On 04 Jul 2012 01:08:24 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 03 Jul 2012 19:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


snip

There is somewhat of an analogy. In some areas, fire protection is
by subscription. Sometimes, people with little means cannot afford
$50/year (or whatever) to pay. Then, when their trailer catches
fire, the fire truck comes and stands by to protect people next
door who did pay, and watch the trailer burn out.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Please post a credible reference to this
sort of thing. And please - do not post a link to a friend of a
neighbor's girlfriend's live-in boyfriend's web site.

Sorry, I was off, it was $75. Just google for this:
"fire truck stands by as trailer burns"
The first link is
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/it-h...ghters-let-hom
e- burn-after-owners-didnt-pay-75-protection-fee/

Do you really believe that "didn't" is the same as "can't afford to"?
$75 per *year*? GMAFB

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I can believe that a poor
family didn't have the $75 to pay the fee when it became due, and then
forgot to put it on a priority list to pay. I'm NOT saying these people
were smart, but perhaos they did outsmart themselves.

Fair enough. Why the crocodile tears? They rolled snake-eyes, so?

In article , says...

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things the
feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the Constitution
or the intended power of the federal government.

As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume the
founders would have not considered it as a possible right if todays level
of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but it's possible.

They did not seem to see the government's role as being to steal from
the rich and give to the poor. They didn't include a right to food or
water or a job, so why would they include a right to medical treatment?

They did the best they could for an agrarian low tech society. Some of
their principles (reached after much compromising) are still applicable -
others need adjustments for reality.

The adjustment that is needed is Constitutional amendment that
establishes the rules of interpretation far more narrowly than the
courts have done.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:33:08 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jul 3, 5:02*pm, "
wrote:

Wow! I'm constantly impressed with the compassion and intelligence of the
left.

The Christian Right has an exclusive on compassion. So they claim.

Wrong. Only bigots claim that.

Intelligence, however, seems a bit harder to come by for the Religious
Right. It seems that the way to go to bat for God and Country is to
demolish those who even dare to ask questions.

Wrong. But bigots do claim such.

If I find you thirsty, I will give you a drink from my water.
If you find me thirsty, don't try to sell me polluted water.

You really are a bigot. Who gives more to charity, the religious right or the
secular left? Hint:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Car...o+really+cares

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 23:00:59 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:38:53 -0400, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

You've already agreed that the vast majority of "the poor" are poor
because of poor choices. Let them sink.

Let them eat cake!

They baked it.

In article , says...

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:32:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
community handle problems where the family could not afford health care.

No family? No friends, or at least none better off than you? To the
poorhouse! Which, BTW, was run by the local/county/state government.

Now it's federal. Why? Because the state politicians figured out it was
safer to blame taxes on the feds so they wouldn't be responsible.

When I was a child, we had a name for the homeless - we called them
"escapees from the insane asylum" - want to go back to that?

If you want them to stop being homeless you don't have much choice.
People are not in general homeless because nobody wants to help them,
they are homeless because they resist the efforts of those who are
trying to help them. The only way you are going to get a roof over the
head of someone who resists your best efforts to put one there is to
lock him under it. If you aren't willing to do that you shouldn't bleat
about the homeless.

" wrote in
:

On 04 Jul 2012 01:08:24 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 03 Jul 2012 19:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
T:

Han wrote:


snip

There is somewhat of an analogy. In some areas, fire protection
is by subscription. Sometimes, people with little means cannot
afford $50/year (or whatever) to pay. Then, when their trailer
catches fire, the fire truck comes and stands by to protect
people next door who did pay, and watch the trailer burn out.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Please post a credible reference to this
sort of thing. And please - do not post a link to a friend of a
neighbor's girlfriend's live-in boyfriend's web site.

Sorry, I was off, it was $75. Just google for this:
"fire truck stands by as trailer burns"
The first link is
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/it-h...fighters-let-h
om e- burn-after-owners-didnt-pay-75-protection-fee/

Do you really believe that "didn't" is the same as "can't afford
to"? $75 per *year*? GMAFB

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I can believe that a poor
family didn't have the $75 to pay the fee when it became due, and then
forgot to put it on a priority list to pay. I'm NOT saying these
people were smart, but perhaos they did outsmart themselves.

