The People's Healthcare - Tending To Our Tribe.

[Milk and Holy Water]

I am wondering how the vast majority of people would respond if there were non-APA psychotherapists offering much more affordable psychodynamic therapy out of their livingrooms?

Now, let me explain what exactly this entails:

Person A is someone who has studied psychology extensively on her own, though has never been given a degree.

Person B doesn't have mental healthcare coverage, and so can not afford the outrageous rates that most psychologists charge for psychotherapy. Person B trusts person A, and has heard from others via word of mouth that she is qualified and well-learned, and very helpful.

Do you believe it is wrong if Person A charges Person B a reasonable rate for psychotherapy that Person B has been told by her friends is of good quality, regardless of the scholastic credentials of Person A?

Now consider this same scenario with a dentist, or a doctor, or even a surgeon?

Do you think it should be illegal for private citizens to offer services outside of the mainstream, and dangerously overpriced healthcare industry?

Why?

Why not?

Is it not our duty to tend to our tribe?  

[Thaliat Everwood]

I'm going to keep my response on this short and sweet.

There is not freakin' way in hell I would EVER see a medical specialist of any type who did not have an accredited degree in their specialty. I value my life too much to be taking that kind of irresponsible risk with my health care.

I don't care what others choose for themselves. Some people like seeing holistic healers or self taught friends. It isn't my place to force them to see specialists with certified training. But for my own health I want people I can trust. I will not trust my health to someone with out proper certification.

I do not think any one who is not properly certified should be handing out prescriptions. It is dangerous to mess around with medications if you do not have the proper background in it. One could accidentally kill someone that way.

There are clinics with discounted or even free services, with properly certified specialists available in most communities. There are options, just contact your local town/city hall to get the information.

I see no need to take risks with my own health.

Some people may feel they need to "tend to the tribe", and that is fine. I don't share that view, I'm more a survival of the fittest type. It is how I've had to live my life and it suits me fine. I don't expect others to tend to me, I tend to myself.  

[Milk and Holy Water]

What is the real world difference between a person who has extensive study and even extensive hands-on experience, and a person who is of the same level of knowledge and practice but possesses a slip of paper saying that they could afford to pay an outrageous amount of money for certification?

A certification does nothing to increase a doctor's abilities. A certificate does not make a doctor more intelligent or more capable. It is entirely conceptual. It is of no value whatsoever.

My intention in this thread was to begin a dialogue about whether laws should impede an underground trade in healthcare that may be vital for survival in lower-income areas. In the mainstream healthcare field, doctors pay so much in malpractice insurance that patients become the enemy, and commissions from pharmaceutical companies for peddling their drugs. Insurance companies drive up the cost of healthcare artificially, by providing a "price buffer" between what the consumers can afford and what the doctors are charging, leaving everyone without coverage in a ridiculously unbalanced price range. Legislators take payouts from lobbyist to rewrite laws to make them more money.

I'm not proposing that anyone with the means to get care from certified practitioners be forced to accept care from someone who they do not feel comfortable with. I am only proposing that laws be made to help the poor take care of themselves and take care of each other.  

[Thaliat Everwood]

I'm just saying, I have more faith in some one who has the drive to complete a certified and standardized recognized and accepted course of medical study. If other people want to seek health care from some one with out a degree, let them. I suppose it would help solve some of the population problem, or at least drive money back into the economy through malpractice suits.

These laws exist so patients are protected from those without proper understanding of health care who might otherwise (potentially) cause patients more harm than good. If people could be trusted to educate themselves fully, there would be no need to regulate health care in this way. But people cannot be trusted to not take short cuts (among other things). An underground health care trade is risky and may wind up costing more due to mistakes and lacking of quality in care. Also, how would an underground health care trade afford the needed diagnostic technology for proper screenings/early detections for cancer, diabetes, and other health concerns? What pharmacy would dispense medications from prescriptions written from the underground? Would there be an underground pharmacy? Where would they get their medications from? No pharmaceutical company would willingly supply an underground system.Such medications would have to be stolen to be dispensed from an underground network. There is already a black market drug system for controlled medications like oxycodone and percocet. I'd not want to see more crime linked to medications and illegal distribution practices.

I realize that health care is expensive. The cost should be regulated to be more affordable to all, so that patients can see qualified professional specialists. But an underground system is not the answer...to me, it is more like the precursor to a post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would not like the think too long on how a crime wave based on medication could eventually lead to social downfall, but with my imagination I can see how it would come to pass...at least living in a post apocalyptic world would let me carry my sword on a daily basis. That would be cool. Hm, that could be fun, but then again I am the kind of person who would do well in such an environment. I've already managed to frighten drug dealers....but most people could not handle such a life and would prefer not to have a social collapse due to prescription drugs (or anything else).

On the plus side, I now have a new book idea...  

[Milk and Holy Water]

Thaliat Everwood

I'm just saying, I have more faith in some one who has the drive to complete a certified and standardized recognized and accepted course of medical study. If other people want to seek health care from some one with out a degree, let them. I suppose it would help solve some of the population problem, or at least drive money back into the economy through malpractice suits.

These laws exist so patients are protected from those without proper understanding of health care who might otherwise (potentially) cause patients more harm than good. If people could be trusted to educate themselves fully, there would be no need to regulate health care in this way. But people cannot be trusted to not take short cuts (among other things). An underground health care trade is risky and may wind up costing more due to mistakes and lacking of quality in care. Also, how would an underground health care trade afford the needed diagnostic technology for proper screenings/early detections for cancer, diabetes, and other health concerns? What pharmacy would dispense medications from prescriptions written from the underground? Would there be an underground pharmacy? Where would they get their medications from? No pharmaceutical company would willingly supply an underground system.Such medications would have to be stolen to be dispensed from an underground network. There is already a black market drug system for controlled medications like oxycodone and percocet. I'd not want to see more crime linked to medications and illegal distribution practices.

I realize that health care is expensive. The cost should be regulated to be more affordable to all, so that patients can see qualified professional specialists. But an underground system is not the answer...to me, it is more like the precursor to a post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would not like the think too long on how a crime wave based on medication could eventually lead to social downfall, but with my imagination I can see how it would come to pass...at least living in a post apocalyptic world would let me carry my sword on a daily basis. That would be cool. Hm, that could be fun, but then again I am the kind of person who would do well in such an environment. I've already managed to frighten drug dealers....but most people could not handle such a life and would prefer not to have a social collapse due to prescription drugs (or anything else).

On the plus side, I now have a new book idea...

First of all, there would be no crime committed in the name of medicine if people were allowed to medicate themselves as they see fit. When there is no black market, the price of all would fall. Criminals loose the monopoly on distribution.

You are so quick to assume that a person who hasn't been given the "authoritative seal" is automatically incompetent.

For someone who says that people can not be trusted, you sure put a lot of trust in the people who drew up the little templates you're stuck on. I believe that people will educate themselves. The internet is a powerful tool, and not everyone charges for teaching, but only those who work within the oligarchal university system can receive accreditation.

A doctor who commits malpractice or who is known as a shitty doctor will not survive in the model that I have proposed. People would rely on local, trusted physicians for healthcare, and a doctor with a bad reputation would have very few patients.

Also, were restriction lifted, pharmaceutical companies would be more than willing to sell to whoever is willing to pay (though with the restrictions in place, they make more money by artificially inflating prices via the health insurance scam).

The right to medicate yourself and provide your own health care should be a basic human right.

Who can know what is better for you than you? If it would make you feel better to think of this in a 'survival of the fittest' sense, then consider this:

People who are who do not study and scrutinize what they put in their bodies will probably die vanish rather quickly, as people with no understanding of pharmaceuticals who attempt to act on shitty information or some kind of culture-fueled obsession with anti-depressants and pain killers will ruin themselves. On the other hand, useful material for expanding consciousness, along with basic necessities such as antibiotics (currently restricted, and very expensive when you're floating below the poverty line), would be available to anyone who believe they need them.

People will educate themselves if they have access.

If you really do believe in a survival of the fittest mentality, as you profess, why would you assume something that gives an individual the knowledge and tools necessary to take care of themselves and their families would be a negative thing? It would increase the survivability of the species overall.

Do you have any actual tangible proof that a person given a diploma from an institution is more capable than someone who is self-taught? Diploma itself means nothing, it is nothing. It is a symbol, degree of separation to keep you from taking on the role of Doctor for yourself.

You seem take authority for granted so easily, and it would seem counter-intuitive from a survival standpoint. If you have never been a medical student, and have no knowledge on the subject, how do you know that the medicines that you are prescribed are right for you? How do you know the medicines that he prescribes work the WAY he says they work? To just authority based entirely on an accreditation by a third party is a terrible survival strategy.

