Most people go straight to BlubberKing after visiting their doctor and order a slab of fat and sugar on a bun, a pound of fries and wash it down with a 64 oz Croke-a-cola. Then they go to their pharmacy.
Most are unwilling to change their diet or read this book:
Don;t know the particulars, but had a bud who "timed out" of hospice, but was picked by home healthcare. Same company, same staff, just a different pot of money. Is this available?
That is what the military do. Shoot first, and maybe 2% are capable of asking "why" later. They call them "deserters". []'s
Something called "voter fraud" and another thing called "voter intimidation" and a third called "Diebold electronic voting" makes me wonder about that.
Nah, Diebold's head said years ago that he was a Republican, so the Dems decided his machines were all corrupted. Please try to keep your conspiracy theories straight. It is hard enough to follow as it is...
When the lab tests come back, I'll review them and certify you healthy.
I saw a guy one time, leaving the dental clinic. After a tooth extraction. They told him to keep pressure on for so long, and no smoking for some ammount of time. He got out the front door, spit out the gauze, and lit up. I don't know the follow up, but he probably had a lot of post op complications which he blamed on the dentist.
I prefer capitalism over socialism. But both are known to bias the thinking of physicians. I'd rather have doctors carrying pocket full of Metamucil tongue depressors, opposed to having to phone a bureaucrat in Washington every time the MD wants to prescribe acetaminophen.
Conspiracy theory? Baah! I heard that straight from my Aunt Myrtle, who heard it from her cousin's hair dresser Madge (who's still soaking in palmolive).
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:39:43 -0500, Peter wrote in
IMO one cause for misunderstanding is the medical profession's (perhaps unconscious) cultivation of a public aura of infallibly; I.e. the "..doctor knows best.." aura. I'm guessing that medical pros are taught early to project a mystique of confidence and certainty so as to reassure the patient and family that all is under control. And that is certainly worthwhile. But I do believe it leads to disappointment when reality sets in.
Much less a factor these days than in the past. More a factor recently is the pressure placed on physicians by their patients to conform to their "requests" which are often couched more in terms of threats. They see an ad on TV or in a magazine, or in a blog, and they want that same Rx. The threat, sometimes overt, sometimes implied is that without getting what they want, they'll (a) leave your practice and bad mouth you to all their friends and family, (b) find a lawyer who agrees to file a trumped up lawsuit against you, (c) file a complaint with your State's board of discipline and/or licensing office, or (d) a combination of some or all of the above. It's usually faster and easier to placate the patient and just given them the Rx. So the motivation is usually not greed, it's intimidation!
In sum, it's a very complicated situation. One of the great joys of military medicine (yes, it IS "socialized medicine"), is that physicians don't have a profit motive associated with any patient management decision, and the Feres doctrine (look it up if you don't know what it is) insulates from the pressure to practice defensive medicine. You can concentrate on providing the best possible care for each patient.
One friend of mine describes the WCG syndrome, White Coated God. That's when the MD think's s/he is infallible.
No idea. Best source of information is probably a competent local patient care ombudsman or social worker who is familiar with the specific laws of the jurisdiction involved and the license provisions and restrictions of the specific company.
You put it a little cynically, but it's true that too many patients think that taking meds for a chronic condition insulates them from the harmful effects of any of their bad habits that have contributed to their disease.
Shadow, perhaps we have an English language comprehension problem? As a trained doctor, surely you know that most patients who have had a stroke or have severe liver or kidney failure are at least partially disabled. My original reply questioned the OP's apparent belief that anyone merely taking prescription meds for a chronic condition met the definition of disabled.
Bogus assertion. Never happened. Regardless of the system of practice, physician choices may be constrained by logistical and financial issues (either the patient's or the medical care system). How about the common problem of a private physician believing that a certain med is most appropriate for a specific private patient, but that patient's insurance won't cover the cost of that med and it costs far more than the patient can afford out of pocket?
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:05:49 -0500, Peter wrote in
Yes, I should have mentioned that I do see less of it than fifty years ago.
Glad you mentioned that. IMO the "big pharma" move into public advertising was one of the worst things to happen to medical care vis-a-vis development of unrealistic patient expectations. I seem to recall reading somewhere that big pharma mounted a successful lobbying effort with the Feds to make that happen, but I don't know if that is accurate.
I'll bet that does a lot to take the satisfaction out of medical practice.
Just cause something "never happened", I can still prefer one over the other. I'd prefer a solar flare that wipes out all life on Earth, over a meteor strike that knocks a bunch of dust into the atmosphere and kills us all in a few months.
I'd rather have an insurance company be unable to pay for the med (or the patient) rather than a bureaucrat in Washington denying permission for the med.
For some time, soldiers have been using over the counter tampons produced for monthly female hygiene to plug gunshot wounds. I can imagine the scene when a medic pulls a pink package out of his pack while treating a soldier who's been shot. Soldiers are very good at improvising during times of war. ^_^
TDD
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.