Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not so , I am proof of that myself. When I was told I was just fine with that enlarged tonsil as from observation by my ENT guy over a years time and there was no change or enlargement, He sent me home and was told to forget about it.
Those very words " you are released from my supervision " started to drive me crazy and after a month I booked another visit and demanded a biopsy. Fact was a week later I got a cell phone call as I was fighting rush hour in my truck. from my ENT . He said "guess what you have cancer" ! I guess I knew that in my gut, thats why I took charge. Yes I went through all the general procedures , advice about radiation, then surgery maybe , but my ENT guy was not sure he wanted to do a medium radical surgery, he would have to think about what options there were....as most locals do the radiation and hope for the best.
I went home , got on Google and started research on my own. I wanted the dam thing gone one way or the other and I wanted the best Surgeon for the job there was avail;able to me period ! I soon found Him at Mayo Clinic, 400 miles in winter on bad roads, but I packed my bag and showed up in Rochester , ready for robotic tonsorial medium radical surgery by the Doc than invented the procedure. I cared little about his bedside manner , there was a job to be done and He was the Guy to do it !
The outcome is now three years latter I am clean , no evidence of any cancer , not even in the 52 lymph nodes He removed and tested, it was all so far contained to the Tonsil. The recovery was no walk in the park , worst pain and non comfort I ever had had in my life. It took over a year and along with that there was now a drug dependency issue from the Benzos I was taking like candy, a very miserable 1 and a half years out of my life. I had to learn to eat all over again, and different foods etc. it was Hell on Earth ! .... But in the end , I think I saved my self and no radiation ether. So , it had nothing to do with if I liked my doctor or not. It had everything to do with knowledge , which is a good thing the way I see it. ... I believe you go where you can get the best care or procedure, and that can change depending on what your problem is. Those who whine about Affordable Health Care Insurance and the fact they may not wind up with the same doctor or plan as promised is a bunch of crap . No one Doc has all the answers to everything , you go where you can get the job done right, and I don't care if its in Rochester, Minn. or half way around the world , I go where I need to go and I don't have to like the Guy or Gal thats cutting me up ether. All I want is a clean sharp knife and a firm experienced hand doing the Job, ..!
You are using yourself as an example to assume everyone is like you. I know that when you go see multiple doctors you will get multiple opinions. Therefore, I think today, when it comes to any life threatening condition, a person is well served in doing there own research and learning all your options, before making a decision who you will go with. I did the very same thing, and decided the course of treatment that I wanted myself after reading on line for two weeks solid 12 hours a day, and switched doctors to get it. I believe I made the right decision as I am still here six years later, when my prognoses with standard treatment was grim.
As for the percentage of doctors too eager to operate or give unnecessary treatment, I can not give you a percentage. I just know from certain studies it has been proven now that many operations were done unnecessarily. And as I mentioned to you that the doctor in the book I am reading confirms this, as do a few other books and some documentaries out there as well. Of course all doctors don't fall into this category. But there is a percentage that do. Doctor's are no different than anyone else. Some are totally money driven, and some are patient driven, and probably most fall in the middle somewhere.
In your case, you experienced the opposite. I don't know if your first doctor was negligent or just wrong in his/her assessment.
But, that's the problem with 80% of the ACA insurance offered. It isn't even a matter of a doctor "you like." It's a matter of limited networks, NO out-of-network coverage, most plans operating as HMOs.
Had you been in one of those plans three years ago, all your costs at Mayo would have been on you.
Of the four carriers offering ACA plans in WI, only ONE has out-of-network coverage, with a far more extensive network locally and a 25% higher premium than the other plans, but worth paying for, imo. Sadly, some states have no PPOs in the exchange and people will NOT have your options.
Wonderful that you have overcome your cancer. I know all about after-effects of a major illness, which I endured 35 years ago. Fine now, but that year and a few years thereafter, were not fun. As it happened, I cured myself through alternative means. Nonetheless, access to organized medicine is essential and I, for one, don't want to be limited in my choices.
Yes, I agree 100% with what you say here. The only plans available on the exchange were HMO's. There was only one exception which was a new Co-op that was started that was a POS, but out of network on that plan only paid 50% if you wanted to see a doctor not in their network. I am hoping this will change, as I agree, I would gladly pay more to have the freedom to go to another doctor, hospital and cross state lines if needed. And of course I agree with Darstar that a Medicare Single Payer sure would be nice so we could have this freedom.
Yes, I agree 100% with what you say here. The only plans available on the exchange were HMO's. There was only one exception which was a new Co-op that was started that was a POS, but out of network on that plan only paid 50% if you wanted to see a doctor not in their network. I am hoping this will change, as I agree, I would gladly pay more to have the freedom to go to another doctor, hospital and cross state lines if needed. And of course I agree with Darstar that a Medicare Single Payer sure would be nice so we could have this freedom.
That is not true--there are PPO plans on the exchange...
That is not true--there are PPO plans on the exchange...
No, not in every state. I am speaking of the plans available that would qualify for a subsidy. If you do not qualify for a substantial subsidy, then yes there are other plans available. But for someone who may be able to get a subsidized plan for $70 a month, vs. $400 a month off the exchange, this is a big difference. I am talking purchasing an individual plan by the way. Take a look at Nevada, and I have heard the same complaint from others.
No, not in every state. I am speaking of the plans available that would qualify for a subsidy. If you do not qualify for a substantial subsidy, then yes there are other plans available. But for someone who may be able to get a subsidized plan for $70 a month, vs. $400 a month off the exchange, this is a big difference.
I helped a friend shop plans in NY. She had a PPO option available to her. She opted for an HMO option because it was the same company she has now and the same network of doctors she uses now. The PPO option was only going to be about $10/month more for her but she didn't need that right now. She got subsidies for out of pocket costs so those would have been the same for her....
We agree on a lot said here when it comes to preventable health problems. It's just ignorant to allow people to bring kids into this world when there are known factors. Another reason for the need to abort at times. It's quite unfair to the living, be they the unfortunate themselves and or also the tax payer., if ,that is the way we intend to regulate health case costs. One things for sure , religions should not be allowed to interfear Most of them pay no taxes ether, that needs to change too.
When it comes to insurance for all, we actually should be under the single payer system, which would be more uniform and put less of a load on young people.I remember in 1959 Canada was going through the same problem and the fairness issue. Some provinces , like Alberta were able to opt out of public health care. Problem was , few wanted it , Contary to the wishes of the politations.
Good to hear we agree about some things .
FWIW - I believe in a woman's right to have an abortion - up to a certain point in terms of fetal development. Aborting an 8+ month fetus is just kind of grotesque IMO - especially since so many people I know today (especially younger people involved in multiple births) were born somewhat prematurely. OTOH - medicine seems to have hit a stone wall when dealing with a huge premature birth issue - lung surfactant deficiency. I can't remember exactly where the line is. It's certainly an issue in < 7 month fetuses - not much at 8+ months. Wherever the exact line is - I don't oppose abortion of fetuses who are doomed to lung surfactant deficiency health issues - which are only the beginning of the laundry list of a huge number of conditions/problems these fetuses are prone to if brought into the world alive. These problems are not only ridiculously complicated from a medical POV - they're enormously expensive too. And - even if the fetuses become "children" - they usually do not wind up "normal" in any way shape or form.
Another thing to consider is an early abortion is a much less complicated/less expensive medical procedure than a late abortion.
Note that if you have any interest in stuff like this and similar medical ethics issues - there's a book you should read. This one:
As for religions being involved - why not assuming it's between a religion and someone who follows that religion (without any state involvement)? Even though I believe in a woman's right to abortion - I'm not going to jail a Catholic person who doesn't (or force a Catholic person to have one). Just like the state shouldn't be allowed to ban circumcision. Or even snake handling when it comes to consenting adults (assuming there's no animal abuse involved and there's an exclusion in their health insurance policy for any injuries sustained ).
My own opinion of single payer is it's an idea that - in its "pure" form - had its moment in the sun - never achieved full-liftoff in most first world countries - and is now winding up as a combination of a basic public government health care system safety-net combined with private insurance "add-ons". Because the bottom line is no country/taxpayer base can afford "everything for everyone" - no matter how much people are willing to pay in terms of taxes/fees/etc. Robyn
You are using yourself as an example to assume everyone is like you. I know that when you go see multiple doctors you will get multiple opinions. Therefore, I think today, when it comes to any life threatening condition, a person is well served in doing there own research and learning all your options, before making a decision who you will go with. I did the very same thing, and decided the course of treatment that I wanted myself after reading on line for two weeks solid 12 hours a day, and switched doctors to get it. I believe I made the right decision as I am still here six years later, when my prognoses with standard treatment was grim.
As for the percentage of doctors too eager to operate or give unnecessary treatment, I can not give you a percentage. I just know from certain studies it has been proven now that many operations were done unnecessarily. And as I mentioned to you that the doctor in the book I am reading confirms this, as do a few other books and some documentaries out there as well. Of course all doctors don't fall into this category. But there is a percentage that do. Doctor's are no different than anyone else. Some are totally money driven, and some are patient driven, and probably most fall in the middle somewhere.
In your case, you experienced the opposite. I don't know if your first doctor was negligent or just wrong in his/her assessment.
My story might play our differently if I lived anywhere close to having choices. We up here are at the end of the road, some say , being the earth is flat , a few miles more and YOU WILL fall off.Its not that we are far from good health care on average, as our Hospital complex is the only choice for hundreds of miles , and it's hard for them to get good specialist, best in their field , to move here and take a cut in pay for the priviladge of living in Paradice.That is changing now that the Duke Group has purchased Marquette General and has big plans that will put us on par with Mayo and the Cleveland Clinic., where the Docs. Work on salary , where they truly care that being the best is the only option.
I drove a great distance , that was my choice for sure, but there just was no options anyway. My ENT guy is a surgeon , he is OK, horrible bed side manner ( x Military ) but he knows his limits and that is a good thing.The other thing, I am 72 and on Medacare Soo I have the best of both world's wish everyone did.
Yes they are upper income, they live in their half million dollar motor coach when in AZ. They are not alone, Calgery has a lot of wealthily people who have made it in the oil patch. Not all are in this status, working stifs make more in Ca. Than there counterparts in the US. Even the wealthily Canadians are quite conservative when it comes to spending money. Their Banks and stock markets did not suffer as did the same in the recession in the US. And , no I do not live in AZ. So all I know is what I hear actually from friends. Canadians travel a lot, all over the world you will find them. They are always looking for the best deal. Many of their retired friends from the US do the same thing. Infact I know of quite a few Canadians that winter in MX, not AZ. ...and yes, I have been told That elective procedures do take longer to schedule in Alberta. being wealthy does not help speed up the process.
Well - part of my thinking is when you're a guest - whether you're a guest in a country - or a guest in a social or similar situation - it's simply a matter of manners - not to diss your host. My husband and I travel a lot - and never diss our "host area" (whether it's another state - another country - etc.).
I think people who do this are rude - just plain rude. For example - we were in Paris about 5 years ago. And I owed someone there a favor. Taken in the form of a meal to be consumed at the guest's restaurant of choice. So this guy chose one of the most expensive restaurants in Paris (cost us $2k for 4 people). OK - I can swallow that (even though the favor owed wasn't that big IMO). But then this jerk spent more than half of a 4 hour meal dissing the US in every possible way shape or form. I got indigestion and felt like breaking at least one wine bottle over his head.
When it comes to Canadians - I know they shop around. Before their health care reimbursement system changed to eliminate many US options - even ordinary middle class people got a huge amount of medical care in south Florida when they wintered there (we used to live in south Florida - and it was a boon to the local medical economy). Robyn
No, I'm not in the medical field but my Dr. talked to me about a couple trials.
Keep in mind that these trials are almost exclusively at large teaching hospitals/clinics and not everyone has access to or lives close enough to those to participate. They also have very select criteria which limits numbers. It's also why I contend that you will find that most people in the trials are not poor--there is an education factor that goes along with these trials. People rarely get paid for trials--and if they do it is more parking/mileage reimbursement vs actually getting paid.
Also keep in mind that most insurance doesn't cover the complications of trials/experimental therapy. One reason for just about everyone to be cautious. Robyn
FWIW - I believe in a woman's right to have an abortion - up to a certain point in terms of fetal development. Aborting an 8+ month fetus is just kind of grotesque IMO - especially since so many people I know today (especially younger people involved in multiple births) were born somewhat prematurely. OTOH - medicine seems to have hit a stone wall when dealing with a huge premature birth issue - lung surfactant deficiency. I can't remember exactly where the line is. It's certainly an issue in < 7 month fetuses - not much at 8+ months. Wherever the exact line is - I don't oppose abortion of fetuses who are doomed to lung surfactant deficiency health issues - which are only the beginning of the laundry list of a huge number of conditions/problems these fetuses are prone to if brought into the world alive. These problems are not only ridiculously complicated from a medical POV - they're enormously expensive too. And - even if the fetuses become "children" - they usually do not wind up "normal" in any way shape or form.
Another thing to consider is an early abortion is a much less complicated/less expensive medical procedure than a late abortion.
Note that if you have any interest in stuff like this and similar medical ethics issues - there's a book you should read. This one:
As for religions being involved - why not assuming it's between a religion and someone who follows that religion (without any state involvement)? Even though I believe in a woman's right to abortion - I'm not going to jail a Catholic person who doesn't (or force a Catholic person to have one). Just like the state shouldn't be allowed to ban circumcision. Or even snake handling when it comes to consenting adults (assuming there's no animal abuse involved and there's an exclusion in their health insurance policy for any injuries sustained ).
My own opinion of single payer is it's an idea that - in its "pure" form - had its moment in the sun - never achieved full-liftoff in most first world countries - and is now winding up as a combination of a basic public government health care system safety-net combined with private insurance "add-ons". Because the bottom line is no country/taxpayer base can afford "everything for everyone" - no matter how much people are willing to pay in terms of taxes/fees/etc. Robyn
I am not against your right to choose when it comes to your religious beleafs ..as long as " do no harm " rules are in practice. Tax wise , I do think the Churches should not be exempt. That alone can cause harm , or unfair advantages for one group and not another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
).
