Solutions to the Healthcare “Crisis”

Separate the Doctors and the Insurance Companies

Doctors become members of insurance groups. Patients subscribe to these groups and are limited to only those doctors within the group. The absurdity of this arrangement is best illustrated by applying this same arrangement to the auto industry. Suppose that AutoInsuranceCo only allowed its customers to purchase AutoManufacturerCo cars and use AutoManufacturerCo mechanics. Furthermore, if an auto needed repairs, the owner would first need to take the car back to the dealer and get prior approval. Once this approval was received the customer could only use AutoRepairShop.

The key to this solution is to separate the doctors from the insurance companies. Insurance companies would cover treatment options and customers could select which plans they desired based on their own ability to pay a deductible. If a patient values cancer coverage he will pay for this. If a patient values traumatic coverage rather than routine coverage he can pay for this. This is akin to the auto insurance coverage where a person can select varying levels of coverage based on his own evaluation of the risks and likelihood of certain accidents and results from those accidents occurring (i.e. uninsured motorist, personal injury).

This will allow a patient to select any doctor to treat him. The patient can then negotiate the fee and the insurance company will pay its share of the treatment. This gives incentives to the doctors to lower prices and provide better care because they will be competing with each other more directly instead of getting automatic patients from insurance company referrals.

Eliminate Coverage for Non-Paying Customers

This may sound like a cruel idea but no service is owed to any person who cannot afford to pay for it. By eliminating “free” care to those who show up at emergency rooms without insurance coverage it will force people to place health care insurance on a higher priority level and thereby increase the amount of people who are covered. Those that do not pay for coverage will have acted upon their own value system without costing everyone else.

Children who are not covered would still receive care but the parents would be held responsible for the costs via the court system. If a patient cannot or will not provide identification information, the hospital will be absolved from all liability for non-treatment.

Tort Reform

A new system of malpractice insurance would go a long way to reducing the costs of health care and limit the influence litigation will have upon the decisions of the health care professionals in the rendering of care to patients.

All physicians should be required to pay into a single malpractice defense fund which will pay out to patients in the event of malpractice. By spreading the risk across the entire industry the cost to each doctor would be limited. This, coupled with stricter requirements for patients to show malpractice would eliminate costly litigation and allow doctors to focus on the proper treatment for patients rather than the least litigious treatment.

According to Their Mom, Jonas Brothers Have STD

In the midst of discussing the "desires" of her children, one is an adult and the other two are borderline adults, the mother of the Jonas Brothers made a statement that caught my attention:

Denise defends her sons' decision to wear purity rings and talk about waiting until marriage to have sex.

"They've been criticized for proclaiming things they never proclaimed. And what's the criticism?" she asks. "They don't want to go out there giving everyone an STD? What's so terrible about that?"

What do they have that she is so worried they will spread?

ABSTRACT - Sexual (Mis)Conduct: Halacha and American Jurisprudence

ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is to give the reader a basic understanding of Judaic laws and policies as they relate to acts of sexual conduct or more specifically what Judaic law deems to be sexual misconduct (Masturbation, Homosexuality, Incest, Bestiality, Pedophilia, Rape, Pre-Marital Sex, Marital Sex, Adultery). The paper will discuss the various elements which Judaic law uses to define various sexual acts, legal and illegal ways to engage in such sexual conduct, punishment for violation of the laws, and the policy reasons behind the laws. The paper will also briefly compare select elements, punishments, and policies of Judaic law to those in American jurisprudence.

One of the areas of conduct which Judaic law is concerned with is a person’s sexual conduct. The overwhelming policy drive behind Judaic sexual conduct laws relate to modest behavior, marriage, and procreation. For instance, masturbation enjoys widespread acceptance in American society as a healthy activity. In stark contradiction, Judaic law considers masturbation to be a crime akin to mass murder. Homosexual sodomy has been permitted in the United States since Lawrence v. Texas as a matter of First Amendment privacy issue. Judaic law considers homosexual sodomy to be an abomination and a crime even in the privacy of the bedroom. It is with this focus that this paper will explore the various forms of sexual conduct which are prohibited by Judaic law and the policy behind the laws.

The Halacha of Rape

I am currently writing a paper on the topic of Rape. The focus of the paper is on the halachot which apply to a case of rape. For instance, when a man sexually assaults a woman, how would a Beit Din or San Hedrin adjudicate the case? What are the elements of rape; in other words, what is the halachic definition of rape, if there is one at all. Is there a different term used in the Torah for what a modern court considers rape?

I am having a difficult time finding source material for this paper because it is such an obscure topic. I really thought that it would have been a prominent topic in modern Judaic scholarship because of the prevelance of violence and sexual assault in a modern society. So far, all the rabbis have given me very unsatisfactory reasons why there are no authorities to cite. Apparently, rape was not an issue at the time the Torah was transmitted. Halacha is not meant to punish people but is meant to guide people on the proper path. Therefore, it is not a mitzva to not "rape" someone but prohibited on grounds that one who commits a "rape" might violate other mitzvot and be subject to damages.

Based on this understanding I will probably write the bulk of my paper on the various "mitzvot ase" (positive) and "mitzvot lo taseh" (negative) which apply to the "rapist" and the various sexual and physical contacts that occur between the rapist and the raped. The definition of rape, rapist, and raped will be the American definitions. Halacha of damages and other relevant sources will then be applied.