Fair enough. Why the crocodile tears? They rolled snake-eyes, so?

That's a rather biblical remark (that's a denigrating term here). If the
parents are too stupid or drunk to take care of their housing, why do
their children have to suffer? (Remember, I'm a tax and spend liberal - I
believe the fire should have been put out and the parents made to pay,
tax or whip).


It's getting late, sorry if I offend.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 04 Jul 2012 01:37:03 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 04 Jul 2012 01:08:24 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 03 Jul 2012 19:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


snip

There is somewhat of an analogy. In some areas, fire protection
is by subscription. Sometimes, people with little means cannot
afford $50/year (or whatever) to pay. Then, when their trailer
catches fire, the fire truck comes and stands by to protect
people next door who did pay, and watch the trailer burn out.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Please post a credible reference to this
sort of thing. And please - do not post a link to a friend of a
neighbor's girlfriend's live-in boyfriend's web site.

Sorry, I was off, it was $75. Just google for this:
"fire truck stands by as trailer burns"
The first link is
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/it-h...fighters-let-h
om e- burn-after-owners-didnt-pay-75-protection-fee/

Do you really believe that "didn't" is the same as "can't afford
to"? $75 per *year*? GMAFB

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I can believe that a poor
family didn't have the $75 to pay the fee when it became due, and then
forgot to put it on a priority list to pay. I'm NOT saying these
people were smart, but perhaos they did outsmart themselves.

Fair enough. Why the crocodile tears? They rolled snake-eyes, so?

That's a rather biblical remark (that's a denigrating term here). If the
parents are too stupid or drunk to take care of their housing, why do
their children have to suffer? (Remember, I'm a tax and spend liberal - I
believe the fire should have been put out and the parents made to pay,
tax or whip).

They shouldn't. The children should be taken out of the home and put into a
home where they will be treated as children should be. Then the parents
should be thrown in prison for child abuse. Simple. If you want to do
something more appropriate to the abusers, we can discuss that too.

It's getting late, sorry if I offend.

This is the Usenet. If that's the most offensive you can be, you don't stand
a chance. ;-)

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:30:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote:

In article , says...

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:32:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
community handle problems where the family could not afford health care.

No family? No friends, or at least none better off than you? To the
poorhouse! Which, BTW, was run by the local/county/state government.

Now it's federal. Why? Because the state politicians figured out it was
safer to blame taxes on the feds so they wouldn't be responsible.

When I was a child, we had a name for the homeless - we called them
"escapees from the insane asylum" - want to go back to that?

If you want them to stop being homeless you don't have much choice.
People are not in general homeless because nobody wants to help them,
they are homeless because they resist the efforts of those who are
trying to help them. The only way you are going to get a roof over the
head of someone who resists your best efforts to put one there is to
lock him under it. If you aren't willing to do that you shouldn't bleat
about the homeless.

+1

To fix the "problem", first you have to take away the homeless' right to live
as they wish.

Bruce wrote:

If you had a medical issue and faced no extra financial burden
between the choice of seeing a doctor now (ER) versus waiting a month
what would you do? As for me, I have insurance and if I get a cold
serious enough to warrent a doctor visit, I would have to wait
several weeks to a month to see my primary or go to the ER and pay a
$200 co-pay plus all the other costs.

A big advantage for medicaid over traditional insurance no?


You need a different primary care doctor!

I can get an appointment with my internist usually for the next day. If I
just drop in to his office, he'll see me within the next two hours. Maybe
briefly, but he'll see me.

Now I don't abuse the privilege and I take him and his office staff little
gifts (a book for him, a HUGE box of chocolates for the staff on Valentine's
day...).

My view is that I can pay a doctor for his professional services, but I
can't pay him to actually, you know, CARE. The latter is accomplished
(hopefully) by treating him as I would a friend.

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:25:55 +0000, Han wrote:

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report
claimed that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
non-treatment or poor treatment.

How many of those people chose palliative treatment rather than
aggressive "life"-saving treatment?

He also forgot to mention that around 200,000 die each year in the US
from medical mistakes - and that apparently doesn't include
non-treatment.

I read something that put it closer to a million a year. Gary Null
says 480k from adverse drug reactions/medical errors.
http://www.whale.to/a/null9.html

Right. **** happens.

But bad drug interactions and mistakes are not DELIBERATE.

That's the difference I was trying to demonstrate.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:18:33 -0500, "HeyBub"
My view is that I can pay a doctor for his professional services, but I
can't pay him to actually, you know, CARE. The latter is accomplished
(hopefully) by treating him as I would a friend.

Of course, it always makes sense to develop a friendship with your
doctor.

I don't know what it's like down in the US, but up here in Canada,
there are areas that are under served by doctors and some people have
a great deal of trouble finding one that will take them on as regular
clients. Guess that's part and parcel of living away from the cities.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:16:04 -0400, "
wrote:




To fix the "problem", first you have to take away the homeless' right to live
as they wish.


Or unfix the fix from a few years ago. Many people were in
institutions, but that was deemed harsh and an infringement on rights.
It was for some, but others were incapable of caring for themselves
and found a worse fate

On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
doctor visit . . .

What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
than you can yourself with OTC remedies?

On 7/3/2012 8:51 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:42:56 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 7/2/2012 4:48 PM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:01:26 -0600, Just Wondering
Actually, what they'd have to do is tell the truth about their financial
situation. There's no shame in being poor. Would you rather have them
lie about it?
Really? I wonder how you'd feel admitting to your friends that you
were poor? Shame, embarrassment, difficulty surviving with dignity?
However you want to describe it, I've never ever met anyone that liked
being poor.

Admitting you're poor to anyone is the unsaid suggestion that you
weren't smart enough to earn a decent living.


Is not. It the unsaid statement that you're going through hard
financial times. There could be a hundred reasons why; lack of
intelligence is only one of them. Divorce is another, as is being laid
off from a financially troubled company through no fault of your own.
It's usually because you've not planned ahead, whether it be not planning for
a decent job, spending every dime you've ever made, or even putting all your
eggs in one basket. "No fault of your own" is, in the vast majority of cases,
a lie.
It's amazing, the number of unproven assumptions you're willing to make
to support your position.

J. Clarke wrote:


The adjustment that is needed is Constitutional amendment that
establishes the rules of interpretation far more narrowly than the
courts have done.

Clarke - you just invented (or defined the specs for...) a perpetual motion
machine. Create an ammendment (as stated above), which will go to the
SCOTUS, which will more broadly interpret it, but it requires narrow
interpretation...

--

-Mike-

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:18:33 -0500, "HeyBub"
My view is that I can pay a doctor for his professional services,
but I can't pay him to actually, you know, CARE. The latter is
accomplished (hopefully) by treating him as I would a friend.

Of course, it always makes sense to develop a friendship with your
doctor.

I don't know what it's like down in the US, but up here in Canada,
there are areas that are under served by doctors and some people have
a great deal of trouble finding one that will take them on as regular
clients. Guess that's part and parcel of living away from the cities.

You raise a good point.

In Texas, it is claimed that medical tort reform saved the state from a
medical crisis. Before 2003, when the reforms were put in place, Texas
ranked 49th out of 50 in physicians-to-population ratio.

"... in the decade from 2002 to 2012, the Texas population went from
21,779,893 to 26,403,743 - a 21% increase - and the number of Texas
physicians rose by 15,611 - a 44% increase..."

At the micro level, ten counties in the state (out of 254) now have at least
one obstetrician where before the reform regimen was instituted, they had
none.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:18:33 -0500, "HeyBub"
My view is that I can pay a doctor for his professional services,
but I can't pay him to actually, you know, CARE. The latter is
accomplished (hopefully) by treating him as I would a friend.

Of course, it always makes sense to develop a friendship with your
doctor.

I don't know what it's like down in the US, but up here in Canada,
there are areas that are under served by doctors and some people have
a great deal of trouble finding one that will take them on as regular
clients. Guess that's part and parcel of living away from the cities.

You raise a good point.

In Texas, it is claimed that medical tort reform saved the state from
a medical crisis. Before 2003, when the reforms were put in place,
Texas ranked 49th out of 50 in physicians-to-population ratio.

"... in the decade from 2002 to 2012, the Texas population went from
21,779,893 to 26,403,743 - a 21% increase - and the number of Texas
physicians rose by 15,611 - a 44% increase..."

At the micro level, ten counties in the state (out of 254) now have at
least one obstetrician where before the reform regimen was instituted,
they had none.

I googled "Texas medical tort reform", and this came up, saying the
effect of this "reform" was nil.
http://www.thepoptort.com/2012/06/mo...texas-medical-
malpractice-tort-reform.html

I had hoped to find some better result, because I think tort reform,
combined with more punishment of offending doctors, hospitals etc, should
help lowering costs ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:45:45 -0600, Just Wondering wrote
(in article ):

On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
doctor visit . . .

What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
than you can yourself with OTC remedies?


I was thinking of something that requires a prescription (i.e. antibiotics)
and ergo, an office visit.

I'm fortunate in that I've only been to the doctor twice in the past 30 years
for blood test followups. At work we get biannual 'clinics' where they do
basic blood tests and check basic health parameters.


-Bruce

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:18:33 -0600, HeyBub wrote
(in article ):

Bruce wrote:

If you had a medical issue and faced no extra financial burden
between the choice of seeing a doctor now (ER) versus waiting a month
what would you do? As for me, I have insurance and if I get a cold
serious enough to warrent a doctor visit, I would have to wait
several weeks to a month to see my primary or go to the ER and pay a
$200 co-pay plus all the other costs.

A big advantage for medicaid over traditional insurance no?


You need a different primary care doctor!


Where I live (rural), we don't have a choice. Best bet is for me to get one
out of town (100 miles one way).

-BR


I can get an appointment with my internist usually for the next day. If I
just drop in to his office, he'll see me within the next two hours. Maybe
briefly, but he'll see me.

Now I don't abuse the privilege and I take him and his office staff little
gifts (a book for him, a HUGE box of chocolates for the staff on Valentine's
day...).

Hmmm, perhaps a chicken or two 8^)

-BR

My view is that I can pay a doctor for his professional services, but I
can't pay him to actually, you know, CARE. The latter is accomplished
(hopefully) by treating him as I would a friend.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:17:23 -0600, zzzzzzzzzz wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:02:51 -0600, Bruce wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:10:28 -0600, Larry Blanchard wrote
(in article ):
snip

I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember exactly where) that medicaid
patients
overwhelmingly use the ER as their primary doctor. Basically they can
either
wait a month to get an appointment or go to the ER and get seen the same
day,
all for the same few-dollar co-pay. The article mentioned that they are
considering changing the program to limit non-emergency ER visits to 3 a
year
before they have to pay a larger co-pay.

Set the co-pay for the ER at some hundreds of dollars. If it's really an
emergency, you'll pay it.

Agreed! From what I understand of some medicaids however is that it would cap
that co-pay.....

If you had a medical issue and faced no extra financial burden between the
choice of seeing a doctor now (ER) versus waiting a month what would you do?
As for me, I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
doctor visit, I would have to wait several weeks to a month to see my
primary
or go to the ER and pay a $200 co-pay plus all the other costs.

That's a problem. The charges for an ER visit should be orders of magnitude
higher than a doctor's visit. Inbetween the two are the "Urgent Care"
facilities, which have costs on the order of a doctor's office.

A big advantage for medicaid over traditional insurance no?

Advantage?


Advantage in the sense that if you are at the low end of the food chain
(government subsidized), you get to play the system without fear of losing
anything.

-BR

On 7/4/2012 7:43 AM, Han wrote:

I had hoped to find some better result, because I think tort reform,
combined with more punishment of offending doctors, hospitals etc, should
help lowering costs ...

Lawyers write the laws, lobbyist' tell them what to say, and politicians
go to the bank.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:45:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:16:04 -0400, "
wrote:




To fix the "problem", first you have to take away the homeless' right to live
as they wish.


Or unfix the fix from a few years ago. Many people were in
institutions, but that was deemed harsh and an infringement on rights.
It was for some, but others were incapable of caring for themselves
and found a worse fate

That's the "fix" I was referring to when I said "take away the homeless' right
to live as they wish".

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:48:38 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 7/3/2012 8:51 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:42:56 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 7/2/2012 4:48 PM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:01:26 -0600, Just Wondering
Actually, what they'd have to do is tell the truth about their financial
situation. There's no shame in being poor. Would you rather have them
lie about it?
Really? I wonder how you'd feel admitting to your friends that you
were poor? Shame, embarrassment, difficulty surviving with dignity?
However you want to describe it, I've never ever met anyone that liked
being poor.

Admitting you're poor to anyone is the unsaid suggestion that you
weren't smart enough to earn a decent living.


Is not. It the unsaid statement that you're going through hard
financial times. There could be a hundred reasons why; lack of
intelligence is only one of them. Divorce is another, as is being laid
off from a financially troubled company through no fault of your own.
It's usually because you've not planned ahead, whether it be not planning for
a decent job, spending every dime you've ever made, or even putting all your
eggs in one basket. "No fault of your own" is, in the vast majority of cases,
a lie.
It's amazing, the number of unproven assumptions you're willing to make
to support your position.

Absolute nonsense (your content-free post doesn't deserve a more complete
response).

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 07:55:22 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:


The adjustment that is needed is Constitutional amendment that
establishes the rules of interpretation far more narrowly than the
courts have done.

Clarke - you just invented (or defined the specs for...) a perpetual motion
machine. Create an ammendment (as stated above), which will go to the
SCOTUS, which will more broadly interpret it, but it requires narrow
interpretation...

One idea I heard the other day (sorry, don't remember where) was a
Constitutional amendment allowing Congress, with a supermajority, to overrule
SCotUS decisions within a set amount of time (say, one year).

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 06:59:02 -0600, Bruce wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:45:45 -0600, Just Wondering wrote
(in article ):

On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
doctor visit . . .

What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
than you can yourself with OTC remedies?


I was thinking of something that requires a prescription (i.e. antibiotics)
and ergo, an office visit.

OK, but that is not a cold. Antibiotics are a wonderful thing, but
often over prescribed to make a patient happy even if it does no good.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:43 AM, Han wrote:

I had hoped to find some better result, because I think tort reform,
combined with more punishment of offending doctors, hospitals etc,
should help lowering costs ...

Lawyers write the laws, lobbyist' tell them what to say, and
politicians go to the bank.

I am a cynic too, but I do believe in the power of social media ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 06:59:02 -0600, Bruce wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:45:45 -0600, Just Wondering wrote
(in article ):

On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
doctor visit . . .

What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
than you can yourself with OTC remedies?


I was thinking of something that requires a prescription (i.e.
antibiotics) and ergo, an office visit.

OK, but that is not a cold. Antibiotics are a wonderful thing, but
often over prescribed to make a patient happy even if it does no good.

Amen


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 07:55:22 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:


The adjustment that is needed is Constitutional amendment that
establishes the rules of interpretation far more narrowly than the
courts have done.

Clarke - you just invented (or defined the specs for...) a perpetual
motion machine. Create an ammendment (as stated above), which will go
to the SCOTUS, which will more broadly interpret it, but it requires
narrow interpretation...

One idea I heard the other day (sorry, don't remember where) was a
Constitutional amendment allowing Congress, with a supermajority, to
overrule SCotUS decisions within a set amount of time (say, one year).

Can't the Congresscritters do that now? They can pass a bill that
revokes whatever the Supremes have said. If it becomes law, that should
have the same effect, unless the law is declared unconstitutional.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 04 Jul 2012 15:10:01 GMT, Han wrote:

Swingman wrote in
m:

On 7/4/2012 7:43 AM, Han wrote:

I had hoped to find some better result, because I think tort reform,
combined with more punishment of offending doctors, hospitals etc,
should help lowering costs ...

I'm with you on that.


Lawyers write the laws, lobbyist' tell them what to say, and
politicians go to the bank.

I am a cynic too, but I do believe in the power of social media ...

Will it be Twitter or Facebook which saves the planet, Han? giggle

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:45:45 -0600, Just Wondering wrote
(in article ):

On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
doctor visit . . .

What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
than you can yourself with OTC remedies?


I was thinking of something that requires a prescription (i.e.
antibiotics) and ergo, an office visit.

I'm fortunate in that I've only been to the doctor twice in the past
30 years for blood test followups. At work we get biannual 'clinics'
where they do basic blood tests and check basic health parameters.


Not "ergo." An office visit for a prescription is not required. My doctor
trusts my self-diagnosis and honors my request for prescriptions. I usually
fax the request, outlining my symptoms and virtually always his staff calls
back in a few hours to tell me the prescription has been called in to the
pharmacy.

For example, my last fax was some months ago and quite simple:

"I've got my once-every-five-years bout of sinusitis and need an appropriate
antibiotic."

Here's my basic rule: "When I was younger, I went to the doctor when I got
sick. In my elder years, I go to the doctor to keep from getting sick." In
your case, you should have your doc review your semi-annual blood tests to
verify these tests are complete enough for you.

For example, do they test for venereal diseases? Chastic fibrosis (a disease
usually found in foxes)? He my suggest some supplementary inquiries.

Han wrote:

Can't the Congresscritters do that now? They can pass a bill that
revokes whatever the Supremes have said. If it becomes law, that
should have the same effect, unless the law is declared
unconstitutional.

They can. Congress can, moreover, pass a law not reviewable by the courts.
Seldom happens, but it's possible.

For example, Section 8 of the $700 billion bailout in late 2008 reads:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of the Act are
non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed
by any court of law or administrative agency."

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 06:59:02 -0600, Bruce wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:45:45 -0600, Just Wondering wrote
(in article ):

On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
doctor visit . . .

What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
than you can yourself with OTC remedies?


I was thinking of something that requires a prescription (i.e. antibiotics)
and ergo, an office visit.

OK, but that is not a cold. Antibiotics are a wonderful thing, but
often over prescribed to make a patient happy even if it does no good.

However there are bacterial illnesses that resemble a cold. You are
being pedantic about the definition.

For most people if their head is stopped up and they have a cough and
sore throat, it's a "cold" until they get to the doctor and find out
that it's throat cancer complicated by tuberculosis and pneumonia.

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:58:56 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
doctor visit . . .


OK, but that is not a cold. Antibiotics are a wonderful thing, but
often over prescribed to make a patient happy even if it does no good.

However there are bacterial illnesses that resemble a cold. You are
being pedantic about the definition.

For most people if their head is stopped up and they have a cough and
sore throat, it's a "cold" until they get to the doctor and find out
that it's throat cancer complicated by tuberculosis and pneumonia.

Call it what you want. The OP said he goes when his cold get bad. If
he wants to expand the definition of his illness, fine, but doctors
can't cure colds yet.

Take two aspirin . . . . .

On 7/4/2012 6:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:45:45 -0600, Just Wondering wrote
(in article ):

On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
doctor visit . . .
What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
than you can yourself with OTC remedies?

I was thinking of something that requires a prescription (i.e. antibiotics)
and ergo, an office visit.


That's what confuses me. You said colds. Colds are caused viruses.
Antibiotics are for bacterial infections; they don't work on colds and
other viral infections.

On 7/4/2012 8:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 07:55:22 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

The adjustment that is needed is Constitutional amendment that
establishes the rules of interpretation far more narrowly than the
courts have done.
Clarke - you just invented (or defined the specs for...) a perpetual motion
machine. Create an ammendment (as stated above), which will go to the
SCOTUS, which will more broadly interpret it, but it requires narrow
interpretation...
One idea I heard the other day (sorry, don't remember where) was a
Constitutional amendment allowing Congress, with a supermajority, to overrule
SCotUS decisions within a set amount of time (say, one year).

The amendment process itself is just that, only the power is in the
hands of the States rather than Congress, which I think is a safer place
to entrust such a power.

On 7/4/2012 2:41 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
Can't the Congresscritters do that now? They can pass a bill that
revokes whatever the Supremes have said. If it becomes law, that
should have the same effect, unless the law is declared
unconstitutional.
They can. Congress can, moreover, pass a law not reviewable by the courts.
Seldom happens, but it's possible.

For example, Section 8 of the $700 billion bailout in late 2008 reads:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of the Act are
non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed
by any court of law or administrative agency."


That refers to judicial review of decisions of an administrative agency,
which is entirely different than judicial review of the
constitutionality of the law itself.

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:

Can't the Congresscritters do that now? They can pass a bill that
revokes whatever the Supremes have said. If it becomes law, that
should have the same effect, unless the law is declared
unconstitutional.

They can. Congress can, moreover, pass a law not reviewable by the courts.
Seldom happens, but it's possible.

For example, Section 8 of the $700 billion bailout in late 2008 reads:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of the Act are
non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed
by any court of law or administrative agency."

The act itself is reviewable and if the courts do not like that
provision then out it goes.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:58:56 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
doctor visit . . .


OK, but that is not a cold. Antibiotics are a wonderful thing, but
often over prescribed to make a patient happy even if it does no good.

However there are bacterial illnesses that resemble a cold. You are
being pedantic about the definition.

For most people if their head is stopped up and they have a cough and
sore throat, it's a "cold" until they get to the doctor and find out
that it's throat cancer complicated by tuberculosis and pneumonia.

Call it what you want. The OP said he goes when his cold get bad. If
he wants to expand the definition of his illness, fine, but doctors
can't cure colds yet.

Take two aspirin . . . . .

How does the OP know that it's a cold before he sees the doctor? Is he
a virologist with a home laboratory?

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 02:56:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



However there are bacterial illnesses that resemble a cold. You are
being pedantic about the definition.

For most people if their head is stopped up and they have a cough and
sore throat, it's a "cold" until they get to the doctor and find out
that it's throat cancer complicated by tuberculosis and pneumonia.

Call it what you want. The OP said he goes when his cold get bad. If
he wants to expand the definition of his illness, fine, but doctors
can't cure colds yet.

Take two aspirin . . . . .

How does the OP know that it's a cold before he sees the doctor? Is he
a virologist with a home laboratory?



99.99% of us recognize the symptoms. The hypochondriacs go to the
doctor for diagnosis. I know plenty of people that went to the doctor
with a cold. They did no lab tests as you suggest, but told them to
take two aspirin.

Doctors used to sometimes prescribe anti-biotics to some of these
people just to make them feel better, thus they built immunity to them
over time.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 02:56:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



However there are bacterial illnesses that resemble a cold. You are
being pedantic about the definition.

For most people if their head is stopped up and they have a cough and
sore throat, it's a "cold" until they get to the doctor and find out
that it's throat cancer complicated by tuberculosis and pneumonia.

Call it what you want. The OP said he goes when his cold get bad. If
he wants to expand the definition of his illness, fine, but doctors
can't cure colds yet.

Take two aspirin . . . . .

How does the OP know that it's a cold before he sees the doctor? Is he
a virologist with a home laboratory?



99.99% of us recognize the symptoms. The hypochondriacs go to the
doctor for diagnosis. I know plenty of people that went to the doctor
with a cold. They did no lab tests as you suggest, but told them to
take two aspirin.

Doctors used to sometimes prescribe anti-biotics to some of these
people just to make them feel better, thus they built immunity to them
over time.

So how exactly do the symptoms of a cold differ from influenza,
bronchitis, or pneumonia to name several possibilities?

And people do not build immunity to antibiotics.

And I used to go to a doctor who after hearing three words from me would
say "it's probably" and send me home. One day he over the phone told me
"it's probably constipation" and prescribed a laxative. Well, I had
been in pain for three days at the time so I said "screw this" and went
to the ER, where the cleark at the desk took one look at me and called a
doctor. Oh, and he had been ignoring reports of leg pains with "it's
probably a cramp" for over a year when I read that (a) one of the side
effects of a medication he had me on was leg pain and (b) that if the
medication was causing leg pain it should be discontinued immediately to
avoid liver damage.

I now go to a different doctor who actually listens to what I tell him
and tries to find out for sure what is wrong instead of shooting from
the hip. And he found out that yep, the stuff wrecked my liver. But
the good news is the leg pains went away.