Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Experiencing technical difficulties since 1999

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                           

Pay Doctors Like Doctors Pay You

Put those actuarial tables to use
  (+6, -8)
(+6, -8)
  [vote for,
against]

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?

theircompetitor, Mar 09 2005

Pimp slapping. http://seer.cancer....dhood/mortality.pdf
[bungston, Mar 10 2005]

[link]






       This would make pediatric oncology much more popular.
bungston, Mar 09 2005
  

       [bunsgton] sadly, only for full cures. Remember, we're talking about life expectancy here.
theircompetitor, Mar 10 2005
  

       Most kids are cured. Science has pimp-slapped kiddy cancers in the past 20 years.
bungston, Mar 10 2005
  

       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.
Detly, Mar 10 2005
  

       "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.
sophocles, Mar 10 2005
  

       [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
theircompetitor, Mar 10 2005
  

       [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, Mar 10 2005
  

       [Detly] -- So how does a doctor risk operating on a rich patient today?
theircompetitor, Mar 10 2005
  

       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.
Detly, Mar 11 2005
  

       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.
ye_river_xiv, May 29 2009
  

       //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?
DrBob, May 29 2009
  

       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
theircompetitor, May 29 2009
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle