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.
The fact is that since the end user pays "little to no cost" for a scooter, the prices are crazy high and no one seems to care. I know someone who recently received one of these "free" scooters and was pleased as punch that they paid no part of the $19,000+ cost of the thing. You cannot tell me that such an item should cost more than a car!
Medicare should pay for durable medical equipment for those who truly need it. However, it also should refuse to do business with companies whose prices are inflated and ridiculous.
The biggest problem, from my point-of-view, is that doctors don't seem to be up-to-date on these types of things. If they didn't advertise them, we, the regular folk, would never know about them. And when you truly need something, but don't know enough to ask for it, then there's a problem.
No one "needs" and electric scooter. They are a LUXURY ITEM that should not be billed to the taxpayers.
I get mad everytime I see the commercial. I also steam at the commerical for the prescription drug delivery service that is paid for by medicare. The commerical shows an ABLE BODIED senior decked out to go to her tennis lesson but is too busy to stand in line at the local CVS for her meds.
No one "needs" and electric scooter. They are a LUXURY ITEM that should not be billed to the taxpayers.
I get mad everytime I see the commercial. I also steam at the commerical for the prescription drug delivery service that is paid for by medicare. The commerical shows an ABLE BODIED senior decked out to go to her tennis lesson but is too busy to stand in line at the local CVS for her meds.
No one? I understand able-bodied people not needing them, but not even people with severe mobility impairments?
I think ALL direct marketing of medical and legal services should be a thoroughly banned as alcohol and tobacco advertizing. I am as annoyed by the Mesothelioma adds as the super scooter nonsense.
IMHO Regulating commercial advertizing does NOT violate anyone's First Amendmant rights. The commercial and legal community may differ with my oponion.
You make a very good point, and actually, when I think of reducing Medicare costs, these commercials are usually the first thing I think about. For people who truly need them, I don't have a problem with that. But I see people at the local store whose only disability that seems to impede them from walking is the large roll of fat around their belt-line.
you ever thought that maybe they are fat because their DISABILITY prevents them from being able to EXCERCISE? I am a 47 yo that got hit by a Lincoln navigator on my motor bike...I have 3 ruptured discs in my back ( L4-L5, L5-L6, L6-S1) 3 herniated discs in my cervical spine ( C1-2, C2-3, C3-4) i HAVE THE Miniscus tendons in BOTH MY KNEES torn & on top of that I now have discogenic disease due to the pryer injuries.................SO BEFORE YOU BELITTLE PEOPLE........REMEMBER............. just because you CAN'T SEE THEIR INJURIES it DOESN'T mean they are NOT THERE
We brought one of the patients in to ask why she was requesting the scooter. Her answer was that the salesperson told her it wouldn't cost her a penny if the doctor filled out the forms. She was perfectly able to walk. I think we should disallow direct marketing for high ticket durable medical equipment.
Then the doctor should refuse to fill out the form.
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.