She literally called me at the time of the appointment to tell me she can't see me. She was so apologetic, but was like "I absolutely can treat you, but I'm not allowed by your insurance". Fuck this country.
Update: I went to urgent care. Before leaving home, I called to be sure they would accept my insurance (Aetna). They said yes.. After arriving for my appointment, they told me they do not accept my insurance. I will simply leave without paying.
Final Update: I can understand that that differences in physical biology demand different attention. That's not what I'm complaining about. It's the way it's set up. I was told that at my appointment. Why not just refer me to a specialist? The website could've even just referred me to urgent care (yes, my insurance requires a primary care physician's referral for urgent care, according to the urgent care facility). But, no, their goal is to obfuscate and irritate until the patient gives you and pays out-of-pocket.
I was able to receive care at a cost I could not afford. I won't discuss what I had to do to "find" the money to pay for care and prescriptions. That being said, the condition I was diagnosed with was more serious than a simple infection, and I'm glad that I saw a doctor. I need further treatment and just hope I can get insurance to cover any of it.
If you're an American reading this, please consider ways to get involved in organizing in support of Medicare For All in your community. Here is one resource I have found. We don't need to live like this. We deserve better. Stay safe and healthy, friends.
That sounds expensive. So when you don't have an income source they charge you a tax for it?
It makes sense if you think about it (assuming my thoughts are correct, I'm in the US). If you're employed, you are contributing through your taxes. Just because you're unemployed, it doesn't mean your contributions pause. Now, should they? That's a good question, but the current implementation makes sense. I imagine it does incentivize people to look for employment.
there is so much money in the world, and food/water, and housing that literally everyone - theoretically - could be fed and healthy without needing to pick on the unemployed first.
It's not a matter of amount, it's a matter of allocation. You have water shortages in a lot of places because agriculture uses massive amounts of potable water to irrigate (and can afford to do so- because water is and should be cheap). If agriculture were more efficient, we would have a lot more potable water- but making it more efficient takes money, resources, work, and ongoing maintenance. Similarly, the existence of vacant housing and homeless people doesn't imply that we have enough housing to go around. A lot of vacant housing is vacant for a reason- it's not ok to be shoving homeless people into collapsing apartments, unsafe buildings, a sixth-floor walkup when they're in a wheelchair, etc. Food also is way more than the production cost, it's also transporting the food to a place where it can be made available, keeping the food fresh and safe, and preparing it. For a lot of countries with an unstable food supply, the problem is much less that they don't have enough food and more that it's difficult or unsafe to get food to the tables of people who are hungry.
This might have been implied in your comment but it's far more nuanced than "we just need to care more about feeding everybody"- there are real tradeoffs and real commitment of real work and resources, and important sacrifices both known and unknown to any system you design.
No. No, it does not. A poor tax makes no sense.
We can discuss where the money comes from, but the idea isn't pie-in-the-sky wild. I don't disagree with you.