Coveny’s plan for health care

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:15 pm

This is going to be a fairly long post about what I believe is the solution to health care in America. I’m going to touch on the scientific reasons, the economic reasons, and also discuss the emotion impact. I’m going to try and give goals for each of my positions, as well as explanations on how this position is going to achieve that goal. As a for the record thing I’m not getting anyone to review this before posting it so it likely will have spelling and grammar errors, and may not be as organized as it should be, and while you are welcome to criticize those parts my hope is that you will look past them and discuss the various points and how valid you feel like they are.

The problem
Our current system is too costly because of regulations which prevent small at home type hospitals from operating, as well as the lawsuits against medical personal. These regulations also prevent new drugs from being brought into market, and increase the time and costs involved to bring the drug to market. On the flip side the patents or copy rights to drugs keep drug prices very high in this country because once a drug is created only that company can legally produce it for many many years. This is all designed through corruption of our state and federal government to benefit the few at the cost of the many.

Universal healthcare cuts back much of company’s corruption, lowers medical and drug costs. It is not without its problems though as it removes much of the incentive to become a doctor, which leads to less doctors, longer wait times, or patients not qualifying for needed treatments. This again remove options of the poor to get healthcare.

The goal
To create a system where everyone can get healthcare, provide an incentive for people to become medical professionals, and lower healthcare costs.

The solution
1) Deregulate medical buildings
2) Lower patent and copy right terms
3) Making being a medical personal easier
4) Regulate the amounts of lawsuits
5) Bringing it all together

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.

2) Lower patent and copy right terms
Many drugs are patented and copy righted for life, and they have a monopoly on the market so they can charge through the roof. Other companies have to wait years before they are able to make generic versions of the drugs. Companies spend a LOT more on marketing than they do on research. The government is doing most of the research. “75% of so-called new molecular entities with priority rating (the most innovative drugs) trace their existence to NIH funding” source: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html
Government pay for the research (as with the case of the epi-pen) and then private company buy the patient, regulated all the schools to use it, and then increased the price by 5000%. We need to break the patent/copy right monopoly sooner, and force drug companies to invest into research rather than milking what’s already been created.

3) Making being a medical personal easier
One of the best ways to lower the cost of something is to have a better supply. Currently to be a doctor you need over a decade of school, from which you will exit with a mountain of debt, and there are no half measures here. The closest being a nurse practitioner who is still over a decade in the making. 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. Let create tiers like what we do with emergency personal. EMT is the first, paramedic is the second, ER nurse is the third, doctor is the fourth. My suggestion is to have 5 tiers for both general and surgery. The higher the tier the more schooling that’s required, and obviously testing and certification for each of level. I purpose to do the tiers in two year increments so Tier 1 = two-year degree, Tier 2 = four-year degree, Tier 3 = six-year degree, Tier 4 = eight-year degree, and Tier 5 is what we have today. Now this could mean 75% in class and 25% on the job, or whatever the industry feels is best, but the amount of time it takes to get to the point where you can see someone needs to be shortened. Also, the ability to prescribe drugs would be attached to the various levels as well.

4) Regulate the amounts of lawsuits
If we put tiers in place then there needs to be an understanding that the less you spend on a doctor the less you can sue them. This could be regulated based on the tier of the individual who saw you or the amount of money you spent to receive care. For instance, if you saw a tier 1 then you couldn’t sue him for more than 10k, tier 2 30k, tier 3 100k, tier 4 200k, and tier 5 unlimited, or it could be something like 100 times what you spent so that if you had a $20 doctor visit then the most you could sue that doctor for would be $2,000, but if you spent $300 then you could sue for 30k. Accidents are going to happen, and if you want to take a higher risk to save money then the person trying to provide you care needs to have the incentive that one mistake isn’t going to bankrupt him.

5) Bringing it all together
Once we have a system in place where medical care is much cheaper and more available we can cheaply subsidize it. For instance, it wouldn’t be expensive to cover 100% the cost for tier 1 medical professions in a tier 1 building, 80% for 2/2, 60% for 3/3, 40% for 4/4, and nothing for 5/5. Insurance companies could easily adapt to this system, and allow for MUCH more flexibility in healthcare plans that cover the difference, and work on top. Making it affordable to even see tier 3 medical professionals. Doctors have the freedom to build their own practices without having to worry about the regulations of the facilities, and our society would likely even have doctor house calls again. If we can stop trying to remove risk, and stop trying to force people to work for less I think we can easily provide healthcare for everyone.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Gord » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:56 am

Can't you just import better health care from another country?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3064
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:10 pm

Gord wrote:Can't you just import better health care from another country?


That would be a direct violation of US exceptionalism.
We should steal the best healthcare system in the world, and then nuke the country we got it from to make sure that America, and America only, has The Best.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19630
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:46 pm

EM's plan might work. Coveny's plan goes against everything 'murican politicians and their owners stand for.
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:44 pm

Coveny wrote:This is going to be a fairly long post about what I believe is the solution to health care in America.

. . . my hope is that you will . . . discuss the various points and how valid you feel like they are.


That was a long read. You make some very good points. I won't address those.

I have only two things to add.


1. I didn't see where you addressed the problem of insurance. The health insurance business in the US is a total mess and needs to be radically overhauled, in my opinion.

Current regulations have made health insurance more expensive, not less. "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan", bah blah blah. Didn't work out that way.

Example: For those who only need minimal basic coverage, such plans can be had for under $100 per month if you are lucky enough to be in a group exempt from current regulations.


2. As an owner of intellectual property myself, I am not comfortable with losing some of that under your proposed revisions of copyright and patent law.

However, the issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that some people need certain patented medicines to survive and I am against "gouging". The problem is further complicated because there is often a difference of opinion on what constitutes gouging.

That's all. Carry on.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:40 pm

Coveny wrote:Our current system is too costly because of regulations which prevent small at home type hospitals from operating, as well as the lawsuits against medical personal.
Our current system is too costly because it's run for profit instead of for the benefit of patients.

Coveny wrote:Universal healthcare cuts back much of company’s corruption, lowers medical and drug costs. It is not without its problems though as it removes much of the incentive to become a doctor, which leads to less doctors, longer wait times, or patients not qualifying for needed treatments. This again remove options of the poor to get healthcare.
Perhaps "money" shouldn't be an incentive to become a doctor.

