i'm beginning to wonder

[DON WALKUP]

i know there's been many threads about this as of late, but...

i don't see much left of the country we once knew by the time this guy residing in the white house is through with us. :(

there's been nothing but strife in this country since "he" took office... :(

i, for one, don't think there is going to be much left in our pockets by the time "he" gets thru with us. taxes are set to zoom out of sight for the average working person.

you name it...it is getting out of control...our auto licensing here increased by fifty dollars per vehicle...one of my prescriptions went up by $30.00 in one month! the list goes on. water rates are doubling and tripling, cities, states and counties are going bankrupt and taking it out on the taxpayer...

awwwww!!! that ain't so bad you say? well, when you live on a fixed income, it DOES bite deeply into your living.

when will it end? i doubt it will, until, just like the housing crisis, prices got so outrageous and out of control, it will collapse. it's not a matter of "IF"...it's a matter of "WHEN".

i believe the current occupant of the white house will accelerate this plunge.

fasten your seat belts...

[Mr. 16 gauge]

I agree that things are bad, and I don't see them getting any better any time soon.
I also feel that the current president is more concerned about his "legacy" than what would be best for the American people. And currently, the 'two party system' ain't working because the current party in power has all the vote in both houses....they know that they can pretty much 'do what they want' and are doing so.
....but I also feel that there is plenty of 'blame' to go around...to both parties! Republicans were in power when the current policies were enacted that bankrupted the banking system....where the hell were they?
And all the hulabaloo about health care reform? Where was the republicans answer to Obama's plan? More 'partisan' politics!
....and being in the medical field, why was neither party willing to support tort reform when it comes to such crap as awards for 'pain and suffering" with re: to health care? That would go a long way to decreasing health care costs, but nobody in congress wants to do it because a huge majority of those individuals are lawyers, and they want to protect their shyster friends!

I saw some 'expert' on TV the other day spouting about all the 'unnecessary tests & procedures' that physicians do. He was making it sound like they were being done to pad someone's pocket. Know why these 'unnecessary' tests are done? So that when some whimsical law suit comes down the pike, he or she can show that yes, indeed he did such and such a test and it was negative for whatever bizarre disease said shyster is trying to claim 'pain and suffering' for. We need tort reform NOW!!!

The only way to get a handle on this problem is to do away with welfare as we know it....no more 'hand out' programs. I have no problem with helping someone out with unemployment payments (I hate calling them benefits....sounds like a reward for being unemployed to me), but I would expect that when you get back on your feet that some of it get's paid back to help the next poor person who looses his/her job. We are now on our 4th generation of welfare 'recipients' (i.e. parasites) that have no job and have no intention of getting a job, and as long as these leeches continue to suck the money out of the system and give nothing back, then we are doomed.

My biggest fear now is that with all this commotion in MI re: the Hutaree that a big push will again be made against private firearm ownership.....it's just the 'jumping off' point that people like Holder & Pelosi need.

[Seawolf1090]

What the current Misadministration fails to remember is.....

the First American Revolution was fought over broadly similar issues........

and We The People are far better armed and experienced NOW....... :mad:


"HIGH TREASON" during wartime has but ONE punishment.

[fabsroman]

And all the hulabaloo about health care reform? Where was the republicans answer to Obama's plan? More 'partisan' politics!
....and being in the medical field, why was neither party willing to support tort reform when it comes to such crap as awards for 'pain and suffering" with re: to health care? That would go a long way to decreasing health care costs, but nobody in congress wants to do it because a huge majority of those individuals are lawyers, and they want to protect their shyster friends!

I saw some 'expert' on TV the other day spouting about all the 'unnecessary tests & procedures' that physicians do. He was making it sound like they were being done to pad someone's pocket. Know why these 'unnecessary' tests are done? So that when some whimsical law suit comes down the pike, he or she can show that yes, indeed he did such and such a test and it was negative for whatever bizarre disease said shyster is trying to claim 'pain and suffering' for. We need tort reform NOW!!!

I agree with everything you said. Personally, we need to ask ourselves why the Democrats held a super majority in Congress and held the White House and still hold a majority in both sides of Congress and still hold the White House. It is probably because the Republicans weren't doing such a great job prior to the 2008 election and the economy really went into the crapper right before the election with the stock market plummeting. Of course, after the fact I think they have figured out that the recession started in 2007 and was gaining steam until it hit hard in late 2008.

As far as tort reform is concerned, how about throwing up some stats. I have had this debate on several times on a cycling forum and I believe the net effect of pain & suffering, etc. isn't that big a deal compared to the entire amount of medical costs out there.

As far as your reference to lawyers as shysters, I personally take offense to it since I am an attorney. How about doctors that purchase some fancy new piece of testing machinery that continually test patients on it that probably do not need to be tested, just so they can make sure the investment in the machine gives them a good return on their investment. How about the shyster doctors that recommend surgeries that aren't really need just because they need to pay for their new Ferrari or their kid's college education? How about the shyster doctors that do not want to be held responsible for "pain & suffering" when they perform a heart surgery and leave a tool or gause inside the patient? Do you mean the patient should not be compensated for having to have his chest cracked open again? What if I accidentally shoot you and you have to walk around in severe pain the rest of your life? Should you not be compensated for that? What if I run you over in my F350, crack your spine, and you have to walk around in pain for the rest of your life? Should you not recover for that? If you want to get rid of "pain & suffering" do it for everything. Let ALL the negligent people off the hook. Don't hold the negligent people responsible at all. That is exactly what this nation needs, less responsibility amongst the already irresponsible.

Ultimately, if a doctor does not screw up, then he doesn't have anything to worry about, does he?

Here is one article from the Washington Independent stating that tort reform wouldn't really reduce heallth care costs, even with a cap on pain & suffering, which we already have in place in Maryland.

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

Plenty of people are quoted in the article and I am sure I can find a lot more that state medical malpratice lawsuits and defensive medicine aren't a big part of health care costs that are spiralling out of control. It might have to do with people wanting to live forever, and tons of medical expenses being incurred by people in the last year or two of their lives. I think the numberr was something like over 50% of medical costs incurred by most people are incurred in the last year or two of their lives.

Personally, I think health care for everybody that works (including their immediate family), all children under 18, and everybody that is receiving unemployment compensation (including their immediate family) is a good thing. Now, when I say works, I am not talking about 8 hours a week. It has to be 30 hours or more. Enough with the handouts. However, I do believe in providing for people that are down on their luck that have lost their job through no fault of their own.

I think a a lot of our problems boil down to personal responsibility. People rely on the government too much. Also, just as most people live on credit way too much nowadays, these are the same people that we elect to Congress and the White House. So, why should we expect them to be fiscally sound with the government's money when they aren't fisccally sound with their own money.

[GoodOlBoy]

One - Yes this country is going rapidly into the toilet.
Two - Just because Doctors are Shysters doesn't mean Lawyers aren't (or politicians for that matter). I poop, my dog poops, both are piles of poop. Just an example. I am sure there are exceptions, after all I know people can sometimes poop blood instead of poop. Catch my drift?

GoodOlBoy

[fabsroman]

One - Yes this country is going rapidly into the toilet.
Two - Just because Doctors are Shysters doesn't mean Lawyers aren't (or politicians for that matter). I poop, my dog poops, both are piles of poop. Just an example. I am sure there are exceptions, after all I know people can sometimes poop blood instead of poop. Catch my drift?

GoodOlBoy

I say this often, in any group of people (e.g., doctors, lawyers, tax preparers, accountants, dentists, home improvement contractors, hunters, shooters, fishermen, and the list goes on and on) there will be shysters. I deal with attorneys a lot and think most of them are good people, just like most people in society are good people. Yes, I have run across the shyster attorney here and there, but it isn't all that often. I've also dealt with a lot of shyster people on the other side of claims and as clients, and guess what, they weren't attorneys.

[GoodOlBoy]

No but lets say you have a disease. . . . say testicular cancer. Now There are all types of men out there. Girly men, manly men, of all races creeds and colors. Now if you put two people in a room and say one of them as testiculr cancer and one is a woman and one is a man then guess what. . . . . Its the same with doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. If you put a doctor, a lawyer, and a politiciant in a room together with a man working his arse off to make a living at two jobs and an old fashioned farmer and tell me pick out the three shysters. . . . . Well you just play the percentage at that point. . . .

