Originally Posted by
Flyhayes
Honestly, I'd much rather have the second opinion from the mayo clinic. If it could save me from an unnecessary spinal surgery (and all the issues that go with it) vs other effective medical treatments, I'm all for it.
Quite often, surgery isn't the best option but is still what surgeons opt for.
A quick google search finds this:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=125627307
Sure, why wouldn't the company want to save money if it's not even needed for effective treatment? If it helps you why not? If it keeps my insurance premiums down, why not?
Sounds more to me that you like getting upset for the sake of being upset, especially when it's the Mayo Clinic and not some fly by night dr.
What is preventing you from getting a second opinion as it is? If this was an addition that said “you *can* now get a second opinion by the Mayo Clinic for spine surgery at JetBlue’s expense,” that’d be one thing. But it’s not. It’s a mandate. They choose what procedure they want to further look into, they choose the doctor, all on their terms.
Why would anybody favor healthcare mandates? What if they decide to change “mayo clinic” to “jetblue clinic with jetblue doctor,” or some fly by night garbage medical facility…would you still be in favor of it? What if they expand it from spine to any other procedure? What if this adds 6 months to your wait time while you’re out on disability unable to work? You’re focusing too much on the details of “spine, second opinion, and Mayo Clinic,” and not the broader implications of company controlled and micromanaged healthcare with the ability to put somebody of their choosing on payroll to be the arbiter of what and potentially when medical procedures can or can’t be performed. Of course it starts with something that doesn’t seem like a bad idea on the surface (rare surgery that often should have a second opinion anyway, by a big name trusted medical group). But this would be opening pandora’s box.