Why is the question constantly being asked, "Would you vote for (fill in the blank) over Obama?" Come on, get real. I'd vote for my dog over Obama, but why should I have to settle for a RINO when I want a conservative? Why would I want to get to the same place, only slower, when I can turn this country back on the right course, which at this point would be a 180 degree turn? Why is the media deciding who I vote for?
Why is the debate over, is Romney's religion a cult, when they should be talking about his policies as a governor? Such as, he stated he would be pro-abortion (I refuse to call it pro-choice - if it's pro-life, it should be pro-death), he has stated that he's for gun control (which is anti-2nd amendment, he is (whether he admits it or not) pro-Obamacare due to the Romney care he keeps supporting. Why is it that people talk about Perry's choices as governor and not the fact that he's a Methodist? The double standard is striking, even when it comes from the establishment Republicans.
Even Bill Bennett on his radio program asked the question, "Would you vote for Romney over Obama?" Actually, he even asked "Would you vote for Bill Clinton over Obama?" It's a ridiculous question. WE WANT A CONSERVATIVE. Even Mike Gallagher is calling Romney a conservative. HE ISN'T A CONSERVATIVE if he's pro-abortion, anti-2nd amendment and for government run health care. He's just the most conservative out of Massachusetts.
I've even heard it debated that Herman Cain doesn't have any political experience. Guess what? George Washington didn't have any political experience either. I don't want the kind of politician we have now. I want a patriot. No experience in government at this point might be a good thing.
I think the press wants Romney because they know he's Obama light. I don't want Obama light. I think the establishment Republicans don't want to give up their gravy train either. Establishment Republicans are just as much of socialists as the Democrats. There is no difference. That's why Obama got elected, because no one wanted Obama light, with McCain, so they stayed home.
The press is focusing on "anyone is better than Obama, right?" NO, that's not right. I can't believe that the politicians didn't get that with the last election cycle. WE WANT CONSERVATIVE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE. I think the press is setting us up so we accept defeat and just vote for who they want us to.
I don't know what we all should do. I know I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination, but it won't change our government if we get Romney or Huntsman. I'm not sure about Ron Paul. I don't mind him, but I hate the Ron Paul zombies that will only support him. Are they going to stay home if he doesn't get the nomination? I guess we just all need to focus the debates on policies and not be distracted by the stuff that the press wants us to focus on. We need to weed through the propaganda on both sides. If someone is only slamming one or more candidate, and not presenting the good AND the bad, it's probably propaganda. There are good and bad with all the candidates. But I have to wonder when the "good" they come up with Romney is that he "looks presidential."
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
You can keep your Doctor and prices won't go up
Isn't that what President Obama promised when they passed Obamacare in the middle of the night? I wondered why they had to bribe the people of each state with bennies in order to justify their representatives voting for it. You can keep your doctors and prices won't go up.
Well, I have to dispute that. I have government health care. I have Tricare Prime, which is for military people. We opted for Prime 10 years ago when my husband got out of the Navy (after 20 years in) because it was better for us. The difference between Prime and Standard, is with Prime, you pay a set amount each year, and then only pay a co-pay for each doctor visit, no matter whether it's your primary or a specialist. With Standard, the government pays 80% of WHAT THEY ALLOW and you pay the rest. No yearly fee. We have a special needs son who would possibly need a heart valve replaced (thank God, he hasn't yet).
We learned a couple months ago that Walgreen's would be not carrying our prescription insurance (Express Scripts) any longer. We would have to switch over to a different pharmacy. We've been going to Walgreen's for the 6 years we've been in Texas. So, we switched to CVS. The store is nicer, I'm out faster, so I was pleased. They also have different lanes (inside and out) for drop off and pick up, as well as inside they have a consultation line. At the same time that we switched, our co-pay went up. I thought at first, it was just CVS charging more because they accept our insurance. I've run into that before.
As an explanation, I got an eye exam ($65) and they wouldn't reimburse me. They said I didn't go to a provider that accepted my insurance. So I called one of the ones that take Tricare Prime (which didn't exist 3 years ago, the last time I got glasses) and they charge $160 for the same eye exam. I can't say as I blame them. When Obamacare got passed, I checked out the reimbursement rate. They were reimbursing MRI's at 19%. I just recently rechecked it and it's fallen to about 12%. How do they exist? What will they do if the government goes to a single payer option? As in they force other insurance companies to close down and all you have is government insurance.
So, at first I wasn't that upset over the increase. I mean, it's still really low. We used to pay $3 for generic, $9 for non-generic and $22 of ones they don't approve. I am now paying $5 for generic and $12 for non-generic. That's still low, but I did the math. The generic went up 60% and the non-generic went up 75%. Would you like a 60% increase on your co-pays? The cost of living only went up, what, 5%? And we had NO warning that this was going to happen, just that we had to change pharmacies. I have one son on 3 meds, another son on 3 meds (2 are non-generic), I'm on 4 meds (one of which is non-generic) and my husband is on about 5. That's about $31 a month. It adds up. Right now my husband is not getting a paycheck because he broke his leg.
We must repeal Obamacare before it drags this country down to the bottom. I guess the government wants everyone on Medicaid.
Well, I have to dispute that. I have government health care. I have Tricare Prime, which is for military people. We opted for Prime 10 years ago when my husband got out of the Navy (after 20 years in) because it was better for us. The difference between Prime and Standard, is with Prime, you pay a set amount each year, and then only pay a co-pay for each doctor visit, no matter whether it's your primary or a specialist. With Standard, the government pays 80% of WHAT THEY ALLOW and you pay the rest. No yearly fee. We have a special needs son who would possibly need a heart valve replaced (thank God, he hasn't yet).
We learned a couple months ago that Walgreen's would be not carrying our prescription insurance (Express Scripts) any longer. We would have to switch over to a different pharmacy. We've been going to Walgreen's for the 6 years we've been in Texas. So, we switched to CVS. The store is nicer, I'm out faster, so I was pleased. They also have different lanes (inside and out) for drop off and pick up, as well as inside they have a consultation line. At the same time that we switched, our co-pay went up. I thought at first, it was just CVS charging more because they accept our insurance. I've run into that before.
As an explanation, I got an eye exam ($65) and they wouldn't reimburse me. They said I didn't go to a provider that accepted my insurance. So I called one of the ones that take Tricare Prime (which didn't exist 3 years ago, the last time I got glasses) and they charge $160 for the same eye exam. I can't say as I blame them. When Obamacare got passed, I checked out the reimbursement rate. They were reimbursing MRI's at 19%. I just recently rechecked it and it's fallen to about 12%. How do they exist? What will they do if the government goes to a single payer option? As in they force other insurance companies to close down and all you have is government insurance.
So, at first I wasn't that upset over the increase. I mean, it's still really low. We used to pay $3 for generic, $9 for non-generic and $22 of ones they don't approve. I am now paying $5 for generic and $12 for non-generic. That's still low, but I did the math. The generic went up 60% and the non-generic went up 75%. Would you like a 60% increase on your co-pays? The cost of living only went up, what, 5%? And we had NO warning that this was going to happen, just that we had to change pharmacies. I have one son on 3 meds, another son on 3 meds (2 are non-generic), I'm on 4 meds (one of which is non-generic) and my husband is on about 5. That's about $31 a month. It adds up. Right now my husband is not getting a paycheck because he broke his leg.
We must repeal Obamacare before it drags this country down to the bottom. I guess the government wants everyone on Medicaid.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Herman Cain's 9 9 9 plan
I haven't really decided who I'm voting for in the primaries. I know, I'm from Texas, so it's supposed to be either Rick Perry or Ron Paul, right? Well, I'm afraid of all the Ron Paul Zombies, even though I agree with about 80% of what Ron Paul says. I don't think I like his international ideas. I'm not sure how I feel about Rick Perry yet. I think the only way I'd vote for either of these is if they won the Republican nomination. Anyone is better than Obama, but I said that 3 years ago. Even if Rick Perry turns out to be a RINO, he can't do more damage than Obama has done in the past couple or more years.
I am really leaning toward Herman Cain. Yes, I know, I'm a white, conservative Republican, I'm supposed to be racist. And I'm not like a liberal who is voting for the black man to make myself feel good or prove I'm not a racist. If Herman Cain won as President, we'd really have our first Black President. Obama is half black. We'd also have a patriot instead of a Marxist.
