The irony of practicing medicine and having TERRIBLE access to it?

[camoman1234]

11 hours ago, rev ronin said:

Not everyone qualifies; each have their own limitations on membership and "coverage" (again, not insurance)

That is fine and I understand that. It doesn't bother me for people to piss their money away on insurance. It is a system that is broken, un-affordable and does not work nor benefits the person that has the insurance. Why do you think all these insurance companies are so rich? There are a lot of people out there that will pay $400 a month for health insurance with a $5,000 deductible when they could open a HSA or just save the money to the side and pay cash for doctor visits and medications if needed. Lifestyle and exercise is the big prevention in NOT needing health care insurance.    

[AbeTheBabe]

Not sure what you're saying, firstly you can't have a HSA if you don't have a high deductible insurance plan. If you mean just a bank account you keep on it the side for health issues, then that's another story.

Everyone NEEDS health insurance, I don't care how good your diet is. I don't care how often you exercise. You could develop cancer tomorrow. You could be running down the street and break your ankle the next day. There's a million things that can go wrong. Good luck paying for a 500K worth of chemo/rad treatments by tucking away that 400/month you would be paying for insurance. Office visits, surgery, physical therapy for a simple broken bone can be 50K or more. The insurance is not for you colds and ear infections, it's for when shit really hits the fan.

[Boatswain2PA]

2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

The insurance is not for you colds and ear infections, it's for when shit really hits the fan.

But unfortunately people, especially those with that free state-run health insurance, use it all the time for the colds and ear infections (along with their 50 annual visits for migraines/abdominal pain/sinusitis).

[rev ronin]

2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Everyone NEEDS health insurance

Wrong.  Every medical provider should know this one.

What people need is not insurance, but affordable access to good care.  Read the thread above again: I have no health insurance, but excellent access to care I can afford.

Stop thinking inside boxes created by a for-profit industry.

[AbeTheBabe]

3 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

But unfortunately people, especially those with that free state-run health insurance, use it all the time for the colds and ear infections (along with their 50 annual visits for migraines/abdominal pain/sinusitis).

I'm not saying you literally shouldn't be using your insurance for those things, you should because the negotiated rates with your insurance are usually better than what they're charging unless you get on the phone and negotiate every hill yourself. But that's not when you're glad you have insurance, it's when shit really hits the fan.

3 hours ago, rev ronin said:

Wrong.  Every medical provider should know this one.

What people need is not insurance, but affordable access to good care.  Read the thread above again: I have no health insurance, but excellent access to care I can afford.

Stop thinking inside boxes created by a for-profit industry.

Yes, everyone needs insurance in one form or another. You choose to do a "faith based cost sharing plan" which is really just insurance lite. The fundamental concept of insurance is paying into a pool in case you're the one that needs a payout. I'm not saying you have to buy private health insurance, in fact I wish we had a decent universal healthcare like so many other countries. I'm just saying you can't squirrel away a couple hundred bucks a month and hope nothing goes wrong. Especially us professionals that generally have good jobs that usually offer decent health insurance (my company pays the majority of my premium, over 500/month). Compare it to not having auto insurance. Sure I might not pay for full coverage if I drive a beater I can afford to replace, but if I hit a Bentley, I'm fucked if I don't have decent liability coverage. You could be the safest driver out there, but accidents happen. And when it comes to medical care, it's often out of your control. If you're dirt poor and a 7K deductible is going to bankrupt you, I can see why having insurance is silly, you're gonna file for bankruptcy anyway. But for us that can afford a 5K OOP Max but not tens of thousands in medical bills like me, I was glad to pay that when I was hospitalized out of nowhere for a week for FUO and had every diagnostic test under the sun.

[rev ronin]

5 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Yes, everyone needs insurance in one form or another.

You're still wrong.

Insurance is not the only path to affordable care.  You repeating yourself doesn't make your assertion more correct. To be sure, insurance is one way to address the problem and by far the most common in the United States, but again, to buy into that is to enslave your mind to the medicine-as-business model. 

[Cideous]

1 hour ago, rev ronin said:

You're still wrong.

Insurance is not the only path to affordable care.  You repeating yourself doesn't make your assertion more correct. To be sure, insurance is one way to address the problem and by far the most common in the United States, but again, to buy into that is to enslave your mind to the medicine-as-business model. 

What happens when your costs go over the "cost sharing" max of 1 million?  Medical bankruptcy I would assume.

Also, no one has answered my question on the cost sharing plans listed.  Do they take gay people?

 

I think the silence is deafening.  Access to medial care should NOT be tied to someones religion, or lack of.  Ever.  Yet, here we are.

 

 

I guess I found my answer:  MediShare requires new members to share their Christian testimony over the phone or in writing. Also, all members must pledge to live according to certain Biblical principles including keeping alcohol consumption within certain limits and only having sex within the confines a biblically defined, monogamous, heterosexual Christian marriage.

 

^^^ This is what you guys are recommending as the answer to high Ins costs?  Are you kidding me?

And just to be clear, I'm not gay.  I just find the idea of linking access to "affordable" healthcare with this statement absolutely unacceptable.  We as healthcare professionals should not be advocates for this kind of exclusivity. 

 

How ironic is it that these Christian based "cost sharing" plans EXCLUDE the very people that Jesus came to minister to......

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragically hypocritical. 

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Cideous

[AbeTheBabe]

You say we don't need insurance, we need affordable access to good care. You say you don't have health insurance, but you really do have a form of health insurance. What does affordable access to good care mean to you? 

[Marinejiujitsu]

What happens when your costs go over the "cost sharing" max of 1 million?  Medical bankruptcy I would assume.
Also, no one has answered my question on the cost sharing plans listed.  Do they take gay people?
 
I think the silence is deafening.  Access to medial care should NOT be tied to someones religion, or lack of.  Ever.  Yet, here we are.
 
 
I guess I found my answer:  MediShare requires new members to share their Christian testimony over the phone or in writing. Also, all members must pledge to live according to certain Biblical principles including keeping alcohol consumption within certain limits and only having sex within the confines a biblically defined, monogamous, heterosexual Christian marriage.
 
^^^ This is what you guys are recommending as the answer to high Ins costs?  Are you kidding me?
And just to be clear, I'm not gay.  I just find the idea of linking access to "affordable" healthcare with this statement absolutely unacceptable.  We as healthcare professionals should not be advocates for this kind of exclusivity. 
 
How ironic is it that these Christian based "cost sharing" plans EXCLUDE the very people that Jesus came to minister to......
It would be funny if it wasn't so tragically hypocritical. 
 

I bet you wouldnt complain about a homosexual group helping homosexuals, or females helping females. You just zoned into christians helping christians that wouldnt otherwise be able to afford it. Catholic hospitals have closed down because people try to force then to do non medically needed abortions. That stance prevents access to cost control. We actually should be encouraging more groups to do the same. Who cares if a group wants to share costs with other members of their own groups.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[rev ronin]

12 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

What does affordable access to good care mean to you? 

People are able to afford access to good care.  There's two parts to that: affordability and quality.

Affordability: What percentage of total money (not income, assets) should be going to medicine? <1%? 50%? Somewhere in the middle?

Quality: What sort of care should people reasonably be able to access?  Generics? Chemo?  Multiple organ transplants?  Do their own lifestyle choices matter? Do their genetics?

[rev ronin]

10 minutes ago, Marinejiujitsu said:

I bet you wouldn't complain about a homosexual group helping homosexuals, or females helping females.

It would also be interesting to see what they decide to cover, and how much the cost sharing would be.

[Marinejiujitsu]

It would also be interesting to see what they decide to cover, and how much the cost sharing would be.

Yeah, it would be interesting. I bet it would cover more gender reassigments, HIV meds, and abortions. I'm sure those groups would approve. And christians would not be able to say "due to my religion I cannot pay for that." Everyone wins.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[AbeTheBabe]

6 hours ago, Marinejiujitsu said:

I bet you wouldnt complain about a homosexual group helping homosexuals, or females helping females. You just zoned into christians helping christians that wouldnt otherwise be able to afford it. Catholic hospitals have closed down because people try to force then to do non medically needed abortions. That stance prevents access to cost control. We actually should be encouraging more groups to do the same. Who cares if a group wants to share costs with other members of their own groups.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 

Homosexual groups don't exclude heterosexual people, they welcome them. The whole point of their plight is inclusion. They have been excluded and discriminated against, and worse, for a very long time. I can go march at the gay pride parade or go to a gay bar/club, no one is going to kick me out.

Women helping women? In the cases of domestic violence and things if that nature, of course it makes sense for only women to be the ones helping in that sensitive time. It's all about context.

What hospital are you talking about?

Who cares? Because healthcare shouldn't exclude groups, it's basic decency. Especially when it's coming from the largest "group" in the US. I bet you would not hesitate to complain if Christians in a Muslim country were excluded from healthcare, or discriminated against in some way.

[AbeTheBabe]

6 hours ago, rev ronin said:

People are able to afford access to good care.  There's two parts to that: affordability and quality.

Affordability: What percentage of total money (not income, assets) should be going to medicine? <1%? 50%? Somewhere in the middle?

Quality: What sort of care should people reasonably be able to access?  Generics? Chemo?  Multiple organ transplants?  Do their own lifestyle choices matter? Do their genetics?

Rev you're still not answering any questions. You tell me I'm wrong for saying everyone needs insurance, okay fine. However, you have a form of insurance and you have not explained how anyone CURRENTLY pays for medical care that can easily be tens of thousands of dollars without it.

[Cideous]

8 hours ago, Marinejiujitsu said:

I bet you wouldnt complain about a homosexual group helping homosexuals, or females helping females. You just zoned into christians helping christians that wouldnt otherwise be able to afford it. Catholic hospitals have closed down because people try to force then to do non medically needed abortions. That stance prevents access to cost control. We actually should be encouraging more groups to do the same. Who cares if a group wants to share costs with other members of their own groups.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 

1.  You're wrong, and would lose that bet.  I would complain about ANY group excluding ANY other group of people from acquiring access to health care based upon their:

Religion

Sex

Creed

or whom they choose to love.

 

Excluding anyone from access to healthcare based on ANY of those factors is abhorrent and I am frankly stunned that a medical provider would advocate for such discrimination.

 

And I did not "zero in" on Christians.  Christians just happen to be the biggest group advocating for this kind of access to healthcare.  As a provider I am against this for any group advocating anything similar.  

Access to Healthcare should transcend religious dogma and sexual orientation.  Period.

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Cideous

[Marinejiujitsu]

1.  You're wrong, and would lose that bet.  I would complain about ANY group excluding ANY other group of people from acquiring access to health care based upon their:
Religion
Sex
Creed
or whom they choose to love.
 
Excluding anyone from access to healthcare based on ANY of those factors is abhorrent and I am frankly stunned that a medical provider would advocate for such discrimination.
 
And I did not "zero in" on Christians.  Christians just happen to be the biggest group advocating for this kind of access to healthcare.  As a provider I am against this for any group advocating anything similar.  
Access to Healthcare should transcend religious dogma and sexual orientation.  Period.
 
 
 

No if it prevents increased access to some people but not all, its not worth it?

That's a political arguement, not a logical or moral one.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Marinejiujitsu]

Homosexual groups don't exclude heterosexual people, they welcome them. The whole point of their plight is inclusion. They have been excluded and discriminated against, and worse, for a very long time. I can go march at the gay pride parade or go to a gay bar/club, no one is going to kick me out.
Women helping women? In the cases of domestic violence and things if that nature, of course it makes sense for only women to be the ones helping in that sensitive time. It's all about context.
What hospital are you talking about?
Who cares? Because healthcare shouldn't exclude groups, it's basic decency. Especially when it's coming from the largest "group" in the US. I bet you would not hesitate to complain if Christians in a Muslim country were excluded from healthcare, or discriminated against in some way.

