Author Topic: Coveny’s plan for health care  (Read 316 times)

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2017, 07:54:21 AM »
And not limiting lawsuits makes it so that people who don't have the financial power to defend them can't be in the medical profession, as well as making it so that anyone trying to help others can't for fear of getting suited. So instead of getting "subpar" medical help... they get no medical help at all and die.

I'm curious what your experience with the costs of malpractice are. It is my understanding that actual malpractice insurance premiums for a nurse in most states are less than what I pay for a similarly sized umbrella liability policy. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a $100 a year for a $6,000,000 policy.

Other's pay more. A GYN can pay $30,000 a year for a malpractice policy. Which is still in the scheme of things only a drop in the bucket of healthcare costs.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


Offline Coveny (OP)

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2017, 08:21:13 AM »
Which is why we need them. As individuals, it is difficult to take on a giant corporation or in cases of price fixing an entire industry.

Which is why regulations to fix class action lawsuits should focus on how the lawyers are compensated not on how much the victims get.

I also think lawyers get to much money, but I don't advocate fixing their pay in any way as that doesn't seem to work from my economic research. However, I think if you made the laws simpler the need for lawyers would disappear. Given that lawyers create laws that would be as radical change as the healthcare change I'm purposing to make it happen, and just as I don't see anyone adopting my medical system, I don't see anything about law reform passing either.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

Offline Baruch

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2017, 10:15:58 AM »
I also think lawyers get to much money, but I don't advocate fixing their pay in any way as that doesn't seem to work from my economic research. However, I think if you made the laws simpler the need for lawyers would disappear. Given that lawyers create laws that would be as radical change as the healthcare change I'm purposing to make it happen, and just as I don't see anyone adopting my medical system, I don't see anything about law reform passing either.

That is the point, with a big plate of spaghetti ... you don't know where the end of the pasta is, to start rolling it.  Yes, we can't have medical care reform, unless we have legal reform.  But it gets worse, we can't have legal reform, unless we abolish the US as an independent country, but resume being a crown colony of Her Majesty.
שלום

Offline Baruch

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2017, 10:18:16 AM »
Ah, we start to see what you are up to.  Attacking rational thought in the guise of bad jokes and non-sequiturs.  I keep asking why you do that and you never answer.

Rational?  People aren't from Vulcan.

All Greeks are assholes
Socrates is a Greek
Therefore Socrates is an asshole

That was perfectly rational ... disagree?  Rationality just keeps you from spilling logic all over your shirt when you gorge on argument.  It has nothing to do with Truth.  Truth/Falsehood was mis-defined deliberately by the logicians, to get them more jobs.
שלום

Offline Baruch

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2017, 10:22:58 AM »
Which is why we need them. As individuals, it is difficult to take on a giant corporation or in cases of price fixing an entire industry.

Which is why regulations to fix class action lawsuits should focus on how the lawyers are compensated not on how much the victims get.

That isn't the point.  Most doctors are in medicine to make big bucks, not to help common people.  They are part of the Elite.  So of course they resent anything that costs them money, like lawsuits, and malpractice insurance.  I would do the same if I were a doctor.  Where I work, in the military, we don't have to have malpractice insurance, because you would have to sue the government, not the individual ... and look how far that gets you.  We have perfect socialized medicine, such as it is quality wise, in the military ... legal consequences are taken care of thru the JAG, not tort law.  The answer is total war, full mobilization of the entire population for a cage match to see which small population survives.  In that case, you will all have full medical care as part of your draft notice.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2017, 05:26:06 AM »
Which is why we need them. As individuals, it is difficult to take on a giant corporation or in cases of price fixing an entire industry.

Which is why regulations to fix class action lawsuits should focus on how the lawyers are compensated not on how much the victims get.

Total agreement there...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2017, 10:17:21 PM »
I also think lawyers get to much money, but I don't advocate fixing their pay in any way as that doesn't seem to work from my economic research. However, I think if you made the laws simpler the need for lawyers would disappear. Given that lawyers create laws that would be as radical change as the healthcare change I'm purposing to make it happen, and just as I don't see anyone adopting my medical system, I don't see anything about law reform passing either.

So you agree that the lawyers are the problem, but don't want to fix that. You'd rather focus on fucking the victims.


Fuck...
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


Offline Coveny (OP)

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2017, 10:52:36 PM »
So you agree that the lawyers are the problem, but don't want to fix that. You'd rather focus on fucking the victims.

Fuck...