But, anyway, I just heard Herman Cain discuss his 9 9 9 plan, and I like it. I wanted to tell you why. First, here's the plan: From his article found at http://hermancaincommentary.blogspot.com/2011/08/mr-president-youre-fired-but-if-you.html
__________________
A 9% business flat tax. Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses, and all dividends paid to shareholders.
A 9% individual income flat tax. Gross income less charitable deductions.
A 9% national sales tax. This significantly expands the tax base, which helps everyone.
This plan has the following advantages:
It is fair, revenue-neutral, transparent and efficient.
It puts zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits.
It replaces the payroll tax.
It will aid capital availability for small businesses.
It saves taxpayers $430 billion in annual compliance costs.
It eliminates the uncertainty holding this economy down.
____________________________
The individual income tax would lower everyone who currently pays taxes (not counting the 47% who get all their taxes back or more). It may harm those who get more back, because the only deduction would be charitable contributions. That means you don't get paid by the government just because you have 8 kids. You don't get any earned income credit because you chose to work part of the year, but not enough to actually have to file. It will emliminate the attitude of "Oh, I can get by with a part time job, because I can sit on my butt the other half and get earned income credit to make it up. You put out money, and get to take it off your taxes. We're currently in the 15% tax bracket, 25% if you would happen to count his retirement check. So, that's about $5000 now. The retirement check doesn't all count right now, but it does lower how much we get back because we have to live on it. I think the difference was something like %1700, because I forgot to add it at first. At 9% it would be between $3000 and $4800 if they counted the whole retirement check. I believe it would closer to $3500-4000,
The corporate tax is also a flat tax. Small business owners will still be basically taxed twice if they own their own business, but they'll know how much and you get deductions (even for share holders).
He doesn't say it, but the flat national sales tax on new items would catch the illegal aliens, the foreign investors, any legal visitor who buys things here. Unless that's what he meant about expanding the tax base. That's a pay as you go. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy used. I go to thrift stores a lot. There are some really nice ones. And if you consider that a charitable contribution or keep it one), the "rich" will donate more of their clothes in order to get that deduction. I got a pair of beaded capri's that still had the origninal tag on it ($120) for something like $5. But if he rich don't want to buy used, they have to buy new and pay 9% national sales tax. That theoretically should satisfy the liberals who don't want the rich to have nice things, or to pay more because they have more. If they aren't willing to pay the sales tax, they too are able to shop at thrift stores. It will also eliminate those like Buffett who are trying to get out of millions in taxes, while at the same time saying people just like them should pay more. You want to pay more? Either don't give charitable donation, or don't claim them. You don't have to claim deductions.
I know this sounded like a commercial for Herman Cain, but like I said, I haven't really made up my mind yet. There are points I agree with from all the candidates, it's just that this is the first simple plan I've seen.
What I think they should all agree on, is that whoever wins the nomination (and they all agree to stay in until all primaries are done), appoints all the other nominees into the cabinet. We could use people like all those running (except Huntsman, I don't believe at all he's conservative). I'm sure they could find some small cabinet appointment for him, though.
I am really leaning toward Herman Cain. Yes, I know, I'm a white, conservative Republican, I'm supposed to be racist. And I'm not like a liberal who is voting for the black man to make myself feel good or prove I'm not a racist. If Herman Cain won as President, we'd really have our first Black President. Obama is half black. We'd also have a patriot instead of a Marxist.
But, anyway, I just heard Herman Cain discuss his 9 9 9 plan, and I like it. I wanted to tell you why. First, here's the plan: From his article found at http://hermancaincommentary.blogspot.com/2011/08/mr-president-youre-fired-but-if-you.html
__________________
A 9% business flat tax. Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses, and all dividends paid to shareholders.
A 9% individual income flat tax. Gross income less charitable deductions.
A 9% national sales tax. This significantly expands the tax base, which helps everyone.
This plan has the following advantages:
It is fair, revenue-neutral, transparent and efficient.
It puts zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits.
It replaces the payroll tax.
It will aid capital availability for small businesses.
It saves taxpayers $430 billion in annual compliance costs.
It eliminates the uncertainty holding this economy down.
