[bko]

>> It seems to me like you just don't think medicare or medicaid should be a thing to begin with.

Please don't ascribe beliefs or intentions to me that I didn't explicitly state.

> Why should my tax dollars to go a healthcare provider who doesn't want to get the vaccine when that money can go to one who will?

Medicare and Medicaid should be fee for treatment. Why shouldn't I be allowed to choose what provider I want to visit for the same treatment? They can have different covid policies, much like schools do. I don't think it should be a federal issue.

> The medicare/medicaid patients that we're paying for will get better treatment from those healthcare providers who require vaccination, and if better care is not the goal than what is?

You're mistaking treatment for safety protocols. A health care provider can have a certain doctor to nurse ratio or a million other things and they may not all be "optimal" as defined by the powers that be. We should allow people to choose what health care provider is right for them based on their constraints and not restrict options.

[kelnos]

> We should allow people to choose what health care provider is right for them based on their constraints and not restrict options.

Disagree. If I'm footing the bill for that care (as a taxpayer) I expect to have a say in what constitutes minimum quality of care.

And allowing unvaccinated healthcare workers to treat patients is reckless, and falls well below that minimum quality bar.

(I would also accept healthcare workers with natural immunity, assuming we can establish some sort of testable minimum antibody level that confers a similar level of protection as a vaccine.)

[DSMan195276]

> Why shouldn't I be allowed to choose what provider I want to visit for the same treatment? They can have different covid policies, much like schools do. I don't think it should be a federal issue.

You can, by paying for it yourself :P

> You're mistaking treatment for safety protocols. A health care provider can have a certain doctor to nurse ratio or a million other things and they may not all be "optimal" as defined by the powers that be. We should allow people to choose what health care provider is right for them based on their constraints and not restrict options.

I see what you're saying but I think it's an odd distinction, treatment outcomes and safety protocols are clearly linked, why should tax dollars go to treatment provided with substandard safety protocols when the same can be spent for better treatment elsewhere? Functionally it would just end up costing us and the program more over time and lead to worse outcomes. The other issue here is that most patients aren't even going to know enough about the various things you listed to make an informed opinion about them.