I simply propose that individuals and communities be granted the freedom to pursue health care as the see fit (nothing else, no money, no equipment, anything can be built of almost anything, if there is ingenuity). In a post-apocalyptic world, you'll be hard-pressed to find a surgeon with an ivy-league education. I'm merely saying laws should not prevent us from preparing from the worst and laws should not prevent us from taking care of ourselves and each other.  

[Thaliat Everwood]

First of all, there would be no crime committed in the name of medicine if people were allowed to medicate themselves as they see fit. When there is no black market, the price of all would fall. Criminals loose the monopoly on distribution.

Say what?!?! You have apparently not seen many people whacked out on oxycodone. Such addictive medications should NEVER be self prescribed. EVER. The weaning process needs to be carefully monitored for just that reason. If self prescribed, one is highly unlikely to wean themselves of such medications because such medications can be more addictive than caffeine and nicotine. And it requires more and more of the medication to satisfy the craving. Eventually one reaches a point were they cannot get enough of the medication and the resort to *gasp* crime *gasp* to get what they crave. It starts with theft, and can build to murder. Criminals don't need a monopoly, and addiction will do just fine.

You are so quick to assume that a person who hasn't been given the "authoritative seal" is automatically incompetent.

Because a vast majority of them really are. I know that not all noncertified practitioners would be incompetent, but the majority would be. People take short cuts and use elaborate vocabularies to pass themselves off as knowledgeable. Politicians generally prove this point. I also have encountered a good number of "therapists" that are just as bad.

For someone who says that people can not be trusted, you sure put a lot of trust in the people who drew up the little templates you're stuck on. I believe that people will educate themselves. The internet is a powerful tool, and not everyone charges for teaching, but only those who work within the oligarchal university system can receive accreditation.

First off, I research all my health care providers. I do nothing on blind faith. Did you know you can get criminal background checks on your doctors? I've done it. I take very few risks when it comes to my health. Second, the Internet is also full of many bogus claims and many people are easily fooled by authentic looking websites. How can you be certain an Internet education is sufficient or even accurate? I think it would be a much larger health care risk to trust my care to a solely Internet educated practitioner. Not being able to track down a syllabus for verification of learning materials would be unnerving to be at best. If I don't know where a doctor's education comes from, I will not allow myself to fall under their care.

Sure, some people will properly educate themselves, but not everyone...in fact not most people. Humans generally look for the easiest solution. That is risky.

A doctor who commits malpractice or who is known as a shitty doctor will not survive in the model that I have proposed. People would rely on local, trusted physicians for healthcare, and a doctor with a bad reputation would have very few patients.

Yes, and there are many, many ways for practitioners to cover one's a** under your plan, especially as there would not be a regulatory system in place to be followed to insure quality care. And a lot less security legally as well since the courts can and will claim that by seeing an underground health care provider, individuals assume the personal liability, and that since such underground practitioners are not backed by an institution and clearly would NOT be covered by an insurance company (way too much risk) they would not have the financial backing to pay restitution fees. Thirdly, it isn't that hard for an underground practitioner to change there name and relocate to practice elsewhere.

Also, were restriction lifted, pharmaceutical companies would be more than willing to sell to whoever is willing to pay (though with the restrictions in place, they make more money by artificially inflating prices via the health insurance scam).

Pharmaceutical companies live for money, they are going to stay with certified practices who can pay more, because the people who would go to them (under your system ideology) can afford to pay more for medications. And prices would go even higher if restrictions were lifted. So your underground practitioners would have to resort to stealing to obtain certain medications. And this is without getting into the lack of insurance coverage for medications if there were no restrictions as the type of people who would be most likely to see an underground practitioner would opt to not have medical insurance (or be denied coverage). Are you familiar with the insurance Tiers for prescriptions? There are three and the further along the medication is on the Tier the more the medication costs. Costs are bad enough now, your system would only perpetuate the situation.

The right to medicate yourself and provide your own health care should be a basic human right.

There are a lot of drug addicts that would agree with you. That is enough to make me disagree with your statement. The right to good health care should be a basic right. I just don't think your system would ensure good health care, just cheap health care.

Who can know what is better for you than you? If it would make you feel better to think of this in a 'survival of the fittest' sense, then consider this:

People who are who do not study and scrutinize what they put in their bodies will probably die vanish rather quickly, as people with no understanding of pharmaceuticals who attempt to act on shitty information or some kind of culture-fueled obsession with anti-depressants and pain killers will ruin themselves. On the other hand, useful material for expanding consciousness, along with basic necessities such as antibiotics (currently restricted, and very expensive when you're floating below the poverty line), would be available to anyone who believe they need them.

LOL. Well, at least you said probably. You don't factor much for luck and intervention in there, but you are somewhat right...only since you used the word probably. As for availability, and those who believe they need certain medications, the medicine might possibly be more freely available through a black market system in your underground, though I am hard pressed to believed it would be cheaper. Especially with what would be required to obtain a steady supply of the appropriate medications. Also, even with extensive research, it is still easy to misdiagnose many medical conditions that could be both mundane and life threatening. Do you realize how many everyday well educated people misdiagnose their own heart attacks as indigestion?

People will educate themselves if they have access.

You assume a lot there. Some people will, but most will not if they think they can find someone else to do it for them.

If you really do believe in a survival of the fittest mentality, as you profess, why would you assume something that gives an individual the knowledge and tools necessary to take care of themselves and their families would be a negative thing? It would increase the survivability of the species overall.

Key word there: INDIVIDUAL. Many people in the world, even in this nation, are illiterate or only possess a low level of education. Such people will not be able to help themselves in this particular field. They would still need to rely on others for their health care. If they are poor, they could use the underground. But most underground practitioners will also be less financially well off. The level of care they could offer would be limited by their finances. Certified clinicians would still earn more money and still be able to provide better care. If a practitioner had a choice, most would want to be certified because of the better opportunities afforded to them. Sure, there would be some who opt to be philanthropists and help the underground. But not many. The underground would not take care of the species overall as you claim. Some might get lucky and get a good clinician in an underground system, but most would just receive sub par care...care which could actually be more harmful to the people who are poor, undereducated, and illiterate. But the richer populations who would still (mostly) choose to stay with certified practitioners would still be better off. They would be more likely to survive.

Do you have any actual tangible proof that a person given a diploma from an institution is more capable than someone who is self-taught? Diploma itself means nothing, it is nothing. It is a symbol, degree of separation to keep you from taking on the role of Doctor for yourself.

I would not want the stress of being a doctor. People come to me for medical advice all the time (out side of work) and I will offer advice if pressed, but always with the caveat that they be certain to see their doctor because I am not a physician. The symbol of a diploma means the completion of a course of rigorous study in a particular field of health care specialization. It does mean something. It signifies that you took the time to study the important information pertaining to your area of specialty. It is tangible proof that you know what you are talking about in that field. Tangible proof that a doctor with a diploma is more capable than one who is self taught: My doctor diagnosed my asthma and got be breathing better, my mother just claimed my wheezing was from being out of shape. Simple, yes, but still a good example. Both individuals are smart and well educated. My mother is even asthmatic herself. She just didn't recognize it in me because I wasn't exhibiting as a "text book" case.

You seem take authority for granted so easily, and it would seem counter-intuitive from a survival standpoint. If you have never been a medical student, and have no knowledge on the subject, how do you know that the medicines that you are prescribed are right for you? How do you know the medicines that he prescribes work the WAY he says they work? To just authority based entirely on an accreditation by a third party is a terrible survival strategy.

I work in health care and get a hands on education from the doctors and nurses I work with, even though I am not enrolled in medical school. I take vital signs and see patients daily, but I do not treat them (aside from ear irrigations) Again, I take nothing based on blind faith. I do not take authority for granted, in fact I generally rebel against mindless authority figures. I know how things work because I research it. Heavily. It still doesn't qualify me to care for patients. It just means that I am better informed than most.

I simply propose that individuals and communities be granted the freedom to pursue health care as the see fit (nothing else, no money, no equipment, anything can be built of almost anything, if there is ingenuity). In a post-apocalyptic world, you'll be hard-pressed to find a surgeon with an ivy-league education. I'm merely saying laws should not prevent us from preparing from the worst and laws should not prevent us from taking care of ourselves and each other.

I understand your concern, though it is not one I share, mostly because of how it seems your concern really only focuses on seeing cheap doctors and getting cheap medicine. Cheap care does not constitute quality care (those expensive care is not always quality either), and I'd rather have quality care with proven technology. It is nice that you are so concerned about others' health, but I think this particular ideology you presented will not work to achieve the results you'd want.  

[Milk and Holy Water]

I may have focused to much on lowers costs, which is less about being frugal and more about survival for some people. My chief concern with regards to this rough outline I've been pounding out here is freedom and the right to competition in a truly free market. What we have is that insurance companies severely distort the cost of healthcare. While this provides both doctors and insurance companies with a higher standard of living, it cuts of enormous groups of people from access.

A key factor in my model would be the elimination of the US drug schedule, which as I will explain in a moment, drives up the prices of both legal prescription drugs, and illegal (however beneficial, or at least harmless specific illegal drugs may be).

It seems to me that what a lot of these differences come down to are based in our sharply contrasting assumptions about human nature in general. I'm not sure that any more can be really brought out here. As I had said before, this is just a vague thought, nothing really solid. Though there are some last things I'd like to touch on in reference to the nature of prohibition, and the role it plays in the success or failure of a grass-roots tribe-centric healthcare alternative.

Alcohol prohibition made it very clear that making a drug illegal does not eliminate it's market, and that when there are is no legal market, and illegal one will form. Under alcohol prohibition the organized crime became unbearable. Going to a speakeasy meant going to your drug dealer. When a drug is illegal, it's price is enormously higher than when it is legal. The Mafia made enormous profits.

The same is the case in every drug market. Criminals make enormous profits on the black market. When a drug is illegal, and anyone who uses it is a criminal in the eyes of society, crime increases. During alcohol prohibition crime was worse than, before, increases in spending for the police force forced higher taxes, and no-one but the Mafia was any better off.

When people do not have legal access to a substance, they have to associate with criminals in order to gain access. Most drug dealers are not the most friendly, trustworthy, or scrupulous people, as you can imagine.

One could argue that they make the choice to use the drug in the first place, which is 100% true. Again, though, we can look at the experiment of prohibition for clues as to why that isn't good enough.

The reason alcohol prohibition was repealed despite the fact that alcohol poses some pretty severe health risks and is noticeably addictive, was because it didn't work. No one was any better off, and in fact people who would previously have been considered upstanding citizens, were being made into criminals, and arrested, processed as drug users and drugs dealers, and meanwhile wasting taxpayer money on an entirely victimless crime (save for damage to the user himself, but how is a man free if he doesn't not have the right to choose the fate of his body).

The scheduling of drugs in the US only increases crime, and by placing all of the illegal drugs securely in the realm of organized crime, and placing the legal prescription drugs in the hands of the insurance companies (who take enormous payoffs from pharmaceutical companies for helping keep the cost of medication high). Doctors, taking payoffs from pharmaceutical companies in the form of commissions for drugs sales means that we're no better off if we're prescribing our drugs ourselves, because how can we trust a salesman unbound by the invisible hand of the market, who does not answer to his customers?  

[Kalstolyn]

Kals is questing again!

See this is why I think privatized healthcare is a bad thing. Where I live, we pay taxes. Therefore, we get to go to whichever doctor we need to go to, and they're all accredited. There are very few things that are not covered by public health care, such as dentistry, vision care, cosmetic procedures, and the like.

Even from the perspective of psychotherapy, if you can't afford a shrink, you can go to the AMHB and have short-term therapy that is covered by AHC.

The healthcare industry is dangerously overpriced in the United States only because it is (to someone looking in from the outside) virtually unregulated. In Canada it's much less prevalent to find someone practicing medicine without a license (which is a very serious crime) because there is always work for doctors, and they always get paid. A lot. But it doesn't come directly out of their patients' pockets, it comes from the public health care system. Personally I think it is morally wrong to charge people for vital services.

Kals' Collaborative Crossword Puzzle!

PM for details!

 

[Thaliat Everwood]

Well, unless you don't have insurance in this country, you generally do not have to pay more than a $30 copay (usually less) for a medical visit. The insurance pays the rest. That is with an HMO. PPO's work a little differently and most people don't choose them. PPO's require a patient to pay up to $300 a year before insurance kicks in to pay the rest of the years fees. But they allow a patient to see any accredited doctor they want, even outside of the regular insurance network.  

[lazycommie]

You have a duty to yourself and no others(except, if you choose to hold such beliefs, your deity).

It is not the duty of person X to pay for person Y's screw ups resulting in them being unable to afford medical care.


Now, as to the topic:

I know a fair bit about medical practices in austere environments. Enough to patch myself up if it's anything short of major trauma or requiring difficult to obtain medications. Those are my personal qualifications for this topic. I'm no doc, but I know a fair bit.

Should someone be allowed to practice medicine on others without a license? I don't see why not. Is it smart to see such a person? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Would I use my knowledge to help someone? Only in an emergency, and only then to keep the person alive until the EMT's or similar actually DO show up. I'm not trained nor would I be willing to do otherwise.

My belief is that people should be held to a simple standard. "If you practice medicine on someone and you screw it up, it's your damn fault and if the person or person's next of kin, as the case may be, chooses to sue your a** off or press charges, it's their right to do so".

Why? Because I don't support the idea of unnecessary government intervention into things.  

[Milk and Holy Water]

lazycommie

You have a duty to yourself and no others(except, if you choose to hold such beliefs, your deity).

It is not the duty of person X to pay for person Y's screw ups resulting in them being unable to afford medical care.


Now, as to the topic:

I know a fair bit about medical practices in austere environments. Enough to patch myself up if it's anything short of major trauma or requiring difficult to obtain medications. Those are my personal qualifications for this topic. I'm no doc, but I know a fair bit.

Should someone be allowed to practice medicine on others without a license? I don't see why not. Is it smart to see such a person? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Would I use my knowledge to help someone? Only in an emergency, and only then to keep the person alive until the EMT's or similar actually DO show up. I'm not trained nor would I be willing to do otherwise.

My belief is that people should be held to a simple standard. "If you practice medicine on someone and you screw it up, it's your damn fault and if the person or person's next of kin, as the case may be, chooses to sue your a** off or press charges, it's their right to do so".

Why? Because I don't support the idea of unnecessary government intervention into things.

EMTs and doctors won't be around forever. To allow ourselves to rely on a hegemony that does not have our interests in mind is ridiculous. The "medical establishment" in the united states doesn't give a s**t about those of us living below the poverty line. I am not saying that we should be given hand-outs. Far from it. I'm saying it should be legal for us to take care of ourselves WITHOUT relying on the establishment. I'm talking about the same classic and all-pervasive freedom people area always talking about, here. Laws that exist to protect us from ourselves are ******** laughable. It's tyranny, it's usurpation, and it's ******** hand-holding. I'm not saying that the NHS or AHC are bad commie plots or anything. I'm all for taking care of each other, but here in the united states, we are forced to conform to a world of vicious capitalism, and there is a need to be always prepared, to plan everything, and to take full responsibility for your life. This basic right of self-accountability is being laughed at by the legislation that only restricts our freedom.  

[takara kagami]

First of all when it comes to the price of medical care it varies from place to place. In many cases it is based upon the taxes an certain area pays. For example, I live in Canada, which has a very good health care system i my opinion. Much of the cost is covered, when it comes to necessary medical practices; such as annual check ups, most vaccinations, etc. However to compensate for cheaper health care, Canadian citizens have to pay high taxes. Which in all reality is understandable. Nothing in life comes completely free. If one wants more proceeds to go to social services, one should be prepared to pay heightened taxes to support such programs. That is something very few understand. Over the last few years, our GST has gone down, however less money is going to social services to compensate this. Put simply when it comes to government money, taxes, and social services/health care, they are interconnected.

On another note, regarding the Canadian Health care system, is that due to the low cost hospitals and practices are over flown with individuals seeking aide. Waiting lists are miles long. Thus even with a lower cost, many are not getting treated, as they simply cannot find a doctor with the time and space. In theory if their were individuals that had the experience, and knowledge necessary to perform some medical practices, then it would be highly beneficial. Thus bringing me to the original inquiry of this discussion.

I believe, that if an individual is qualified to perform medical procedures, or practices then they could be used as a possible means of health care. However their should be reasonable limits when it comes down to this. Some medical procedures should be performed by accredited doctors. For instance, most surgeries, tests and treatments should be performed in places where their is accessible materials needed to save a life, treat a patient, or deliver accurate test results. Another possible limitation, is a mandatory evaluation/examination that should be taken yearly to insure that the individual is up to date on the latest procedures, and information. I personally would not want someone who performed stone aged methods, in comparison to someone who knew the latest procedures. Thirdly if the option of going to an uncredited medical practitioner was an option, I think their main purpose should be for check ups, and minor cases that most go sit in Triage for 6+ hours to get treated. That is where the over flow is. There is simply not enough family doctors to go around. Some go without, others travel for hours to go to their old doctor when they move. If I had a neighbour who had the same experience, reputation, and knowledge of my family doctor, I would consider the option of seeing them for a check up, instead of waiting moths for my next appointment to come up. Besides test results if kept under proper conditions can always be sent to the nearest lab to be tested.

Also on another note, in Ontario at least, their are different levels of mental help one can choose. Their those with university degrees (psychologists, and psychiatrists) which usually charge high rates, or those with college degrees, such as counselors, and youth workers, which thanks to the government are free. A few years ago I had to see a counselor, and my counselor helped me tremendously through that difficult stage of my life. It was the same experience that a friend who went to psychologist went through.We both spoke to the practitioner, and they would help us to the best of their abilities. The difference of their post secondary education was minimal, if not non-existent. So if mental health care can work with individuals that do not have a university degree, then why cannot general health care practices work the same way. As long as their are reasonable and strict limitations, then it should not be a real problem. However this is just my opinion.  

[lazycommie]

Milk and Holy Water

lazycommie

You have a duty to yourself and no others(except, if you choose to hold such beliefs, your deity).

It is not the duty of person X to pay for person Y's screw ups resulting in them being unable to afford medical care.


Now, as to the topic:

I know a fair bit about medical practices in austere environments. Enough to patch myself up if it's anything short of major trauma or requiring difficult to obtain medications. Those are my personal qualifications for this topic. I'm no doc, but I know a fair bit.

Should someone be allowed to practice medicine on others without a license? I don't see why not. Is it smart to see such a person? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Would I use my knowledge to help someone? Only in an emergency, and only then to keep the person alive until the EMT's or similar actually DO show up. I'm not trained nor would I be willing to do otherwise.

My belief is that people should be held to a simple standard. "If you practice medicine on someone and you screw it up, it's your damn fault and if the person or person's next of kin, as the case may be, chooses to sue your a** off or press charges, it's their right to do so".

Why? Because I don't support the idea of unnecessary government intervention into things.

EMTs and doctors won't be around forever. To allow ourselves to rely on a hegemony that does not have our interests in mind is ridiculous. The "medical establishment" in the united states doesn't give a s**t about those of us living below the poverty line. I am not saying that we should be given hand-outs. Far from it. I'm saying it should be legal for us to take care of ourselves WITHOUT relying on the establishment. I'm talking about the same classic and all-pervasive freedom people area always talking about, here. Laws that exist to protect us from ourselves are ******** laughable. It's tyranny, it's usurpation, and it's ******** hand-holding. I'm not saying that the NHS or AHC are bad commie plots or anything. I'm all for taking care of each other, but here in the united states, we are forced to conform to a world of vicious capitalism, and there is a need to be always prepared, to plan everything, and to take full responsibility for your life. This basic right of self-accountability is being laughed at by the legislation that only restricts our freedom.

It IS legal for you to practice medicine on yourself. Hell, I do it all the time as do most people to a more minor degree.

However if you do it with another person, unless you're covered under the Good Samaritan law(I forget the details, I was educated on it several years ago and have forgotten much of it), and you screw up and the person is injured/killed/whatever you can have your a** sued for all you've got. Which is how it should be. Basically, if you do something that saves someone's a**, you're fine(there's much more to it and I STRONGLY advise you look into it yourself). If you do home surgery or something like that and maim the person, you're screwed. It's personal responsibility at it's finest.

People in general should learn how to take care of themselves medically. Of course, that's not likely to happen until people get enough of a shock to wake up and smell the roses. You don't have to explain self-reliance to me, I'm more than aware of it myself as a survivalist. What you fail to note is that people, by and large are stupid, inept things which won't ever rely upon themselves unless forced to by circumstance. Here's to hoping for that circumstance to come soon, which it will given the nutjob we have in office.

You argue against capitalism, and yet you at the same time argue against government legislation. Capitalism isn't the issue here.  

[Milk and Holy Water]

lazycommie

Milk and Holy Water

lazycommie

You have a duty to yourself and no others(except, if you choose to hold such beliefs, your deity).

It is not the duty of person X to pay for person Y's screw ups resulting in them being unable to afford medical care.


Now, as to the topic:

I know a fair bit about medical practices in austere environments. Enough to patch myself up if it's anything short of major trauma or requiring difficult to obtain medications. Those are my personal qualifications for this topic. I'm no doc, but I know a fair bit.

Should someone be allowed to practice medicine on others without a license? I don't see why not. Is it smart to see such a person? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Would I use my knowledge to help someone? Only in an emergency, and only then to keep the person alive until the EMT's or similar actually DO show up. I'm not trained nor would I be willing to do otherwise.

My belief is that people should be held to a simple standard. "If you practice medicine on someone and you screw it up, it's your damn fault and if the person or person's next of kin, as the case may be, chooses to sue your a** off or press charges, it's their right to do so".

Why? Because I don't support the idea of unnecessary government intervention into things.

EMTs and doctors won't be around forever. To allow ourselves to rely on a hegemony that does not have our interests in mind is ridiculous. The "medical establishment" in the united states doesn't give a s**t about those of us living below the poverty line. I am not saying that we should be given hand-outs. Far from it. I'm saying it should be legal for us to take care of ourselves WITHOUT relying on the establishment. I'm talking about the same classic and all-pervasive freedom people area always talking about, here. Laws that exist to protect us from ourselves are ******** laughable. It's tyranny, it's usurpation, and it's ******** hand-holding. I'm not saying that the NHS or AHC are bad commie plots or anything. I'm all for taking care of each other, but here in the united states, we are forced to conform to a world of vicious capitalism, and there is a need to be always prepared, to plan everything, and to take full responsibility for your life. This basic right of self-accountability is being laughed at by the legislation that only restricts our freedom.

It IS legal for you to practice medicine on yourself. Hell, I do it all the time as do most people to a more minor degree.

However if you do it with another person, unless you're covered under the Good Samaritan law(I forget the details, I was educated on it several years ago and have forgotten much of it), and you screw up and the person is injured/killed/whatever you can have your a** sued for all you've got. Which is how it should be. Basically, if you do something that saves someone's a**, you're fine(there's much more to it and I STRONGLY advise you look into it yourself). If you do home surgery or something like that and maim the person, you're screwed. It's personal responsibility at it's finest.

People in general should learn how to take care of themselves medically. Of course, that's not likely to happen until people get enough of a shock to wake up and smell the roses. You don't have to explain self-reliance to me, I'm more than aware of it myself as a survivalist. What you fail to note is that people, by and large are stupid, inept things which won't ever rely upon themselves unless forced to by circumstance. Here's to hoping for that circumstance to come soon, which it will given the nutjob we have in office.

You argue against capitalism, and yet you at the same time argue against government legislation. Capitalism isn't the issue here.

You misunderstand me. I argue against capitalism the way a man would argue against the weather. It's unfortunate, but it is the thing that is. It is the natural state of the world, the equation of value in the society game. Or at least, that is what we're told. Like a man grumbling about the clouds, I may hate the rain but I'm damn sure going to bring my umbrella.

Contract law would, ideally, take care of the issues involving malpractice by unaccredited physicians. If you don't trust someone. Don't enter into a contract with them. Make sure that everyone is aware that personal liability the most important thing.

Laws, as they stand, would never honor such a contract, which is ridiculous. Personal contracts between private citizens is not a matter for the government to interfere with.

Don't get me wrong, I know that in a truly free market we'd be nearly constantly at odds with megacorporations running rampant, but any people, when pushed far enough will revolt. America wasn't the first empire, and the Western GE-Blackwater Alliance will not be the last.  

[Yvaine]

Myself, being another health-oriented professional, I'd prefer the option of eliminating health insurance. It's a sly sly thing that ALL politicians are doing right now when they say they want to "revolutionize/improve health care" when what they mean is that they want to monkey around with insurance coverage. Insurance companies charge more on a yearly basis than you are likely to spend in a year on medical expenses - BECAUSE THEY ARE A BUSINESS DEDICATED TO MAKING A PROFIT. For that same reason, it is traditional in the medical community to have to submit an insurance claim an average of three times before any of it is paid. Hey, that's time the money can be racking up interest somewhere in the insurance company coffers. Then there are all those handy deductibles and limits and penalties and stipulations as to who you can see and when.

If anyone in the US government actually cared about giving people a viable alternative to the already-available health insurance options, they'd simply introduce a basic health savings instrument much like the ones already available for education and retirement: any money you put into that account isn't taxed, but can only be used for the stated purpose. Withdrawing money for any other use will result in hefty penalties and back-taxes. Voila - a place to simply squirrel away whatever you can spare to pay your medical expenses when you have them. No middle-man.

You'd be surprised, I think, how many medical professionals would adore this kind of system. Hospitals could eliminate half their billing department, maybe more, and physicians would no longer have to pay their assistants overtime, or hire extra assistants, for following up on medical claims. Repeatedly. Since the average insurance company's payment to my children's pediatrician is (I asked) about $30 per billed $150 well-child visit, I think you'd immediately see health care bills shrink by a huge margin, simply because the health care professionals could rest assured that they would be paid exactly what was billed, and in a timely fashion.

Get involved - tell your friendly local politicians that you want them to eliminate the juggernaut that is health insurance. Watch them turn all sickly and pasty and give you a glib many-worded answer that translates to "I'll maybe try that when the sea turns to yogurt". And if you get a positive response, post it here - I'd love to support any politician not in the pocket of one of the US's most affluent and powerful lobbies.