____________________________
The individual income tax would lower everyone who currently pays taxes (not counting the 47% who get all their taxes back or more). It may harm those who get more back, because the only deduction would be charitable contributions. That means you don't get paid by the government just because you have 8 kids. You don't get any earned income credit because you chose to work part of the year, but not enough to actually have to file. It will emliminate the attitude of "Oh, I can get by with a part time job, because I can sit on my butt the other half and get earned income credit to make it up. You put out money, and get to take it off your taxes. We're currently in the 15% tax bracket, 25% if you would happen to count his retirement check. So, that's about $5000 now. The retirement check doesn't all count right now, but it does lower how much we get back because we have to live on it. I think the difference was something like %1700, because I forgot to add it at first. At 9% it would be between $3000 and $4800 if they counted the whole retirement check. I believe it would closer to $3500-4000,
The corporate tax is also a flat tax. Small business owners will still be basically taxed twice if they own their own business, but they'll know how much and you get deductions (even for share holders).
He doesn't say it, but the flat national sales tax on new items would catch the illegal aliens, the foreign investors, any legal visitor who buys things here. Unless that's what he meant about expanding the tax base. That's a pay as you go. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy used. I go to thrift stores a lot. There are some really nice ones. And if you consider that a charitable contribution or keep it one), the "rich" will donate more of their clothes in order to get that deduction. I got a pair of beaded capri's that still had the origninal tag on it ($120) for something like $5. But if he rich don't want to buy used, they have to buy new and pay 9% national sales tax. That theoretically should satisfy the liberals who don't want the rich to have nice things, or to pay more because they have more. If they aren't willing to pay the sales tax, they too are able to shop at thrift stores. It will also eliminate those like Buffett who are trying to get out of millions in taxes, while at the same time saying people just like them should pay more. You want to pay more? Either don't give charitable donation, or don't claim them. You don't have to claim deductions.
I know this sounded like a commercial for Herman Cain, but like I said, I haven't really made up my mind yet. There are points I agree with from all the candidates, it's just that this is the first simple plan I've seen.
What I think they should all agree on, is that whoever wins the nomination (and they all agree to stay in until all primaries are done), appoints all the other nominees into the cabinet. We could use people like all those running (except Huntsman, I don't believe at all he's conservative). I'm sure they could find some small cabinet appointment for him, though.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
I've been thinking a lot about modern medicine lately. I guess partly because of undergoing cancer treatment, and the fact that my husband just recently broke his leg. There's a controversy over aspirin vs Tylenol. I found this about aspirin:
Hippocrates, a Greek physician, wrote in the fifth century B.C.E. about a bitter powder extracted from willow bark that could ease aches and pains and reduce fevers. This remedy is also mentioned in texts from ancient Sumeria, Egypt, and Assyria. Native Americans claim to have used it for headaches, fever, sore muscles, rheumatism, and chills. The Reverend Edward Stone, a vicar from Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, England, noted in 1763 that the bark of the willow was effective in reducing a fever.
These are the common side effects:
Gastrointestinal complaints (stomach upset, dyspepsia, heartburn, small blood loss). To help avoid these problems, it is recommended that aspirin be taken at or after meals. Undetected blood loss may lead to hypochromic anemia.
Severe gastrointestinal complaints (gross bleeding and/or ulceration), requiring discontinuation and immediate treatment. Patients receiving high doses and/or long-term treatment should receive gastric protection with high-dosed antacids, ranitidine, or omeprazole.
Frequently, central nervous system effects (dizziness, tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo, centrally mediated vision disturbances, and headaches). The higher the daily dose is, the more likely it is that central nervous system side effects will occur.
Sweating, seen with high doses, independent from antipyretic action
With long-term treatment with high doses (for arthritis and rheumatic fever), often increased liver enzymes without symptoms, rarely reversible liver damage. The potentially fatal Reye's syndrome may occur, if given to pediatric patients with fever and other signs of infections. The syndrome is due to fatty degeneration of liver cells. Up to 30 percent of those afflicted will eventually die. Prompt hospital treatment may be life-saving.
Chronic nephritis with long-term use, usually if used in combination with certain other painkillers. This condition may lead to chronic renal failure.
Prolonged and more severe bleeding after operations and post-traumatic for up to 10 days after the last aspirin dose. If one wishes to counteract the bleeding tendency, fresh thrombocyte concentrate will usually work.
Skin reactions, angioedema,, and bronchospasm have all been seen infrequently.
