Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

what would you think of this health care / education plan?

I'm asking this anon because I want to make this as unbiased as possible, and I don't even want my user name to possibly influence anyone.

How about if we were to tell people, regardless of financial need, that if they choose to become a Dr or a nurse, that the govt will pay for their medical school. No loans, no paying it back, no having to qualify based on financial need. You just have to have grades high enough to get in. (some "catches" noted below)

Then, when they finish their education, they will work for a salary at a govt run clinic for a set period, say, off the top of my head, 8 yrs. Their malpractice insurance will be subsidized. The clinic will provide health care for those who have no /insufficient health care, and will charge on a slide scale based on income.

If you choose to work there beyond the allotted time (longer for "specialty" Drs with more training), they can, at a higher pay.



Asked by Anonymous at 3:16 AM on Aug. 13, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (26)
  • They already have this. You can go to school on the governments tab to become a doctor and then you work for the government at a facility of their choice. For every year you work there, a certain amount of your loan/grant is forgiven. The person usually has to work about 8 years to get a free education. The same thing is available for teachers.

    Answer by jesse123456 at 8:24 AM on Aug. 13, 2009

  • Anyone who does NOT want to do this can pay for their medical school in the more traditional ways, and establish their practices in the traditional way.

    Anyone who wishes to not use the clinics can choose not to, and still use their private insurance and payment methods.

    Any person who "flunks out" or drops out, or who, for whatever reason, chooses to not finish their education, is responsible for paying back the amount of their education, with interest above that of regular student loans.

    Any Dr who, upon graduation, refuses to work in the clinic (transferred, like the Job Corp, where they're needed), will be fined / have to pay back the cost of education. And / or have their medical license suspended for a set time / until they pay it back.

    I think this would be a reform that provides health care to those who need it, education to those who want it, and freedom of choice for all.


    Answer by Anonymous at 3:21 AM on Aug. 13, 2009

  • Sounds good to me (but I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of getting a medical education beyond knowing that it is expensive and takes years)

    I think that reform of the millions of dollars that people can sue for - tort reform - is a key and crucial issue that must be addressed to bring costs down ...

    Answer by waldorfmom at 3:25 AM on Aug. 13, 2009

  • thanks for your opinion :-)

    Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:07 AM on Aug. 13, 2009

  • I agree, honestly, we can have health care REFORM without throwing the whole thing in the government's lap. The no. of uninsured is what, 47 million or so? Why don't Congress then cut spending somewhere else and expand medicaid to cover individuals who have no access to insurance (not those who have access but choose not take it, a group which comprises about 8% of those 47 million - if you decide making payments on your flat screen/ATV/SUV are more important then paying 50 bucks a week out of your paycheck for employer provided insurance, that's your decision- now live with it).
    And limit the expanded medicaid coverage - say 10k per individual per year, with no copays, for say 5 years tops. If they can't find a job in 5 years then they have bigger problems then insurance.
    And I am totally for tort reform!!

    Answer by plylerjones at 6:31 AM on Aug. 13, 2009

  • I've actually suggested something like this a bunch of times. It couldn't be full time, they'd have to be able to accrue a salaryl so they can eat and wear clothes and not die from exposure. Plus, you'd need to incentivize more experienced docs and specialists and pharmaceutical companies to provide care on an income based, sliding scale. With that and tort reform, plus educating the public on the proper use of emergency services, and tort reform would be a good start. I also don't believe the ER should have to treat everyone that walks in the door. Evaluate, yes. But only treat actual emergencies. Otherwise just direct to a clinic for normal treatment.

    Answer by lovinangels at 6:41 AM on Aug. 13, 2009

  • I'm sorry, I think I didn't make that part clear - they would receive a salary, but not a huge one, for the time they were paying back the govt / the community they are in for their education. A Dr who goes on for specialized training, requiring longer than the standard time to complete their education would have to work longer to pay it back than, say, a Gen Practitioner. Dr's would have to work longer to pay back than Nurses, since it takes longer to get your MD than your RN or LPN.

    Anyone who, at the end of their allotted time, wishes to stay on could have their performance evaluated (much like any other company that would evaluate someone when they were negotiating a new contract), and there would be the opportunity for them to stay on at a higher pay (since their debt was paid back).

    I agree about tort reform, too, btw!

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:52 AM on Aug. 13, 2009

  • The way the initial post sounds is fabulous, the 'catches' however, make is sound more like a military stint.
    When you sign up for the Army through an ROTC program/Scholarship. You go to college. College is paid for and you get a stipend to live on. When you graduate you "OWE" the military 4 to 8 years of service.
    What they also aren't telling you is after you become a "Doctor of the State" you will have to perform procedures about which you may have a moral objection. I know some OBGYN's who are resigning their practices (or in some cases preparing to go to jail) because the state is demanding that they perform abortion on demand even though they feel it is immoral and unethical.
    'Free health care" "Free Education" sounds great until you look under the gloss and glimmer.

    I say NO thank you.

    Answer by PurpleCristal at 8:01 AM on Aug. 13, 2009

  • I don't support a lot of the health reform that is being proposed right now. But, I don't have a problem with the program being ran like a stint in the military. You (meaning the person wishing to get their medical degree) could choose to avail yourself of the program, or you could choose to not use it and pay for it in the traditional ways, such as student loans, scholarships, etc. Just like you don't have to choose to use the ROTC scholarships.

    I absolutely agree that they - any medical person who is using this method - should NOT have to be forced to preform abortions if they are morally against the procedure. That could be something that was noted when they started their "stint". Dr's who did not have a moral objection to them would be the ones responsible for those. Just like now, where there are some Drs that do them and some that don't.


    Answer by Anonymous at 8:08 AM on Aug. 13, 2009

  • con't

    I'm just looking for some sort of reform to health care so that those who truly want it and are truly unable to get it otherwise have access to health care, and those who want to go into the profession but can't afford it, or can't afford the prohibitive costs associated with having a practice, can afford it, while at the same time. BUT, at the same time, isn't forcing an expensive, invasive, and unwieldy socialized plan down all of our throats, one that, unfortunately, will probably end up with human suffering, lives, and, in short, our existence as people being boiled down to beads on an abacus by some bureaucrat somewhere, deciding if there are enough beads in the "treat" column or not...

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:12 AM on Aug. 13, 2009