Re: Tony: U.S. doctors / testing...

[Guest guest]

That's the problem here in the U.S.

Most, if not all of the " medicaid " doctors are what you would consider spastic.

They're

controlled by the government as to what tests they can run and what they can't.

That's why I'm glad I found this new doctor who WILL run tests, but I have to

come up with

the $$ to pay for them...which is extremely difficult for me right now.

Ironically, the bosses I used to work for made about $9 milion (they managed apt

buildings (and believe me, I did most of THEIR work, while getting paid

peanuts). But I

could never ask them -- they're too bitter, angry, and mainly don't believe that

CFS exists.

They could help me out -- could've done it 5 years ago...but won't.

Now that I think about it, it's probably a waste of time to swab for pseudos in

my mouth,

isn't it? Since they were found in my gut, my mouth is just the opposite end of

the

intestinal tract...so that must be what it is...along with perhaps some yeast

(that was also

found in my gut).

But anyway, as I said...most docs in the US are spazzes...........

d.

> > > > >

> > > > Pseudonomas is almost always mistaken

> > > > > for thrush in the CFS community.

> > > > > tony

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Tony -- do you have a link or some other reference I can shove

> in

> > > the face of my previous

> > > > (my medicaid) doctor -- showing the link between thrush and

> > > pseudomonas?

> > > >

> > > > I've had thrush for 15-20 years...and seen probably 10 doctors

> in

> > > that time. Sick w/ CFS

> > > > since 1998....

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

> > > > Dan

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

That's basically why I'm very resistant to the idea of universal govt

medical insurance (if anything, I might be in favor of it for children

only).

I don't have any education in politics or economics, but to me more

centralization of power portends more " by the book " practices and

greater rigidity.

At present there's a law in one of the New England states (CT?) that

if an ILADS-type doctor prescribes long-term ceftriaxone, insurance

companies have to cover it for at least a month or two. Suppose that

were to work out really well... it could push the whole system to

change in a similar way. Latitude and piecewise decision making and

change: good. But if there's national insurance, I don't think CT is

going to be pushing the national insurance guys around. Neither will

anyone else be. The highest kings of the art of pleasing people and

ladder climbing will be irrevocably in charge of everything forever.

Pleasing people is largely about competence but also involves lots of

other things.

Does the private sector do any better? Namely, are there any insurance

companies that cover " progressive " treatments? I don't know. But I'd

rather just have my taxes lower and pay for progressive treatment out

of pocket. A government semi-monopoly produces certain efficiencies

that might lower insurance premiums for the average person somewhat,

but we'd still pay of course, and it'd be via taxes, yum.

> That's the problem here in the U.S.

>

> Most, if not all of the " medicaid " doctors are what you would

consider spastic. They're

> controlled by the government as to what tests they can run and what

they can't.

>

> That's why I'm glad I found this new doctor who WILL run tests, but

I have to come up with

> the $$ to pay for them...which is extremely difficult for me right now.

>

> Ironically, the bosses I used to work for made about $9 milion (they

managed apt

> buildings (and believe me, I did most of THEIR work, while getting

paid peanuts). But I

> could never ask them -- they're too bitter, angry, and mainly don't

believe that CFS exists.

> They could help me out -- could've done it 5 years ago...but won't.

>

> Now that I think about it, it's probably a waste of time to swab for

pseudos in my mouth,

> isn't it? Since they were found in my gut, my mouth is just the

opposite end of the

> intestinal tract...so that must be what it is...along with perhaps

some yeast (that was also

> found in my gut).

>

> But anyway, as I said...most docs in the US are spazzes...........

>

> d.

[Guest guest]

Yeah, but it will never remain limited to children. "For children

only" is a wedge ... you know, "anything for the children" -- and then,

inside of a few years, it will be for "everyone" in the name of

"fairness".

Politicians are fond of pimping children for pet causes even when it's

off the main point, because everyone wants to protect kids, right?

Heck, even some *parents* like to pimp their kids ... witness the

father who shoved his terrified son in my doorway last night to give a

quavering recitation of a sales pitch for some crappy kiddie newspaper

to raise money for ... I don't know, apple pie and motherhood, I

guess. But I digress.

--Bob

wrote:

That's basically why I'm very resistant to the idea of universal govt

medical insurance (if anything, I might be in favor of it for children

only).

[Guest guest]

Yeah... sigh.

I read a long article on malpractice in the New Yorker by an MD, some

years ago, and I've read some MD blogs on the subject since. It seems

that most or all doctors agree that the main reason costs are so high

in the US (with nothing to show for it compared to the UK etc) is the

practice of " defensive medicine. " Ie, drink your coffee, come in to

work, and spend the day trying not to get sued - because one wacky

assessment, unlikely as it is, can end your practice. Thus, some kind

of $3,000 diagnostic imaging is ordered all the time by doctors who

don't actually feel it is justified in the given situation by the

vanishingly small chances of discovering a tumor.

So it seems that a lot of doctors want to get rid of jury trials for

malpractice. They want some kind of professional adjudication. I'm not

sure whether that requires amending the US constitution, but it's some

kind of big change that could make one uneasy. Of course, when the

constitution was written medicine was mostly junk and there was

virtually nothing " technical " for juries to decide on in any sort of

civil or criminal case.

> Yeah, but it will never remain limited to children. " For children

only "

> is a wedge ... you know, " anything for the children " -- and then,

inside

> of a few years, it will be for " everyone " in the name of " fairness " .

>

> Politicians are fond of pimping children for pet causes even when it's

> off the main point, because everyone wants to protect kids, right?

>

> Heck, even some *parents* like to pimp their kids ... witness the

father

> who shoved his terrified son in my doorway last night to give a

> quavering recitation of a sales pitch for some crappy kiddie newspaper

> to raise money for ... I don't know, apple pie and motherhood, I

guess.

> But I digress.

>

> --Bob