But, on the other hand, we have Tylenol.
However, when taken in excessive quantities or when combined with alcohol, acetaminophen may cause death due to liver failure. In fact, an overdose of acetaminophen is the most common cause of fulminant hepatic failure as well as the most common cause of drug-induced liver disease in the United States. After acetaminophen became readily available in 1960 as an over-the-counter medication, it became one of the most popular means of attempting suicide. For liver injury to occur, acetaminophen must generally be consumed in quantities exceeding 15 grams within a short period of time, such as in a single dose. Although uncommon, ingestion of 7 to 10 grams at one time may cause liver damage.
Acetaminophen has a narrow therapeutic index. This means that the common dose is close to the overdose, making it a relatively dangerous substance.
Acetaminophen single doses above 10 grams or chronic doses over 5 grams per day in a well-nourished non-consumer of alcohol, or above 4 grams per day in a poorly nourished consumer of alcohol, can cause significant injury to the liver. Without timely treatment, acetaminophen overdoses can lead to liver failure and death within days. Because of the wide over-the-counter availability of the drug, it is sometimes used in suicide attempts.
Acetaminophen should not be taken after alcohol consumption, because the liver, when engaged in alcohol breakdown, cannot properly dispose of acetaminophen, thus increasing the risk of hepatotoxicity.
_________________
So, let's see if I have this straight....God gave us a tree whose bark can reduce pain and fever, among other things. Instead of harvesting it with intelligence, and replanting, when they started running low on trees, they just made a man-made alternative. The natural remedy had a few drawbacks, mostly gastrointestinal, and the man-made one causes liver damage, and the overdose is close to the level of treatment.
This got me to thinking. Why, when the big pharmaceutical companies see how many people are going back to home-remedies, or herbal remedies, don't they just start making those? Why do they cling to their old standbys and not get into the herbal remedy business?
Well, I think I came up with an answer. Herbal remedies are natural, and therefore have fewer side effects. Pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, cause side effects that will lead to needing more pharmaceuticals. If they sold herbal remedies, they would make less money because people wouldn't need as many different kinds to treat the different side effects.
Mr. Obama slams big Pharma on one hand, and yet he wants to make herbal remedies regulated like pharmaceuticals. He wants to drive out the small store that sells natural remedies, so that big pharma doesn't have any competition.
Hippocrates, a Greek physician, wrote in the fifth century B.C.E. about a bitter powder extracted from willow bark that could ease aches and pains and reduce fevers. This remedy is also mentioned in texts from ancient Sumeria, Egypt, and Assyria. Native Americans claim to have used it for headaches, fever, sore muscles, rheumatism, and chills. The Reverend Edward Stone, a vicar from Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, England, noted in 1763 that the bark of the willow was effective in reducing a fever.
These are the common side effects:
Gastrointestinal complaints (stomach upset, dyspepsia, heartburn, small blood loss). To help avoid these problems, it is recommended that aspirin be taken at or after meals. Undetected blood loss may lead to hypochromic anemia.
Severe gastrointestinal complaints (gross bleeding and/or ulceration), requiring discontinuation and immediate treatment. Patients receiving high doses and/or long-term treatment should receive gastric protection with high-dosed antacids, ranitidine, or omeprazole.
Frequently, central nervous system effects (dizziness, tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo, centrally mediated vision disturbances, and headaches). The higher the daily dose is, the more likely it is that central nervous system side effects will occur.
Sweating, seen with high doses, independent from antipyretic action
With long-term treatment with high doses (for arthritis and rheumatic fever), often increased liver enzymes without symptoms, rarely reversible liver damage. The potentially fatal Reye's syndrome may occur, if given to pediatric patients with fever and other signs of infections. The syndrome is due to fatty degeneration of liver cells. Up to 30 percent of those afflicted will eventually die. Prompt hospital treatment may be life-saving.
Chronic nephritis with long-term use, usually if used in combination with certain other painkillers. This condition may lead to chronic renal failure.
Prolonged and more severe bleeding after operations and post-traumatic for up to 10 days after the last aspirin dose. If one wishes to counteract the bleeding tendency, fresh thrombocyte concentrate will usually work.
Skin reactions, angioedema,, and bronchospasm have all been seen infrequently.
But, on the other hand, we have Tylenol.
However, when taken in excessive quantities or when combined with alcohol, acetaminophen may cause death due to liver failure. In fact, an overdose of acetaminophen is the most common cause of fulminant hepatic failure as well as the most common cause of drug-induced liver disease in the United States. After acetaminophen became readily available in 1960 as an over-the-counter medication, it became one of the most popular means of attempting suicide. For liver injury to occur, acetaminophen must generally be consumed in quantities exceeding 15 grams within a short period of time, such as in a single dose. Although uncommon, ingestion of 7 to 10 grams at one time may cause liver damage.
Acetaminophen has a narrow therapeutic index. This means that the common dose is close to the overdose, making it a relatively dangerous substance.
Acetaminophen single doses above 10 grams or chronic doses over 5 grams per day in a well-nourished non-consumer of alcohol, or above 4 grams per day in a poorly nourished consumer of alcohol, can cause significant injury to the liver. Without timely treatment, acetaminophen overdoses can lead to liver failure and death within days. Because of the wide over-the-counter availability of the drug, it is sometimes used in suicide attempts.
Acetaminophen should not be taken after alcohol consumption, because the liver, when engaged in alcohol breakdown, cannot properly dispose of acetaminophen, thus increasing the risk of hepatotoxicity.
_________________
So, let's see if I have this straight....God gave us a tree whose bark can reduce pain and fever, among other things. Instead of harvesting it with intelligence, and replanting, when they started running low on trees, they just made a man-made alternative. The natural remedy had a few drawbacks, mostly gastrointestinal, and the man-made one causes liver damage, and the overdose is close to the level of treatment.
This got me to thinking. Why, when the big pharmaceutical companies see how many people are going back to home-remedies, or herbal remedies, don't they just start making those? Why do they cling to their old standbys and not get into the herbal remedy business?
Well, I think I came up with an answer. Herbal remedies are natural, and therefore have fewer side effects. Pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, cause side effects that will lead to needing more pharmaceuticals. If they sold herbal remedies, they would make less money because people wouldn't need as many different kinds to treat the different side effects.
Mr. Obama slams big Pharma on one hand, and yet he wants to make herbal remedies regulated like pharmaceuticals. He wants to drive out the small store that sells natural remedies, so that big pharma doesn't have any competition.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Another result of Obamacare
Well, the hits keep coming. I wrote about losing a doctor to Obamacare, now we had another run-in.
My husband bought a scooter (only something like 125cc's) because gas has gotten so expensive. He's well trained on a motorcycle/scooter. We had one in Bermuda. I had a 50cc scooter and he had a 100cc motorcycle. He was coming home from work Friday, when the lady in front of him braked suddenly and hard. He braked hard, too, but his hand slipped off the back break and he went down. The first responders didn't even have surgical scissors to cut his pant leg and boot off of him. The guy had to use a buck knife.
Then, the couldn't transport him to the NEAREST hospital, because it didn't have a trauma center. Baylor of Garland is more for "old people's diseases," as a doctor friend of mine put it; heart attacks, etc. They had to transport to Baylor of Dallas. After we thought about it, Medical Center of Dallas would have been closer. He broke his leg really badly. It was a spiral fracture of the tibia and fibula, just above the ankle. We spent over 6 hours in the ER.
Finally, the came up and said we had 2 choices. They could admit us, but the only surgeon they had was up for the trauma duty and probably wouldn't get to him until Monday. Baylor doesn't take our insurance (except for the emergency room). We told the nurse this, so she sent in the financial advisor. She said she had no idea if they took our insurance or not (wasn't she the FINANCIAL advisor?) but they would work with us to pay it off. I can't even imagine what 3 days in the hospital would cost. So, my husband called his own orthopedic surgeon, and he said he would see him Monday and do surgery probably Tuesday, as long as we got the referral in. That was the other option she gave us, since the surgeon couldn't do anything until today (Monday). They would send him home splinted and with pain pills. So we took that route.
The stupid (and yes, I meant to use that word) guys in the hospital did a pi$$ poor job of splinting his leg. It flopped every time he moved it. Then they sent us home. We got home at midnight. They gave him a prescription of Hydrocodone (10/325), which I had to wait until Saturday morning to fill. Luckily, I have neck pain from degeneration, and had some 7.5/325 hydrocodone. So, instead of getting immediate surgery, for a really bad fracture, the hospital was short staffed and didn't take our insurance anyway.
And we have military insurance, which is government insurance. I suppose when Obama care actually kicks in, they'll just make the hospitals and doctors accept it. I know why they are dropping out like flies falling off a carcass.....the government reimburses MRI's at about 19%. If all insurance is forced into this, or all facilities are forced to take insurance like government single payer they'll all go out of business. The government will have to bail out the hospitals. If they can tell GM to make an electric car, when no one wants to buy one, don't you think they'll tell hospitals who to treat and how much to charge? They've already said in the health care bill that all doctors will be paid the same, no matter whether they have a specialty or are a general practitioner. Let's face it, specializing takes more education. They should be able to charge a bit higher, they have more knowledge. Now, do I think they charge TOO much? Maybe, but we'll never know because the government won't let natural selection work. If no one had insurance, and every one had to pay their own bills, the doctor's would be in competition with each other. The prices would lower.
I have one doctor (my cardiologist) who currently charges what my primary (general practitioner, who is by the way, a Physician's assistant) charges. It's less than the pediatrician my kids go to. But, he's from Canada and believes in socialized medicine.
My husband bought a scooter (only something like 125cc's) because gas has gotten so expensive. He's well trained on a motorcycle/scooter. We had one in Bermuda. I had a 50cc scooter and he had a 100cc motorcycle. He was coming home from work Friday, when the lady in front of him braked suddenly and hard. He braked hard, too, but his hand slipped off the back break and he went down. The first responders didn't even have surgical scissors to cut his pant leg and boot off of him. The guy had to use a buck knife.
Then, the couldn't transport him to the NEAREST hospital, because it didn't have a trauma center. Baylor of Garland is more for "old people's diseases," as a doctor friend of mine put it; heart attacks, etc. They had to transport to Baylor of Dallas. After we thought about it, Medical Center of Dallas would have been closer. He broke his leg really badly. It was a spiral fracture of the tibia and fibula, just above the ankle. We spent over 6 hours in the ER.
Finally, the came up and said we had 2 choices. They could admit us, but the only surgeon they had was up for the trauma duty and probably wouldn't get to him until Monday. Baylor doesn't take our insurance (except for the emergency room). We told the nurse this, so she sent in the financial advisor. She said she had no idea if they took our insurance or not (wasn't she the FINANCIAL advisor?) but they would work with us to pay it off. I can't even imagine what 3 days in the hospital would cost. So, my husband called his own orthopedic surgeon, and he said he would see him Monday and do surgery probably Tuesday, as long as we got the referral in. That was the other option she gave us, since the surgeon couldn't do anything until today (Monday). They would send him home splinted and with pain pills. So we took that route.
The stupid (and yes, I meant to use that word) guys in the hospital did a pi$$ poor job of splinting his leg. It flopped every time he moved it. Then they sent us home. We got home at midnight. They gave him a prescription of Hydrocodone (10/325), which I had to wait until Saturday morning to fill. Luckily, I have neck pain from degeneration, and had some 7.5/325 hydrocodone. So, instead of getting immediate surgery, for a really bad fracture, the hospital was short staffed and didn't take our insurance anyway.
And we have military insurance, which is government insurance. I suppose when Obama care actually kicks in, they'll just make the hospitals and doctors accept it. I know why they are dropping out like flies falling off a carcass.....the government reimburses MRI's at about 19%. If all insurance is forced into this, or all facilities are forced to take insurance like government single payer they'll all go out of business. The government will have to bail out the hospitals. If they can tell GM to make an electric car, when no one wants to buy one, don't you think they'll tell hospitals who to treat and how much to charge? They've already said in the health care bill that all doctors will be paid the same, no matter whether they have a specialty or are a general practitioner. Let's face it, specializing takes more education. They should be able to charge a bit higher, they have more knowledge. Now, do I think they charge TOO much? Maybe, but we'll never know because the government won't let natural selection work. If no one had insurance, and every one had to pay their own bills, the doctor's would be in competition with each other. The prices would lower.
I have one doctor (my cardiologist) who currently charges what my primary (general practitioner, who is by the way, a Physician's assistant) charges. It's less than the pediatrician my kids go to. But, he's from Canada and believes in socialized medicine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)