Now I am not saying you are a shyster fabs, everything I know about you and all the times we have talked online I really think you are an honest man, however you being an honest man has not a thing in the world with you being a lawyer. Most lawyers I have met were crooks before they were lawyers and crooks after they were lawyers (most of them became politicians, kinda the upgrade to your basic shyster). I know two good ones besides yourself amongst a sea of bad ones. I don't doubt you know other good honest lawyers, after all you deal with them far more than most of us do, and you have enough sense to know who is going to stab you in the back in your own industry, but I bet you could close your eyes and type a roladex full of bad ones too if you had a mind too.

What is being said is that there are crooks in every part of society, BUT some jobs just attract more crooks and shysters than others. Your dumb crook is going to be a buglar, a thief, etc. Your smart crook is going to be drawn to the legal theft involved in the law and politics. After all there is no better way to pick a mans pocket than to get him to put you into it, thats more than half the job done.

I am a Tech Specialist by trade. Kinda a cross between a refrigerator repairman, a computer hacker, and a jack-of-all-trades. Haven't found anything yet I couldn't fix given time, money, and inclination. But guess what. Most Tech Specialists I know are just plain old hacks and crooks who want to get at peoples money for doing a half-arsed job of repairing their systems, or setting them up. Sure I know a few other good ones. But I know FAR more bad ones.

GoodOlBoy

[fabsroman]

No but lets say you have a disease. . . . say testicular cancer. Now There are all types of men out there. Girly men, manly men, of all races creeds and colors. Now if you put two people in a room and say one of them as testiculr cancer and one is a woman and one is a man then guess what. . . . . Its the same with doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. If you put a doctor, a lawyer, and a politiciant in a room together with a man working his arse off to make a living at two jobs and an old fashioned farmer and tell me pick out the three shysters. . . . . Well you just play the percentage at that point. . . .

Now I am not saying you are a shyster fabs, everything I know about you and all the times we have talked online I really think you are an honest man, however you being an honest man has not a thing in the world with you being a lawyer. Most lawyers I have met were crooks before they were lawyers and crooks after they were lawyers (most of them became politicians, kinda the upgrade to your basic shyster). I know two good ones besides yourself amongst a sea of bad ones. I don't doubt you know other good honest lawyers, after all you deal with them far more than most of us do, and you have enough sense to know who is going to stab you in the back in your own industry, but I bet you could close your eyes and type a roladex full of bad ones too if you had a mind too.

What is being said is that there are crooks in every part of society, BUT some jobs just attract more crooks and shysters than others. Your dumb crook is going to be a buglar, a thief, etc. Your smart crook is going to be drawn to the legal theft involved in the law and politics. After all there is no better way to pick a mans pocket than to get him to put you into it, thats more than half the job done.

I am a Tech Specialist by trade. Kinda a cross between a refrigerator repairman, a computer hacker, and a jack-of-all-trades. Haven't found anything yet I couldn't fix given time, money, and inclination. But guess what. Most Tech Specialists I know are just plain old hacks and crooks who want to get at peoples money for doing a half-arsed job of repairing their systems, or setting them up. Sure I know a few other good ones. But I know FAR more bad ones.

GoodOlBoy

See, there you have it yourself. I just think there are a lot of bad, dishonest, irresponsible people in society, and it flows through almost all professions. You have them in your profession, and I have them in mine. Some computer techs recommend computer upgrades that are not needed just so they can make a buck and some attorrney recommend litigation or unneeded discovery just so they can make a buck. Same goes for home improvement contractors. Some roofers recommend a roof replacement when there is absolutely nothing wrong with the roof. They are everywhere. It is just that some professions give more opportunity to the dishonest folks. For instance, it is kind of tough to steal or rob somebody if you are working at a car wash as the towel drier. You just don't have the opportunity to be dishonest and have it affect somebody other than to say "No sir, I definitely wiped down your car" even if you didn't.

