Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for pointing out this story at the Boston Globe. Apparently there’s talk of banning the new clinics housed inside various Walmarts and CVS stores in Boston. As Glenn ponders, why would the lawmakers there want to eliminate affordable health care operated by the private sector? Also, Glenn links to this post which highlights how these clinics are doing things right.
Related posts
In Massachusetts; medical
One of the things that the retail clinics seem to have right is that many of them have patients sign an arbitration agreement prior to be seen. Further, the agreement states that they will be seen and treated by an independent ARNP or physicians assistant and that it is not a substiture for higher levels of care. To my knowledge, this agreement has not been tested in a med-mal arena in our state, but time will tell.
Before banning something people willingly pay for, shouldn’t a substantive harm be proven?
I’m particularly impresses with the mayor’s assertion that people “making money of of sick people” is wrong.
We’re talking about a pharmacy here. They are already making money off of sick people. And our pediatrician who is the sweetest, nicest lady on the planet - she makes her living off sick people too.
I’m particularly impresses with the mayor’s assertion that people “making money of of sick people” is wrong.
So, the mayor is going to quit politics immediately, right?!? :-/
Let’s see. Liberal. Economically Illiterate. From Massachusetts.
Give up politics?
He’ll be in congress soon.