Coveny wrote: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.
I don't fully agree with deregulating, since some of the regulations are necessary for quality health care. But I would agree that useless regulations can be dropped.

Coveny wrote: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.
If you want to pay extra money for things that should be standard, like infection-preventing measures? Yikes. You're just creating a different way for poor people to get substandard health care.

Coveny wrote: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 disagree that capitalism has a place in health care.

Coveny wrote:Government pay for the research (as with the case of the epi-pen) and then private company buy the patient, regulated all the schools to use it, and then increased the price by 5000%. We need to break the patent/copy right monopoly sooner, and force drug companies to invest into research rather than milking what’s already been created.
Private companies should not be given a monopoly on medications when taxpayers have funded the research.

Coveny wrote:So, let’s make it easier to break into the medical profession. Let create tiers like what we do with emergency personal. EMT is the first, paramedic is the second, ER nurse is the third, doctor is the fourth.
What about nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants? I think they would be 4th and 5th, with medical doctor being 6th and highest.

Coveny wrote:Also, the ability to prescribe drugs would be attached to the various levels as well.
I disagree with allowing all tiers to prescribe. Some lack the experience and training to diagnose and, therefore, treat with prescription medications.

Coveny wrote:If we put tiers in place then there needs to be an understanding that the less you spend on a doctor the less you can sue them.
I'm completely against this. You're quantifying the value of human life and suffering, not based on the mistake made by the medical professional, but based on how much the harmed party paid? Classicism at its finest. The value of any medical lawsuit should be based on the harm done to the claimant.

Coveny wrote:Accidents are going to happen, and if you want to take a higher risk to save money then the person trying to provide you care needs to have the incentive that one mistake isn’t going to bankrupt him.
The incentive is "don't make medical mistakes." Accidents are a different issue, and preclude the concept of accountability. It's not an accident when a surgeon leaves a sponge or clamp inside the patient; it's a preventable, negligent mistake.

Coveny wrote:Insurance companies could easily adapt to this system, and allow for MUCH more flexibility in healthcare plans that cover the difference, and work on top.
But the whole idea of universal health care negates the need for insurance companies.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:12 pm

"Universal Housing" would negate the need for both insurance and mortgage companies. No more homeless.

"Universal Automobile" would negate the need for auto insurance and loan companies. You get a new car every so often and everyone pays a monthly fee tax. And no Pintos, everyone gets a Cadillac.

Better yet, just send all our income to the "Universal Everything Plan", and it will provide all our needs for us. A free pony in every garage.

And raise the minimum wage to $75 per hour to pay for it all.

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:37 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:EM's plan might work. Coveny's plan goes against everything 'murican politicians and their owners stand for.


Not disagreeing with that, just talking about the feasibility of it, and trying to get a debate that isn't emotion driven.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:48 pm

xouper wrote:1. I didn't see where you addressed the problem of insurance. The health insurance business in the US is a total mess and needs to be radically overhauled, in my opinion.

Current regulations have made health insurance more expensive, not less. "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan", bah blah blah. Didn't work out that way.

Example: For those who only need minimal basic coverage, such plans can be had for under $100 per month if you are lucky enough to be in a group exempt from current regulations.


2. As an owner of intellectual property myself, I am not comfortable with losing some of that under your proposed revisions of copyright and patent law.

However, the issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that some people need certain patented medicines to survive and I am against "gouging". The problem is further complicated because there is often a difference of opinion on what constitutes gouging.

That's all. Carry on.


1) I indicated that the government would cover the total cost for tier 1, and then a declining cost as you increase in tiers. This could effectively remove the need for insurance completely. Forcing people to buy insurance isn't the best course in my opinion.

2) I was vague about the amounts of times on patents, but regardless I think all parents should end with the creator's death. I'm also open to enhancing the tiered system based on the lifesaving level of the drug in question. To be fair though, I'd prefer the government fund new drug research, and if that could be achieved I wouldn't be as worried about patent laws, but government funded drugs that get private patents that end up lasting forever... sticks in my craw.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:02 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:.


I should have said to costly for small companies. Sorry about that.

The best and brightest are going to look at money. If you want them to become a doctor then you have to give them a monetary incentive to become a doctor. Saying that money shouldn’t be an incentive is just an emotional response. The world doesn’t exist because we’re all selfless, attempted to create a system with that as its foundation is doomed to fail.

I strongly agree with subsiding vaccination to the point of making them free, and paying for them with tax money. The more people who are vaccinated the better it is for everyone.

Socialism/kindness has proven that it doesn’t provide enough incentive to fill the needed roles. Capitalism has proven a good incentive repeatedly. However, for it to be effective in helping everyone it needs to be regulated and controlled in my opinion, and this plan attempts to do that.

Nurse practitioners go to school for over a decade, the difference in schooling is minimal, and in my opinion there needs to be two years, and four year options so that someone can start working, and then work their way up the tiers over time. This has the bonus effect of continuing education, rather than the current system where older doctors are not familiar with newer more effective techniques.

It is classism, but unless we can create a robot that can do the job of a doctor, we need humans to take and do the job. For that to happen there has to be incentives to invest all that time and perform those services. People have shown they aren’t willing to do what is best for society just because they can, and I wouldn’t be in favor of forcing someone to be a doctor anyway, so there must be an incentive.

No universal health care systems have numerous problems that private healthcare solves in the countries that have it.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:04 pm

xouper wrote:"Universal Housing" would negate the need for both insurance and mortgage companies. No more homeless.

"Universal Automobile" would negate the need for auto insurance and loan companies. You get a new car every so often and everyone pays a monthly fee tax. And no Pintos, everyone gets a Cadillac.

Better yet, just send all our income to the "Universal Everything Plan", and it will provide all our needs for us. A free pony in every garage.

And raise the minimum wage to $75 per hour to pay for it all.


I'm a big fan of universal housing because it can be produced as a product, the same holds true for food and clothing. The rest I'm against.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:02 pm

Coveny wrote:I should have said to costly for small companies. Sorry about that.
No worries. But you've accurately provided a reason why healthcare should not be employer-based.

Coveny wrote:The best and brightest are going to look at money. If you want them to become a doctor then you have to give them a monetary incentive to become a doctor. Saying that money shouldn’t be an incentive is just an emotional response. The world doesn’t exist because we’re all selfless, attempted to create a system with that as its foundation is doomed to fail.
You have a point, Coveny. Let me rephrase: Money shouldn't be the sole incentive for entering a profession which sole purpose is to care for others, and be accurate in doing so.

