h a l f b a k e r yI never imagined it would be edible.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
When a doctor kills your or somehow limits your ability to work, compensation (before punitive damages) is typically calculated based on what your earning potential is.
Given this, it seems that healthcare, especially invasive life saving procedures, can be costed out in just the opposite way.
45,
making a million a year and the bypass is going to give you an extra 10 years? Seems like at least a fraction of those profits are made possible by the doctor.
55, waitressing in a local restaurant, barely getting by on 15K a year? You're not going to make more than another 150K, so how can your bypass cost 100K?
Pimp slapping.
http://seer.cancer....dhood/mortality.pdf
[bungston, Mar 10 2005]
[link]
|
| |
This would make pediatric oncology much more popular. |
|
| |
[bunsgton] sadly, only for full cures. Remember, we're talking about life expectancy here. |
|
| |
Most kids are cured. Science has pimp-slapped kiddy cancers in the past 20 years. |
|
| |
And furthermore, the life expectancy of a newborn has
astronomically increased with the advance of medicine.
Anyone who delivers a baby in a clean environment
should be rolling in it. Money, I mean. |
|
| |
[tc] - sounds like your waitress is just going to have to live
without her bypass. |
|
| |
"Give according to your ability, receive according to your need". Systematically applied, that, my friend, is simply Lenin's flavor of communism. I won't comment on the morals, but it's probably not what you're intending. |
|
| |
[Detly] -- this is not at all an argument for rationing. And I'm really addressing this to very expensive procedure, not routine medicine. |
|
| |
[sophocles] -- morals? are you suggesting charging different prices is immoral? |
|
| |
Not disputing that by the way -- just clarifying for now |
|
| |
[tc] - But if the waitress' operation is costed very low then
you've suddenly reduced the number of doctors who are
willing to perform it, because they're not going to get paid
as much. |
|
| |
[Detly] -- So how does a doctor risk operating on a rich patient today? |
|
| |
The idea that "when a doctor kills you or limits your
ability to work," the patient is always entitled to
compensation is not quite correct. It's only if the doctor
was negligent or failed to fully inform the patient of the
risk that compensation is available. |
|
| |
Oversimplification: a doctor than therefore curb the risk
by being good. However, if they can't charge you much for
a bypass, they don't get paid much, and that's a certainty.
Fewer doctors have incentive to operate. |
|
| |
I'm not so sure there would be few doctors willing to work on the waitress. The main reason for the expense these days is a doctor's insurance costs, which are set up to handle potential lawsuits. |
|
| |
The actual equippment for most surgeries cost about as much as high-end stainless steel screws, fishing line, and fancy knives. |
|
| |
In this scheme, there would have to be some significant changes to hospitals, in that doctors would largely work on individuals of a particular wealth. |
|
| |
The Whiz kid doctors would go in for the rich upper class, using the outrageous fees to easily cover insurance in the event that a patient was able to sue successfully. |
|
| |
The C- Med school students would go to the inner city, and hack away at waitresses and truck drivers for much less, and would likely use their actuarial tables to charge their patients just enough that they wouldn't be able to afford a lawyer if they were injured through medical malpractice. Doctors who maintain a clean track record, and keep their patients happy will rapidly find themselves getting the lion's share of patients, while hack and slash types with bad bedside manners would have to settle for work as police medical examiners. |
|
| |
Fair enough, I guess. You get what you pay for, but at least basic health care becomes affordable. |
|
| |
The only problem I see with it is what happens to the middle class. However, as the middle class is rapidly becoming extinct at the moment anyway... I present you with a pastry. |
|
| |
//the middle class is rapidly becoming extinct //
They should try for artificial insemination then...Oh no, wait. That would entitle the doctor to 100% of the child's earnings under these rules wouldn't it? |
|
| |
haha, artificial insemination should be most expensive, to be exceeded only by immortality treatments, given that promoting the genome of a given individual is typically his/her utmost desire |
|
| |