M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Oh, good-

Off hand, this does seem high to me as I mentioned in a prior post


From the Reuters article:

>>>Lukin said she expects the vaccine - currently provided for free to all by the government - will be made available at no cost to people who have private insurance or government paid insurance. . . . The U.S. government currently pays around $30 per dose to Pfizer and German partner BioNTech SE (22UAy.DE). . . . It is not yet clear what kind of access people without health insurance will have to the vaccine.<<<

Assuming at least some people decide not to get it due to the cost, I can't help but wonder what the cost will be to care for the people who get sick because they decided not to get vaccinated. I realize the answer to this will probably never be known with certainty, but the $30 per jab paid by the government might be a lot less then the increased health care costs.

At the risk of derailing this thread on a political tangent, someone will ultimately pay for the cost of health care for the uninsured. The following is just one example of an article on the topic.

>>>Over the years, the federal government, states, and localities have devoted considerable resources to pay providers for care they provide to uninsured patients through several public program efforts (e.g., Veterans Health Administration and state and local indigent care programs) and also through direct financial support (e.g., Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments).<<<

https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/sources-of-payment-for-uncompensated-care-for-the-uninsured/

As an aside, my wife used to work for a hospital that took in numerous uninsured patients for all sort of things, including gunshot wounds, drug overdoses, etc. Some of the local families with significant wealth regularly contributed truly massive amounts of their own money to keep this hospital in operation. This was done behind the scenes and I highly doubt anyone knew about it other than a handful of people.
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
I see little difference between the Moderna and the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines.

Compared to what can happen at the dentist, two vaccinations are nothing.
Well these are my normal quarterly cleanings and once a year x-ray, both to ensure I have no jaw bone degeneration from my 2020 radiation treatments.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Well these are my normal quarterly cleanings and once a year x-ray, both to ensure I have no jaw bone degeneration from my 2020 radiation treatments.
The Mayo Clinic is a good place. I'm glad you go to that one in Jacksonville.

My comment about getting vaccinated vs. going to the dentist was based on this. When I was about to get cataract surgery on my first eye, I asked the guy sitting nearby me in the waiting room about his experience. (He was there to get his second eye done.) He said, "It's much easier than a bad day (such as a root canal or crown) at the dentist". I smiled and relaxed.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Off hand, this does seem high to me as I mentioned in a prior post
From the Reuters article:

>>>Lukin said she expects the vaccine - currently provided for free to all by the government - will be made available at no cost to people who have private insurance or government paid insurance. . . . The U.S. government currently pays around $30 per dose to Pfizer and German partner BioNTech SE (22UAy.DE). . . . It is not yet clear what kind of access people without health insurance will have to the vaccine.<<<

Assuming at least some people decide not to get it due to the cost, I can't help but wonder what the cost will be to care for the people who get sick because they decided not to get vaccinated. I realize the answer to this will probably never be known with certainty, but the $30 per jab paid by the government might be a lot less then the increased health care costs.

At the risk of derailing this thread on a political tangent, someone will ultimately pay for the cost of health care for the uninsured. The following is just one example of an article on the topic.

>>>Over the years, the federal government, states, and localities have devoted considerable resources to pay providers for care they provide to uninsured patients through several public program efforts (e.g., Veterans Health Administration and state and local indigent care programs) and also through direct financial support (e.g., Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments).<<<
https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/sources-of-payment-for-uncompensated-care-for-the-uninsured/
As an aside, my wife used to work for a hospital that took in numerous uninsured patients for all sort of things, including gunshot wounds, drug overdoses, etc. Some of the local families with significant wealth regularly contributed truly massive amounts of their own money to keep this hospital in operation. This was done behind the scenes and I highly doubt anyone knew about it other than a handful of people.
Preventative medicine is always less expensive. And no, Pfizer is not price gouging. I pay more than $20 just for a hair cut. (When Big Pharma does gouge prices, I'm among the first to complain. Example, the price of Humira.)

Yet, people stubbornly refuse vaccinations, often saying, "Why should I get that shot when I'm not sick?" Similarly, those who were sick & hospitalized, receiving intensive care for advanced Covid-19, begged ICU doctors for the "shot".

In the past several years, we saw plenty of examples of both versions of that foolishness.
 
Last edited:
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
The Mayo Clinic is a good place. I'm glad you go to that one in Jacksonville.

