On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 20:29:31 -0600, Ed Pawlowski wrote
(in article ):

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 . . . . .

Ahem. I think my point is being missed 8^)

Let me start again... If I catch some 'bug' that does not respond to the
usual home remedies, high fever, delirium, body covered in pustules, skin
rotting off, AND I decide I should seek the advice of a professional......


Locally, getting an appointment can take weeks (meanwhile my oozing pustules
are staining the couch). Go to the ER and I get nailed with a fairly high
deductible (thought weighing the cost of that against getting the couch
cleaned might be a wash). For me, it's either suffer and wait or fork out
some dough. This is with a fairly standard employer provided policy. For the
Medicaid folks, there is no penalty for going to the ER. Sure, they could
schedule with their primary and face the same wait a me, but since the cost
for an ER co-pay is only a few bucks (should they even eventually have to pay
it), why not go there? No skin off their back, the tax payers and me through
higher insurance rates pick up the tab.

It's kind alike the Medicare 'doughnut hole'
People who get the subsidized insurance can get immediate service without
financial worry. People with the 'Cadillac' insurance get immediate service
because that is what they pay for. Me (in the middle) pay for the subsidized
insurance (basically like saying "here, take my seat on this bus, I'll
stand").

It's fairly clear that the middle class get screwed whenever the government
decides to play charity with someone else's money.

Just Wondering wrote:
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.

But a "cold" can lead to a bacterial infection, such as pneumonia, by
reducing the body's resistance. An antibiotic, in this case, can be
considered prophylactic.

The vast majority of deaths attributable to the "Spanish Flu" epidemic were
caused by pneumonia. Of course this was before both pneumonia vaccinations
and antibiotics.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 23:30:01 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

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.

Interpretation amendment

In this instance, the suggestion was that with a supermajority, Congress can
overrule SCotUS. SCotUS doesn't (in theory) write the constitution.

Bruce wrote in :

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 20:29:31 -0600, Ed Pawlowski wrote
(in article ):

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 . . . . .

Ahem. I think my point is being missed 8^)

Let me start again... If I catch some 'bug' that does not respond to
the usual home remedies, high fever, delirium, body covered in
pustules, skin rotting off, AND I decide I should seek the advice of a
professional......


Locally, getting an appointment can take weeks (meanwhile my oozing
pustules are staining the couch). Go to the ER and I get nailed with a
fairly high deductible (thought weighing the cost of that against
getting the couch cleaned might be a wash). For me, it's either suffer
and wait or fork out some dough. This is with a fairly standard
employer provided policy. For the Medicaid folks, there is no penalty
for going to the ER. Sure, they could schedule with their primary and
face the same wait a me, but since the cost for an ER co-pay is only a
few bucks (should they even eventually have to pay it), why not go
there? No skin off their back, the tax payers and me through higher
insurance rates pick up the tab.

It's kind alike the Medicare 'doughnut hole'
People who get the subsidized insurance can get immediate service
without financial worry. People with the 'Cadillac' insurance get
immediate service because that is what they pay for. Me (in the
middle) pay for the subsidized insurance (basically like saying "here,
take my seat on this bus, I'll stand").

It's fairly clear that the middle class get screwed whenever the
government decides to play charity with someone else's money.

That's why my wife hates to make checkup appointments. But if she says
she has a problem, she can get an appointment very soon. Of course, if
there is a nagging little problem, where on the scale does that fall?

In other words, have you tried saying it is a near emergency to your
doctor?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 04 Jul 2012 15:33:04 GMT, Han wrote:

" 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.

No, not on matters of Constitutional interpretation. SCotUS is the final
word.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 06:49:00 -0600, Bruce wrote:



Ahem. I think my point is being missed 8^)

Let me start again... If I catch some 'bug' that does not respond to the
usual home remedies, high fever, delirium, body covered in pustules, skin
rotting off, AND I decide I should seek the advice of a professional......


OK, that's different and yes, a doctor should be seen.



Locally, getting an appointment can take weeks (meanwhile my oozing pustules
are staining the couch). Go to the ER and I get nailed with a fairly high
deductible (thought weighing the cost of that against getting the couch
cleaned might be a wash). For me, it's either suffer and wait or fork out
some dough.

That situation sucks. The facilities we use operate much better. The
doctors keep open one or two slits a day for such things. If your
primary car physician can't see you, they send you to Urgent Care
where they will see you within a couple of hours. Even on a Sunday.

Should none of those be available for any reason, we have two walk in
clinics in town, one is open 7 days a week.

Before Medicare, my wife did go to the ER. After treatment, the
doctor gave her a choice, she was borderline for admitting but he
would put her in the hospital if she wanted. She elected to return
home, thus saving the insurance company a bunch of money, but costing
me $100 co-pay for an ER visit. If admitted, there was no co-pay.




This is with a fairly standard employer provided policy. For the
Medicaid folks, there is no penalty for going to the ER. Sure, they could
schedule with their primary and face the same wait a me, but since the cost
for an ER co-pay is only a few bucks (should they even eventually have to pay
it), why not go there? No skin off their back, the tax payers and me through
higher insurance rates pick up the tab.

We have Medicare and a good supplement. There are no additional costs
out of pocket so we can go wherever we want for any reason. Nice to
know you have the option, even if never used.




It's fairly clear that the middle class get screwed whenever the government
decides to play charity with someone else's money.


Yes!

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:05:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



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?

Best you should see your doctor.

And people do not build immunity to antibiotics.

the build a resistance to them
http://immune-system.knoji.com/our-i...s-has-hurt-us/


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.


You original doctor was probably incompetent; shame that it took a
some time to realize that. Some doctors are so you have to take some
responsibility for your diagnosis and treatment, do research, get
second opinions.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

When I was still under my employer's plan the co-pay for an ER visit
went from $100 to $200. I can understand the reason, other options
(Urgent Care) are available and should be used. OTOH, I have to wonder
if really serious situations are put off because people are afraid of
or cannot afford $200.

That's a problem with the system and/or people's perception. There should
be walk-in clinics with fairly low charges to the patient, merely to help
the patient find out whether there is something bad going on that requires
higher level intervention, or something that can be remediated with a
simple pain killer. Doesn't really matter whether that is a few slots at
the person's regular primary care physician (I'd prefer that), or at a
walk-in clinic.

But that would cost you and the "system" probably $200 a pop, or more. Who
should pay?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:05:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



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?

Best you should see your doctor.

And people do not build immunity to antibiotics.

the build a resistance to them
http://immune-system.knoji.com/our-i...s-has-hurt-us/


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.


You original doctor was probably incompetent; shame that it took a
some time to realize that. Some doctors are so you have to take some
responsibility for your diagnosis and treatment, do research, get
second opinions.

Ok, now you're just arguing for the sake of argument.

On 7/6/2012 5:23 AM, Han wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

When I was still under my employer's plan the co-pay for an ER visit
went from $100 to $200. I can understand the reason, other options
(Urgent Care) are available and should be used. OTOH, I have to wonder
if really serious situations are put off because people are afraid of
or cannot afford $200.
That's a problem with the system and/or people's perception. There should
be walk-in clinics with fairly low charges to the patient, merely to help
the patient find out whether there is something bad going on that requires
higher level intervention, or something that can be remediated with a
simple pain killer. Doesn't really matter whether that is a few slots at
the person's regular primary care physician (I'd prefer that), or at a
walk-in clinic.

But that would cost you and the "system" probably $200 a pop, or more. Who
should pay?

Warren Buffet?

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:35:25 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:




Ok, now you're just arguing for the sake of argument.


Sorry if I'm infringing on your territory.