[Mr. 16 gauge]

Fabsroman;
I apologize that you took umbrage to my refering to certian attorneys as 'shysters'. If you notice, I did not refer to all attorneys as shysters, just those that seek political favors from their cronies. Personally, I think you might be being a bit oversensitive.
Having said that.....our view of the world is shaped by our personal experiences.
The article you enclosed is interesting, but being in health care for over 30 years, I have to call B.S. The article starts with the headline "Tort reform unlikely(italics mine) to Cut Health Care costs".
It then goes on to state that "The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, don’t believe that’s true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost– both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

I don't know what a "health economist" is, but I will bet my left testicle that not a ONE has EVER taken care of a patient or given direct care in his career!
And having a law professor who wrote a book called the "medical malpractice myth" be considered an expert on health care and costs is akin to a fox stating the best defenses to use for guarding a hen house.
We're not just talking awards for damages....we are also talking VOLUMES of paper work that need to be completed (I estimate that my paperwork load has increase about 30-35% in the time I have been practicing), and that is time that is taken away from the patient' bedside. The professor in your article also states that
......"“defensive medicine” is not the same thing as wasteful medicine. “Like defensive driving, some defensive medicine is good,” he said. “To change behavior. When you drill down those studies, you see that what it means is, doctors are more careful with patient records. They spend more time with the patient. They’re more careful to say hello and goodbye to the patient. That’s good.”

Other health economists agree that “defensive medicine” is not the main driver of costs, and malpractice liability reform is not a panacea.

So he states that defensive medicine is good......so, as a law professor, what extra tests should I order to be 'defensive' and which ones shouldn't I order as not to be 'wasteful"? How is a non medical person authorized to make such decisions (other than his opinion)? Do you want your physician deciding what medical tests you should have, or your attorney (or worse yet, your government?)?

Ultimately, if a doctor does not screw up, then he doesn't have anything to worry about, does he?

Actually, it doesn't matter if a physician makes a mistake or not......I know several good physicians (mostly obstetricians) and surgeons that did the right thing, followed protocols, informed the patients of the potential risks, followed standards of practice, ect, and still were sued and lost because the patients weren't happy with the outcome, even though they were made aware of potential bad scenarios. The juries tend to sympathize with the plaintiff, not the surgeon.

How about doctors that purchase some fancy new piece of testing machinery that continually test patients on it that probably do not need to be tested, just so they can make sure the investment in the machine gives them a good return on their investment.

Actually, I believe that this is already illegal....I know of a couple of physicians that had to pay heavy fines for doing just this: it's called "conflict of interest".

Personally, I think health care for everybody that works (including their immediate family), all children under 18, and everybody that is receiving unemployment compensation (including their immediate family) is a good thing.

Couldn't agree more......now, how do you intend to pay for it? Should I be expected by the public to give my services (or products) away for free? That seems to be the general consensus for a lot of people...."health care workers make too much money!" O.K., so what's it worth to you? Do you want an R.N. dispensing your meds that knows what to look out for re: side effects, or do you want a minimum wage employee that can barely read to do it? We all heard about the 'extravegant' price gouging for a $60 dollar aspirin that was on a hospital bill. You know why that aspirin cost $60? Because it was required (by law) that a pharmacist dispense it, another employee had to take it to the nursing unit, an R.N. had to adminster it, and then there are the other associated costs of things such as medical records (because it has to be charted), utilization revue (to make sure that it is being done cost effectively), ect, ect, ect.

How about the shyster doctors that recommend surgeries that aren't really need just because they need to pay for their new Ferrari or their kid's college education?
I'd like to address this point for a moment.....who is determining that these procedures/surgeries aren't necessary? Some nonmedical person? Reason I would like to address this is because I've heard a lot lately about "unnecessary" cardiac catheterizations/angioplasty. Studies vary somewhat, but it is estimated that 10-30% of the populations first 'symptom' of cardiac disease is sudden death.....i.e., your standing there normally one moment, you have a lethal arrythmia, and your dead. Now, suppose you have a patient that is having chest pain off and on....not just a 'twinge', but crushing sternal pain that affects his breathing. You do an ECG, but it is normal. He still continues to have symptomatic chest pain, so you cath him and find nothing......so now it was deemed "unnecessary". But is it? You have now determined that your patients coronaries do not have the classic blockages, but could something else, such as vasospasms, causing the pain. Or, suppose this same patient is having chest pain (w/o ECG changes) and he has the procedure (cardiac cath), and has a narrowing of an artery in his heart, so they angioplasty it.....but the pain doesnt' go away.......now is this deemed an 'unnecessary procedure" because the results weren't what were expected? I have seen patients, young patients, that were going in for open heart surgery because they needed grafts and had now indication of chest pain, but had some ECG changes on a physical exam and were worked up in a 'thorough manner', probably with some of those 'unnecessary' tests and procedures.

Point I'm trying to make: medicine is as much an art as it is a science......while I can give a med or treatment to a population, not everyone will have the same 'predictable' outcome. I've seen patients who should have benefited from open heart surgery not do well, and those who should have died on the table leave the hospital in a vertical fashion.

So Fabs, bottom line: attorneys and medical personal both make their living off the misfortunes of other people.

I doubt that you will change my views on tort reform, or that I will change yours on unecessary medical testing, pain & suffering, ect. However, I'm more than willing to sit down and have a beer with yah and discuss what type of nontoxic shot is best, or why chessies are better than labs;)
Take care and God bless..............

[fabsroman]

I'd still be willing to sit down with you and have a drink too. I would even discuss health care with you, so long as you remain civil about it and don't insult my profession. Believe it or not, just like doctors have a code of conduct they need to follow, so do attorneys. Of course, not all of them follow that course of conduct.

Regarding who should pay for health care for all, if you aren't willing to pay for it, then why should I be willing to pay for it just because I have worked hard to get myself into the "rich" category? That is the tough one. Medical providers want to have more time to spend with patients via reduced paperwork, but I wonder about that. Would they spend the additional time gained through reduced paperwork with more patients or just doing more procedures and making more money? Probably the latter.

Just like any good business, health care providers need to learn how to negotiate this very litigious society that we live in. Small business owners in almost every area of work, and EVERY large company, have attorneys that they consult all the time. Same goes for doctors. Have you ever heard a doctor say "My attorney taught me how to practice medicine". I've even seen signs like that.

How a plaintiff could possibly win a lawsuit when the risks are explained to the plaintiff, the plaintiff signs off on a piece of paper acknowleding the risks, and the doctor performs the procedure and follows due care, I have no idea. I know I wouldn't award the plaintiff a thing in compensation under those circumstances. I have a theory of how this happens. Only the unemployed people want to sit for jury duty because the $15 a day just isn't worth it to the rest of us. Imagine losing a week or two worth of pay to sit on a medical malpractice jury and get $75 to $150 for those 2 weeks of your time. What they should do is pass a law that states employers have to provide paid time to their employees for jury duty and self employed individuals will be reimbursed by the Court at $200 a day. Then, we might have some intelligent people on the jury.

If you don't think there are doctors out there recommending stuff that does not need to be done, then you are kidding yourself. 10 years ago, I had a dentist recommend that I have the sides of my teeth drilled and filled in because they were worn down from brushing too hard. It was something like $4,000 to $5,000. I declined. My next dentist advised that I use a spin brush instead of the self powered toothbrush, and guess what, the status quo has remained and I haven't had any problems. When I graduated college, I went to a dentist and made the mistake of putting down that I had not been to the dentist in 6 years. All of a sudden I had 10 cavities. Alright, that was back when I was dumb and naive in 1993. I had all 10 filled. Since 1993, I have yet to have a cavity, only some of those fillings crack and fall out. Almost 20 years without a cavity, but tell a dentist that I haven't been to see a dentist for 6 years and I end up with 10 cavities.

I just went through a pretty bad health ordeal in September and October of 2009. It was terrible arthritis in almost all my joints with terrible night sweats, 103 degree fevers, and terrible fatigue. I could hardly stay awake for 3 hours. Over those 2 months I saw 6 different doctors, had 10 doctor appointments, had blood drawn and tested 5 times (with one occassion requiring blood to be drawn out of both arms), had $5,000 worth of testing done (which I only had to pay $700 for thankfully), and they never really knew what was wrong with me. My infectious disease doctor finally prescribed anti-biotics for Lyme at the end of September and I started feeling better in a week. Then, at the end of October he sent me to a rheumatologist because my creatin level was high and he was worried that I might have a kidney infection and not Lyme. However, I was starting to feel great. Went from 30% to 90% and was starting to work regular hours again. Anyway, the rheumatologist did another blood test for my kidneys which came back normal and then he told me he though I had reactive arthritis which is treated in the same manner as Lyme disease. Nobody knew anything for sure though. All I know is I spent over $1,200 for this and I had insurance. God help people that aren't rich and do not have insurance.

[Larryjk]

fabsroman, What concerns me is people that will feel they are getting free health insurance (health care) andd will start going to the doctor for every sniffle, when they didn't go to the doctor for anything before. It will bankrupt the system. I have health insurance because I felt it was necessary for my family, more necessary than a few 6 packs a week. It was not easy to make the payments at times, but I did it because it was necessary. I felt like I never used part of what I paid for. But then my wife had a heart attack and triple bypass surgery with complications. I would have been bankrupt without the coverage I had. Many people say I was really lucky. I say "No", I was prepared.

[fabsroman]

fabsroman, What concerns me is people that will feel they are getting free health insurance (health care) andd will start going to the doctor for every sniffle, when they didn't go to the doctor for anything before. It will bankrupt the system. I have health insurance because I felt it was necessary for my family, more necessary than a few 6 packs a week. It was not easy to make the payments at times, but I did it because it was necessary. I felt like I never used part of what I paid for. But then my wife had a heart attack and triple bypass surgery with complications. I would have been bankrupt without the coverage I had. Many people say I was really lucky. I say "No", I was prepared.

Larry,

I completely agree with you. We have pretty good health insurance, auto insurance, life insurance, malpractice insurance, short term disability, long term disability, etc. with pretty high limits. Obviously, we hope we never, ever, need to use any of them. If that is the case, yeah, it will feel like we paid all that money for nothing. However, it is exactly what it is. It is insurance to protect you should something catastrophic happen. We self insure for the small stuff. For instance, we don't have collision on the cars since the blue book on them is something around $3,000 or less. That saves us $450 a year in premiums and we are pretty good drivers. Likewise, we went with a HSA this year wherein we have to pay for the first $5,000 out of pocket, pre-tax, for health care. However, we save almost that much in premiums each year versus the premiums for the Cadillac plan.

I hear you regarding the "free" aspect of the health insurance issue and there is an easy way around that. I think every plan should have a co-pay that goes with it. Let's say $50. That will prevent a lot of people from just going to the doctor for every single sniffle. However, it will allow them to go to the doctor when they have something serious. It will allow them to get treatment for something serious before it becomes really serious and they have to be admitted to the ER and it costs us taxpayers a lot more because we have to foot the bill anyway.

I agree with the federal government giving health insurance credits to those below a certain income level, but I don't know if I would make that threshold 4 times the poverty level and put it at $88,000. Then again, it will be a sliding scale so those families making $80,000 will not get that much of a credit. I think the credit should be based upon allowing a family that is in the poverty level of $22,000 to purchase a level of health insruance that is neither a POS nor a Cadillac plan. Something that will cover serious illness but require a somewhat significant co-pay for doctors visits in the first place for the common cold, a cut, etc.

When I was sick last year, it was hard to understand how my health insurance company had the leverage to have bloodwork bills cut by 75%. Essentially, on $5,000 of blood work that was billed, all of $1,200 was paid. However, the poor guy without insurance would have been paying the entire $5,000. I'm pretty sure the same thing was done with the health care providers. That part really sucks. Why would health care providers be willing to accept 25% from a health insurance company but demand 100% from a person without health insurance? That just doesn't seem right either.

[Mr. 16 gauge]

What concerns me is people that will feel they are getting free health insurance (health care) andd will start going to the doctor for every sniffle, when they didn't go to the doctor for anything before.

People already do this.....is called the emergency room. Then they ***** and moan because the have to spend 6-8 hours waiting on results. This is a REAL drain on the system, and costs the hospitals a considerable amount of money. Why? Because if you come in complaining about a cough and chest pain, even if you just have a cold, your going to get an ECG, chest Xray, and a series of blood and urine tests. Why, when it's just a cold? Because if you walk out the door, and drop dead, and your family decides to sue the hospital/doctor/health care worker (because remember: we have all the money:rolleyes:), we have to be able to show that those things were not an issue prior to the patient leaving the hospital. NOT because we get 'more money' for doing 'unnecessary tests', as some people might think. As a matter of fact, most of those tests will go unpaid for as they are done on nonissured or under insured patients, and the hospital will have to end up eating the cost.
There are free clinics in the area, but folks still use the emergency room as a primary source of treatment because they feel they will be seen & treated faster.....after all, that's how it is on TV, right?

I remember a discussion once between an ER physician and a patient....the patient was complaining about how long it was taking to get results back, and the doctor was trying to explain to her that her head cold wasn't a real emergency (but she was treated anyway). This just made her more irate and pissy, and the ER doc finally spilled it out......"What you have isn't an emergency", to which she replied "Uh Uh, emergency means you just get seen right away.......":eek:

What a world, what a world..................

[8X56MS]

I think that it is fair to say, the bye elections in November will make or break hussein's agenda.

So far, with a clear majority in both the House and Senate, he has pretty much been able to do as he wishes.

Let the dhimmicrats lose 40 House seats, and three or four Senate votes, and it's suddenly a whole new ball game.

As I have said before, elections have consequences............

[skeeter@ccia.com]

I feel that most this new HC is intended for already get FREE Hc from welfare..they just want the rest of us to pay for it..da..already do..taxes..This I can say because I have seen it..medical charges to my insurance Co...over charges..charges for things I never had done and by people I never seen..such as 4 Dr's charge for visits in room?..Na ..only see one...but..insurance Co said word for word..we don't look into the bill item by item..only if over $100 g then they check the charges..told me flat out..they just pay what is charged...so I put lots of the blame on insurance co themselves..even after I pointed out once a charge of 3 days in a private room...when in fact I spent 2 of those days in the hall waiting for the room...etc etc..
Now..it all comes from this...NOBODY CARES OR WANTS TO DO THEIR JOBS RIGHT!
and the biggest ...greed
By the way, in the morning, I get to look into this again as I go for some more invasive heart work and prob be there a few day...I call it my spring tune-up..but my wife just can puke..from wory..that is why I didn't tell her till last night even though I knew for a month..lol..but...
Now back to the president and his ways...I have quite a few black friends and by no means look at color for the type person you are..but..Why did Obama only call that one black man speed skater and wish luck?...what about all the rest?..Why did he single out the little black girl that sent him a picture and invite her to his white house?..What about all the other little kids that sent him pictures?..I think we have a person that only wanted to 'prove' a point..that being that he is the first black man for president ..now that he made it there..party is over and he don't care what else goes on..just has to bide his time...he did what he wanted to do...get elected..I thought I had a new president..why does it have to be my Black President?...Prej

[Larryjk]

skeeter@ccia.com, I am aware of the same thing happening to me during a short hospital stay. The second day, I had four Docs stop by to see me. Three had been involved and the fourth just dropped by. He left a prescription at the nurses desk for me for a product I don't need or use. My usual Doctor told me I didn't need it. I feel he wrote that just so he could bill the ins. co. for a consultation.
As for the pres; he and his wife have a problem with white folks. They both stick their foot in it now and then. He is doing a terrible job and it has nothing to do with his ancestry. He just has terrible ideas on redistributing wealth. I always figured you do that by working. I can only cringe at the possibilities he has to screw things up in the next 3 years. Our country is in a hellish fix and he is at the lead.

[popplecop]

In L.E. there was an old axiom: 95% of the people are law abiding, 3% are igronat of the law and the remaining 2% are no good, rotten to the core. I believe you can use the same precentages or close to them for any occupation out there. Sometimes the medical profession is crowded into situations that they react to just to guard thier own butt.