My comment about getting vaccinated vs. going to the dentist was based on this. When I was about to get cataract surgery on my first eye, I asked the guy sitting nearby me in the waiting room about his experience. (He was there to get his second eye done.) He said, "It's much easier than a bad day (such as a root canal or crown) at the dentist". I smiled and relaxed.
Oh my cataracts were a breeze. I had the laser procedure. The prep took a lot longer than the procedure. IT reminded me of a really old Start Trek TV show, 'Dagger of the Mind and the Neutral Neutralizer when my head was strapped down on the table., . LOL

Screenshot 2023-10-21 134305.jpg
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
Preventative medicine is always less expensive. And no, Pfizer is not price gouging. I pay more than $20 just for a hair cut. (When Big Pharma does gouge prices, I'm among the first to complain. Example, the price of Humira.)

Yet, people stubbornly refuse vaccinations, often saying, "Why should I get that shot when I'm not sick?" Similarly, those who were sick & hospitalized, receiving intensive care for advanced Covid-19, begged ICU doctors for the "shot".

In the past several years, we saw plenty of examples of both versions of that foolishness.
You pay for the Covid vaccines? In Canada, the Federal government has been providing it free for all Canadians.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
At the risk of derailing this thread on a political tangent, someone will ultimately pay for the cost of health care for the uninsured. The following is just one example of an article on the topic.
It would probably cost far less than health care for the obese, Diabetic and those with cardiac problems that stem from decades of consuming crap food and sitting on their cabooses, rather than going for an occasional walk.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
You pay for the Covid vaccines? In Canada, the Federal government has been providing it free for all Canadians.
Same for Sweden.
Both Sweden and Canada have nationalized health care. In the USA, people older than 65, career military, and foreign service (?) have nationalized health care. Because I fall into that first group, I didn't pay out-of-pocket for the Covid & Flu vaccinations I had the other day.

The USA would be far better off if we also had a form of nationalized health care for everyone – despite what the Goat Rodeo Champs of the GOP claim.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Received my Flu (Afluria Tetra, 5mL MDV) and COVID-19 (Moderna XBB Monovalent) jabs in my right and left arms, respectively, yesterday afternoon. Feeling pretty good so far. A little bit of stiffness in the shoulders and a touch of lethargy. If it doesn't get any worse than that, I'll do my normal 8-9Km run after work. My wife received hers also, but she isn't feeling very well. Hardly slept last night and has a bit of a fever (100.5 degrees, in old money).
 
davidscott

davidscott

Audioholic Ninja
Received my Flu (Afluria Tetra, 5mL MDV) and COVID-19 (Moderna XBB Monovalent) jabs in my right and left arms, respectively, yesterday afternoon. Feeling pretty good so far. A little bit of stiffness in the shoulders and a touch of lethargy. If it doesn't get any worse than that, I'll do my normal 8-9Km run after work. My wife received hers also, but she isn't feeling very well. Hardly slept last night and has a bit of a fever (100.5 degrees, in old money).
Aleve fixed all of my aches in a few hours.
 
Out-Of-Phase

Out-Of-Phase

Audioholic General
My employer healthcare paid for mine. Original Medicare pays for it also.
 
D

dlaloum

Full Audioholic
Preventative medicine is always less expensive. And no, Pfizer is not price gouging. I pay more than $20 just for a hair cut. (When Big Pharma does gouge prices, I'm among the first to complain. Example, the price of Humira.)

Yet, people stubbornly refuse vaccinations, often saying, "Why should I get that shot when I'm not sick?" Similarly, those who were sick & hospitalized, receiving intensive care for advanced Covid-19, begged ICU doctors for the "shot".

In the past several years, we saw plenty of examples of both versions of that foolishness.
In most of the rest of the world, those vaccinations are free...
The governments negotiate a national deal with the pharmaco's... and it is provided to the nation gratis.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
@Mikado463

I tried reading your link, even though your past history of such links have warned me that they are less than serious or worthwhile. Your latest link is so full of verbose gobbledy-gook, that I quickly gave up any serious effort at reading & understanding it. Usually, any scientific paper clearly says it's major conclusions in the Abstract and Conclusion sections. This paper failed to do that. If the authors had major points to make questioning the Pfizer clinical vaccine trial from almost 3 years ago, 1) Why wait so long? 2) Why publish in such an unknown journal? 3) Why write in such obscure language?

I had never heard of The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. It isn't carried in the NIH Library, nor could I find it listed in PubMed the online searchable database of biomedical journals. When I did a general search for it on Google, the first link I found was this:
On that link was this question: Is “The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research” a serious, science-based publication or a mouthpiece for anti-vaxxers? Clearly, this was not a good starting point.
Obviously this is a quack journal. In addition to the excellent points others have made, look at the editorial board, the supposed experts who direct this publication:
  • Editor-in-chief: John W. Oller, Jr., PhD in General Linguistics from the University of Rochester in New York, now a professor at ipaknowledge.org
  • and consultant to Veritas International University… A professor of linguistics, now working at a website and as a “consultant:” how is he a vaccine expert?
  • Senior editor: Christopher A. Shaw, PhD, Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia… A real college at least, but again, wrong area of study.
But here’s the real kickers in the associate editors list:
  • Mary S. Holland, MA, JD, General Counsel for Children's Health Defense 2019-present; formerly Director Graduate Lawyering Program, New York University School of Law 2004-2019; expertise in children's health and litigation concerning vaccines; renowned author of works in that area. A lot of “former” here, an anti-vaccine litigation professional, and “renowned” author of unlisted “works;” no real journal uses a fluff word like “renowned” in describing its editors.
  • Robert J. Krakow, JD, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, Representing the Vaccine Injured in All 50 States. All credibility is now gone. This man has a vested interest in seeking or manufacturing evidence against vaccines.
Always check out a journal’s background and board as well as its content. Lawyers don’t belong on the editorial board of a medical journal.
I think that quote says enough. You've linked yet another highly doubtful publication (and I use the term 'doubtful' lightly.). It makes unusual anti-vaccine claims that are, at best, obscurely written. If you've read this paper, please point out to us just what the authors had to say. I looked but didn't find it. Honest lawyers should know better than to pose as statisticians.

You've tried this before with questionable publications related to Covid-19 vaccines and treatments. No one wants to debunk such garbage. However, I will continue to be vigilant at exposing nonsense like this. You convince no one. But you do convince all readers here that you are an anti-vaccine punk – with no ablility to understand what you're posting. Cut it out.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
@Mikado463

I tried reading your link, even though your past history of such links have warned me that they are less than serious or worthwhile. Your latest link is so full of verbose gobbledy-gook, that I quickly gave up any serious effort at reading & understanding it. Usually, any scientific paper clearly says it's major conclusions in the Abstract and Conclusion sections. This paper failed to do that. If the authors had major points to make questioning the Pfizer clinical vaccine trial from almost 3 years ago, 1) Why wait so long? 2) Why publish in such an unknown journal? 3) Why write in such obscure language?

I had never heard of The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. It isn't carried in the NIH Library, nor could I find it listed in PubMed the online searchable database of biomedical journals. When I did a general search for it on Google, the first link I found was this:
On that link was this question: Is “The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research” a serious, science-based publication or a mouthpiece for anti-vaxxers? Clearly, this was not a good starting point.

I think that quote says enough. You've linked yet another highly doubtful publication (and I use the term 'doubtful' lightly.). It makes unusual anti-vaccine claims that are, at best, obscurely written. If you've read this paper, please point out to us just what the authors had to say. I looked but didn't find it. Honest lawyers should know better than to pose as statisticians.

You've tried this before with questionable publications related to Covid-19 vaccines and treatments. No one wants to debunk such garbage. However, I will continue to be vigilant at exposing nonsense like this. You convince no one. But you do convince all readers here that you are an anti-vaccine punk – with no ablility to understand what you're posting. Cut it out.
Swerdy, for the record I wasn't trying to convince anyone, so get off your high F'n horse !!!

I know full well you, being a retired 'lab rat' would and could have quickly laid this to rest if it was just another click bait piece. As for my understanding of all things medical, I don't claim to be the know-it-all like you and several others here, thus the questions.

As for your anti-vac comment, you're FOS, I'm fully boosted and go in today for my 'annual' flu shot.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Swerdy, for the record I wasn't trying to convince anyone, so get off your high F'n horse !!!

I know full well you, being a retired 'lab rat' would and could have quickly laid this to rest if it was just another click bait piece. As for my understanding of all things medical, I don't claim to be the know-it-all like you and several others here, thus the questions.

As for your anti-vac comment, you're FOS, I'm fully boosted and go in today for my 'annual' flu shot.
@Swerd is spot on and you do come across as an anti-vaxxer with your posts in this thread. This is what happens when you repeatedly post links to disinformation, quackery and other junk.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
@Swerd is spot on and you do come across as an anti-vaxxer with your posts in this thread. This is what happens when you repeatedly post links to disinformation, quackery and other junk.
An 'anti-vaxxer' ???? Just because at times I question Big Pharma, our Gov't ??? Are you that naive ??


But I'm sure you and your buddy Swerd will claim the above link is false publication........
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
An 'anti-vaxxer' ???? Just because at times I question Big Pharma, our Gov't ??? Are you that naive ??
Several times before you’ve defended yourself by saying that you’re not an anti-vaxxer because you’ve taken the COVID vaccines and are just "asking questions". After awhile we stop believing you.


But I'm sure you and your buddy Swerd will claim the above link is false publication........
And now you’re deflecting from the fact that you repeatedly posts very low quality links, and that in general on Audioholics.
 
Last edited:
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top