Do you know what Christian medi share is. Its like a big church helping christians pay their medical bills? It really not insurance. If people want to help other people in their house, they should be able to without any judgements.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Marinejiujitsu]

Homosexual groups don't exclude heterosexual people, they welcome them. The whole point of their plight is inclusion. They have been excluded and discriminated against, and worse, for a very long time. I can go march at the gay pride parade or go to a gay bar/club, no one is going to kick me out.
Women helping women? In the cases of domestic violence and things if that nature, of course it makes sense for only women to be the ones helping in that sensitive time. It's all about context.
What hospital are you talking about?
Who cares? Because healthcare shouldn't exclude groups, it's basic decency. Especially when it's coming from the largest "group" in the US. I bet you would not hesitate to complain if Christians in a Muslim country were excluded from healthcare, or discriminated against in some way.

And you still made a political arguement and dont understand Christianity. Some Christians are weak in their faith and lets the worldly moral compass affect the faith based moral compass. Christianity is all about inclusion, people on the left assume christianity is based on hating gays but its based on loving everyone, not judging them because sexual preference or any other sin.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Marinejiujitsu]

This thread totally got off topic but i totally think if a people want to use their own money on other people medical expenses which they mayhave to reap the benefits also. Nothing should be off limits and it increases the ability for some people to pay. Thats good, no matter how you slice it.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Reality Check 2]

This thread derailed into a religious argument.

[Marinejiujitsu]

This thread derailed into a religious argument.

I know, I'm trying to steer it back. Lol.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[rev ronin]

4 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Rev you're still not answering any questions. You tell me I'm wrong for saying everyone needs insurance, okay fine. However, you have a form of insurance and you have not explained how anyone CURRENTLY pays for medical care that can easily be tens of thousands of dollars without it.

You're going to have to fill in the blanks if you want me to answer in concrete terms.

Does everyone need access to unlimited organ transplants? If you say yes, and assuming we're not killing off religious minorities like China or growing new cloned organs in the lab, there is no upper limit on your cost, given economic scarcity.

ETA: Oh, and CURRENTLY is another red herring. The current system is broken; what I refuse to do is pretend it's the only one possible.

[rev ronin]

4 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

I bet you would not hesitate to complain if Christians in a Muslim country were excluded from healthcare, or discriminated against in some way.

Research project for you: go look up the word 'dhimmi' and explain how this applies to your argument.  I'll even get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

Bonus question: How is it that medical professionals aren't aware of systemic religious discrimination affecting millions?  I'd say this is a good argument for more humanities education and less emphasis on making early 20's year old PAs.

[rev ronin]

10 minutes ago, Marinejiujitsu said:

I know, I'm trying to steer it back. Lol.

I am comfortable discussing how patient and provider religious beliefs play into optimizing access to care; it's unfortunate that many others are not equally comfortable.  The provision of medical care is fundamentally a religion-informed activity, because while science may tell us how a human works, one of the universal purposes of religion is to tell us how much a human is (or is not) worth.  Of course, the outcomes achieved when you substitute a Nietzchean philosophy for religion are left as an exercise for the reader.

[Marinejiujitsu]

I am comfortable discussing how patient and provider religious beliefs play into optimizing access to care; it's unfortunate that many others are not equally comfortable.  The provision of medical care is fundamentally a religion-informed activity, because while science may tell us how a human works, one of the universal purposes of religion is to tell us how much a human is (or is not) worth.  Of course, the outcomes achieved when you substitute a Nietzchean philosophy for religion are left as an exercise for the reader.

And people dont know what a medi-share is. Its pretty much a charity where covering costs arent gauranteed and are they are non profits.

There are many christian providers seeing patients. The immoral part of healthcare would be if christians are refusing to see muslim patients. Not independent christians creating a pot of money to help with other christians medical finances.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk