Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 11, 2010, 05:30:42 PM
-
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/24/news/economy/doctors_ditching_medicare_patients/
great news for medicare patients
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb398%2FFLHRI-OK%2Fchurchsign.jpg&hash=d442b7985b6e83a0e8b3168385cd5ddf5c8f27e7)
-
i'm changed my health plan is being discontinued lots of angry folks at geico
-
Not a problem. Doctors will be required by law to accept Medicare patients, as part of their service to the state.
-
i am thrilled at that prospect :facepalm:
i honestly am less concerned for myself but things that perceive as a threat to my kids well being, and this qualifies, bring out the less civilized side of me. i shudder to think how i would react should i feel they had suffered actual harm think of the movie john q
-
Not a problem. Doctors will be required by law to accept Medicare patients, as part of their service to the state.
Expectedly the next step, and probably a necessary one to complete the takeover.
-
Not a problem. Doctors will be required by law to accept Medicare patients, as part of their service to the state.
Haven't pharmacists been fired for failing to provide abortion drugs, and hasn't this held up in court? Same thing.
-
Haven't pharmacists been fired for failing to provide abortion drugs, and hasn't this held up in court? Same thing.
Is not a pharmacy a private entity?
-
Usually. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
-
Haven't pharmacists been fired for failing to provide abortion drugs, and hasn't this held up in court? Same thing.
At will employment.
-
I'm totally down with at-will employment. But it seems that in both cases, the argument used is the idea that not providing a service constitutes a denial of service.
And to reiterate, baby-killing pharmacies have every right to fire whomever they please.
-
and if the pharmacy had tried to fire a satanist the gov woulda been all oiver em
-
c&sd: Quite, people should be free to discriminate, no?
If I owned a place that provides morning-after pills, I would want to have employees actually sell the products.
A person who got hired at, say, a restaurant and then stated his religious beliefs prohibit him from handling, say, meat and serving it to customers (despite it being a meat-serving restaurant) would be instantly fired.
-
If I owned a place that provides morning-after pills, I would want to have employees actually sell the products.
if you owned a place and were morally/spiritually opposed to a product should the gov be able to compel you to offer the product/service?
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2799075/pdf/bth06_2p035.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Kevz_9lsw
more good news
-
If I owned a place that provides morning-after pills, I would want to have employees actually sell the products.
if you owned a place and were morally/spiritually opposed to a product should the gov be able to compel you to offer the product/service?
No, but if I understand correctly, "fired" implies that the person was not the owner, but an employee.
-
http://www.jillstanek.com/aclu-demands-catholic-hospital.html
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1087150
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_nurse_forced_to_participate_in_abortion_lawsuit_filed/
-
Government money comes with strings, you know. Piper. tune.
-
fail see if you can figure why
-
I certainly didn't mean to start an argument about at-will employment. I was trying to point out that, if pharmacies could fire their employees for not dispensing abortion pills, it is not hard to imagine a court ruling that doctors cannot refuse service for Medicare-related reasons.
On looking around, though, it looks like the courts have ruled in favor of the pharmacists, many of whom were actually pharmacy owners that would have been required by law to dispense abortifacients or be put out of business.
-
I think it's just as silly to go into a business where you might have to do things you're morally against, as it is to get a job doing so.
You can't just walk up and buy a Walgreens pharmacy, the training alone to be a pharmacist is pretty intensive.
Why bother if you don't want to dispense certain pills? It's a waste of your own money (and our money, since many people get govt grants to do it)
Any pharmacy owner who does this deserves to go out of business in my opinion. I could see it leading to any one of the following one day:
"Oh, your kid needs Adderall? I'm not dispensing that. It's terrible stuff, and he's just a brat. ADHD is over-diagnosed and this drug is over perscribed. HE probably doesn't have it. If you were a better mother, he'd behave." [This has actually happened to my girlfriend's kid with a pharmacist they had never seen before, standing in for their normal one.]
"Oh, you need Valtrex? I'm not dispensing that. If you weren't a slut, you wouldn't have herpes."
"Oh, you need Atripla? I don't despense drugs to gays because Homosexuality is wrong."
Fistful: I think it's a stretch to link this to refusing to treat medicare patients. If a pharmacy or doctor takes federal money, perhaps, treating medicare patients can be a condition of that. Otherwise, I don't see it happening
-
It can be hard to find a profession completely devoid of moral ambiguity.
-
It can be hard to find a profession completely devoid of moral ambiguity.
Exactly. That's why if you're a pharmacist, you dispense what the doctor writes, unless you have information (drug interactions, allergies, etc) that would make that dangerous for the patient. Then you call the doctor and get something else.
I work in managed hosting. One of my customers is a spammer.
I'm more than happy to take their money, and when they complain that an anti-spam RBL is blocking them, I laugh. I'll talk to the anti spam people, and pass it on to the customer. They'll stop spamming for a bit, then start up again, and get blocked almost instantaneously.
Now, I won't help them hide who they are (they wanted a set of netblocks in someone elses name, which I wouldn't give them) or help them evade the anti spammers, but I have no problem taking their money for something i'm morally opposed to. I'll make sure their network is running properly, and that the servers they pay for are running properly, and that's it.
You sometimes have to deal with rotten people to make a living. I'll treat these guys fairly, but not give them anything above and beyond like I would my other customers.
-
I think it's just as silly to go into a business where you might have to do things you're morally against, as it is to get a job doing so.
You can't just walk up and buy a Walgreens pharmacy, the training alone to be a pharmacist is pretty intensive.
Why bother if you don't want to dispense certain pills? It's a waste of your own money (and our money, since many people get govt grants to do it)
Any pharmacy owner who does this deserves to go out of business in my opinion. I could see it leading to any one of the following one day:
"Oh, your kid needs Adderall? I'm not dispensing that. It's terrible stuff, and he's just a brat. ADHD is over-diagnosed and this drug is over perscribed. HE probably doesn't have it. If you were a better mother, he'd behave." [This has actually happened to my girlfriend's kid with a pharmacist they had never seen before, standing in for their normal one.]
"Oh, you need Valtrex? I'm not dispensing that. If you weren't a slut, you wouldn't have herpes."
"Oh, you need Atripla? I don't despense drugs to gays because Homosexuality is wrong."
Fistful: I think it's a stretch to link this to refusing to treat medicare patients. If a pharmacy or doctor takes federal money, perhaps, treating medicare patients can be a condition of that. Otherwise, I don't see it happening
so its only those freedoms that you agree with that are important? and some of these folks chose careers before these drugs were available. on a side note are condoms still illegal in ireland?
-
Exactly. That's why if you're a pharmacist, you dispense what the doctor writes, unless you have information (drug interactions, allergies, etc) that would make that dangerous for the patient. Then you call the doctor and get something else.
I don't disagree with you, but I know some people who are simply incapable of compartmentalizing in the way that you suggest. If the guy I'm thinking of was a pharmacist, he would be unable to distinguish the pharmacology of the drug from the moral implications of the drug. He would refuse to dispense a drug that would be dangerous for the patient's body or the patient's soul.
This is one of the things about a guy that gets on my nerves pretty regularly, but it is a real issue.
And yeah, the availability of drugs has changed a lot over the years.
-
he would be unable to distinguish the pharmacology of the drug from the moral implications of the drug. He would refuse to dispense a drug that would be dangerous for the patient's body or the patient's soul.
i'm on the fence about that being either good or bad have moral convictions gone the way of black and white tv ? to be replaced with convienience
-
Exactly. That's why if you're a pharmacist, you dispense what the doctor writes, unless you have information (drug interactions, allergies, etc) that would make that dangerous for the patient. Then you call the doctor and get something else.
I work in managed hosting. One of my customers is a spammer.
I'm more than happy to take their money, and when they complain that an anti-spam RBL is blocking them, I laugh. I'll talk to the anti spam people, and pass it on to the customer. They'll stop spamming for a bit, then start up again, and get blocked almost instantaneously.
Now, I won't help them hide who they are (they wanted a set of netblocks in someone elses name, which I wouldn't give them) or help them evade the anti spammers, but I have no problem taking their money for something i'm morally opposed to. I'll make sure their network is running properly, and that the servers they pay for are running properly, and that's it.
You sometimes have to deal with rotten people to make a living. I'll treat these guys fairly, but not give them anything above and beyond like I would my other customers.
So, you are doing exactly what the pharmacist did? Refusing to do certain services you don't want to do.
Do you go down to the kosher meat market to buy pork?
-
So, you are doing exactly what the pharmacist did? Refusing to do certain services you don't want to do.
Do you go down to the kosher meat market to buy pork?
Are there pharmacies marketed toward religious communities who oppose the use of the drugs at issue?
I know there are doctors like that, but never heard of a religious pharmacy.
-
You sometimes have to deal with rotten people to make a living.
Well, maybe you do ...
-
I have no problem taking their money for something i'm morally opposed to.
answers this
have moral convictions gone the way of black and white tv ? to be replaced with convienience
-
have moral convictions gone the way of black and white tv ? to be replaced with convienience
Yes. And anyone who tries to apply moral convictions to anything outside their imagination should (according to some, and on this board no less) be prosecuted legally.
Essentially people like Nitrogen do not want anyone to be able to hold a job in the real world if they also want to hold onto moral convictions.
-
Exactly. That's why if you're a pharmacist, you dispense what the doctor writes, unless you have information (drug interactions, allergies, etc) that would make that dangerous for the patient.
You're right. We should all simply do our jobs in a perfectly thoughtless manner.
I think it's just as silly to go into a business where you might have to do things you're morally against, as it is to get a job doing so.
You can't just walk up and buy a Walgreens pharmacy, the training alone to be a pharmacist is pretty intensive.
Why bother if you don't want to dispense certain pills? It's a waste of your own money (and our money, since many people get govt grants to do it)
Any pharmacy owner who does this deserves to go out of business in my opinion.
Speaking of things that are silly and wasteful, the above rambling is both. How moronic, to suppose that a pharmacist cannot make a living without selling one or two particular medications. Is it not patently obvious that for every order for an abortifacient, there will be twelve for cold medicine?
-
Essentially people like Nitrogen do not want anyone to be able to hold a job in the real world if they also want to hold onto moral convictionsother than his.
ftfy
-
Essentially people like Nitrogen do not want anyone to be able to hold a job in the real world if they also want to hold onto moral convictionsother than his.
ftfy
Why would I want to employ people whose moral convictions contradict them doing the job? I've not yet had an answer to that.
-
Why would I want to employ people whose moral convictions contradict them doing the job? I've not yet had an answer to that.
Perhaps I've lost track, but is anyone arguing that you would?
-
Why would I want to employ people whose moral convictions contradict them doing the job? I've not yet had an answer to that.
Ok. Turn it around. What if I only want to employ people who do have moral convictions? You, and others like Nitrogen are arguing that a business owner should be free to hire employees who are the best fit for you and your company. Well others want to do the same thing. It's just that the "best fit" for Nitrogen would be someone without moral convictions, and the "best fit" for someone else might be someone with moral convictions. Why should your or Nitrogen be free to run your business how you want, but insist on keeping other business owners from doing what they want?
-
I guess I should read threads more carefully before replying. I completely missed the fact that a certain member feels that pharmacists should be forced to cooperate with murder schemes, yet he personally refused to cooperate with a scheme to commit spam.
So, yeah, we're talking to someone who feels spam is worse than murder. ???
-
I guess I should read threads more carefully before replying. I completely missed the fact that a certain member feels that pharmacists should be forced to cooperate with murder schemes, yet he personally refused to cooperate with a scheme to commit spam.
So, yeah, we're talking to someone who feels spam is worse than murder. ???
More to the point, we're dealing with someone who feels that his ideals and values (or lack thereof) should be applied, through law and prosecution if necessary, to everyone without question.
-
I guess I should read threads more carefully before replying. I completely missed the fact that a certain member feels that pharmacists should be forced to cooperate with murder schemes, yet he personally refused to cooperate with a scheme to commit spam.
The way I read what he wrote, he provides to them the services that they pay for, but does not provide fraudulent services (that are outside of his duties) that would help them in an enterprise he does not approve of (to wit: obtaining blocks of network addresses under someone else's name - that'd be fraudulent).
So the pharmacy-argument equivalent would be a pharmacist refusing (on moral grounds) to sell an abortifacient to someone who walks in with a scrip for morning-sickness anti-nausea meds. That would be very right and proper, regardless of the pharmacist's moral views, because he would be refusing to provide services that were outside of his legitimate purview.
I see this issue as one of timing: If someone was a pharmacist already, and a drug came on the market that he found morally repugnant, then he should be within his rights to refuse to sell it under the "this is not what I signed up for" premise. Just as, for instance, a cop who had been on the force for years, when new department policy comes down that people of a particular type should be harassed for whatever reason, should refuse that duty; it was not a part of the deal when he signed up, and it's morally repugnant to him.
But if the pharmacist came into the job knowing that dispensing drugs of this type (and if the cop signed onto the force knowing that harassing "those people") was part of the job, then he signed up for it, and should STFU and do his job. Or quit. But not cherry-pick which of the duties he agreed to perform as a condition of employment he will actually perform.
To try to change the deal after the fact, from either direction, is not acceptable. For an employer to alter the moral framework of a job after someone is employed is reprehensible. But for an employee to take money for a job that they knew they would be unable (or unwilling) to perform is likewise reprehensible.
As for government involvement in all of this: It's not the government's job to tell any business owner what they must sell, who they must hire, or what services they must offer. If there are two pharms in town, and one of them chooses not to dispense some drugs on moral grounds, then the other one will get that business, and the people of the community will decide if they care enough about the issue to support one pharm over the other. If they overwhelmingly support the one that claimed a moral high ground, then likely that one will succeed and the other might fail. If they don't care, then if the morally-repugnant business is a significant revenue stream, then the one who took a moral stand might fail. Legitimate market forces, operating in legitimate ways.
Medicare's a different animal, because the government simply cannot allow the free market to operate in this arena, or the wheels will fall off the ObamaCare cart; for economic reasons, more and more docs would refuse to take medicare patients, until the remaining ones are swamped with economically-untenable clients, at which point they'll either go under or they'll start refusing to take them as well, and the problem will snowball.
Of course, the wheels are going to come off the cart no matter what; when being a doc is no longer an economically-sound profession, people will stop becoming docs. The only solution then will be one of two things: soviet-era-style totalitarian control of what profession each person goes into, forcing some people to be docs (with results comparable to soviet-era medicine); or a return to market-based medical care.
-
Ok, wait.
The anti-abortionists are arguing that it's wrong to force one's own moral code on other people?
Wtf?
-
Ok, wait.
The anti-abortionists are arguing that it's wrong to force one's own moral code on other people?
Wtf?
No one believes it is wrong to force one's moral code on other people.
-
The cop example doesn't really work as police are members of a team and employed by the government to serve the people. A pharmacist is a private citizen who may be operating a business on his own or with employees of his choosing. As such, the pharmacist should have the right to run his business and select his employees on whatever basis he chooses, even a moral or religious basis. To continue the disparity, a resident of a city cannot choose to not associate with that city's police department. He is under their jurisdiction and must associate with them while in his town. But any citizen may choose any pharmacy he wants anywhere. If you go to one that doesn't sell birth control, just find another.
-
No one believes it is wrong to force one's moral code on other people.
Agreed. I wish we would all acknowledge that the issues of when and how it is just to do so are a matter of considerable complexity.
-
The anti-abortionists are arguing that it's wrong to force one's own moral code on other people?
Maybe Ragnar is.
-
No one believes it is wrong to force one's moral code on other people.
Well, actually ... part of my personal moral code is that it is wrong to force one's moral code on other people.
The problem arises when others try to force their moral code on me, and so therefore I am trying to enforce my moral code on them when I say they shouldn't force their moral code on me ;/
BTW, not forcing my moral code on somebody does not preclude me from thinking somebody is wrong.
-
Mo-o-o-o-o-om! Tallpine got some of his moral code on me!
-
ummm, that's not moral code. [barf]
[popcorn]
-
Anyone got the key to that moral code? I can't read it.
IMO, tell the pharmacy to put a sign up saying they don't sell morning after pills. The person can go to another pharmacy. Down here, you can't go to a Walgreens without tripping over a CVS.
-
Mo-o-o-o-o-om! Tallpine got some of his moral code on me!
But it was your fault :P