Friends of CwG Discussion Board

yep.

Then there's the "Medical Group" practice. 4 doctors and 20 PAs with 6 receptionists and 3 appointment setters. Got a cold? Make an appointment with your doctor. Dr. A. Except, because you specifically asked for Dr. A, who is -supposed- to be your doctor, you have to wait 3 weeks, and once you get there, sit in the waiting room for 3 hours past your scheduled time.

OR..you can say "I have a cold. I'll see whoever's available" and get to speak with a PA who you've never met who just graduated medical school last Thursday and turns out to know more about you then your own doctor does, because he's still fresh enough from school to know to read your chart before opening the exam room door.

I have an assigned doctor. I have met her once, in the three years I've been using that group. That was my first appointment with that group and yes, she made me wait three hours. I ended up with a PA who had no appointments that day coming in to check up on me and find out why I was there, and on my way out, my doctor introduced herself.

I hate that the doctor's office has become institutionalized. I still remember going to the doctor's when I was a kid, with one doctor, one secretary, one nurse, in a big office with two exam rooms. Where the doctor didn't need to look at your chart to know who you were. He'd take a look at you and say "Oh Anonchick..you must've grown a whole inch since the last time I saw you! Hop on the scale dear and let's take a look."

Pity they don't treat patients like that anymore. Y'know, like people.

Seriously? That's just obnoxious. If insurance wasn't tied in with this (whole set up), free market would dramatically affect such a situation, to the likelihood of - "no charge for this appointment" as a make good.



Actually, last time I went to my Primary, it was in environment you spoke of, but still came off a bit institutionalized to me. I heard the term "defensive medicine" recently and that makes sense to me. That's what they practice now. And seen from doctor's perspective, it kinda makes sense why.

I felt like my Primary was, at least a little, interested in what I was saying during the appointment, but much more interested in 'presupposed tests' he felt would address other, possibly larger, concerns. And that turned out to trigger "pre existing condition" which initially resulted in absolutely no coverage for my appointment, because doctor had suggested testing, I thought sounded okay, but was not primary reason I went to see him. After much work on my end (several rounds of calls to doctor / insurance company), I got over half of the cost to me knocked off. But it made me want to not tell doctors in the future that I have insurance, and have them kinda sorta run everything by me, before any charges are brought up.

Btw, I shopped around for my Primary. I went to at least 2 doctors (interviewing them), and called/researched online, before selecting the one I did.

Dentists are generally good about the price upfront thing.

I think educating myself is very important, Anon, I agree with you there, but more than that I want to process the information for myself. I recommend it highly for those interested. And maybe we have heard it all before but as I contemplate on this stuff I am thinking of it different, and some times it even seems new to me. And oh boy, don’t get me started on the pharmaceuticals, just like we are paying to keep hospital beds full; we are paying to be drugged, we are paying so we can take on unnecessary stress and medical tests, I mean the list goes on and on.

Josh, I thought you might be interested in this…

Top Industries Giving to Members of Congress, 2010 Cycle

I don’t know about you, but with these numbers I get a better picture of our government and ourselves and who this bill is really for. I think as we make this kind of information public it will make it less likely for us to deviate from the intent, less corruption and more affective, and it is not so much that it is public, it‘s just that people can better see themselves.

To me that is all ‘us‘, it is our money our industries and our government, if it seems like ‘they’ are in control is because we give them control; heck we pay for them all to have control; why do we set them up to fail? I rather our government and industries and everybody succeed, I want success and I want the best… give it to me… for them for me for everybody, we are all in the same boat.

Btw I guess I wasn’t clear before, Josh, but when I said money is not the problem, I am saying that there is enough, but in our experience of healthcare it can never be enough because of how the money is being distributed imo, that was my point. We are paying so it will never be enough, with money energy resources our lives and death... quality of life even, we are paying. Imo it is time to go back to the intent, for the people by the people, and I am hopeful because the more information is available the more I am seeing consumers reminding industries, constituents reminding government, people reminding each other; perhaps all of this serves as a reminder, it‘s possible.

I think for the most part, people think you are dealing with this external power and that is not where it is at, it only looks that way in secrets but it sets them up to fail. I rather have the industries and governments and all of it regulated for transparency and let the people do the rest. I say lets go public, ehe.

Tonia:


More than educating yourself, you want to process the information for yourself? What do you mean by that? Processing the information for yourself IS educating yourself. You recommend -what- highly for those interested? And the next sentence..."Maybe we have heard it all before but as I contemplate on all this stuff I am thinking of it different, and some times it even seems new to me." Maybe we have heard -what- all before, and as you contemplate on -which- stuff you are thinking of -what- different? And if you are thinking of it different, how, exactly are you thinking of it, that makes it different? Sometimes it "even" seems new to you..meaning, you are the type of person that "this stuff" (whatever this stuff is, which you need to define) doesn't normally seem new to?

In short, the reason I rarely ever respond to any of your posts, is because they are rarely cohesive.

You crack me up

Well in that case, not responding to me is probably a darn good decision, Anon. And it is a welcomed decision too. Thanks

Also Josh, I find it ironic that there are those that want to go public, but their idea of going public means huge government, lots of mandates and control, and imo we would probably see it come tumbling down. The industries and government come down hard ya know; right on top of us all, if you ask me. But I am proposing to just go public, seems to give me a basis, an intention from which to regulate all of this; get rid of the secrets and make information available, it might change the thinking and open up more possibilities to those who have better ideas than me, I am no expert on this stuff and I am convinced the ideas are out there. I don’t know, see what you think.

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you on this subject Joshuway, but I think you can understand the reasons why I could not. Anyway, my simple contribution to this matter is that I think ANY reforms are a good idea, there is a lot of debate going on about certain reforms here in Australia, and most of the ones we have had have been to the benefit of the people, that have made us quite a prosperous, and Fair Go kind of nation. I know that's not the reality for everyone, as there are certain social circumstances that are difficult for governments to fix, you "need" to find the balance right between helping people in genuine need and helping people to help themselves imho. To be spiritually accurate, I would reword that to, giving people back to themselves as much as possible, but not being afraid to aid a fellow human being in need as it's all part of the One.



Yes...I am inclined to approach these kind of massive reforms with caution...see, this is not directly related to health, but it does get to it in a second. Here in Australia we've just had the Labor party (the current government) have this home insulation scheme (it was part of the economic stimulus package to help keep us out of recession) which has unfortunately resulted in the deaths of four young men, as they were electrocuted to death, which was very sad, but the thing is it was rushed out to stimulate the economy, and keep money flowing...I am a firm believer in keeping the economy active, and will never even think of using the recession word, but that's another matter entirely, but point is, I don't think it was worth the loss of four young lives. The point is, this thing was RUSHED through to stimulate the economy. There is much anger at the government about this stuff up, and in response, Rudd is talking about his own Health reform, by having it all centralized and run at the top-in Canberra. All roads in Aussie lead to Canberra anyway, but I am skeptical of the plan at this point...they seem to be trying to rush it all through, then again, it's what the people want as there are people that have been waiting for operations for months, sometimes years. Perhaps it's a similar situation in the USA. I can't really speak for the USA without living there, but I can understand why some people would be hesitant to pass massive reforms, as often good intentions result in unintended consequences. It is an awful tragedy when something that was done with the best of intentions results in disastrous results.

It brings me back to utilitarianism though...is something that brings the most amount of joy to the most amount of people worth it? In my opinion, not if it's at the expense of certain people's lives. Fortunately with the internet these days, if one is so concerned about their health, there is plenty advice online. Or maybe just eat fruits for a change rather then animal fats all the time? lol. I know that's simplistic.

I heard the US Senate though was even worse then the current Aussie one, where it's been almost impossible for the government to pass legislation through as many of its main agendas kept getting blocked in the Upper House. Then again, I can't see what the big deal is to rush things through...where I'm sitting things don't seem that bad, and the last thing you want is any major to reform to be a big new tax on everything. You want something that will enhance people's lives not make it worse...

CONGRATULATIONS!!! I heard Obama got his health care reforms passed through the US House of Representatives. It's very simple for me, I know there are concerns for those big businesses that are making millions of millions, but the short point of that is that people like me can no longer look at America as a culture of rich redneck elitists that let their poor suffer, to me what Obama is doing is giving a Fair Go for all Americans, so those who had trouble affording essentially services will no longer be left in the dark.

To be quite honest, I have mixed feelings of America...not just America, but capitalism itself. Yes, people should be encouraged to do what they can to get ahead in the world on their own two feet, and be independent as possible, no question about that, but at the same time, surely these rich elites could spare a little bit of money to help a few Americans that through no fault of their own, have been unable to afford certain essential services. Well done Obama.

Yes, this is so very nice. Now, people who make -more- than the maximum to qualify for free health care, but -less- than the minimum amount to afford their own, will be FINED if they don't get health insurance.

Isn't that nice? Now, these people who are inbetween qualifying and affordability, have to pay for the privilege of not being insured. Those "pay as you go and pray nothing really expensive happens to you" people..will be stuck paying extra.

Fortunately I'm not in that category, but my sister might be soon once her unemployment runs out and she has no income. Her doctors won't qualify her for full disability so whe -must-work even though she is disabled. Finding someone willing to hire her with the restrictions she has, and the types of adjustments to the workplace the employer has to make to accommodate her, is mostly impossible. So she'll be out of work, unable to afford her mortgage -and- health insurance, and will have to decide on whether she'd like to have a place to live, or a life to put in a place. She will not be able to have both.

Thanks, Obama.

I understand certain policies cause complications AnonChick, as they always do. The Labor Party down here is a firm believer in social justice, but all too often it has ended up in pushing people who may have had a chance to get ahead in the world further dependent on the welfare system. I guess though, that's a necessary evil, because the reality is, there were millions of Americans (34 million I believe) that had their needs ignored, for so many reasons.

I do understand that it's hardest to be in the middle of things...I have found that there have always been certain services denied to middle-income earners, which makes it hard, and yes, money has to come from somewhere. I suppose AnonChick, as harsh as it is, this is where I stand with it morally;

It is more ethical for the majority of people to simply be alive, then for a small minority to be living the high life while millions of others starve to death, die of hunger, as they cannot afford what they need to look after them etc. It's a simple as that.