Coveny wrote:I strongly agree with subsiding vaccination to the point of making them free, and paying for them with tax money. The more people who are vaccinated the better it is for everyone.
I agree. Children who are not vaccinated present a danger to newborn infants, who cannot be vaccinated for anything except Hep B until they are two months old. And the ones that require repeated vaccinations to confer immunity aren't finished until those babies are at least six months old. Even then, there are boosters later on.

Coveny wrote:Socialism/kindness has proven that it doesn’t provide enough incentive to fill the needed roles.
I can't agree with you unless you show evidence for your hypothesis.

Coveny wrote:Nurse practitioners go to school for over a decade, the difference in schooling is minimal, and in my opinion there needs to be two years, and four year options so that someone can start working, and then work their way up the tiers over time. This has the bonus effect of continuing education, rather than the current system where older doctors are not familiar with newer more effective techniques.
There is already a requirement for continuing education in the current system.

Coveny wrote:It is classism
Which is why it's no better than the current system. A replacement system would have to provide equal access to quality healthcare for every citizen. You do realize that limiting access to healthcare to any group of people will decrease the overall health of the general population? Those with quality healthcare will still be subject to contagion from those without healthcare.

Coveny wrote:No universal health care systems have numerous problems that private healthcare solves in the countries that have it.
Again, I need to see sound evidence supporting your statement. No other industrialized country is rushing to give up their nationalized healthcare to switch to the US system of capitalizing healthcare.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:32 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:No worries. But you've accurately provided a reason why healthcare should not be employer-based.

The more you force something to fit a small subset of arbitrary rules the more it's likely to fail. Expecting that there isn't a need or value in smaller individually owned hospital/care facilities seems fallacious to me.

Nikki Nyx wrote:You have a point, Coveny. Let me rephrase: Money shouldn't be the sole incentive for entering a profession which sole purpose is to care for others, and be accurate in doing so.

Money rarely the sole incentive of human beings, but that doesn't change the fact that in the world today/capatilism money > all.

Nikki Nyx wrote: I can't agree with you unless you show evidence for your hypothesis.

You can agree, you just don't want to because that comes back to the harshness of reality. There is a reason so many people try to become lawyers, and it has nothing to do with helping out their fellow man. Here is an article that covers the issues of personal shortage caused by universal healthcare. http://www.heritage.org/health-care-ref ... caresystem


Nikki Nyx wrote: Which is why it's no better than the current system. A replacement system would have to provide equal access to quality healthcare for every citizen. You do realize that limiting access to healthcare to any group of people will decrease the overall health of the general population? Those with quality healthcare will still be subject to contagion from those without healthcare.

Do you believe a system that doesn't reward hard work is going to work? One where you get exactly the same if you work 60 hours a week as if you sit at home and do nothing? Do you think that if you make all pay equal that people will choose to do the dirty hard jobs rather than the easy ones? We can remove scarcity on some things. I believe it's possible on food, shelter, and basic clothing, but you can NEVER remove scarcity on services. So until we have a robot that can perform the job, people who are "good" at being a doctor will need to be rewarded more than those who are "bad". Capitalism has proven to provide this incentive, but it creates classism. I don't see that as an issues UNLESS it gets as out of hand as it currently is in the world today. That however is another debate...

Nikki Nyx wrote: Again, I need to see sound evidence supporting your statement. No other industrialized country is rushing to give up their nationalized healthcare to switch to the US system of capitalizing healthcare.

The article above has a long list of problems with universal healthcare. What tops the list is longer wait times, rationing of medical care, lower quality because the best and brightest don't become doctors, etc. Now I wouldn't go so far as Rand Paul (for reference if you haven't seen it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrEBBA9hQjA) went, but my major issue with universal health care that becoming a medical personal becomes a socialist profession, and those have a horrible track record for incentivising.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:13 am

Coveny wrote:Do you believe a system that doesn't reward hard work is going to work? One where you get exactly the same if you work 60 hours a week as if you sit at home and do nothing? Do you think that if you make all pay equal that people will choose to do the dirty hard jobs rather than the easy ones? We can remove scarcity on some things. I believe it's possible on food, shelter, and basic clothing, but you can NEVER remove scarcity on services. So until we have a robot that can perform the job, people who are "good" at being a doctor will need to be rewarded more than those who are "bad". Capitalism has proven to provide this incentive, but it creates classism. I don't see that as an issues UNLESS it gets as out of hand as it currently is in the world today. That however is another debate...


Well said.


Coveny wrote:The article above has a long list of problems with universal healthcare. What tops the list is longer wait times, rationing of medical care, lower quality because the best and brightest don't become doctors, etc.


And that is exactly what is happening today in Canada.

There is currently a severe shortage of general practitioners (family doctors) in many places, and is predicted to get much worse.

There is little incentive for new doctors to go into general practice. Most of them want to go into specialties where the pay is higher.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:41 pm

Coveny wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:No worries. But you've accurately provided a reason why healthcare should not be employer-based.
The more you force something to fit a small subset of arbitrary rules the more it's likely to fail. Expecting that there isn't a need or value in smaller individually owned hospital/care facilities seems fallacious to me.
But I don't expect such a thing. If anything, there's more value in smaller practices, facilities, and hospitals, simply because there are more of them, the larger ones generally being located in urban areas.

Coveny wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:You have a point, Coveny. Let me rephrase: Money shouldn't be the sole incentive for entering a profession which sole purpose is to care for others, and be accurate in doing so.
Money rarely the sole incentive of human beings, but that doesn't change the fact that in the world today/capatilism money > all.
I think I've not explained my viewpoint accurately. I'm not saying that medical professionals shouldn't be paid well! In general, the more knowledge you've acquired, the more experience you have, and the more responsibility that is inherent in your position should all be factors that increase your pay. The doctor who is Chief of Surgery obviously deserves a higher pay grade than an orderly, for example.

Coveny wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:I can't agree with you unless you show evidence for your hypothesis.
You can agree, you just don't want to because that comes back to the harshness of reality.
No. Don't ascribe reasoning to me that I haven't articulated. Opinions about "the harshness of reality" are insufficient to formulate a conclusion without evidence to show that your opinions are accurate.

Coveny wrote:There is a reason so many people try to become lawyers, and it has nothing to do with helping out their fellow man.
It has more to do with the fact that people who wish to become lawyers have failed to examine the market. We're already oversaturated with lawyers; if they wish to make money, they'd be better looking in other fields.

Coveny wrote:Here is an article that covers the issues of personal shortage caused by universal healthcare. http://www.heritage.org/health-care-ref ... caresystem
You'll have to do better than an article from the biased, right wing, ultra-capitalist Heritage Foundation. They have a standing reputation for providing inaccurate information. From a former staff member: What I Learned at a Conservative Think Tank: Propaganda Now, Facts Later!

Coveny wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: Which is why it's no better than the current system. A replacement system would have to provide equal access to quality healthcare for every citizen. You do realize that limiting access to healthcare to any group of people will decrease the overall health of the general population? Those with quality healthcare will still be subject to contagion from those without healthcare.
Do you believe a system that doesn't reward hard work is going to work? One where you get exactly the same if you work 60 hours a week as if you sit at home and do nothing? Do you think that if you make all pay equal that people will choose to do the dirty hard jobs rather than the easy ones?
Where did I say any of that? I didn't. My statement addressed equal access to quality healthcare for every citizen, not anything about everyone in the world making the same amount of money regardless of work (or not working). You've made an inaccurate assumption.

Coveny wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: Again, I need to see sound evidence supporting your statement. No other industrialized country is rushing to give up their nationalized healthcare to switch to the US system of capitalizing healthcare.
The article above has a long list of problems with universal healthcare. What tops the list is longer wait times, rationing of medical care, lower quality because the best and brightest don't become doctors, etc.
Again, the Heritage Foundation article is not valid evidence for the reason I named, as well as others. Are you aware that it was the Heritage Foundation that invented the individual mandate that was incorporated first into Massachusetts' "Romney Care," then into the ACA? Yet they've been fighting against it ever since, because they invented it to forcibly provide health insurance companies with customers, not to provide patients with health care.

And why are you ignoring the wait times, rationing of medical care, and lower quality that exist in the current system of capitalist health care? I typically have to wait from 30-60 days for an MRI, CAT, EMG, nerve conduction test, etc. And I live in Massachusetts, which ranks first in healthcare access and number of insured.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:55 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Coveny wrote:Here is an article that covers the issues of personal shortage caused by universal healthcare. http://www.heritage.org/health-care-ref ... caresystem
You'll have to do better than an article from the biased, right wing, ultra-capitalist Heritage Foundation. They have a standing reputation for providing inaccurate information. From a former staff member: What I Learned at a Conservative Think Tank: Propaganda Now, Facts Later!


The sources you cited to criticize the Heritage Foundation are also highly biased, but on the left. And they have all had their credibility challenged. Thus by your own argument, your sources are also not credible.

A better way to refute an argument is to challenge it on the merits, not on who wrote it.

On the other hand, you are entitled to refuse to accept a report from the Heritage Foundation, but that's not the same as showing the report itself is flawed.

The Washington Post and CNN, for example, have been caught numerous times publishing fake news. Does that mean everything they publish is fake? Of course not. You have to evaluate each story on its own merits.

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:46 am

Coveny wrote:Here is an article that covers the issues of personal shortage caused by universal healthcare. http://www.heritage.org/health-care-ref ... caresystem
You'll have to do better than an article from the biased, right wing, ultra-capitalist Heritage Foundation. They have a standing reputation for providing inaccurate information. From a former staff member: What I Learned at a Conservative Think Tank: Propaganda Now, Facts Later!
If you want more sources all you needed to do was ask:
Forbes - https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothec ... dfe7fd78d5
Birmingham Medical - http://birminghammedicalnews.com/news.p ... Story=1161
Huffpost - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/im ... a89a7a261f
AARP - http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-ins ... rtage.html
Harvard - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/featu ... providers/
The economist - http://www.economist.com/node/21528660
USA today - https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bu ... t/1644837/

Pick your poison. When you regulate the pay for a profession, say everyone get access to that individual's services, and that profession takes a decade and a half to achieve... you are going to have shortages.

Nikki Nyx wrote: And why are you ignoring the wait times, rationing of medical care, and lower quality that exist in the current system of capitalist health care? I typically have to wait from 30-60 days for an MRI, CAT, EMG, nerve conduction test, etc. And I live in Massachusetts, which ranks first in healthcare access and number of insured.


I'm not. My system corrects issues in both systems. If you look at the O.P. you'll see that under problems I list our system AND universal health care.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:22 am

xouper wrote:blah blah blah
I know I made my wishes perfectly clear, and it initially appeared that you had decided to respect them. But, apparently, you couldn't resist putting on your "lecturing professor" act. So, allow me to reiterate: I do not wish to discuss this or any issue with you.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:39 am

HAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've skipped over this thread as thinking Coveny was some legislator and this was just another in the line of failed Remove and Replace Obamacare snipe runs. Finally took a look at the OP. Nope. Its much sillier than that.

I did stop reading after about the 3rd paragraph.

Key Issue: Hospital care is SICK CARE.........not healthcare. Yes....if docs are not made millionaires two years out of medical school, then the profession will change over to those interested in providing healthcare, not those interested in funding their stock portfolios.

You can't get more silly than recommending some dingbat uniquely crafted solution when THE ANSWER is being demonstrated all over the Western World: Socialized Medicine. It works. Take the best parts of it from all over Europe....and healthcare will drop to Universal Coverage at half the cost.

The purpose of healthcare is NOT to provide doctors or hospitals or ancillary care givers or the pharmaceutical or device manufacturers with an income. Its to provide healthcare. Something not done today.

............................. I am somewhat of an expert in healthcare. Got anything "for real"?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:22 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:blah blah blah . . . and more blah . . .

I know I made my wishes perfectly clear, and it initially appeared that you had decided to respect them. But, apparently, you couldn't resist putting on your "lecturing professor" act. So, allow me to reiterate: I do not wish to discuss this or any issue with you.


I am entitled to reply to any post on this forum.

I made the standard skeptic response to a flawed argument, same as I would to anyone on this forum. Nothing personal in anything I said. This is not about you.

Discuss the issues, or not discuss, is your choice to make, it doesn't matter to me.

In any case, I never agreed to abide by your wishes. With your last PM to me, you did indeed make your wishes clear, but in doing so, you also lost the right to any respect from me on anything. Nonetheless, I shall try to abide the forum guidelines and not make comments about you personally.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:34 am

Nikki Nyx wrote: But, apparently, you couldn't resist putting on your "lecturing professor" act.
Gee.... what did I miss at good old "U"? X has never struck me as anywhere close to a lecturing professor. No special permit.... he's in the metered parking lot with the rest of us.

Nikki Nyx wrote: So, allow me to reiterate: I do not wish to discuss this or any issue with you.
Ummmm..... so ......... stop?

I have publicly said much the same thing to X.......yet we continue to engage as if that wish were never uttered.

As in all things.........I look to myself.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Gord » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:28 am

xouper wrote:
Coveny wrote:The article above has a long list of problems with universal healthcare. What tops the list is longer wait times, rationing of medical care, lower quality because the best and brightest don't become doctors, etc.

And that is exactly what is happening today in Canada.

That's news to me. There is one thing I have noticed, though: The "best and brightest" often leave Canada for the States, because they can earn much higher salaries there.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:29 am

Coveny: nothing for real eh?

Your "solutions" are very much at the margin not going to the issue at all. You actually can post that allowing narrower hallways in clinics will provide more access to care?=====>SILLY. Same with lawsuits. Same with your whole list.

THE SOLUTION: Single Payer.........dither at the edges as you wish.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:34 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Coveny: nothing for real eh?

Your "solutions" are very much at the margin not going to the issue at all. You actually can post that allowing narrower hallways in clinics will provide more access to care?=====>SILLY. Same with lawsuits. Same with your whole list.

THE SOLUTION: Single Payer.........dither at the edges as you wish.


Your "solution" has numerous problems which I've already listed. People who advocate universal healthcare just focus on what feel like they should "get" ignoring the other side of the equation, like human beings are going to magically change. Not surprisingly people with these beliefs don't work as medical professionals, but they have no problem expecting others to do something they haven't/won't do.

Have you tried to use medicare? Because it sucks. Did you know that just from Obamacare we are already seeing a shortage of doctors to provide care for patients. Yet somehow by lowering what doctors make, increasing the number of patients that can see doctors, and not changing any of the rules/requirements to become a doctor or a medical facility you think magically highly trained "good" doctors are going to appear. You don't have a "solution" you have a fantasy.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:56 pm

1. Your "solution" has numerous problems which I've already listed. /// Not really. and to the degree you do, you don't connect your solution to how it will actually provide care to people.

2. People who advocate universal healthcare just focus on what feel like they should "get" ignoring the other side of the equation, like human beings are going to magically change. /// This is gibberish. One of the biggest reasons to go with UHC is to LOWER COSTS.===IE, take out the management overhead and competition and for profit cost factors usually estimated to be around 30% of what is current in the cost structure. what change magical or otherwise are you contemplating? The change I would expect is for people to see a doctor when they are sick rather than not go because they can't afford it.

3. Not surprisingly people with these beliefs don't work as medical professionals, but they have no problem expecting others to do something they haven't/won't do. /// All kinds of people work at all kinds of jobs. More gibberish.

4. Have you tried to use medicare? /// No.

5. Because it sucks. /// More than being sick? How does it "suck?"....you know specifically and how does wider hallways in a clinic fix not having the money for a doctors visit?

6. Did you know that just from Obamacare we are already seeing a shortage of doctors to provide care for patients. /// Doctor and Nurse and Allied heathcare professional shortages have been part of the system since inception. Mostly a product of Doctor Monopolization of the Healthcare system. If you don't KNOW THIS ALREADY: your really have no expertise at all.

7. Yet somehow by lowering what doctors make, increasing the number of patients that can see doctors, and not changing any of the rules/requirements to become a doctor or a medical facility you think magically highly trained "good" doctors are going to appear. //// Like every other system....the "system" needs more healthcare extenders and generalists rather than these expensive specialists you are touting.

8. You don't have a "solution" you have a fantasy. ///// How then is it working all over the rest of the World?

Keep working on it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:1. Your "solution" has numerous problems which I've already listed. /// Not really. and to the degree you do, you don't connect your solution to how it will actually provide care to people.

I assume you missed the part where there is a tiered solution that allows people to get care who would otherwise not be able to. They won't get a doctor who has 12 - 15 years worth of training, but they will get care. (unlike both the US system and the universal health care system)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:2. People who advocate universal healthcare just focus on what feel like they should "get" ignoring the other side of the equation, like human beings are going to magically change. /// This is gibberish. One of the biggest reasons to go with UHC is to LOWER COSTS.===IE, take out the management overhead and competition and for profit cost factors usually estimated to be around 30% of what is current in the cost structure. what change magical or otherwise are you contemplating? The change I would expect is for people to see a doctor when they are sick rather than not go because they can't afford it.

Here is the part where you show that you ignore the other side of the equation. Where do all these new doctors come from to provide care for all the new patients?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:3. Not surprisingly people with these beliefs don't work as medical professionals, but they have no problem expecting others to do something they haven't/won't do. /// All kinds of people work at all kinds of jobs. More gibberish.

You say a blanket statement that has nothing to do with the debate "All kinds of people work at all kinds of jobs" and say I'm the one speaking gibberish? I'll take it that you aren't a medical personal because you have this position and you tried to dodge the question with gibberish

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:4. Have you tried to use medicare? /// No.

It's plagued with difficulty finding a doctor that will see you, wait times, the quality of care is terrible (ie the it's the worst doctors we have), they don't cover everything, etc People on it get some healthcare, but they still have to cover the costs over what medicare won't pay and it's more money than what most who are on medicare can pay.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:5. Because it sucks. /// More than being sick? How does it "suck?"....you know specifically and how does wider hallways in a clinic fix not having the money for a doctors visit?

See above

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:6. Did you know that just from Obamacare we are already seeing a shortage of doctors to provide care for patients. /// Doctor and Nurse and Allied heathcare professional shortages have been part of the system since inception. Mostly a product of Doctor Monopolization of the Healthcare system. If you don't KNOW THIS ALREADY: your really have no expertise at all.

This statement supports my plan over universal healthcare. Thanks for that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:7. Yet somehow by lowering what doctors make, increasing the number of patients that can see doctors, and not changing any of the rules/requirements to become a doctor or a medical facility you think magically highly trained "good" doctors are going to appear. //// Like every other system....the "system" needs more healthcare extenders and generalists rather than these expensive specialists you are touting.

I'm not touting any specialists that is a strawman fallacy.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:8. You don't have a "solution" you have a fantasy. ///// How then is it working all over the rest of the World?

The same way it's working in the US .... badly.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Keep working on it.

Come back when you want to discuss the reality of the situation, then maybe I'll work on my solution, but don't expect me to change to try and achieve fantasy goals.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:19 pm

thanks for your detailed response. Lets see what we've got:

Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:1. Your "solution" has numerous problems which I've already listed. /// Not really. and to the degree you do, you don't connect your solution to how it will actually provide care to people.

I assume you missed the part where there is a tiered solution that allows people to get care who would otherwise not be able to. They won't get a doctor who has 12 - 15 years worth of training, but they will get care. (unlike both the US system and the universal health care system)
Well.....this is breaking a few eggs. "Tiered medicine/benefits, whatever it is, is greatly denigrated in our culture.............but I'm for it. "Beggers cant be choosers" sort or attitude. Not "bad" medicine....but a tiering. NOT as I think you are doing based on income or ability to pay.......but on an actual triage/protocol for the presenting symptoms/complaint. Where do you get that a Universal HCS does not provide care to all?............and by and large Brand new docs and residents can provide all the care that is needed by 90% of patients. The "gate keepers" to the 12-15 year specialists. What do you want?==Dr House treating sore throats????

Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:2. People who advocate universal healthcare just focus on what feel like they should "get" ignoring the other side of the equation, like human beings are going to magically change. /// This is gibberish. One of the biggest reasons to go with UHC is to LOWER COSTS.===IE, take out the management overhead and competition and for profit cost factors usually estimated to be around 30% of what is current in the cost structure. what change magical or otherwise are you contemplating? The change I would expect is for people to see a doctor when they are sick rather than not go because they can't afford it.

Here is the part where you show that you ignore the other side of the equation. Where do all these new doctors come from to provide care for all the new patients?
As stated above.... the system functions best when primary/initial/gatekeeping care is provided by new docs........but as I've referenced several times, without a Doctor imposed monopoly....Nurses and Physician Assistants can provide much of the care presently overcharged for by full MD's.

Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:3. Not surprisingly people with these beliefs don't work as medical professionals, but they have no problem expecting others to do something they haven't/won't do. /// All kinds of people work at all kinds of jobs. More gibberish.

You say a blanket statement that has nothing to do with the debate "All kinds of people work at all kinds of jobs" and say I'm the one speaking gibberish? I'll take it that you aren't a medical personal because you have this position and you tried to dodge the question with gibberish
Not worth arguing. I agree I did respond to your post with equal dignity.


Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:4. Have you tried to use medicare? /// No.

It's plagued with difficulty finding a doctor that will see you, wait times, the quality of care is terrible (ie the it's the worst doctors we have), they don't cover everything, etc People on it get some healthcare, but they still have to cover the costs over what medicare won't pay and it's more money than what most who are on medicare can pay.
This has no relevance to a UHCS..... in fact.... its a good reason to go to UHCS to stop the cherrypicking of patients with all its attendant cost and quality issues.

Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:5. Because it sucks. /// More than being sick? How does it "suck?"....you know specifically and how does wider hallways in a clinic fix not having the money for a doctors visit?

See above
Yes, indeed: see above. MediCare is not the model (all old people) that UHCS is based on. You have made a faulty correlation.

Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:6. Did you know that just from Obamacare we are already seeing a shortage of doctors to provide care for patients. /// Doctor and Nurse and Allied heathcare professional shortages have been part of the system since inception. Mostly a product of Doctor Monopolization of the Healthcare system. If you don't KNOW THIS ALREADY: your really have no expertise at all.

This statement supports my plan over universal healthcare. Thanks for that.
I don't see how....but even if it does.........I see no reason why they don't BOTH do away with ((or lessen)) the doctor monopoly. Every system can benefit when it is supported by people wanting to give healthcare rather than get rich by enforcing a professional monopoly over competitive cheaper providers.


Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:7. Yet somehow by lowering what doctors make, increasing the number of patients that can see doctors, and not changing any of the rules/requirements to become a doctor or a medical facility you think magically highly trained "good" doctors are going to appear. //// Like every other system....the "system" needs more healthcare extenders and generalists rather than these expensive specialists you are touting.

I'm not touting any specialists that is a strawman fallacy.
What you wrote just above I take to be exactly an assumption that the mix of docs to allied healthcare extenders would stay the same. A touting. If you don't like that terminology....drop it. Doesn't change the mechanics.

Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:8. You don't have a "solution" you have a fantasy. ///// How then is it working all over the rest of the World?

The same way it's working in the US .... badly.
Satisfaction is rated quite HIGH in countries with UHC. Again... your lack of familiarity with the working solutions is evident.

Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Keep working on it.

Come back when you want to discuss the reality of the situation, then maybe I'll work on my solution, but don't expect me to change to try and achieve fantasy goals.
How you gonna work on it without an expectation of change? Makes no sense. /////// But I am not expecting change. Just seeing if you actually have any good ideas. You got a shot into the ballpark with the tiered medicine idea. wrong....but it was a shot. Nothing after that.

Let's focus on: all the healthcare from Europe and Canadian models providing better care at half the cost with UNIVERSAL coverage. These are not models to pick the best attributes from.............. why?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:12 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Well.....this is breaking a few eggs. "Tiered medicine/benefits, whatever it is, is greatly denigrated in our culture.............but I'm for it. "Beggers cant be choosers" sort or attitude. Not "bad" medicine....but a tiering. NOT as I think you are doing based on income or ability to pay.......but on an actual triage/protocol for the presenting symptoms/complaint. Where do you get that a Universal HCS does not provide care to all?............and by and large Brand new docs and residents can provide all the care that is needed by 90% of patients. The "gate keepers" to the 12-15 year specialists. What do you want?==Dr House treating sore throats????


While I agree that low tier medical professionals (tier 1 and 2) could take the brunt of seeing the patients, I think 90% is a bit high, likely in the 60% range if I would have to guess, but understand we are talking about each % point being millions of human beings so 60% taken out of the current pure capitalist system would decrease the demand dramatically. Also it should be noted that as the demand for tier 5 doctors drops, the cost to see them will drop as well because of the capitalist market. Yes my solution goes against medical structure in both the America (pure capitalist) and universal health care (pure socialist) mindsets/systems. I don't expect it to get a approved but I'm a firm believer that you shouldn't complain unless you have a better solution. This is what I consider a better solution.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:This has no relevance to a UHCS..... in fact.... its a good reason to go to UHCS to stop the cherrypicking of patients with all its attendant cost and quality issues.

The difficulty finding a doctor has a HUGE relevance in universal healthcare, and many of the same issues that plague medicare also plague universal healthcare. Not to mention Sanders is currently attempt to expand Medicare to cover everyone "because it works". So not only is it a valid comparison, but it's also germane to the discussion as it's one of the options on the table.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Yes, indeed: see above. MediCare is not the model (all old people) that UHCS is based on. You have made a faulty correlation.

That's simply not true. I have to deal with medicare because of my mentally retarded child. He will never be able to function in society, and medicare and SSI take care of his needs now that he's 25. It also covers mothers as well. It's not just for old people as you say.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I don't see how....but even if it does.........I see no reason why they don't BOTH do away with ((or lessen)) the doctor monopoly. Every system can benefit when it is supported by people wanting to give healthcare rather than get rich by enforcing a professional monopoly over competitive cheaper providers.

Universal Healthcare exacerbates the issues of doctor monopolies because the incentives to become a doctor fall as their pay gets regulated. It's a sad fact of life that the best and brightest have their pick of careers, and they consistently choose the ones that pay the most. The less people who are able to overcome all the costs, time, and intelligence needed who decide to be a doctor the more that the one's who have are in high demand. Regulating/capping their pay makes the situation worse. By allowing them freedom to make whatever they are "worth", doubling or tripling the number of medical professions, and making it so breaking into the medical profession doesn't require as much money, and time before there is a payday my system makes everyone getting health care free or much cheaper a very real possibility.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:What you wrote just above I take to be exactly an assumption that the mix of docs to allied healthcare extenders would stay the same. A touting. If you don't like that terminology....drop it. Doesn't change the mechanics.

The tiered medical professions I'm suggesting don't "specialize" in the normal sense. I'm not against regulating what they can and can't do based on their tier to some degree (say for instance tier 1s prescribing narcotics), but I don't think of that as "specializing". I am touting a system that allows medical professions to choice if they wanted to specialize though. So if an individual just wanted to see old people for example they could be a tier 1 medical professional and just see old people, but my system isn't "touting" that aspect.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Satisfaction is rated quite HIGH in countries with UHC. Again... your lack of familiarity with the working solutions is evident.

The US ranks at 81% and the best Universal healthcare country (Austria) ranks at 93%. Canada ranks below the US at 70% as do many other universal health care programs. Your lack of familiarity with the healthcare system is evident.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/122393/oecd ... marks.aspx

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:How you gonna work on it without an expectation of change? Makes no sense. /////// But I am not expecting change. Just seeing if you actually have any good ideas. You got a shot into the ballpark with the tiered medicine idea. wrong....but it was a shot. Nothing after that.

Let's focus on: all the healthcare from Europe and Canadian models providing better care at half the cost with UNIVERSAL coverage. These are not models to pick the best attributes from.............. why?

Because they don't provide access to good healthcare. Many of those systems are plagued with long wait times, they don't cover procedures, or the doctors you do see are just burning and turning their patients. If you just look at cost sure universal health care is "better", but that's not the only factor that's important to me...
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:46 pm

Re your link to the survey of satisfaction: defective in a number of ways. Telephone Surveys?==notoriously are biased towards the Rich, ie those that actually have healthcare. Not the 10's Millions of those who have no coverage. And I don't understand what the distinction is between satisfaction with local healthcare which is WHAT YOU GET..... with Universal National Coverage which doesn't exist in the USA. Surveys are highly suspect. Better is actual measured outcomes. USA consistently comes in about 20th from the top across a broad range of metrics......at twice the cost.

Long wait times is an anti-UHCS talking point and not true. Burning and Turning patients is NOT DONE in UHCS. You are apply for profit motives to a system that is not for profit.

Cost is not the only factor looked at.

Flip flop much?

No good ideas here at all. Have fun.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:03 pm

Putting the

brain drain

into perspective

What’s Likely to Happen Over the Long Term?

However, a longer-term perspective suggests the brain drain could be a net boon provided a large portion of those who emigrate to the U.S. someday return to Canada to start up businesses, teach or otherwise contribute to society’s well-being and the country’s ability to grow. Statistics Canada data suggest that, on average, about 30% of those who emigrate to the U.S. each year intend to return to Canada. It should also be remembered that the brain drain to the U.S. occurred in the midst of large-scale public-service layoffs and health-care cutbacks (i.e., reduced need for doctors and nurses), much slower economic growth than in the U.S., and wide differences in Canada-U.S. unemployment rates. All these trends now appear to be going the other way. To the extent that these "demand-side" factors played an important role in the brain drain and are now being reversed, it is probably safe to say that the brain-drain problem could disappear from popular debate much as it did in the middle and late 1960s.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:28 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Re your link to the survey of satisfaction: defective in a number of ways. Telephone Surveys?==notoriously are biased towards the Rich, ie those that actually have healthcare. Not the 10's Millions of those who have no coverage. And I don't understand what the distinction is between satisfaction with local healthcare which is WHAT YOU GET..... with Universal National Coverage which doesn't exist in the USA. Surveys are highly suspect. Better is actual measured outcomes. USA consistently comes in about 20th from the top across a broad range of metrics......at twice the cost.

Long wait times is an anti-UHCS talking point and not true. Burning and Turning patients is NOT DONE in UHCS. You are apply for profit motives to a system that is not for profit.

Cost is not the only factor looked at.

Flip flop much?

No good ideas here at all. Have fun.


I have produced a wide array of sources supporting my position if you want to counter that position then please provide the counter sources to support your claims.

There is no flip flop my solution isn't all about costs. My solution allows for everyone to receive timely health care, and will likely even bring back house calls. Please stop with the strawman fallacies.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:17 pm

conveny: what is the color of the sky in your fantasy world?

