rehmwa 2
Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote1. Make malpractice a criminal issue, and eliminate any possibility of monetary payouts. At the same time, increase enforcement of medical review boards and stop bad doctors from practicing. This would remove malpractice insurance from the entire industry and reduce costs across the board.
Place all liability on the doctor would be a better solution. If he screws up he should lose everything.
How do you think this would affect the shortage of physicians?
Good point - not to mention the greatly increased cost the docs would have to pay for malpractice insurance, with accordingly increased costs of services.
There would be no malpractice insurance. Malpractice would not be a civil issue any more, but criminal.
That is scary. So if a doctor got a good lawyer with ties to a dirty judge, accounts for so many, he would have immunity.
I like your concept, but it gives doctors partial immunity. And the prosecutor can still charge a doctor for criminal negligence now, but with our system of elitists having general criminal immunity, they seldom go after them unless there is a sexual abuse case.
See, a crime where you are the victim is a crime against the state, a tort is an action against you and you can pursue it, so to revoke that would be scary.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuote>Pepple are seeing ads on TV about drugs they probably don't
>even need, self-diagnosing, and then running to their doc for a script.
Right. Then one of several things can happen:
Doctor evaluates the request, says "yes, that might help and is worth a try" and writes the prescription. Result - patient's condition may improve.
Doctor evaluates the request, says "no, that's not going to help you, what we're doing with XXX is a better approach to your problem." Result - unneeded drug is not prescribed.
Doctor evaluates the request, thinks "this will not improve my patient's condition, and may actually be a health risk" - and writes for it anyway. This is a problem with the doctor, not the drug company. If you want to solve this problem, go after the bad doctors.
>The governemtn should publish a list of drugs available for illnesses. . .
We already have such a book. It's called the physician's desk reference.
Actually, they find that many people watch these commercails and find themselves questioning issues they never gave any thought to before....
"Mhhh.... well, my shits could be a little more regular. Maybe I DO need Zelnorm."
"I had trouble getting to sleep last night. Hey....what's this Ambien stuff? Might as well try it!"
Etc, etc.
And yes, I would opt for government research and development of new drugs. As far as costs to taxpayers, overall it would be much cheaper. Health care costs would be lower becuase you are removing the marketing/business aspect and focusing on the science. That savings would more than make up for any increase in taxes.
Ain't NO way it would be cheaper... think of all the layers of overhead and admin costs that would ensue by having the gov't run it...
Right, money before people.... totally understand. Just cracks me up when you guys come unassed when someone states that the conservatives are incompassionate.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuote.....or pull the drug due to a high mortality rate caused by the toxic crap that they call "medicine".
QuoteAre you familiar with concept of a Free Market Economy?
Medicine and health care should not be treated like guns and butter.QuoteHealthcare should be given to everyone, period.
QuoteWho should pay for it?
Everyone who can pay.
ANNNNND....we're back around to the entitlements issue, again....
ANNNNND....we're back around to the selective elitist healthcare distribution.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteAin't NO way it would be cheaper... think of all the layers of overhead and admin costs that would ensue by having the gov't run it...
The big nasty secret about healthcare in this country is that processing costs make up something 1/3rd of the total cost.
Yes, I'm terrified at the prospect of having our federal government oversee a universal system, but that part of the picture needs to be addressed. All those other countries with universal coverage have processing costs significantly less than ours.
Another huge portion of our costs are directly tied to research. For us to implement a cost efficient universal system, we'd have to come to terms with a dramatic reduction in the kinds of advancements, for both technology and pharmacology, that we've enjoyed for a number of decades.
Wow, are you comming around?
I agree with virtually all of that, but I think most pharmacological costs in the area of R&D are paid by manufacturers, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Richards 0
QuoteMake malpractice a criminal issue, and eliminate any possibility of monetary payouts. At the same time, increase enforcement of medical review boards and stop bad doctors from practicing. This would remove malpractice insurance from the entire industry and reduce costs across the board.
My only concern with this is that it might make doctors overly cautious. In every profession people will make mistakes (even dumb mistakes) as will doctors since they are still only members of the human race.
If there was a malpractice witch hunt many doctors might try to avoid doing anything that might work for fear of charges if their gamble doesn't pay off. This is why for example in Canada we have a "good samaritan law" that says if you stop to render first aid and act reasonably and in good faith you cannot be sued if anything goes wrong. This was done to prevent people from standing by and doing nothing when someone was dying.
So yes if a doctor is just being blatantly stupid, negligent (not just a dumb error, it would have to be something extreme like drinking on the job), or malicious then fine but do not make doctors afraid to take calculated risks.
I had a doctor make a procedural error that caused me some minor discomfort and a second minor surgery. Everyone I told insisted that I sue the guy for making a honest mistake. Needless to say I did not sue, but it was an insight to me as to the unrealistic expectations people have in doctors.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteAin't NO way it would be cheaper... think of all the layers of overhead and admin costs that would ensue by having the gov't run it...
Right, money before people.... totally understand. Just cracks me up when you guys come unassed when someone states that the conservatives are incompassionate.
You haven't seen the doc for that knee-jerk, yet?
Yes, conservatives and libertarians want to spend their money as they see fit - liberals want to spend OTHER people's money as they see fit.
We're discussing ways to REDUCE the cost of health care - if you REALLY think that having .gov run it is going to make it cost LESS, well...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteANNNNND....we're back around to the entitlements issue, again....
ANNNNND....we're back around to the selective elitist healthcare distribution.
ANNNNNND... when you can only get service from the ER when you can pay, come back and we'll discuss it. Until then, you can fantasize about those socialist paradises you love so much, but can't seem to force yourself to move to... I wonder why?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteI think most pharmacological costs in the area of R&D are paid by manufacturers, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not sure about manufacturers, but the overwhelming amount of research funding comes from private sources. And I'd say it's a safe bet those private sources are interested in a decent return on their investment. Kill the investment incentive and funding will dry up.
I recently read an article (I looked but couldn't find it) that compared medical funding here versus funding in all of Europe. I'm not certain, but I think US funding was something like 10 times greater than funding for all of Europe. Like I said, I'm not certain about this. If our government gets a monopoly on healthcare funding, I'd guess those research dollars will dry up, which in turn means most advancements (worldwide) will come to a crawl.
Last year I had two MRIs and arthroscopic surgery to repair a painful herniated disc. I'm greatful for modern technology... and the drugs ain't too bad either.
Zipp0 1
When someone cures cancer, it won't be for a ROI.
Maybe that's why medicine is no linger curing diseases, only treating them. It's more profitable, and tackling the easy maladies for a quick buck make good financial sense.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Maybe that's why medicine is no linger curing diseases, only treating them. It's more profitable, and tackling the easy maladies for a quick buck make good financial sense.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Place all liability on the doctor would be a better solution. If he
>screws up he should lose everything.
You would then have doctors who only treated healthy patients with likely good outcomes. People with HIV, cancer, hepatitis etc would not be seen by any doctor. Why risk losing everything to treat a patient who will probably die anyway?
>Yet, all of the profits goes into the deep, deep pockets of the
> caompany and the unrealistic salaries of the top executive and
> CEO's. For example, AIDS meds rake in well over 1 billion dollars
> per month yet very little of these profits go into research and next
> to none is use to find a cure.
In 1992, two friends of mine died of AIDS. It was the expected outcome of HIV infection. Nowadays I know a lot of people who have been living with it for decades, and living relatively healthy, fulfilled lives. I'd call that significant progress.
In the past year alone I can think of one integrase inhibitor and one T-cell antisense RNA treatment that have gone through trials. The T-cell therapy holds the potential for a vaccine - which would not be a cure but would be a huge, huge step towards eradicating the disease.
>Drug pushers who push unproven drugs through the system in
> pursuit of the all mighty dollar.
And when companies hold a drug up in testing for years because of questionable test results, they become "greedy companies who would rather watch people die than let them use life-saving drugs."
>Generics should be made available at the sametime that the high
> dollar version is made available. After all, your tax dollars and
> donations paid for the research.
Uh - no. Most research is still paid for by companies. Innovation is still something that individuals and companies do much better than the government does.
If you want the government to fund all drug development, that's a different story. If that was the case, it would make sense to mandate low prices on the resulting drugs. But look for a lot fewer drugs being developed if that's the case.
>It should be seen as criminal to refuse to help those in need.
I thought if you tried to help them it was "drug pushers who push unproven drugs through the system in pursuit of the all mighty dollar."
>screws up he should lose everything.
You would then have doctors who only treated healthy patients with likely good outcomes. People with HIV, cancer, hepatitis etc would not be seen by any doctor. Why risk losing everything to treat a patient who will probably die anyway?
>Yet, all of the profits goes into the deep, deep pockets of the
> caompany and the unrealistic salaries of the top executive and
> CEO's. For example, AIDS meds rake in well over 1 billion dollars
> per month yet very little of these profits go into research and next
> to none is use to find a cure.
In 1992, two friends of mine died of AIDS. It was the expected outcome of HIV infection. Nowadays I know a lot of people who have been living with it for decades, and living relatively healthy, fulfilled lives. I'd call that significant progress.
In the past year alone I can think of one integrase inhibitor and one T-cell antisense RNA treatment that have gone through trials. The T-cell therapy holds the potential for a vaccine - which would not be a cure but would be a huge, huge step towards eradicating the disease.
>Drug pushers who push unproven drugs through the system in
> pursuit of the all mighty dollar.
And when companies hold a drug up in testing for years because of questionable test results, they become "greedy companies who would rather watch people die than let them use life-saving drugs."
>Generics should be made available at the sametime that the high
> dollar version is made available. After all, your tax dollars and
> donations paid for the research.
Uh - no. Most research is still paid for by companies. Innovation is still something that individuals and companies do much better than the government does.
If you want the government to fund all drug development, that's a different story. If that was the case, it would make sense to mandate low prices on the resulting drugs. But look for a lot fewer drugs being developed if that's the case.
>It should be seen as criminal to refuse to help those in need.
I thought if you tried to help them it was "drug pushers who push unproven drugs through the system in pursuit of the all mighty dollar."
Zipp0 1
Quote> Nowadays I know a lot of people who have been living with it for decades, and living relatively healthy, fulfilled lives. I'd call that significant progress.
Yes. For those lucky enough to have good health coverage, it is great. It's still not a cure.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
of COURSE - medicine is such an exact, completely predictable science with perfect procedures run by perfect machines and flawless participants
why didn't we all think of that before? It's so easy
plus, we'd have a constantly rotating supply of fresh inexperienced doctors with all the latest and greatest schooling as they come in, work about 6 months (MAX) and then move on to plumbing and shingling, perhaps politics or embroidery. Medical schools can make even more income by offereing 2ndary career training.
After which, the doctor can "lose everything"
this is a great idea,
If there are no doctors, then we'll completely eliminate all malpractice. you are a genius.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites