I am very cynical of current health care proposals being touted by politicians. I am not looking for anyone to agree with my reasons, but would hope people give my reasons consideration.
1) Government created the health care dilemma. Government has regulated to number and capacity of medical schools in our nation. Controlling the supply of any commodity or service drives costs up or down. Limiting the number of health care providers drives medical care costs up, which is a contributing factor to the rise in health insurance costs.
2) All current proposals put forth by politicians are built upon the health insurance industry. Here my cynicism flows freely because health insurance does not practice medicine, but does donate heavily to political campaigns.
3) Putting money in a pot never seems to bring the best result, but does induce greed, especially when government is holding the pot.
4) Both political parties place their self interests ahead of the best interests of the nation.
I remember doctor visits when cash still reigned supreme, not insurance. The visits cost $10.00. Insurance companies are not in the business of providing free service. They are very wealthy and have made of themselves a medical parasite with broad political support. So too have medical associations that have gotten government to choke the number of medical providers our nation can train.
I dare say the only real core solution to the health care crisis is removing government prohibitions on increasing the number of medical providers in our nation. The USA has one of the worst doctor to population ratios among industrial nations in the world. This, not the cost of health insurance, is our biggest health problem.
Other contributing factors such as people making use of hospital emergency rooms for care that should be provided by primary care physicians must remove government mandates from this process and allow hospital emergency rooms to treat absolute emergencies and demand a doctor referral for all others.
Also, fix the medical liability nightmare, that once again benefits an insurance industry, and by way of campaign contributions, the politicians.
Reduce the core problems that are driving up medical costs and even basic health insurance will one day be obsolete. The only health insurance people may elect to have at that time would be catastrophic health care insurance, which is very affordable … at the moment.
Let's see if we can move your proposals forward for further study and adoption.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Your ideas seem to ring true. I have also always believed that we have systemic obstacles that prevent access to competent health care for so many. Medical school limits is one good example for the high cost. When the suppy of teachers ran low, governmental efforts were ramped up to increase the supply. Why not for doctors? Our system is designed to provide more incentives for the creation of lawyers. As if we need more there.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
I can agree with your conclusions on the role of insurance companies, but your comment about the government limiting the number of medical practioner to a shortfall is simple not correct. The world at large is short on medical practitioners as much because we have our and thiers as anything else. We have shortfalls in rural areas and impoverished areas only because medical practioners are free to seek the most favorable compensation in our economy. Without immigrant medical partitioner we would have a general shortfall in general and family practice only because specialy practices make more money and attract more practitioners.
Your item 3 is not ALWAYS true either, but one ill concieved pot of money does cloud the ones that are effective where all else has failed. What about rural electification, the interstate highway system, the national defence education act (student loans), the space program, FHA, etc.?
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Bill, lets try this. Since there is such a shortfall of medical practitioners, why hasn't a concerted effort been made to change this situation? Time to expand. There is no shortage of qualified applicants to medical school that have been rejected because of a lack of room. Where are the incentives, be they government or otherwise?
If one goal of UHC is to keep costs down, we will obviously need a lot more medical practitioners (figure around 40 million more people making doctor appointments). This is doubly true if preventive medicine is used to contain costs.
Phil
Do you suppose the rejected applicants are becoming lawyers?
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
There is no general shortfall in the US, just in the rest of the world. Flooding the market with medical providers does not work....look at dentist and vets whose professions are largely drive to price control, marketing gimmicks, and fear mongering mostly because there are so many of them for the number of customers available (even they are getting in on the insurance scam to protect thier prices now).
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
We have shortfalls in rural areas and impoverished areas only because medical practioners are free to seek the most favorable compensation in our economy. Without immigrant medical partitioner we would have a general shortfall in general and family practice only because specialy practices make more money and attract more practitioners.
If the market can support the additional specializing, it is not additional. That tells me there is a shortfall. Not counting the shortfall in rural and impoverished areas.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Immigrant medical practitioners fill any gags in the US specialist demands but they still won't go to rural and impoverished area IMO. I have seen reports that some rural areas are looking 'offshore' to contract for these services.
The topic here suggests that the government is obstucting the general suppy of medical practitioner, a position that can not be supported factually as a general proposition. This country has an abundance of medical resources but a big deficit in access and finance. Insurance companies are a huge instigator in that problem and a valid point on the topic.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Bill, at the risk of seeming to split hairs, I think there is an issue here that needs to be explored. At first, your suggestion seemed to indicate that there is not a shortage of general practitioners because immigrant doctors filled the roles as American practitioners gravitated to the more lucrative specialist areas. Your second response seems to suggest that specialist doctor roles are also filled with immigrant doctors in those fields. Based on those two observations and the fact that we can expect an influx of patients that previously did not seek access, wouldn't that indicate a shortfall?
I think the fact that we need to fill doctor roles with immigrant doctors in the first place points to a basic shortfall. If the basic supply of doctors can not meet basic demand without an outside influx of doctors, it is beside the point whether those shortfalls are deliberate.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
What vet do you go to that is cheap? They visit for my dog cost more then a visit to my doctor. And there is a shortage of doctors in some areas. Doctors also charge different prices depending on where they practice.
Betty
Betty327@ptd.net
A vet that just does what you need and doesn't rob you for shots is as good as it gets....there aren't many left that will practice that way. Most vets today do test when they already know the treatment and you pay for both plus an exam plus and plus and plus. But there are vets and dentist around that just do the jobs and give you just what you need. They are just hard to find.
Let's not go to far off topic tough.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Agreed. Back on topic. The shortage of doctors arise because doctors are tried of navigating the insurance system and retire early. Most go into specialties because they can charge more and therefore make more money. This causes a shortage of PCP and many are centered around large populations. There is no shortage of doctors in impoverished city areas, just a shortage of doctors who will take their insurance.
I live in a rural/suburban area and there is a shortage of doctors in this area in general, those that accept Medicaid are even more limited. Many of the doctors has retired because they cannot continue to navigate the insurance system and still make a profit. However, we have tons of testing sites in the area, take your pick. There is literally no wait time and no appointment is needed. If the free market system worked the way many believe it works then the test you receive from this many sites would be dirt cheap, however, they are not, they charge the same price as every other area and in some cases charge more, which allows them to recoup their output for expensive equipment. They order more test then necessary in some cases. Point in case, I went for a CT scan a few months ago, the CT scan was done at the hospital but the pre-test was done off site, they sent me for blood work and a chest x-ray which I had just had done 6 months before. They would not do the test without these repeated test. That's not to mention that the ct scan is a more advanced form of an x-ray so why was an x-ray necessary at all. When I asked, the only answer I got was that it is routine.
My point is that equipment is being underused which drives up the cost in the case of health care, not down as it should in the free market. Doctors also have private interest in these sites so they will order more test.
The problem with medication is monopoly. If we would pass a law that allowed us to re-import drugs you would see drug prices go down in this country almost immediately.
This situation proves that the free market only works the way some want it to work and not the way a true free market works. If we practiced a true free market in the country we would not be giving a edge to the largest payers through special tax breaks, special exemptions in the law, etc.
Those we are defending the free market concept must know that in America, we do not practice the true free market concept. For the consumer, it's hit or miss on whether a free market is a good thing of bad thing. This is a long winded way of saying that our free market system is a controlled system and not free at all.
Betty
Betty327@ptd.net
chuckplante While I agree with most of your assesment I don't believe it is confined to insurance companies and government.
There is a movement to place small clinics in drug stores such as walgreen and in mall and large competitors such as walmart. The medical associations are trying to get regulations through government to restrict these clinics because patients are not going to mainstream doctors and going to PAs and nurse practioners. These clinics may charge as little as $10 for a visit for a minor ailment. Health Insurance Cos are also providing coverage for these clinics to save money. They (Doctors Associations) are attempting to regulate these clinics out of business to maintain a monopoly on health care. These alternative medical practioners also need limited schooling if a patient will be referred to a mainstream doctor or hospital if needed. I believe by expanding these clinics we could reduce most of the medical costs and only use hospitals and medical doctors for catastrophic illness.
One simple thing would change the whole landscape of healthcare--- change tax code so business could not write off health benefits. Add costs to employees income and give a tax credit or deduction for all medical costs.
And I am not going down that discriminator road with you. All med. practitioner go for the money.
Med Schools qualify thier attendees and my guess is they take the best qualified whereever they find them.
"Seems" like a good thing.
oops, on the reply button.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Aren't we already on that discriminator road if the claim is that there is no shortfall? I am not gonna beat this already dead horse with a stick anymore. I suspect the issue will come up at a more appropriate time.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
As a disabled veteran I am in receipt of VA health care benefits. I won't bore you with all the details but I will say I receive decent care. To be sure it was not always that way but the system works if you let it.
We all seem to have an opinion about universal care But fear using it for one reason or another.
I decided many years ago that the VA health care system with its all its flaws was better then I could receive as a Medicare recipient or private pay. I am happy to say for the most part the veterans Health Care delivery system works very well most of the time, at least for me.
If we would fund a health care delivery system as easily as funding our presidents folly in Iraq we could have a pretty good delivery system. I could be wrong.
Kucinich isn't for Health insurance, he's for health care:
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-healthy-nation/
I believe health insurance is part of the problem. Being for profit, they have every incentive to deny, or at least delay, payment for claims. The actual health provider (doctor, hospital, etc.) has to raise rates knowing that insurance will not pay an increasing number of claims.
I believe that there should be UHC - but with a co-pay. No need to make it totally free - with a co-pay, there is reason not to go to a doctor or hospital for trivial things because you'd have to pay into it - when it's totally free, there's always those who would abuse it.
I believe it is immoral for this country to allow people to suffer merely because of their economic situation.
I believe it is immoral for the major reason for personal bankruptcies to be medical costs.
Even India has free vaccinations.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Children can get free vaccinations at health clinics, I know, I've been there.
I believe it is immoral for the government to confiscate my hard earned money to pay for someone elses treatment. No matter how badley I feel for that person, my family needs things too, and that is where I wish to spend my money.
All candidates should be promising to go through government and eliminate the massive beuracratic waste, and then they could consider offering additional, affordabe (due to the saving from cleaning up the current mess) entitelments.
IMO!
You are definitely right about item #2. We have distanced ourselves from health care providers by introducing a middle man into the equation whose goal is to make money. We need to eliminate the middle man so we can negotiate directly with the health care provider.
The attractive idea behind health care reform is to improve quality and reduce costs. Too many plans keep popping up that tell us how much it will cost to improve our system. These plans keep insurance companies right in the middle of the system. It is far more preferrable to find a solution that does include tax increases to fund, See this thread. The best way to achieve that result is to eliminate the middle man whose goal is to make money.
Phil
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://unity-usa.org
Unfortunately anyone who tries to do away with the insurance companies are doom to fail. There are too many who believe that the free market it the only system that will work, even in health care.
Betty
Betty327@ptd.net
If you would like to do away with health insurance, be my guest. The level of care will decline. There will be few organ transplants, Kidney dialysis will be rare, comotose patients will be unplugged, bypass surgery, if available, will generally be too late, etc.
The free market is not the only system that will work, but it is the system that will work the best. Government interference is the major culprit in the current situation.
The current monopoly in health care, created by the AMA and the FDA is the second culprit. You can have your children taken away, or be thrown in jail for not abiding by the recommendations of either, or both.
Socialism is a creation of man. The free market is the creation of nature, god, or whatever superior force/being you prefer, if any. Since government has largely been less than proficient at whatever it engages in (except war, it is very good at murder and mayhem), why should we entrust our health to it?
Health care is a Ponzi scheme which has finally caught up. We have been getting extraordinary health care for many years, and the cost effect has been delayed by health insurance. Now that the piper must be payed, we expect the same level of care for the same money. There is simply a higher level of health care available than we are willing, or in some cases able, to pay for.
Insurance companies are preventing the free market by imposing themselve between the consumer and the provider. They have now lobbied their way into the governments pocket and with Hillary's plan will take over the whole healthcare market with profit to them guaranteed by the legislation they have bought threw campaign contribution.
Unity 08 can not object to lobbyist buying our governement on one hand and subscribe to it's most obvious sellout setting right in front of us.
We will need a nonprofit single payer banking operation to mitigate both issues on sound principles. See other healthcare post for details on that.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
So, stealing money (taxes) is a lesser sin than selling a product for profit.
Insurance is a competitive industry. The gov't, both state and fed do unfairly protect the industry, but if an insurance company can undercut a competitor's price, they will. The reason for the high profits in health insurance, is that they have a huge customer base. The net percentage of gross is not out of line. Much like the oil companies, who make less on a gallon of gas than the state and fed gov't collect in taxes on it (on average).
Not so with medical services, also protected by state and fed gov't. There is very little competition involved. In fact, it is the collective bargaining that insurance companies pursue on behalf of themselves and their clients (PPO), that have kept medical care pricing as low as it is.
I agree that the seperation of customer from provider is a major problem, since it reduces competition, and confers no responsibility on the customer. This problem is largely created by the "free health care" provided by employers. The reason health care has become such a hot topic, is that due to this interuption of free market forces, health care costs have risen, forcing higher insurance premiums, which employers are no longer willing to pay at 100%.
I am currently employed by a large company that self-insures, and THEY don't participate at 100%. I hardly see how this is a result of excessive insurance profits.
Leaving all that aside, Hillary's latest foray into providing for our general welfare does nothing to reduce costs, but instead protects the medical service industry, pharmas and, to some degree, the insurance companies. On top of all that, she wishes to FORCE us all to buy health insurance, if we want a job, denying my right to my pursuit of happiness. If I choose not to buy health insurance, get ill, choose not seek medical treatment, and die, who's business is that but mine?
I have no idea what God you worship but my God would not consider money or free markets an all empowering cause. Man made the free markets, not God.
Betty
Betty327@ptd.net
Free markets require no man made law. Socialism does. Free markets leave the results in God's hands, not some bureaucrats.
Which God you or I belive in is irrelevant, most all command "thou shalt not steal". Taxes are private property stolen at gunpoint.
I don’t know whether private insurance companies or our government would do a better job managing UHC since both these options have serious problems with inefficiency, bureaucracy and waste (as well as questionable practices and fraud). The only way to determine which way to go is by a head-to-head comparison of different plans having different degrees of government involvement. The comparisons must consider costs to the public and patients in terms of taxes, premiums, deductible, co-pays, and coverage for people in different locales, who are in different economic and age groups, and who have different types of health problems. This is a very complex issue and it cannot be solved with generalized discussions. So, one of our goals should be to create such a comparison grid, imo.
But even such an analysis, I contend, would fail to deal with the most important factor: The radical reduction of inefficiency, waste and fraud; errors and omissions; over-testing, under-testing, over-treatment, under-treatment; inappropriate care, problems with safety, quality and accessibility; inadequate wellness/preventive services; poor coordination of care; etc.
In other words, I assert that if all patients received the cost-effective (high value) sick-care and well-care services—delivered safely, efficiently and competently—people would stay healthy longer, recover more quickly from illness, utilize fewer expensive services devices and medications, and have a better quality of life. In addition, the system should give competitive advantage and financial reward to healthcare providers who get the best results for the best price. The resulting quality improvements and cost savings would be astronomical. I would vote for plans--be they single-payer/government-controlled, private-sector/free-market insurer based, or some other fiscal model)--that return the greatest savings to the consumer through lower out-of-pocket expense (including taxes and shared responsibility payments), while providing the broadest coverage and supporting policies/plans/procedures that promote continuous quality improvement.
Steve Beller, PhD
Wellness Wiki
Curing Healthcare Blog
Does some permutation of this make sense?
What are insurance companies but corporations with share-holders? Has the concept of co-ops ever been explored? Co-ops would just be groups of people throwing in together to start their own health care corporation. The only difference between current insurance companies and co-ops would be that the same people that are covered by the co-op insurance company would also be the stock holders. Such a co-op arrangement might be set up like this:
Such an arrangement would eliminate the middle man. The middle man would become the insured/shareholders.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
The original HMO setup by the Kaiser (?SP) Foundation was I think essentially a co-op underwritten by the foundation. It's success in proving the lower cost benefit of preventive care inspired the early HMOs.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Forming an insurance co-op for health insurance that cuts the middleman, and does all that Phil W says;
Non-profit (or profits are spent to make the co-op more efficient)
Responsible to shareholders
Responsible to the insured
Empowered to seek the best deal possible with health care providers
Such an arrangement would eliminate the middle man. The middle man would become the insured/shareholders.
(copied from Phil's post)
would certainly be "For The People and By The People", is probably and I have to think going to be, the only way that we the people will ever have decent and affordable health care.
Kudos to Phil W
Davey K. in Florida
Key challenges would remain, including defining co-op membership requirements and breadth of coverage, controlling administrative costs, demanding transparency in cost and quality, and supporting information sharing and research.
Steve Beller, PhD
Wellness Wiki
Curing Healthcare Blog
I think my main point is that one to one relationship between health care provider and patient is preserved. My assumption is that questions about extent of coverage and membership would be controlled by the members. As share holders these same people would want transparency in cost and quality. One drawback is of course that such co-ops may seek exclusive membership, i.e. healthy groups.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Common sense - the cure for stupid!
Right now I know people who have joined together as a group, I think there are 22 of them, they have bargained with an insurance co. just like an employer does and got a plan set up for themselves.
By getting together they are saving about 40%, if what they tell me is true, over buying individual insurance coverage.
I'm just a little bit curious as to why everybody thinks that just because you are alive you are entitled to anything? Seems to me that if you have needs you should find a way to take care of them yourself. JMO
I have my doubts about their claim, bluehat, and would be interested to know more of the details of that group.
Regarding your statement I'm just a little bit curious as to why everybody thinks that just because you are alive you are entitled to anything? Seems to me that if you have needs you should find a way to take care of them yourself -- let me say that this is a very complex issue. I discuss it in a series of posts on my blog at this link.
To me, it boils down to this: The only humane way to deny healthcare from someone in need if they (a) have the psychological health and maturity, knowledge, wisdom, and financial means to take good care of themselves; and (b) are able to avoid being influenced by our culture, which that promotes unhealthy living habits and poisons our environments; and (c) make a conscious, well-thought-out decision not to obtain health insurance they can afford because they want to rip-off the tax-payer to cover their medical bills so they would have more money to spend on unhealthy things. I have yet to meet such a person.
Nevertheless, I do agree that we should find innovative ways to obtain the healthcare we need.
Steve Beller, PhD
Bluehat's comment seems to forget the there are hugh buisness collusions designed to subvert individual choice which is essential to the personal responsibilty to care for one's self.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
One of the biggest missing pieces necessary for WISE individual choice is the lack of useful information about quality and cost. Another is the profit motive of food manufacturers who make big bucks convincing people to eat unhealthy food (not to mention tobacco and excessive alcohol use).
Anyway, I discuss the dilemma of the modern healthcare consumer at this link on my blog.
Steve Beller, PhD
Wellness Wiki
Curing Healthcare Blog
I believe there is a misconception as to availability and access to healthcare. In New Jersey Gov. Corzine is attempting to enroll children in Schip with family incomes of $72,275. He is defying federal regulations on the block grants that are received from the Fed. There are millions of families that simply choose not to spend their money on healthcare. When they get sick they pay out of pocket or stroll into a emergency ward to get free healthcare on the taxpayer. The plan is to give the freeloaders as well as the needy free medical treatment on my dime. My problem is not with the poor who cannot afford healthcare. It is with the people who can afford it but game the system. Healthcare needs to be removed from politicians bag of tricks and put back in consumer control. That is the only way to solve this problem. End the freebees, change tax laws.
I have an idea, give everyone a coupon book for healthcare. What you don't spend every year you get back as a bonus. The cost will drop and the consumer will make better choices. The ploy that people are not informed enough to make medical choices is a bogus excuse to "fleece the sheep" by politicians and special interests.
Here's a powerful post on the Health Affairs Blog about the uninsured and our dysfunctional health policy process, which takes a critical look at SCHIP and other important things.
Steve Beller, PhD
Wellness Wiki
Curing Healthcare Blog
For the people that try to scam the system, HR 676 is paid for by all wage earners. If you earn a salary, you pay into it. There's no way around it. The more you earn, the more you pay in. HR 676 allows everyone to be covered, rich or poor. Go to www.pnhp.org/nhibill/nhi_bill_final.pdf for the best explanation.
Every American should have medical coverage. HR 676 takes the insurance companies out of the loop. No more profits, no more lobbyists' payments for all the candidates. The only Democratic candidate that endorses this House of Representative Bill is Dennis Kucinich.
Incorrect! HR 676 main sponsor is Rep Conyers from Michigan and Kucinich is just one of 78 other people that have signed on to the bill. Your statement is incorrect -- See Link.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Keeping insurance companies involved in routine health care inflates the cost 20-30%. I grew up in the days of "major medical" insurance; we paid for routine care and insurance covered the unexpected. My car insurance doesn't get me oil changes, my homeowner's insurance won't pay for new siding and windows.
My first preference, however, is a single payer system. Set it up as a quasi-governmental department like the Post Office so the money isn't part of the general budget. Fund it with the money we won't be paying insurance companies. Require routine care - if you don't get an annual physical you get to pay more.
Second preference: Decouple health care from employment. From professional experience companies seek out the least expensive plan that they can still call "health insurance." Doing so pretty much locks people into whatever their employer is offering, which often is not very effective. Remove the employer's tax break on insurance premiums and let people choose their own options. Given the reimbursement rates for a routine physical a typical MD receives, an office visit paid in cash would give them more money, even if their "billing rate" was cut in half.
my two cents.
I have read most of the blogs above about everything from lack of doctors to people taking advantage of the system.The most serious problem is that americas health care is driven by large powerful insurance companys that want to make as much money as they can.The end result is after regulating doctors and hospitals and manipulating goverment through lobbyist for legislation which benefits them.There was no more strings to pull to raise profits and keep there share holders happy.So now they are raising there insurance costs to the consumer between 20% to 40% yearly and killing small american companys as well as the middle class.Lets look at the rest of the picture hospital expsences are out of control medicine is also out of control.It all goes back to government policy up to the highest bidder and a corrupt disfuntional government who let all areas of americas health care system get out of control for the last 40 years this is not new.Remove special intrests from washington regulate insurance and pharmacutical companys have government sponsored healthcare for the uninsured or uninsurable with federal and state dollars.Until these things are done we can talk and posture all we want there will not be real change.
There have been many good insights and ideas expresses by Unity08 members in this and other healthcare topics on the ShoutBox Forum. Please continue to share your thoughts since the U08 delegates are incorporating the input from our membership (as well as plans from the candidates and think tanks) as we build the healthcare plank our New American Agenda--a political platform focusing on strategies for making universal healthcare (UHC) a reality. We will be presenting a wide variety of strategy options, which include sensible "free market" forces (e.g., competing on value), government mandates (e.g., to reduce waste and fraud and improve quality), and the use of government monies to help struggling families and businesses stay afloat without increasing the burden on taxpayers. All U08 members will be able to debate and vote on the actual strategies the official Agenda will contain.
Steve Beller, PhD
Wellness Wiki
Curing Healthcare Blog
The major focus is paying for health care and not controlling costs.
1. Forbid drug companies from advertising prescription drugs.
2. Limit malpractice suits to cover cost of future medical/living expenses and real loss of wages.
3. Create competition for hospitals and doctors. e.g.: clinics, labs that don't require a physician visit for recurring tests like cholesterol, levels, liver panels, etc. Once a Doctor writes a script for a test that requires regular follow ups no Dr visits should be required for follow up testing unless the test shows a significant variance from acceptable limits.
Refills for Rx's for standard medications should not "require" a DR visit if the lab results show results that continue to be within norms.
4. Allow Nurse practicioners to open clinics to provide basic medical services with no malpractice insurance required. Waiver of right to sue should be required except for egregious conduct which will result in loss of license.
5. T%ake advantgage of the skills that Military Medics have and offer them a license to practice the same services that they provide while in the military.
These are just some areas to be explored to CREATE COMPETITION in the medical profession. A medical degree is not a license to have a monopoly.
Patients need choices.
Thanks, Lilienfeld
Steve Beller, PhD
Wellness Wiki
Curing Healthcare Blog