Well that escalated quickly. Hmm

Yes I agree they are the problem. Yes I do want to fix that, but it's not this topic. I'm trying to help the victims but you seem to be missing that part.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

Offline Baruch

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2017, 07:03:01 AM »
Well that escalated quickly. Hmm

Yes I agree they are the problem. Yes I do want to fix that, but it's not this topic. I'm trying to help the victims but you seem to be missing that part.

But ... but ... it is a plate of spaghetti.  Doing one thing over here, while doing nothing over there ... typical short sighted government program.  Just make it a law that the doctors can't be sued.  See ... dictatorship solves so many problems ... if you are the dictator.
שלום

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2017, 08:58:57 AM »
Well that escalated quickly. Hmm

Yes I agree they are the problem. Yes I do want to fix that, but it's not this topic. I'm trying to help the victims but you seem to be missing that part.

I'm not missing the part where you want to lower the cost of medical care. I just don't see where you have put much thought into your plan. It sounds more to me like you've been listening to Trumplethinskin's talking points. Putting arbitrary caps on malpractice awards is screwing victims of malpractice, and would not result in particularly big savings.

The actual costs of malpractice settlements are less than 0.5% of our medical costs. A bigger problem is defensive medical practices. Even then the cost of malpractice insurance, suits, and defensive medical practices combined account for less than 3% of our medical costs. In 2016 a 3% savings would have brought our per capita cast down from $10,345 to $10,034.65. That a whopping per person savings of $310.45. It's a start, but hardly saving our healthcare system.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


Offline Coveny (OP)

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2017, 09:57:14 AM »
I'm not missing the part where you want to lower the cost of medical care. I just don't see where you have put much thought into your plan. It sounds more to me like you've been listening to Trumplethinskin's talking points. Putting arbitrary caps on malpractice awards is screwing victims of malpractice, and would not result in particularly big savings.

The actual costs of malpractice settlements are less than 0.5% of our medical costs. A bigger problem is defensive medical practices. Even then the cost of malpractice insurance, suits, and defensive medical practices combined account for less than 3% of our medical costs. In 2016 a 3% savings would have brought our per capita cast down from $10,345 to $10,034.65. That a whopping per person savings of $310.45. It's a start, but hardly saving our healthcare system.

You are focusing on big hospital and the most expensive care that can be provided. I'm not looking to cap those lawsuits in the least. I'm looking to cap lawsuits to maw and paw medical professions who don't have the financial might that those huge companies have. I'm trying to break up the monopoly that the big healthcare providers have. Capping the lawsuits allows for more competition which in turn lowers the costs. The effect is one step removed from the cause in this case. I want to make it so that someone can get a two year degree and see patients out of his home as a small business if he wants. Something that is impossible today for several factors, one of those factors is lawsuits. If you make it so that entry level personnel are subject to million dollar lawsuits then the ONLY way they can function is to purchase insurance, and the overhead of insuring a minimally trained health care professional from multi-million dollar lawsuits defeats the purpose of a healthcare small business as it won't lower costs significantly.

I get the desire to have only the very best healthcare professionals, and I get that you want everyone seen by only the best. But this is a democracy and you can't force the top 10% of the population into indentured servitude. So you will have to deal with a range of quality of care in the healthcare system until we can mass produce robots that can preform as healthcare professionals. This is the reality of the situation.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2017, 10:40:31 AM »
What I hear you saying is you want to legalize the sale of snake oil and protect the snake oil salesman from full liability from any damages that might result.

Tell me something. What kind of home health care that can't legally be provided today do you propose these associate degree holding health care providers should be allowed to practice? Perscribe antibiotics? Neurosurgery? Where do you draw the line? Is there one?
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


Offline Coveny (OP)

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2017, 12:14:24 PM »
What I hear you saying is you want to legalize the sale of snake oil and protect the snake oil salesman from full liability from any damages that might result.

Tell me something. What kind of home health care that can't legally be provided today do you propose these associate degree holding health care providers should be allowed to practice? Perscribe antibiotics? Neurosurgery? Where do you draw the line? Is there one?

You hear that because you can't hear what I'm saying over your fears and fantasies.

I'm not proposing that associate degree holding health care providers be allowed to do anything that doctors now can't do. That's a strawman fallacy.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

Offline trdsf

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2017, 01:07:35 PM »
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-oe-1027-mazzucato-big-pharma-prices-20151027-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.
I want to discuss this area particularly.

The original intent of copyright and patent law was to provide a term where the creator could make a living off their own work without competition; however, in the interests of advancements that might be made based on them, the term was limited and eventually the work would be made public domain.

The fix in patent law is fairly simple -- end the commoditization of patents.  Specifically, if a patent is granted for something that was created using government money in the R&D phase, it may not be retained by the original inventor or their organization, but if they relinquish their rights, it reverts immediately to the public domain.  They may (and should) license the rights to use the patent if they are not in a position to produce and market it themselves, of course, but it may not be sold to a third party that was uninvolved in the invention.

Copyright is a whole 'nother problem.  Should I ever get published, and assuming I live an average lifespan for a member of my family, anything I write will not go into the public domain until 2130 or thereabouts.

Even I, as creator, think that's nonsense.  I can see 'life of the creator +10' so that my estate may continue exclusive rights briefly, so as to provide for descendents and beneficiaries.  Life+70, however, only benefits corporations.  There's a reason the Sonny Bono Copyright Act was nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act -- it really was intended to find a way to extend corporate protections of properties, not the protections granted actual creators.

Had my great-grandmother been a published writer, anything of hers would be covered up to 2052 -- by which time all her children, and most of her grandchildren, and many of her great-grandchildren will be dead.  I'm the oldest of the great-grands -- and I'll be 89 in 2052.

This is not how copyright was intended to work.

If I were to offer a fix, I'd say publication date+50 or life of creator+10, whichever comes later, no renewals.

One other point, specifically relevant to corporate marketing budgets: ban advertising of prescription drugs.  I am a brilliant man, but I know perfectly well that I am not competent to make my own pharmacological decisions.  If I need a 'little purple pill', I expect my doctor and his staff will know that it's an appropriate treatment for me.  I have no business going an asking about it.  That's the whole point of having semi-annual checkups: so my doctor knows if I have acid reflux or depression or erectile dysfunction.  And that's why I have a doctor, to consult someone who knows this stuff since I don't.
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I thought I committed regicide today, but I committed deicide!" -- Sadie Doyle, Beyond Belief

Offline Coveny (OP)

Re: Coveny’s plan for health care
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2017, 02:36:46 PM »
I want to discuss this area particularly.

The original intent of copyright and patent law was to provide a term where the creator could make a living off their own work without competition; however, in the interests of advancements that might be made based on them, the term was limited and eventually the work would be made public domain.

The fix in patent law is fairly simple -- end the commoditization of patents.  Specifically, if a patent is granted for something that was created using government money in the R&D phase, it may not be retained by the original inventor or their organization, but if they relinquish their rights, it reverts immediately to the public domain.  They may (and should) license the rights to use the patent if they are not in a position to produce and market it themselves, of course, but it may not be sold to a third party that was uninvolved in the invention.

Copyright is a whole 'nother problem.  Should I ever get published, and assuming I live an average lifespan for a member of my family, anything I write will not go into the public domain until 2130 or thereabouts.

Even I, as creator, think that's nonsense.  I can see 'life of the creator +10' so that my estate may continue exclusive rights briefly, so as to provide for descendents and beneficiaries.  Life+70, however, only benefits corporations.  There's a reason the Sonny Bono Copyright Act was nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act -- it really was intended to find a way to extend corporate protections of properties, not the protections granted actual creators.

Had my great-grandmother been a published writer, anything of hers would be covered up to 2052 -- by which time all her children, and most of her grandchildren, and many of her great-grandchildren will be dead.  I'm the oldest of the great-grands -- and I'll be 89 in 2052.

This is not how copyright was intended to work.

If I were to offer a fix, I'd say publication date+50 or life of creator+10, whichever comes later, no renewals.

One other point, specifically relevant to corporate marketing budgets: ban advertising of prescription drugs.  I am a brilliant man, but I know perfectly well that I am not competent to make my own pharmacological decisions.  If I need a 'little purple pill', I expect my doctor and his staff will know that it's an appropriate treatment for me.  I have no business going an asking about it.  That's the whole point of having semi-annual checkups: so my doctor knows if I have acid reflux or depression or erectile dysfunction.  And that's why I have a doctor, to consult someone who knows this stuff since I don't.

Good points, and I'm not against those methods to lower patient and copyright laws. I would only add that as you mentioned with copyright laws they need to prevent patents from being extended.

I have some issues about making profits off government funded research as well, and think there should be clauses that require repayment of the research grants if the drug is marketed and sold, but I understand that would be daunting, so it needs to hook into some percentage of the sales of the drug goes toward paying the research grant back. I'm just not sure on how the details would be setup on something like that, or what the numbers should look like.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating