Doctor(s) Getting Rich Off Medical Exemptions

[BidingMyTime]

So, apparently at least one doctor is charging $1200/yr for a temporary medical exemption from vaccines.

In California, Some Doctors Sell 'Medical Exemptions' for Kids' Vaccinations

"I'm getting a very high volume of medical exemptions from one provider, and from what I understand, for all intents and purposes, she's selling these medical exemptions," said one official quoted in the study. "She used to just give permanent medical exemptions, and now she's giving temporary for 3 months. So now families have to go back every 3 months and pay $300 to get their temporary medical exemption updated."

As a libertarian, I think, "well, I guess if there is a market for it....", but as a parent/caring person, I think "WTF!" This seems like such a bad scam, playing on parents ignorance and charging them an exorbitant amount to keep their children in danger of deadly diseases.

Once solution I've seen is to require doctors to get a special certification in order to write exemptions. But this would probably mean those doctors have to pay a fee to maintain their certification, and possibly parents of children who really do need an exemption have to travel and/or pay a higher office visit to get the exemption.

I want parents to do the right thing and vaccinate their children, but I don't like the idea of forcing them to. But what is the solution? How do we make parents smarter and the exemption writers more ethical? How do we prevent fraudulent medical exemptions, without making it difficult for real medical exemptions to be obtained?

I think a public education campaign (IF done correctly) could work. It has with cigarettes. I think it has to be honest and realistic. Bad examples are DARE which has been shown to make children more likely to do drugs. And those stupid Gardasil "Did you know? Mom? Dad?" ads, I find these guilt-producing ads a total turn-off and I support vaccines. Guilt tends to make people double-down on wrong thinking.

I think a public education campaign needs to take the concerns of anti-vaxxers seriously, but point out why the concerns of not vaccinating are far worse. I think, if I knew nothing about vaccines, such a comparison as a parent, would convince me of the importance of vaccinating.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

You should not need a medical exemption

And if you want higher vax rates you should donate to education initiatives

That is the libertarian solution

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Pediatrician Bob Sears Punished For Questionable Vaccine Exemption

 

[Modest_anteater]

You should not need a medical exemption

And if you want higher vax rates you should donate to education initiatives

That is the libertarian solution

Can't you just not get your child vax'd? they arn't sending ppl to jail for that yet... Or like send your child to home school?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Can't you just not get your child vax'd? they arn't sending ppl to jail for that yet... Or like send your child to home school?

California requires a medical exemption

 

[Modest_anteater]

California requires a medical exemption

What happens if you don't get it? Is it civil or criminal?

 

[Momus]

It's taxes for the stupid. The doctor is laughing all the way to the bank. I wish I were him.

 

[PharmDBro2017]

Pediatrician Bob Sears Punished For Questionable Vaccine Exemption

That's a step in the right direction (taking away his license). Placing children's lives at risk for cash should come with a more severe punishment.

 

[deleted480308]

That's a step in the right direction (taking away his license). Placing children's lives at risk for cash should come with a more severe punishment.

There shouldn’t be a need for an exemption

 

[PharmDBro2017]

There shouldn’t be a need for an exemption

Great repost.

Regardless if they need an exemption or not, the ignorant conspiracy believing idiots will still refuse vaccination and lead to epidemics. Have you seen the measles outbreak in NY? 75 cases and growing as of 3 hours ago.

75 confirmed cases of measles in Rockland County: city officials

 

[Sine Cura]

If these so-called parents truly cared and wanted to do the right thing they wouldn't breed.

 

[deleted480308]

Great repost.

Regardless if they need an exemption or not, the ignorant conspiracy believing idiots will still refuse vaccination and lead to epidemics. Have you seen the measles outbreak in NY? 75 cases and growing as of 3 hours ago.

75 confirmed cases of measles in Rockland County: city officials

I’m not at all disagreeing that vaccines are good, just saying that people have a choice

 

[spacecowgirl]

There shouldn’t be a need for an exemption

Do you mean people shouldn't be able to not vaccinate or there shouldn't be a need for an exemption?

There shouldn't be a need for police or prison or speeding tickets or Social Security or insurance or alarm systems or building codes. Everyone should just want to do the right thing and save money. But that is a intellectually lazy belief.

 

[deleted480308]

Do you mean people shouldn't be able to not vaccinate or there shouldn't be a need for an exemption?

There shouldn't be a need for police or prison or speeding tickets or Social Security or insurance or alarm systems or building codes. Everyone should just want to do the right thing and save money. But that is a intellectually lazy belief.

No, people should not need to justify their vaccination status to the govt.

And if you want to branch into the irrelevant strawmen you just constructed, I’m willing. Just say the word

 

[Modest_anteater]

No, people should not need to justify their vaccination status to the govt.

And if you want to branch into the irrelevant strawmen you just constructed, I’m willing. Just say the word

Agreed. Also forcing people to do stuff is just going to make them push back further. There are literally tens of thousands of people that feel vaccines do more harm than good. Of course I doubt many ppl here believe that.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

What happens if you don't get it? Is it civil or criminal?

No clue

 

[radio frequency]

No, people should not need to justify their vaccination status to the govt.

And if you want to branch into the irrelevant strawmen you just constructed, I’m willing. Just say the word

Sure. They don’t need to justify their vaccination status. They just can’t attend public schools then. Seems reasonable.

 

[PA_dud3]

Agreed. Also forcing people to do stuff is just going to make them push back further. There are literally tens of thousands of people that feel vaccines do more harm than good. Of course I doubt many ppl here believe that.

I know one who does, lol

 

[deleted480308]

Sure. They don’t need to justify their vaccination status. They just can’t attend public schools then. Seems reasonable.

As long as they get a voucher for the cost, fine

 

[PharmDBro2017]

I’m not at all disagreeing that vaccines are good, just saying that people have a choice

If your choice then causes your spawn to be vectors of disease and death and thus infecting/killing infants and elderly people, you’re also taking away those peoples rights to prosperity.

Agreed. Also forcing people to do stuff is just going to make them push back further. There are literally tens of thousands of people that feel vaccines do more harm than good. Of course I doubt many ppl here believe that.

We’re all aware that there are at least tens of thousand idiots who slept through high school science class.

 

[BenJammin]

It's genius. If pharmacists in Texas could provide that I would absolutely offer it to patients for a fee. "Idiot tax" comes to mind.

 

[deleted480308]

If your choice then causes your spawn to be vectors of disease and death and thus infecting/killing infants and elderly people, you’re also taking away those peoples rights to prosperity.
.

You don’t owe anyone else herd immunity, regardless of how scientifically logical.

 

[radio frequency]

As long as they get a voucher for the cost, fine

Homeschooling is free.

 

[zelman]

You don’t owe anyone else herd immunity, regardless of how scientifically logical.

Do you owe restitution if others can prove you infected them with a vaccine-preventable illness?

 

[spacecowgirl]

No, people should not need to justify their vaccination status to the govt.

And if you want to branch into the irrelevant strawmen you just constructed, I’m willing. Just say the word

No thanks. I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

 

[spacecowgirl]

I think a public education campaign needs to take the concerns of anti-vaxxers seriously, but point out why the concerns of not vaccinating are far worse. I think, if I knew nothing about vaccines, such a comparison as a parent, would convince me of the importance of vaccinating.

The last 2 years have taught me that people don't want to learn, facts are irrelevant and it's more important to be loud than right. I don't have high hopes for this method, sadly.

 

[PharmDBro2017]

You don’t owe anyone else herd immunity, regardless of how scientifically logical.

So as a taxpayer, you’re fine footing the bill for each measle exposure? Estimated 10-20k/case.

 

[owlegrad]

So as a taxpayer, you’re fine footing the bill for each measle exposure? Estimated 10-20k/case.

He isn’t fine with it. In his world view you should only catch measles if you are willing to pay for the treatment yourself. Otherwise you should just die.

Or am I wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[deleted480308]

Homeschooling is free.

But as the govt shouldn’t be forcing it, the money allocated for that student in public school should be allowed to follow them to other options of their choosing if the govt barred them from the public school

Do you owe restitution if others can prove you infected them with a vaccine-preventable illness?

If it canbe proved you knowingly and intentionally infected them (like a person knowingly with aids not telling sexual partners) then yes

But not just because you didn’t get vaccinated. Again, you don’t owe someone else an injection in your body to try and create herd immunity

 

[deleted480308]

So as a taxpayer, you’re fine footing the bill for each measle exposure? Estimated 10-20k/case.

He isn’t fine with it. In his world view you should only catch measles if you are willing to pay for the treatment yourself. Otherwise you should just die.

Or am I wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

govt shouldn’t be making you pay for other people’s expenses

All care should be self-paid (cash or with selfobtained insurance) or handled through charity. And yes, I mean that even if it means not everyone gets everything all the time

 

[beautifulrobot]

If it canbe proved you knowingly and intentionally infected them (like a person knowingly with aids not telling sexual partners) then yes

But not just because you didn’t get vaccinated. Again, you don’t owe someone else an injection in your body to try and create herd immunity

I think you meant a person knowingly with HIV. Policies that criminalize HIV by punishing people for not disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners can be detrimental to public health. They increase the stigma around HIV and create an incentive for people to not get tested and know their status. The laws are also difficult to enforce justly - there are cases where the person does disclose their HIV status to a sexual partner, but then the sexual partner for nefarious reasons threatens to accuse them of not disclosing and uses the laws to blackmail/coerce the person living with HIV. In a courtroom, people living with HIV have almost no credibility, and their word against their HIV- partners often doesn't stand a chance.

All that aside, along the same logic of not owing someone else an injection in my body, why do I owe anyone the knowledge of my HIV status, especially if it can be used against me? If someone doesn't want to risk getting HIV from a sexual partner, they either do not have sex with other people, or they use condoms and/or they take PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis). If they get HIV because they didn't use any precautions, then that's their responsibility, not the responsibility of the person living with HIV.

 

[deleted480308]

I think you meant a person knowingly with HIV. Policies that criminalize HIV by punishing people for not disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners can be detrimental to public health. They increase the stigma around HIV and create an incentive for people to not get tested and know their status. The laws are also difficult to enforce justly - there are cases where the person does disclose their HIV status to a sexual partner, but then the sexual partner for nefarious reasons threatens to accuse them of not disclosing and uses the laws to blackmail/coerce the person living with HIV. In a courtroom, people living with HIV have almost no credibility, and their word against their HIV- partners often doesn't stand a chance.

All that aside, along the same logic of not owing someone else an injection in my body, why do I owe anyone the knowledge of my HIV status, especially if it can be used against me? If someone doesn't want to risk getting HIV from a sexual partner, they either do not have sex with other people, or they use condoms and/or they take PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis). If they get HIV because they didn't use any precautions, then that's their responsibility, not the responsibility of the person living with HIV.

If you know you are infected and don’t tell a partner, you should be in jail

 

[beautifulrobot]

If you know you are infected and don’t tell a partner, you should be in jail

Nope, I shouldn't. There are a lot of good reasons why I wouldn't tell a partner. Having the government force me to disclose my HIV status to sexual partners is unnecessary government interference in my affairs. I am not forcing anyone to have sex with me. If someone decides to have sex with me, they do that knowing they cant trust that someone will tell the truth about their HIV status, and so they should take whatever precautions they feel are necessary to protect themselves.

ETA: I personally think it is best to be honest and disclose, but I also acknowledge that its a very personal decision. For some people it can be unsafe to disclose their HIV status, and the threat of jail time doesn't change that. This isn't a simple issue, and trying to frame it as such is harmful to people living with HIV and society at large. Again, making it illegal to not diclose your status if you know your status discourages people from getting tested - these kinds of laws essentially say if you don't know then you aren't liable. Almost half of new infections are acquired from people who didn't know they were HIV+. Creating laws that discourage people from engaging with care and getting treatment actually worsens the spread of HIV. These laws don't work and do more harm than good.

 

[deleted480308]

Nope, I shouldn't. There are a lot of good reasons why I wouldn't tell a partner. Having the government force me to disclose my HIV status to sexual partners is unnecessary government interference in my affairs. I am not forcing anyone to have sex with me. If someone decides to have sex with me, they do that knowing they cant trust that someone will tell the truth about their HIV status, and so they should take whatever precautions they feel are necessary to protect themselves.

ETA: I personally think it is best to be honest and disclose, but I also acknowledge that its a very personal decision. For some people it can be unsafe to disclose their HIV status, and the threat of jail time doesn't change that. This isn't a simple issue, and trying to frame it as such is harmful to people living with HIV and society at large. Again, making it illegal to not diclose your status if you know your status discourages people from getting tested - these kinds of laws essentially say if you don't know then you aren't liable. Almost half of new infections are acquired from people who didn't know they were HIV+. Creating laws that discourage people from engaging with care and getting treatment actually worsens the spread of HIV. These laws don't work and do more harm than good.

We’re going to disagree on the approach to this problem

 

[beautifulrobot]

We’re going to disagree on the approach to this problem

That's fine. Could you at least explain how you rationalize that the government shouldnt require vaccinations, but should require disclosure of one's sensitive medical information?

 

[owlegrad]

We’re going to disagree on the approach to this problem

I am curious, why should the government interfere in this exact case? So the government should not interfere when it comes to education, health, etc but if someone has HIV the government should require them to disclose their status? How does that square with the libertarian world view of having the government stay out of private affairs?

Just curious, perhaps they should be required to get a tattoo or wear some kind of pin?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[deleted480308]

That's fine. Could you at least explain how you rationalize that the government shouldnt require vaccinations, but should require disclosure of one's sensitive medical information?

I don’t think you should be required to disclose your sensitive medical information to everyone. You deliver my pizza? I don’t need to know.

But if we’re having sex and you don’t tell me we’re actively exchanging bodily fluids that you know...and I don’t....are contaminated with a life altering deadly disease then you should be criminally convicted.

I find that a dramatically different situation than you saying you don’t want a shot just because there might someday be a chance that you might someday come in contact with a disease that you would then have an improved chance of maybe not passing on to someone else.

And Again, I like vaccines and am fully vaccinated

 

[beautifulrobot]

I don’t think you should be required to disclose your sensitive medical information to everyone. You deliver my pizza? I don’t need to know.

But if we’re having sex and you don’t tell me we’re actively exchanging bodily fluids that you know...and I don’t....are contaminated with a life altering deadly disease then you should be criminally convicted.

I find that a dramatically different situation than you saying you don’t want a shot just because there might someday be a chance that you might someday come in contact with a disease that you would then have an improved chance of maybe not passing on to someone else.

And Again, I like vaccines and am fully vaccinated

It is different, but not in the way you think. It is much more difficult for me to avoid contaminated aerosol droplets with potentially life threatening diseases from unvaccinated people than it is for me to avoid contact with bodily fluids that contain HIV (which is actually a very manageable disease and not life threatening with access to proper treatment). I would argue that people who choose to not get vaccinated put my life at greater danger than people who choose to not disclose their HIV status to me. When it comes to potentially exposing myself to HIV, I can insist on using condoms, i can take PrEP, or i can simply decide to engage in sexual activites that dont involve fluid exchange and never risk getting HIV. It is my choice and my responsibility. There is always going to be the risk of getting an STI when you have sex, and that's a risk you have to be willing to accept if you make the choice to be sexually active. It would be nice if people always disclosed, but no one is forcing you to potentially expose yourself to HIV, so there is nothing criminal or blameworthy on the part of the person that has HIV.

On the other hand, the only way I can avoid the flu or measles is to not ever go out in public or to consistently wear a N95 mask... so yeah. That's a lot more burdensome than avoiding sex or using condoms.

I get that it feels really ****ty to have someone lie to you in a way that makes you vulnerable to getting a life-changing disease like HIV. It sucks when you trust someone and they betray your trust. I understand wanting to criminalize that kind of betrayal of trust. But doing so is not logically consistent with small government/libertarianism. You want retribution for being betrayed? Do it yourself. Why have the taxpayer foot the bill for your broken heart?

 

[allantois]

Oh look libertarians making up rules based on what they FEEL is right.

 

[deleted480308]

It is different, but not in the way you think. It is much more difficult for me to avoid contaminated aerosol droplets with potentially life threatening diseases from unvaccinated people than it is for me to avoid contact with bodily fluids that contain HIV (which is actually a very manageable disease and not life threatening with access to proper treatment). I would argue that people who choose to not get vaccinated put my life at greater danger than people who choose to not disclose their HIV status to me. When it comes to potentially exposing myself to HIV, I can insist on using condoms, i can take PrEP, or i can simply decide to engage in sexual activites that dont involve fluid exchange and never risk getting HIV. It is my choice and my responsibility. There is always going to be the risk of getting an STI when you have sex, and that's a risk you have to be willing to accept if you make the choice to be sexually active. It would be nice if people always disclosed, but no one is forcing you to potentially expose yourself to HIV, so there is nothing criminal or blameworthy on the part of the person that has HIV.

On the other hand, the only way I can avoid the flu or measles is to not ever go out in public or to consistently wear a N95 mask... so yeah. That's a lot more burdensome than avoiding sex or using condoms.

I get that it feels really ****ty to have someone lie to you in a way that makes you vulnerable to getting a life-changing disease like HIV. It sucks when you trust someone and they betray your trust. I understand wanting to criminalize that kind of betrayal of trust. But doing so is not logically consistent with small government/libertarianism. You want retribution for being betrayed? Do it yourself. Why have the taxpayer foot the bill for your broken heart?

We can disagree without the misrepresentation.

It’s unnecessary

 

[PA_dud3]

It is different, but not in the way you think. It is much more difficult for me to avoid contaminated aerosol droplets with potentially life threatening diseases from unvaccinated people than it is for me to avoid contact with bodily fluids that contain HIV (which is actually a very manageable disease and not life threatening with access to proper treatment). I would argue that people who choose to not get vaccinated put my life at greater danger than people who choose to not disclose their HIV status to me. When it comes to potentially exposing myself to HIV, I can insist on using condoms, i can take PrEP, or i can simply decide to engage in sexual activites that dont involve fluid exchange and never risk getting HIV. It is my choice and my responsibility. There is always going to be the risk of getting an STI when you have sex, and that's a risk you have to be willing to accept if you make the choice to be sexually active. It would be nice if people always disclosed, but no one is forcing you to potentially expose yourself to HIV, so there is nothing criminal or blameworthy on the part of the person that has HIV.

On the other hand, the only way I can avoid the flu or measles is to not ever go out in public or to consistently wear a N95 mask... so yeah. That's a lot more burdensome than avoiding sex or using condoms.

I get that it feels really ****ty to have someone lie to you in a way that makes you vulnerable to getting a life-changing disease like HIV. It sucks when you trust someone and they betray your trust. I understand wanting to criminalize that kind of betrayal of trust. But doing so is not logically consistent with small government/libertarianism. You want retribution for being betrayed? Do it yourself. Why have the taxpayer foot the bill for your broken heart?

Do you believe car manufacturers should be held liable if their product explodes and they knew about it but didn't tell anyone?

 

[beautifulrobot]

We can disagree without the misrepresentation.

It’s unnecessary

I apologize for going off track. More to the point of the original argument, it still seems inconsistent that you argue that the government shouldnt hold people accountable for taking reasonable measures to reduce their risk of spreading diseases via vaccination, but should hold them accountable for not disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners. It seems that emotions around HIV and sex rather than political ideology are motivating this contradiction, and thats why i started going down that path.

 

[deleted480308]

I apologize for going off track. More to the point of the original argument, it still seems inconsistent that you argue that the government shouldnt hold people accountable for taking reasonable measures to reduce their risk of spreading diseases via vaccination, but should hold them accountable for not disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners. It seems that emotions around HIV and sex rather than political ideology are motivating this contradiction, and thats why i started going down that path.

I appreciate the attempt to reboot our talk

One is actively risking spreading a known infection you have

One is refusing a shot which increases the odds you might someday get an infection which could then potentially be passed to others

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I appreciate the attempt to reboot our talk

One is actively risking spreading a known infection you have

One is refusing a shot which increases the odds you might someday get an infection which could then potentially be passed to others

Yes but if you refuse the shot, get the easily preventable illness, and infect others are you equally liable for them getting sick as the hypothetical HIV+ person?

 

[deleted480308]

Yes but if you refuse the shot, get the easily preventable illness, and infect others are you equally liable for them getting sick as the hypothetical HIV+ person?

If you know you have the illness? Yes

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

If you know you have the illness? Yes

Excellent, then I can get behind your way of thinking.

There's a grey area for illnesses that are contagious before symptoms show, but I suspect I know how the courts would side on that area.

 

[PharmDBro2017]

govt shouldn’t be making you pay for other people’s expenses

But the govt does, that's the world we actually live in. Not your libertarian utopia.

I consider myself libertarian. But if I have to pay for idiots to be hospitalized when they get a case of the measles + refused their MMR, when the MMR vaccine is proven safe and efficacious, I have an issue with that and the burden to the healthcare system and taxpayer that follows. It would be best for society if everyone were to be required to get vaccinated and have zero choice in the matter, thus increasing herd immunity and saving countless lives. Exemptions should only be for those with documented legitimate anaphylaxis to an ingredient in the vaccine.


It's the 21st century, we do not need to be reviving viruses that were defeated in the 20th century. Anyways, I'm enjoying the discussion in here. Can't wait to see how this continues (100+ cases in NY/NJ today):
NJ measles: Lakewood outbreak may be poised to spread

 

[deleted480308]

But the govt does, that's the world we actually live in. Not your libertarian utopia.

I consider myself libertarian. But if I have to pay for idiots to be hospitalized when they get a case of the measles + refused their MMR, when the MMR vaccine is proven safe and efficacious, I have an issue with that and the burden to the healthcare system and taxpayer that follows. It would be best for society if everyone were to be required to get vaccinated and have zero choice in the matter, thus increasing herd immunity and saving countless lives. Exemptions should only be for those with documented legitimate anaphylaxis to an ingredient in the vaccine.


It's the 21st century, we do not need to be reviving viruses that were defeated in the 20th century. Anyways, I'm enjoying the discussion in here. Can't wait to see how this continues (100+ cases in NY/NJ today):
NJ measles: Lakewood outbreak may be poised to spread

It would be best for society if govt stayed out of it, you shouldn’t be billed for anyone. I’m aware that’s libertarian wishing and not current policy

 

[beautifulrobot]

Do you believe car manufacturers should be held liable if their product explodes and they knew about it but didn't tell anyone?

It is not some big unknown that you can acquire HIV from unprotected sex. I honestly don't think people should have to disclose their HIV status. Regardless of their answer i plan on taking the same measures to protect myself. Because people lie, and because some people don't know their status with certainty.

Not to mention, the more relevant question is not whether someone has HIV, but if they do, whether or not they are undetectable. If they are on treatment and undetectable it is virtually impossible for them to transmit the virus.

 

[beautifulrobot]

I appreciate the attempt to reboot our talk

One is actively risking spreading a known infection you have

One is refusing a shot which increases the odds you might someday get an infection which could then potentially be passed to others

I disagree that they are actively risking spreading a known infection. The person who agrees to engage in unprotected sex with someone whose HIV status they don't know with certainty is the one actively taking a risk. I know we disagree on this point... so I'll let it go.

It sounds like you draw the line at once someone already has acquired the infection and knows they have the infection, and at that point the government can start to regulate their actions and restrict their freedoms. That seems kind of arbitrary and ineffective in actually controlling the spread of disease.