Tennessee considers withholding monoclonal antibody treatment from vaccinated citizens

#76
#76
luthervol said:
Health insurance companies just need to add a $500 surcharge for each covered person not vaccinated.
Click to expand...
NAH! Just refuse to provide treatments to the unvaxed. Throw some horse pills in a goodie back and show them the door. This is just about as crazy as some of the other BS I have read in this thread.
 
#77
#77
volinbham said:
Seems pretty simple. The treatment is designed to keep people out of the hospital. Identify those most at risk from hospitalization on a case by case basis and administer the treatment accordingly.
Click to expand...
No. You must include politics in the care solution. Sorry those are the rules today.
 
#79
#79
SpaceCoastVol said:
And you have taken a different stance on your position?
Click to expand...

My position has evolved over the past year, yes.

Why don't you convince me how I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Because that is nearly impossible to do, for a number of reasons. Not the least of which would be that my understanding of immunology has evolved to accept that no vaccine is 100% effective and requires some level of promulgation within the body in order to trigger an appropriate immune response.

And it's not self gratification. It is serious concern as to what I am seeing. None of you vax pushers EVER talk about immunity which for the 60 years I have been around has always been the purpose of a vaccine. Now it is ONLY about getting the ****ing shot.
Click to expand...

"You" grouping language is not effective in building the bridges necessary for people to have interest in your position. Even though I share many of your concerns, language that excludes others on the front end makes defense of the underlying point difficult.

I won't go into the philosophy of immunization theory, but I will say that I do not believe mandates are in our best interests. We're nearing the point of inflection where the pandemic will become endemic. Just like the flu vaccine doesn't guarantee you won't get the flu, the COVID vaccines won't guarantee you won't get COVID. Get it if you want it, don't get it if you don't. I've done what I feel is best for me and my family, you do what's best for you and yours. No shaming.
 
#82
#82
OHvol40 said:
The unvaccinated (who are not otherwise CONCLUSIVELY inoculated) that have “done the research” and “evaluated their risk” need to stop showing up at the ED with shortness of breath and sudden loss of taste & smell. You evaluated your risk, now keep your a** at home and take cough syrup and leave the ED beds for old ladies who broke their hips and heart attacks.
Click to expand...
Those who have ever smoked, did not practice a consistent exercise regimen, did not eat healthy. Should not show up to the ER or seek cancer treatment etc. They evaluated the risk and chose not to take care of themselves.


Do you see why this is a horrible way to determine the care we offer?
 
Last edited:
#84
#84
NorthDallas40 said:
Is there a cost based analysis that shows this $500 offsets the extra incurred group risk or is this just another punitive number you grabbed out of your ass like every other one you’ve proposed on every topic you’ve responded to. Just so we’re clear that is a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...
Oh, I just made it up. Maybe it should be $250 or $743.28. Doesn't matter - the point is clear.
 
#86
#86
PEPPERJAX said:
NAH! Just refuse to provide treatments to the unvaxed. Throw some horse pills in a goodie back and show them the door. This is just about as crazy as some of the other BS I have read in this thread.
Click to expand...
I think they need to be treated. Just make sure they take responsibility for the extra cost their choices are adding to the system.
Win - win.
 
#90
#90
luthervol said:
I think they need to be treated. Just make sure they take responsibility for the extra cost their choices are adding to the system.
Win - win.
Click to expand...

do you support universal healthcare; particularly the single payer model (e.g. Medicare for all)?
 
#91
#91
NorthDallas40 said:
Indeed it was. I in fact already indicated the quality of your replies.
Click to expand...
I keep hoping you will start to see glimmers of that elusive 3rd dimension.
You replaced orange crush as the new poster boy for 2-dimensional concrete.
 
#95
#95
luthervol said:
Just trying to keep it in that rational and reasonable range. Not a comfort zone for many.
Click to expand...

singling out a pandemic for your suggestion rather than the menace of chronic disease which is often connected to choice and far greater costs to the system makes sense...
 
#96
#96
If there really is the threat of an impending shortage, the first step should be increasing production (which would be quite simple, really) -- and this should be the focus of the fed government. Next, revise the criteria for MAb to include only those at higher risk for hospitalization/poor outcomes -- e.g. raise the minimum age from 12 to maybe 35/45, exclude fully-vaccinated individuals unless they have an immunocompromised condition, ... The latter should be the responsibility of the CDC/NIH/professional medical associations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel and Jxn Vol
#98
#98
volinbham said:
singling out a pandemic for your suggestion rather than the menace of chronic disease which is often connected to choice and far greater costs to the system makes sense...
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of surcharges in general. I'm guessing some on here are. If you are, then consistency would lead you to want surcharges on the un-vaxed.
 
#99
#99
kiddiedoc said:
If there really is the threat of an impending shortage, the first step should be increasing production (which would be quite simple, really) -- and this should be the focus of the fed government. Next, revise the criteria for MAb to include only those at higher risk for hospitalization/poor outcomes -- e.g. raise the minimum age from 12 to maybe 35/45, exclude fully-vaccinated individuals unless they have an immunocompromised condition, ... The latter should be the responsibility of the CDC/NIH/professional medical associations.
Click to expand...

"Regeneron spokeswoman Alexandra Bowie said it takes four to eight weeks to produce a batch of the medication and the company has ramped up production to try to meet the surge in demand." - from https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/14/monoclonal-antibodies-shortage/
 
#100
#100
volinbham said:
so how would your surcharge work in that world - forced vaccinations? denial of care for those not vaccinated? special surcharges for choices you don't approve of?
Click to expand...
I would go more with incentives. If the problem continued, then maybe something more punitive.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top