"I have produced a wide array of sources supporting my position." //// Totally false. My memory: one link to drug cost which is irrelevant, another to an opinion survey that is suspect in its structure and not relevant even if accurate.

What your plan reads like is some activist with a nut to grind....like some anti-malpractice interest who threw together the balance of the issues to flesh out the program. Really..... not being insulting...... you got nothing. Your "plan" to give everyone healthcare is to simply say you will give it to them.......with a totally vague reference to tiering the system. Your program is bogus and irrelevant dealing wholly with side issues at the margin.

I could go thru each element of the your talking points to identify in more detail just how defective and irrelevant they are........but time counts. if you wish........pick your strongest change/new approach/innovation and present it with as much support/facts/links/argument as you care to muster. Can you do better?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:38 pm

Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Blatherskite wrote:blah blah blah . . . straw men . . . and more blather . . .

. . . Please stop with the strawman fallacies.


It's well known on this forum that straw men and gratuitous insults are among bobbo's favorite tactics for heckling others. It's nothing personal, he does it to almost all those who do not share his — how shall we say — "opinions".

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:08 pm

xouper wrote:
Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Blatherskite wrote:blah blah blah . . . straw men . . . and more blather . . .

. . . Please stop with the strawman fallacies.


It's well known on this forum that straw men and gratuitous insults are among bobbo's favorite tactics for heckling others. It's nothing personal, he does it to almost all those who do not share his — how shall we say — "opinions".


I was getting the "Bobbo is a troll" vibe, but he started out with decent concerns and baited me in. Thanks for the heads up.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:09 pm

Coveny wrote:
xouper wrote:
Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Blatherskite wrote:blah blah blah . . . straw men . . . and more blather . . .

. . . Please stop with the strawman fallacies.


It's well known on this forum that straw men and gratuitous insults are among bobbo's favorite tactics for heckling others. It's nothing personal, he does it to almost all those who do not share his — how shall we say — "opinions".


I was getting the "Bobbo is a troll" vibe, but he started out with decent concerns and baited me in. Thanks for the heads up.


To be fair, I should also add that bobbo has above average cognitive abilities and is an ex-military pilot. He's clearly not stupid or uneducated, but chooses to waste that advantage by being an asshat sometimes. (And yeah, I've been there, done that too.)

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:34 pm

xouper wrote:
Coveny wrote:
xouper wrote:
Coveny wrote:
bobbo_the_Blatherskite wrote:blah blah blah . . . straw men . . . and more blather . . .

. . . Please stop with the strawman fallacies.


It's well known on this forum that straw men and gratuitous insults are among bobbo's favorite tactics for heckling others. It's nothing personal, he does it to almost all those who do not share his — how shall we say — "opinions".


I was getting the "Bobbo is a troll" vibe, but he started out with decent concerns and baited me in. Thanks for the heads up.


To be fair, I should also add that bobbo has above average cognitive abilities and is an ex-military pilot. He's clearly not stupid or uneducated, but chooses to waste that advantage by being an asshat sometimes. (And yeah, I've been there, done that too.)

haha
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:19 am

So, your plan is to attack your critic? Very Trump.

Yes, I commend when commendable, mark as innovating and clever when innovating and clever. and attack and heckle when attackable and hecklable when not commendable, innovating or clever.

Loopy ideas (narrowing hallways in ambulatory clinics) supported by lies immediately apparent just by looking ("I have produced a wide array of sources supporting my position........") indicate something other than a serious discussion about healthcare is afoot.

You don't like being shot down?.......................a page from Xouper's book: Then, I must just not understand what you said, morphing into what you meant to say. A simple formula for not having to evaluate what you post.

Tell the truth: you really are here to promote tiers.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:51 am

Coveny: I went to your facebook page. Looks like you may indeed be trying to set up a debate forum.

Do you have any subjects other than healthcare in mind?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:56 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So, your plan is to attack your critic? Very Trump.

Yes, I commend when commendable, mark as innovating and clever when innovating and clever. and attack and heckle when attackable and hecklable when not commendable, innovating or clever.

Loopy ideas (narrowing hallways in ambulatory clinics) supported by lies immediately apparent just by looking ("I have produced a wide array of sources supporting my position........") indicate something other than a serious discussion about healthcare is afoot.

You don't like being shot down?.......................a page from Xouper's book: Then, I must just not understand what you said, morphing into what you meant to say. A simple formula for not having to evaluate what you post.

Tell the truth: you really are here to promote tiers.


Bobbo you got me, I thought you wanted to discuss my solution but you don't. If you change your mind and decide you do want to discuss it let me know. I have no problem being shot down, if the person can explain how it's shot down, thus far you have not. I have stated before that I have no expectation of my system ever being adopted.

On a side note, I find that people who say things like "tell the truth" or say words like "truly" "honestly", or "truthfully" tend to be liars. They lie, they know they lie, they expect others to lie, it's normal to them, and they want to let you know that, this time, this time I'm not lying.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care

Postby Coveny » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:10 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Coveny: I went to your facebook page. Looks like you may indeed be trying to set up a debate forum.

Do you have any subjects other than healthcare in mind?


It's an open debate forum I don't pick the topics. But I intend to create a couple of tournaments with small monetary prizes (like $10 or something) for the winners and many of those will be TV shows as they are easy to create debates for the tournaments. There will likely be many custom tournaments as well because I don't have to create as many debate topics that way. The more I plan on trying to create 2 or 3 tournaments a week with 15 topics the more daunting it becomes. I'll also likely participate in some debates as well, but will prolly just join someone else's debate rather than creating my own topic. It's funny you should ask about topics the development team just got all 4 of the topic types working this week. (although there is still a bug about it not showing up in the view debates page they still need to fix)

If the site takes off a bit my hope is to get some semi-famous people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Matt Dillahunty, Felicia day, etc to do some debates on there for prize money. Who knows though it may not ever get out of development (it's been pushed out twice now and the go live date is now Jan 20th) or it may go live and I can't get any traffic on it. My wife is supportive, but I haven't gotten much in the way of feedback on the facebook page or the public in general, so maybe there isn't a desire for the functionality of 1v1 and 2v2 debates out there. We'll see I guess. It's a pet project as I enjoy debating head to head more than the forum style, so I want a website for that. Looks like it's gonna cost around 7k or so for the first three years, if it takes off great if not after 3 years I'll see where I'm at.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating


Return to “Politics and Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest