RE: HEALTH CARE

RE: HEALTH CARE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 10:47:12 AM)
Well, duh. Of course reducing waste on ineffectual treatment will save money! quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The article clearly says its being done to save money. 'The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million." quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Fact check: this was done for scientific reasons. The treatment in question (steroids for lower back pain) doesn't work. http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS/Steroid_injections_offer_little_relief.shtml

cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 10:51:42 AM)
Yes, entirely possible. Note that the NHS will continue to pay for them, they are just reining in the overuse in those cases where it isn't appropriate, apparently the vast majority of them. quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit I know patients that have the injections and swear by them. I think I would listen to the patient's that have the pain and relief found wherever it may come from. They all aren't nut cases.

Sanity -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 10:53:32 AM)
Your link is to some obscure chiropractic website, which has the look and feel of a cheaply done infomercial. Nowhere in the more believable news article that I cited did it say anything about the treatments being infective. quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Well, duh. Of course reducing waste on ineffectual treatment will save money! quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The article clearly says its being done to save money. 'The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million." quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Fact check: this was done for scientific reasons. The treatment in question (steroids for lower back pain) doesn't work. http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS/Steroid_injections_offer_little_relief.shtml

cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 10:53:47 AM)
So, what is your proposal? I have not heard one peep from any Republican about how to solve the mess we currently have. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity That's funny. Every fact that leaks out about how awful this bill is the fault of someone else. Anyone who tells the truth about this legislative train wreck has to be a lying Republican...

Lockit -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:00:51 AM)
From my experience with the medical community... doctors will rarely go with what an individual patient needs and will go with the majority or protocol. One of the only medications I can take for pain is being taken off the market because they say it doesn't help for back pain. If they do take it away... there will be little left that I can safely take when I can find a doctor who will give me anything at all. So they say they question... no real research... but they question whether it helps and bye bye and hell for me. What the real deal sounds like at least with this medication is that they want to push the newer... better non narcotic medications and get rid of all those addicts. Some aren't addicts and are simply in pain and new drugs as we have found in recent years... are dangerous and often come with serious warnings. Yeah... I can't wait until the government decides what is protocol or best in a situation and more fall between the cracks. Had I not gotten as many MRI's as I had... which wouldn't be allowed with the new health bill... I wouldn't have found the one doctor of all I had seen and that was hundreds... who knew what he was looking at. They would have continued to treat me for MS when I didn't have MS and I would be dead now. Just like my mom and my sister is close to. Hell most the women in my family.

Lucylastic -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:01:08 AM)
While I know some that have had steroid shots and worked well, others have not and had problems witht he steroids themselves however having sciatica myself, I send you this linky from web MD http://www.webmd.com/back-pain/news/20070305/steroid-shots-for-back-pain-dont-work Obviously people react differently to different meds so while steroids might not affect me negatively might upset someone elses system, especially in the elderly with high bloodpressure Lucy

Sanity -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:06:00 AM)
You haven't been listening then. One thing I've mentioned is we begin with tort reform. The next is kick Obama's lying ass out of the White House, and find someone who has the same message for every crowd he faces. Obama, when he's talking to his socialist friends says that his plan will bring socialized medicine in through the back door, but he tells the nation at large that no one is talking about doing that at all: http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/ Get a leader who is honest, then start with tort reform, and go from there. quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas So, what is your proposal? I have not heard one peep from any Republican about how to solve the mess we currently have.

cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:08:51 AM)
Obscure? Interesting claim from somebody whose evidence is an article in an obscure foreign tabloid that also just last week claimed that "Blue M&M's mend spinal injuries" I'm sure that Chiropractors are going to have a good laugh at that. And the study itself was presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons - you don't get to do that with "an infomercial" Google actually brings up quite a few studies that show similar results. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Your link is to some obscure chiropractic website, which has the look and feel of a cheaply done infomercial. Nowhere in the more believable news article that I cited did it say anything about the treatments being infective. quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Well, duh. Of course reducing waste on ineffectual treatment will save money! quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The article clearly says its being done to save money. 'The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million." quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Fact check: this was done for scientific reasons. The treatment in question (steroids for lower back pain) doesn't work. http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS/Steroid_injections_offer_little_relief.shtml

cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:11:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit From my experience with the medical community... doctors will rarely go with what an individual patient needs and will go with the majority or protocol. One of the only medications I can take for pain is being taken off the market because they say it doesn't help for back pain. Which medication? Is it on your health insurance's formulary? quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Had I not gotten as many MRI's as I had... which wouldn't be allowed with the new health bill... Which provision, exactly, would prevent you from getting the MRI? quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit I wouldn't have found the one doctor of all I had seen and that was hundreds... who knew what he was looking at. Why not?

Lockit -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:21:35 AM)
The medication is Oxycodone... I have no insurance. Haven't had insurance for many, many years. It cost far too much to insure me and I had to pay for six months before I could get any coverage in the one company that I found in those years that would accept me and that was for limited coverage. I cannot remember where I read it in the bill but Obama is constantly talking about how we need less testing and repeating test. The one illness I have was not taught in the USA and not many here knew what it was and still dont. Many of us with this illness are dx'd with MS first. (Cadasil) Some when I say what I have say I am making up an illness and am lying. I say google it. They do and still say they know more about it than I do and I should go with the medications for typical stroke patients or other medications to treat the typical patient with whatever symptom... which in most cases could cause me to bleed out.

cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:38:43 AM)
Tort reform? That's a good one. 0.38% of health care cost in the USA. That's how little all verdicts settlements etc. have cost, including lawyer's fees (the number is from 2002, but it has been fairly consistent for two decades). http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf So maybe in 2010 health care cost would only rise by 4.62 % to 9.62% instead of the 5% to 10% is been rising in the last couple of years. Laughable. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You haven't been listening then. One thing I've mentioned is we begin with tort reform. The next is kick Obama's lying ass out of the White House, and find someone who has the same message for every crowd he faces. Obama, when he's talking to his socialist friends says that his plan will bring socialized medicine in through the back door, but he tells the nation at large that no one is talking about doing that at all: http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/ Get a leader who is honest, then start with tort reform, and go from there. quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas So, what is your proposal? I have not heard one peep from any Republican about how to solve the mess we currently have.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:47:37 AM)
quote: From my experience with the medical community... doctors will rarely go with what an individual patient needs and will go with the majority or protocol. One of the only medications I can take for pain is being taken off the market because they say it doesn't help for back pain. If they do take it away... there will be little left that I can safely take when I can find a doctor who will give me anything at all. So they say they question... no real research... but they question whether it helps and bye bye and hell for me. What the real deal sounds like at least with this medication is that they want to push the newer... better non narcotic medications and get rid of all those addicts. Some aren't addicts and are simply in pain and new drugs as we have found in recent years... are dangerous and often come with serious warnings. Lockit, I've had decent luck having my doctors request "off label" prescription of medications that work but which aren't typically prescribed for the disease I have. Because my illness is an atypical presentation, and because I have an irregular autoimmune response to so many things, we've gone the 'off-label' and "compassionate use" directions for much of my treatment. DC

Sanity -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:50:24 AM)
The Los Angelas Times is reporting pretty much the same thing... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/07/mm-gatorade-spinal-cord-injury.html quote: Obscure? Interesting claim from somebody whose evidence is an article in an obscure foreign tabloid that also just last week claimed that "Blue M&M's mend spinal injuries"

Lockit -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:55:37 AM)
When I was in CA and in an HMO and had a great medical team... they helped me a lot, but that is when they thought I showed signs of having MS but were not sure and labled me MS because they couldn't figure out what was happening and had to have a lable. So they treated me with as little as they could and believed me when I said something and adjusted whatever needed to be adjusted. Until my one doctor was helping patient's like me too much and was taken out of dealing with patient's and soon retired because he couldn't do what he did best. He didn't want to push paper. He even testified in front of the Senate and wrote many things for which he was well respected within the medical community. I miss that man so very much! Four doctors out of hundreds that ever treated me consistanty with respect and didn't neglect or abuse me.

cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:56:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit The medication is Oxycodone... I have no insurance. Wait a minute. You claimed that this had something to do with health insurance, but you don't even HAVE health insurance? Oxycodone is still on the market, just tightly regulated and hard to prescribe since it is also used as a street drug (Rush Limbaugh was a famous addict to Oxicontin, a brand name) And, incidentally, some PRIVATE insurance companies have taken it off their formulary. I still fail to see how you'd be worse off under a government insurance system? quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit I cannot remember where I read it in the bill but Obama is constantly talking about how we need less testing and repeating test. Oh, I can tell you where: nowhere. There is no bill yet - just a bunch of proposals that still have to be reconciled. Entirely possible that some reform opponent may have slipped in such a poison pill somewhere, but it's VERY unlikely that a prohibition on MRIs would make it into the final bill. Regardless, you made a very definite claim that "MRI ... wouldn't be allowed with the new health bill" and I'd want something better than "Obama is constantly talking about"

cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 12:01:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Until my one doctor was helping patient's like me too much and was taken out of dealing with patient's and soon retired because he couldn't do what he did best. He didn't want to push paper. Quite possibly a result of the war on drugs. It's quite well known that the DEA has been harassing pain specialists for oversubscribing Oxicodone (and of course specifically Oxicontin) You mentioned that he testified in front of the Senate. Would you mind sharing what he testified about?

Lockit -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 12:02:51 PM)
You want to argue? Okay, where did I ever once claimed that, that had something to do with insurance? When you find that little tid bit... I will again search the non bill/proposal and find a god damned way to link you to it. I do believe I addressed the oxycodone addict thing... but oxycodone is by far not as strong as oxycontin... at least not in the dose I had. And that may be why some claim that it isn't helpful for their back pain.

Lockit -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 12:04:37 PM)
I do mind simply because you make this personal rather than an objective debate.

Sanity -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 12:07:04 PM)
Your source is laughable, basically some anonymous Joe posting highly questionable facts and assertions. Even if anonymous Joe is telling the truth on his or her web page, the direct tort costs are but a tiny percentage of the total costs to consumers. Doctors have to run many more tests then they otherwise might for fear of malpractice suits, doctor's malpractice insurance costs are affected, and so on. When I get some time later I'll try and find some real numbers for you, or you can try to find something more believable and post them. I'm a little busy now though. quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Tort reform? That's a good one. 0.38% of health care cost in the USA. That's how little all verdicts settlements etc. have cost, including lawyer's fees (the number is from 2002, but it has been fairly consistent for two decades). http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf So maybe in 2010 health care cost would only rise by 4.62 % to 9.62% instead of the 5% to 10% is been rising in the last couple of years. Laughable. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You haven't been listening then. One thing I've mentioned is we begin with tort reform. The next is kick Obama's lying ass out of the White House, and find someone who has the same message for every crowd he faces. Obama, when he's talking to his socialist friends says that his plan will bring socialized medicine in through the back door, but he tells the nation at large that no one is talking about doing that at all: http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/ Get a leader who is honest, then start with tort reform, and go from there. quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas So, what is your proposal? I have not heard one peep from any Republican about how to solve the mess we currently have.

Mercnbeth -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 12:48:37 PM)
Reality: quote: Between 1997 and 2007, the cost of dealing with medical torts nearly doubled -- from $15.5 billion to $30.4 billion. LAWYER's HEALTH COST Not included in the cost consideration are, as has been pointed out, the medically unnessary tests and/or reporting requirements within the health care industry. For example, how many manditory chest x-rays required for hospitalization, find anything? If the USA is "going European" why not follow the European example: (Same Source) quote: In Britain, the loser in a civil suit must pay the costs of the winner, which cuts down on the filing of risky lawsuits, including malpractice. In France, malpractice claims are settled by a special panel, similar to Michigan's Workers Compensation Commission.

Page: << < prev 28 29 [30] 31 32 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02