have their clients sign a waiver that exempts liability. (You might even have, within the same practice, guaranteed patients and patients that are not guaranteed.)
8. All not for profit clinics must obtain 100% of their funding through private sources.
9. Do not give the AMA special status with regards to certifying medical providers. Allow competition within the certification process.
10. Allow organs to be sold on the open market.
Input please.
Why is this looked at as a kooky view?
It seems to be common sense to me.
If you want to change the debate come up with an alternative.
I know that some of these points are a bit radical, but what the heck. I figured, put them out there, make them less radical, so that at some point in the future, they could potentially become main stream debatable points.
AND IT WON'T EVEN COST A DIME.
Really it could boil down to three points.
1. Fast Track family practitioners.
2. Reduce the power of the AMA and the FDA.
3. Property rights and contract enforcement.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Whew, gotta admit, I'm glad #10 is not one of those three.
:P
You have some good ideas, but
Although you have sometimes some good ideas, thoughtfully presented,
I wish you would stop prefacing all of your titles with your name. The self-aggrandizement is tiresome. An accurate thread title is all you need. When the preface is gone I will probably start reading your stuff.
I'd love to debate your plan with you, productively.
Let me first say that I believe you're proposing what you see as a potential solution to the government created problems with the health care industry. But I have concerns with it, and I'd love to debate these with you productively.
My first concern is with the issuance of credentials and enforcement you mention in your point #1. That's what we currently have, government controlled issuance of credentials and government enforced punishments. They don't work effectively, and most certainly not as effectively as independent market based certification alternatives could.
Who or which body(ies) would you propose issue the certification you speak of, and who or which body(ies) would both have the authority to enforce?
Thanks in advance, looking forward to hearing from you.
None, as I indicated below
None, as I indicated below #1 isn't safe, responsible, or even possible.
Those with Ph.D.s in the basic sciences have no business treating people as they are not trained to. A Ph.D. is not a clinical doctorate, it's an academic doctorate.
Of course ...
feel free to offer constructive criticism and I will try to answer the best I can.
I wasn't looking for other state constructed organizations to compete. I think you should just write the law and see what happens.
Let the market establish credibility.
Of course this would be a slow process, but the cream will rise.
There are no easy solutions to this problem.
For example;
The whole physical therapy industry could sky rocket in a model like this. Instead of drugs for some diagnosis, exercise and diet could compete with other alternatives on a more even playing field.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
'You' should write the law?
Which 'you'? Me? Or the politicians?
Socrates: "Let food be thy medicine, and medicine be thy food."
“Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
http://www.dirtthemovie.org/
http://endoftheline.com
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
Nice plan! I'd scrap #3, as
Nice plan!
I'd scrap #3, as it's superseded by #1.
And #2 should be governed like #7.
And #5 would be kind of moot with any reasonable ( 0% ) rate of activity based taxation.
Yeah
uhhh....scrap #3
★★★★★★
http://www.documentarywire.com/
http://freedocumentaries.net/c/All/
http://www.ronpaulbrochure.com/
http://www.dailypaul.com/donate
Love 9 and Devon's #11
Love 9 and Devon's #11 below. 10 scares me though, like a lot. There is just too much grey area, too much poverty and too much wealth for that to be handled accordingly by the free market.
Excellent post
#10 is a concern
If there is a free market in human organs will there be incentive to kidnap and murder young healthy people for those organs? This concerns me if it becomes don't ask, don't tell where the organs came from.
At the same time a black market could have the same problem. It's something that needs to be addressed.
No problem there
if the organs are donated instead of sold.
******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people.
~ Sherman H. Skolnick
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
There are already laws
There are already laws against kidnapping and murder, so denying someone the right to sell of organs he doesn't feel he needs as much as cash, just out of fear someone might get murdered ostensibly as a result of this freedom, is a bit like banning gold sales in case it causes someone to get their (gold) teeth knocked out.
And with the ease dna testing can be used to determine whether an organ came from a murdered or missing person, the risk of getting caught red handed with someone else's organ is not negligible. Ramping up punishment should take care of the rest of the deterrent. People in general being reasonably armed, vigilant and not acting like sheeple willing to roll over for anyone claiming to make them marginally more secure from some threat or another, would be helpful as well.
For those so strongly in opposition to abortion that they'd take government snooping into people's lives over allowing a mere possibility of it increasing in prevalence, I can see a problem with #10, though.
The running commonality thoughout this post is...
"Let the market decide."
If you wish to go see a headshrinker (a real one) then you should be able to.
If you wish to self-medicate (as many already do), do so on your own and don't involve anyone else.
With the added competition of alternative care (real alternative care) prices would plummet.
I'm even with you on #10. While truly desperate people may sell a kidney, only the 'most gifted of the stupid' will sell their heart.
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
You are quite correct.
Why is there such a hang up with #10.
Walter Williams actually advocated for this when he filled in for Rush one day about 5 years ago.
He actually recieved mostly positive feedback.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
I don't have a hang up with # 10.
Actually, I think the entire plan is wonderful! I would even take it a step further and suggest that all organs could be prepared at the time of the body's embalming for deposit into a free organ bank - EXCEPT when other arrangements had previously been made. There would soon be an unending supply, bringing an end to any need for the black market.
*******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people.
~ Sherman H. Skolnick
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
All good ideas except I have
All good ideas except I have a revulsion towards #10. I think it would require so much regulation too keep it from being exploited by creditors that it might be easier to leave it illegal.
Ventura 2012
Some good ideas. I'd hope if we ever get to
the point of legalizing medical freedom we'll also be a prosperous enough freed society that poor people wouldn't be so desperate as to sell their organs. I think that's a relic of scarcity caused by government controls.
The deceased's organs are
The deceaseds' organs are generally only donated if arrangements to that effect have previously been specified. But I don't think the government has any control over those organs, or do they?
*******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people.
~ Sherman H. Skolnick
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
Rhino, I gotta admit...
I see problems here with #10...and yes, I know there is a black market.
...but still. :(
Sorry, not trying to ruin your thread. It looks like you've put a lot of thought into it.
Everybody seems to get stuck on #10.
I am not even sure why.
I think it is less radical than some of the others.
Just because there will exist a free market, does not mean people won't donate their organs.
It will do one thing.
Register more people for organ donation.
I would bet every penny that I own, that more poor people would get free organs under this system than the existing one.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
See BmoreBrawler's comment above.
Maybe at first it might be good.
But I could see the door open too easily for serious exploitation.
Exploitation by creditors would not be a stretch if selling organs on the open market became an accepted thing.
It wouldn't have to even be the creditors demanding it. Desperate people might be willing to offer up an organ on their own as collateral if it meant being able to put a roof over their head, and their family's heads.
Could we eventually see the sale of organs to be required for court settlements?
How far would things go if selling organs were an acceptable thing?
Rhino, please understand that I am not poohing on your thread. I am glad your wheels are turning. #10 just happens to be a stumbling block for me.
I fail to see why that is a bad thing.
It increases supply.
I am assuming that a creditor can not force a living being to give up an organ.
Not sure how that would be possible.
The liability alone would prevent creditors from mandating something like that. Not to mention the public backlash on such a policy.
Additionally, a dead body would belong to the estate not the creditor and the estate can determine how to dispose of the organs if at all. If the creditors were jerks, the estate could donate the organs and slip the creditor a middle finger up the arse.
Finally, I think you are going to find that in the end, unless of course you are a freak of nature like an olympic athlete or some rare blood type, the price of organs is not going to be all that high. No one is going to win the lottery on this one. The supply will eventually surpass demand.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Incrementalism
Backlash? Don't expect too much of that from a society that has incrementally allowed a noose to be put around its neck in so many other areas.
If there was an open market for organs, why would they not come to be seen as assets?
As such, regarding your estate example, an estate might not be allowed to "donate" the organs if they could be sold to satisfy the debts of the deceased.
The more it is accepted, the more it will be expected.
...and quite frankly, I don't think such practices would stay limited to the deceased.
Well ...
I understand your concern.
However ...
I would argue ...
That if we really had free market health care ....
your concerns would be unfounded.
But of course that is purely speculation.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Not sure I follow.
How would free market health care affect what I described above?
It just won't fly ...
forget about the animosity of the legislature ...
The masses won't stand for it ....
If word ever got out that some credit card company was forcing the family of a deceased human being to have the body hacked up and the parts sold to the highest bidder to settle some debts ....
And of course if it became public knowledge that they are now requiring live bodies to give up one of their eyes or kidneys ... LOL.
Besides ... if the person dies as a result ... the punitive damages would be enormous.
That credit card company will cease to exist in a short period of time. Their only customers will be credit risks at best.
I think you are failing to see the big picture.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
It would fly just like...
...torture, indefinite detention, prayer bans, etc.
The conditioning system we have already, along with incrementalism, would see to that.
We'd see the usual conditioning process of ~opposing~ guests appearing on news programs with one talking about how awful it would be, while the other guest pointed out how the person had willingly signed over his body part(s) as part of a contract and knew what he was getting into and since the sale of organs is legal, whoever is handling the estate (using your estate example) is just going to have to put their personal biases aside and respect the wishes of the deceased on this, as well as the right of the creditors to collect that which they are legally entitled.
We might even see more extreme arguments that would cause people to unsuspectingly accept something in the middle ground for starters. Again, incrementalism.
But Rhino, you didn't really answer my question about how a free market health care would affect what I described above.
I would argue that there is a distinct difference ...
Individuals will be spending their own individual dollars.
Torture is paid for by the gov.
Prayer ban and jail is instituted by the gov.
People, if they care about what happens to their bodies after they die, will only enter into such an agreement as a last resort.
That means that the credit card company will only have very risky customers.
It cannot survive.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994