Healthcare Reform...

[Yelram]

Alright, noone is posting in P&C, I dont know why, but i'll give it a whirl. I believe our healthcare system does need reform, but I feel that this reform should be driven more by lowering the costs of healthcare through more common sense measures than an entire government overhaul/takeover, my plan is multi-tiered, and I'd appreciate feedback from every corner of the political spectrum.

1. Increase the number of doctors available.
This would be done through a bill, that helps pay for the education of people who want to move into the medical field, this money wouldnt just be "given" away, but rather, in exchange for having your education subsidized, you would be required to serve a specific amount of time in government clinics once you graduate. This time spent would also be a period of time where you are judged on the quality of care you can provide, and if you live up to expectations, you would then get a "government certification", this certification would be extremely important, because it brings us to number 2.(These grants/scholarships would also be availible to people IN the healthcare field already, that have been there for a certain amount of time, and want to gain some upward mobility(I believe, if given the chance, many nurses could be better doctors than doctors))

2. Make a public option for DOCTORS insurance.
We all know that the price of insuring a doctors practice is the #1 overhead cost for them, and therefore, a cost that is very likely to be passed directly on to the consumer. There being roughly 850,000 physicians in the country, and 300 million people, its an order of magnitude easier to fund the insurance for 850,000 people thats going to lower costs for 300 million, than dealing with the problems associated with putting everyone into one basket, and asking the healthy person who takes responsibility for their body, to pay money out to the person who abuses their body their whole life.
This would be done two ways, first, by getting the certification we discussed above (a whole different program would have address certifying doctors that have already been practicing, and are in good standing). Second, any doctor that is certified by the government (and this certification can be lost the same way a medical liscense can), will be able to receive government insurance, and the government will be able to offer this for much lower cost, because there would be a restriction for how large the payout for malpractice lawsuit would be in regards to a "Certified" doctor. Couple that with the quality control measures to reassure that the governments investment in this specific type of insurance would not only be feasible, but would have the ability to turn a profit, which could be used to fund the building of government standardized clinics, encompassing all fields of healthcare, from brain surgery to rehabilitation. I think another big problem with our system is the lack of cohesion from one field to another, I think having doctors see different angles of patient care(how often does a Neurosurgeon get to observe the rehabilitation necessary to make the surgery a success?) would help to progress medical treatment as a whole.

3. Healthcare representatives, and Judiciary.
To judge the quality of these doctors, and do it right, it can only be done one way, and thats to have elected healthcare representatives, and a judiciary panel made up of doctors that are well versed in the field(25 or more years of experience) The representatives and judiciary would help voice the concerns of the public, and keep the legislative branch of the federal government from canoodling with issues regarding health that they are not experienced with. I believe that every doctor that is "Certified" should have a numerical rating that is a tabulation of many different fields, with the proper weighting. A doctor may not have the best bedside manner, but a very high quality of care, he would lose a couple points for his abrasiveness, but the score would best reflect the quality of the doctor overall. You drop below a specific point, you lose your government subsidized insurance. This gives GOOD doctors incentive by lowering their operating costs, but only does so by holding them accountable at the same time. The problem with just Tort reform is it restricts the public's ability to sue, and does nothing to better regulate the doctors.

I have a couple other little tid bits, if anyone responds (and please find the flaws, I want to make this conceptually fool-proof).

[kid_vidrio]

Health care definitely needs reform.
Better to get that ball rolling than sit around talking about doing something for another 30 years.
Many opponents of the current plan are two busy mis-representing some of the more inane specifics of the current plan to realize that they would be better off with it than without it.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

Health care definitely needs reform.
Better to get that ball rolling than sit around talking about doing something for another 30 years.
Many opponents of the current plan are two busy mis-representing some of the more inane specifics of the current plan to realize that they would be better off with it than without it.

Really now?

Why don't you point out some of the good points of this plan to those of us who are uninformed?

[Nosebuckle]

Alright, noone is posting in P&C, I dont know why, but i'll give it a whirl. I believe our healthcare system does need reform, but I feel that this reform should be driven more by lowering the costs of healthcare through more common sense measures than an entire government overhaul/takeover, my plan is multi-tiered, and I'd appreciate feedback from every corner of the political spectrum.

1. Increase the number of doctors available.
This would be done through a bill, that helps pay for the education of people who want to move into the medical field, this money wouldnt just be "given" away, but rather, in exchange for having your education subsidized, you would be required to serve a specific amount of time in government clinics once you graduate. This time spent would also be a period of time where you are judged on the quality of care you can provide, and if you live up to expectations, you would then get a "government certification", this certification would be extremely important, because it brings us to number 2.(These grants/scholarships would also be availible to people IN the healthcare field already, that have been there for a certain amount of time, and want to gain some upward mobility(I believe, if given the chance, many nurses could be better doctors than doctors))

2. Make a public option for DOCTORS insurance.
We all know that the price of insuring a doctors practice is the #1 overhead cost for them, and therefore, a cost that is very likely to be passed directly on to the consumer. There being roughly 850,000 physicians in the country, and 300 million people, its an order of magnitude easier to fund the insurance for 850,000 people thats going to lower costs for 300 million, than dealing with the problems associated with putting everyone into one basket, and asking the healthy person who takes responsibility for their body, to pay money out to the person who abuses their body their whole life.
This would be done two ways, first, by getting the certification we discussed above (a whole different program would have address certifying doctors that have already been practicing, and are in good standing). Second, any doctor that is certified by the government (and this certification can be lost the same way a medical liscense can), will be able to receive government insurance, and the government will be able to offer this for much lower cost, because there would be a restriction for how large the payout for malpractice lawsuit would be in regards to a "Certified" doctor. Couple that with the quality control measures to reassure that the governments investment in this specific type of insurance would not only be feasible, but would have the ability to turn a profit, which could be used to fund the building of government standardized clinics, encompassing all fields of healthcare, from brain surgery to rehabilitation. I think another big problem with our system is the lack of cohesion from one field to another, I think having doctors see different angles of patient care(how often does a Neurosurgeon get to observe the rehabilitation necessary to make the surgery a success?) would help to progress medical treatment as a whole.

3. Healthcare representatives, and Judiciary.
To judge the quality of these doctors, and do it right, it can only be done one way, and thats to have elected healthcare representatives, and a judiciary panel made up of doctors that are well versed in the field(25 or more years of experience) The representatives and judiciary would help voice the concerns of the public, and keep the legislative branch of the federal government from canoodling with issues regarding health that they are not experienced with. I believe that every doctor that is "Certified" should have a numerical rating that is a tabulation of many different fields, with the proper weighting. A doctor may not have the best bedside manner, but a very high quality of care, he would lose a couple points for his abrasiveness, but the score would best reflect the quality of the doctor overall. You drop below a specific point, you lose your government subsidized insurance. This gives GOOD doctors incentive by lowering their operating costs, but only does so by holding them accountable at the same time. The problem with just Tort reform is it restricts the public's ability to sue, and does nothing to better regulate the doctors.

I have a couple other little tid bits, if anyone responds (and please find the flaws, I want to make this conceptually fool-proof).

So you oppose the current plan and all the included regulations and spending with...your own regulations and more spending. Curious reform.

[Yelram]

So you oppose the current plan and all the included regulations and spending with...your own regulations and more spending. Curious reform.

Umm, its not regulation and spending i'm against, its unnecessary regulation, and wasteful spending. Hospitals spend and regulate already. I oppose the government meddling with individual healthcare insurance, because it has alot of implications regarding privacy and freedom. Doctors really dont have a right to privacy or freedom in regards to their practice. They fuck up, they lose their license. The current plan is many orders of magnitude larger, and more intrusive than anything I have mentioned. The only change individuals will have is cheaper healthcare, and a government rating on doctors. And heres the rub, if we get a single payer program, the insurance companies that insure the doctors are going to make out like crazy, and the doctors insurance costs are going to do nothing but go up, and you will eventually have to have the government take it over as well. So it makes much more sense to start by using a government rating to lower the price of insurance for good doctors by having a program that is able to offer the insurance cheaper in two ways, restricting malapractice lawsuits for certified doctors, and monitoring the quality of care of the doctors using the plan. This will insure that the government will be able to MAKE money off of insuring doctors, while raising the quality of healthcare in this country. I'd love to see a suggestion from you. Its easy to be a negative nancy when you dont have a position. Something has to be done to lower the cost of healthcare in a sensible and logical way.

[TecDragon]

I agree that health care is in serious need of reform. I don't think children should have to worry about their parents lack of health care. I also think it would be easy enough to finance, most industrialized countries have health care, hell even some third world countries have it.

[Rusty S]

the problem with gov. healthcare is they people who will use it like they do welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc... you will see more people going for stupid shit while the people who need something will have to wait for the cut on your arm.