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

[Marinejiujitsu]

Well, here it is.  California forcing Catholic hospitals to do sex change operations.  
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/a-california-court-deals-a-blow-to-religious-liberty-its-time-for-scotus-to-act/

That's why catholic hospitals in California are selling the hospitals or all out closing their doors.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[AbeTheBabe]

On 9/19/2019 at 11:41 AM, Boatswain2PA said:

I should have been more clear.  Millennials rarely need what insurance is mandated to cover today.  Imagine if you and your family was able to purchase a catastrophic coverage policy that cost $150/month, and you were able to put the difference in your premium in your pocket to pay for routine care.  This is what health insurance looked like when I was a child, but insurers are generally not allowed to issue these policies anymore.  Instead they must cover birth control, pre-existing conditions for grandma, ED visits for a fever last week, etc, thus jacking up the premiums and deductibles.  Of course, this system is part of what Cid rails against as it benefits the boomers and all of their co-morbidities, at the expense of the young and healthy millennials.  

No, they can't.  You really think Jonathan Gruber is smarter than you?
Private insurance makes money by denying care, but if they deny contractually obligated care they will get sued.  And if they don't cover enough stuff, then they lose customers.  
Government run plans have separate but equal issues.  What remedies do you have if the government denies you coverage?  Only thing you've got is to vote for someone who will give you better coverage.  This leads to politicians promising more and more to get elected, and breaking the bank.  (which is already broken, but that is another topic).

I too think we can, but we won't because we still aren't having the open discussion about rationing.  The best health care plan I have ever read about was the Oregon Health Plan in the 1990s where they transparently rationed care.  Of course this didn't last because the legislature started requiring additional things to be covered.  All of the politicians running for office now are just promising socialized medicine, not realistic methods of ration care.   

More later...

Medicare already exists, it's not like we're not already paying, comes out of my paycheck every 2 weeks. That's how insurance works, you pay into it in case you're the one who needs it. Of course the care will be rationed, no one ever said universal healthcare means you get everything you want whenever you want it.

On 9/19/2019 at 12:33 PM, Boatswain2PA said:

A single cell, with it's own unique DNA, is called life.  It's what we would consider life if we found it on Mars, it is life here.

It's arbitrary to you, not to many others.  That measuring stick isn't so practical for the baby.

Why is another way of avoiding having a child "better" than abortion?  Why does an abortion take an emotional toll on the mother? (not to mention father).  Why are you using the term "mother"??

Because most of us know it's a baby.  And since it's a baby, just about anything is better than ending the life of that baby, and there is an emotional toll to ending the life of any human, and because she's a MOTHER.

You can call it a fetus or a baby or a mother or a patient, the fact remains that outlawing abortion does NOT have the effect that you want. Trust me, there were abortions long before it was legal. 

On 9/19/2019 at 12:33 PM, Boatswain2PA said:

I am not competent to understand God, or He does what He does, or allows what He allows.  Just like your 2 year old is not competent to understand why you yell at him as he runs toward the road.

Are you an evil, narcissistic and vindictive dictator when you allow bad things to happen to your child so they can learn something?  When you don't help them accomplish a task so that they can master it on their own?  When he is a teenager and you don't get him out of the trouble he got himself into?  

Of course not.  You want to raise a good human being, and that is a painful process (for both of you).  I think God wants us all to make choices to get to heaven and be with him.  By giving us that freedom, he allows painful things to happen to us, because you can't have freedom without some pain/sacrifice.

Letting little Billy burn his hand on the barbeque or not helping Annie with her math homework is just a little bit different than thousands of people dying in a natural disaster, childhood cancer, the plague, etc. I wouldn't let one of my kids drown to teach the others to stay away from the pool, would you?

On 9/19/2019 at 12:33 PM, Boatswain2PA said:

The founding fathers never intended to inhibit religious beliefs or actions in the US, and the mention of religion in the 1st amendment was simply a protection against the congress establishing a national religion (as was common during the centuries before in Europe which led to enormous bloodshed).  Our founding document itself (the Declaration) clearly speaks about the laws of nature and nature's God, and of rights endowed by our Creator.  

The Declaration never said anything about a role of God in government. The Constitution does not use the word God at all. Here's a good read if you're interested.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840?guccounter=1

On 9/19/2019 at 12:33 PM, Boatswain2PA said:

Minor correction - killing another person is not ALWAYS wrong, because of the exception of defense of self or others.  Otherwise, it's wrong.

Exactly what I was saying. Killing a person is usually bad, but there are exceptions.

[AbeTheBabe]

3 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

Well, here it is.  California forcing Catholic hospitals to do sex change operations.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/a-california-court-deals-a-blow-to-religious-liberty-its-time-for-scotus-to-act/

This has nothing to do with providers being turned into slaves. It also does not mean anything, just because the lawsuit is allowed to proceed, doesn't mean that person will win. This is America, you can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean you are going to win.

Here's another article about it from the LA Times, which seems to be way more objective and actually has both sides of the story. What your article failed to mention is that the hospital did not reschedule the patient at a different hospital until the surgeon and patient complained. Who's right, the patient or the hospital? I don't know, and that's probably why the trial is allowed to proceed. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-18/hiltzik-catholic-hospital-discrimination-case

[Boatswain2PA]

3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

It also does not mean anything, just because the lawsuit is allowed to proceed, doesn't mean that person will win. This is America, you can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean you are going to win.

It's also California, run by leftists, and is an example of forcing people to do things that are against their moral values.  If they can do this, can they force hospitals to perform euthanasia?  After all, transferring to another hospital that would perform such an act would cause a delay, and therefore could be dubbed "discriminatory".

 

3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

no one ever said universal healthcare means you get everything you want whenever you want it.

That's how politicians make it sound though, don't they!

 

3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Trust me, there were abortions long before it was legal

Sure, and there are murders/rapes/robberies/etc.  Doesn't means we, as a society, should allow/legalize them.

 

3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

I wouldn't let one of my kids drown to teach the others to stay away from the pool, would you?

No, but you're missing the bigger picture.  If we ALL die, and we do, then the bigger picture is who gets into heaven.

 

3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

he Declaration never said anything about a role of God in government.

It was about how we have God given rights which the government cannot impose upon.  That "human rights" thing...

[AbeTheBabe]

I think we're going around in circles at this point. Have a good weekend!

[camoman1234]

On 9/12/2019 at 8:13 AM, Cideous said:

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.

 

 

 

There are several religious hospital groups that don't allow OCP or abortions, is this wrong? How about all the hospital groups not prescribing medical marijuana or the pain management group within the 2 main hospitals that won't do fentanyl or PCPs (such as the group I work with) not Rx schedule II medications. I mean what is your point? We make decisions on everything but not everyone agrees with it. This is life and this is America, we do have a choice on what we stand for. If you don't agree with the care or insurance then go somewhere else or buy different insurance.     

[Guest PAhopeful85]

I saw you guys were discussing medishare on here (the Christian healthcare sharing ministry). I used them for two years and they covered my daughters delivery which was a 26,000 bill. I only had to cover my deductible. 

Medishare was my only option and I was grateful for it. I had been working multiple PRN jobs while finishing pre reqs and the year prior I had made a lot of money and because of that, Obamacare wanted me to pay 680/mo with a 12,000 deductible. But that year I was making half since I increased the pre reqs I was taking and worked a little less.  

If it wasn’t for medishare I would have been screwed without coverage. Medishare works the way you would expect Obamacare to work. Everyone pays equally. But last I checked like 51% of Americans don’t pay income taxes so there’s that. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by PAhopeful85