No Cure, No Fee
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 12, 2007 16:20
VIEWED: 2283
PAGE 2 of 2
Quote:Correct. I used Hahnemann as an example, but it doesn't much matter if a treatment is alternative or conventional or "placebo" if it leads to a cure.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
This is a problem with private health care in general, not with the traditional style of treatment vs. alternative treatment.
My question is why can't private health care subscribe to the same standards of accountability and customer satisfaction as other private industries? We are accustomed to money-back guarantees and warranties in most other private industries. If a customer finds that a product does not work, he can return it for a full refund. Why can't we apply the same standard to health care?
For example, private plumbing services work just fine without nationalized plumbing plans. You call a plumber; he either fixes your plumbing or he doesn't. If he "fixes" it, and it breaks a week later, it is completely unacceptable to the customer. Yet health care customers routinely accept this lower standard of service from the health care industry. That is the point I'm trying to make. Why nationalize the industry at this lower standard of service? I'm saying I'd be more inclined to nationalize the industry if it fixes itself to higher standards first.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, but wouldn't making nothing motivate them to look for a cure? If they keep making a comfortable living with temporary symptom relief, what would motivate them to look for more permanent solutions?
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
But what about people who can't be cured? Then the Doctors would make nothing.
While I believe "No Cure, No Fee" is ideal, I am not opposed to transitional policies that are not so drastic, as long as they are headed in that direction. For example, maybe a "No Cure, Small Fee. Big Cure, Big Fee" is the way to go until cures are found. The point is to raise the standards for customer satisfaction in this industry (to expect products that cure or approach a cure), and to not reward doctors EQUALLY whether the services are substandard (offering only temporary relief) or not.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I appear to be having a hard time communicating this point. I will try one last time.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
so the patient can’t demand his or her money back when the cure has turned out to be a con.
If the "cure" turns out to be a con, that is the disease returns for whatever reason, then it wasn't a cure. Thus it should not justify a fee under the "No Cure, No Fee" policy.
A cure can be objectively and empirically measured. It is not a subjective experience.
It seems your view of the "placebo" effect is that it is temporary and subjective, by definition. For me, the burgeoning field of psychoneuroimmunology is revealing that placebo healing can be every bit as permanent and objective as drugs. So in my view, placebo is not necessarily temporary and subjective--and people shouldn't assume that it always is. In cases where the placebo delivers objective and permanent results, I don't see why it should be seen as substandard.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"For example, private plumbing services work just fine without nationalized plumbing plans. You call a plumber; he either fixes your plumbing or he doesn't. If he "fixes" it, and it breaks a week later, it is completely unacceptable to the customer."
But just try to get your $$ back. This isn't a good example of no cure, no fee. Another fine NON-example is car repair. The fact is, I know of no private business that guarantees a repair. And I DO know of many unhappy customers. AHH, the beauty of unregulated business.
Mebee you need to put a little more thought into this.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"While I believe "No Cure, No Fee" is ideal... The point is to raise the standards for customer satisfaction in this industry (to expect products that cure or approach a cure), and to not reward doctors EQUALLY whether the services are substandard (offering only temporary relief) or not."
As an engineer, I've always had to keep an eye out for secondary and tertiary effects to any design decision. The same thing applies here.
If you require a front line physician to cure everything he treats else provide a refund, then he is far more likely to turn cancer patients and the elderly away... because so many cancers are fatal. And ALL old age is fatal. So, the only people treated will be young to middle aged. The physicians will treat minor to moderate infections that are responsive to current antibiotics. They will set broken bones. If you had anything much more complex than that, you would essentially be on your own.
Another thought... front line physicians do not develop cures. They administer cures developed in laboratories. If the cure doesn't exist, then there's nothing the front line physician can do about it. And if the problem looks intractable to the researcher who DOES develop cures, and he doesn't get paid if he can't develop a cure for it, then he too will move on to something easier to fix. Again, kiss your cancer and AIDS research good bye.
And finally, trying to compare plumbing or car repair to human repair is simply wrong. The complexity of the human body is many orders of magnitude more complex even than a car... much less pipes and simple valves buried in the ground. Complex systems like an organic body frequently do not yield to simple, or absolute, solutions. They require trades to be made... improve this to the detriment of that. It is inescapable. And as someone else in this thread pointed out, even for comparatively simple systems like plumbing and cars, there are no gaurantees.
Our lot is to deal with that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
My question is why can't private health care subscribe to the same standards of accountability and customer satisfaction as other private industries? We are accustomed to money-back guarantees and warranties in most other private industries. If a customer finds that a product does not work, he can return it for a full refund. Why can't we apply the same standard to health care?
Because of the enormous amounts of money and frequent complete lack of assurance that treatment will work. Lots of medications, surgeries, and medical equipment are very expensive and don't give 100% assurance of success. Additionally many illnesses will take several different expensive treatments before a cure is found. Hahnemann was likely able to offer that assurance because his treatments were extremely cheap to make.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME