" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Can't the Congresscritters do that now? They can pass a bill that revokes whatever the Supremes have said. If it becomes law, that should have the same effect, unless the law is declared unconstitutional.
I'm with you on that.
Will it be Twitter or Facebook which saves the planet, Han?
-- Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. -- John Wayne
Not "ergo." An office visit for a prescription is not required. My doctor trusts my self-diagnosis and honors my request for prescriptions. I usually fax the request, outlining my symptoms and virtually always his staff calls back in a few hours to tell me the prescription has been called in to the pharmacy.
For example, my last fax was some months ago and quite simple:
"I've got my once-every-five-years bout of sinusitis and need an appropriate antibiotic."
Here's my basic rule: "When I was younger, I went to the doctor when I got sick. In my elder years, I go to the doctor to keep from getting sick." In your case, you should have your doc review your semi-annual blood tests to verify these tests are complete enough for you.
For example, do they test for venereal diseases? Chastic fibrosis (a disease usually found in foxes)? He my suggest some supplementary inquiries.
They can. Congress can, moreover, pass a law not reviewable by the courts. Seldom happens, but it's possible.
For example, Section 8 of the $700 billion bailout in late 2008 reads:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of the Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or administrative agency."
However there are bacterial illnesses that resemble a cold. You are being pedantic about the definition.
For most people if their head is stopped up and they have a cough and sore throat, it's a "cold" until they get to the doctor and find out that it's throat cancer complicated by tuberculosis and pneumonia.
Call it what you want. The OP said he goes when his cold get bad. If he wants to expand the definition of his illness, fine, but doctors can't cure colds yet.
Take two aspirin . . . . .
That's what confuses me. You said colds. Colds are caused viruses. Antibiotics are for bacterial infections; they don't work on colds and other viral infections.
The amendment process itself is just that, only the power is in the hands of the States rather than Congress, which I think is a safer place to entrust such a power.
That refers to judicial review of decisions of an administrative agency, which is entirely different than judicial review of the constitutionality of the law itself.
The act itself is reviewable and if the courts do not like that provision then out it goes.
How does the OP know that it's a cold before he sees the doctor? Is he a virologist with a home laboratory?
99.99% of us recognize the symptoms. The hypochondriacs go to the doctor for diagnosis. I know plenty of people that went to the doctor with a cold. They did no lab tests as you suggest, but told them to take two aspirin.
Doctors used to sometimes prescribe anti-biotics to some of these people just to make them feel better, thus they built immunity to them over time.
But a "cold" can lead to a bacterial infection, such as pneumonia, by reducing the body's resistance. An antibiotic, in this case, can be considered prophylactic.
The vast majority of deaths attributable to the "Spanish Flu" epidemic were caused by pneumonia. Of course this was before both pneumonia vaccinations and antibiotics.
Interpretation amendment
In this instance, the suggestion was that with a supermajority, Congress can overrule SCotUS. SCotUS doesn't (in theory) write the constitution.
Bruce wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@maha.sdc.org:
That's why my wife hates to make checkup appointments. But if she says she has a problem, she can get an appointment very soon. Of course, if there is a nagging little problem, where on the scale does that fall?
In other words, have you tried saying it is a near emergency to your doctor?
No, not on matters of Constitutional interpretation. SCotUS is the final word.
OK, that's different and yes, a doctor should be seen.
That situation sucks. The facilities we use operate much better. The doctors keep open one or two slits a day for such things. If your primary car physician can't see you, they send you to Urgent Care where they will see you within a couple of hours. Even on a Sunday.
Should none of those be available for any reason, we have two walk in clinics in town, one is open 7 days a week.
Before Medicare, my wife did go to the ER. After treatment, the doctor gave her a choice, she was borderline for admitting but he would put her in the hospital if she wanted. She elected to return home, thus saving the insurance company a bunch of money, but costing me $100 co-pay for an ER visit. If admitted, there was no co-pay.
We have Medicare and a good supplement. There are no additional costs out of pocket so we can go wherever we want for any reason. Nice to know you have the option, even if never used.
Yes!
Best you should see your doctor.
the build a resistance to them
You original doctor was probably incompetent; shame that it took a some time to realize that. Some doctors are so you have to take some responsibility for your diagnosis and treatment, do research, get second opinions.
--------------------------------- Isn't that where ObamaCare is headed within 10 years?
Lew
For better or worse,, yes.
When I was still under my employer's plan the co-pay for an ER visit went from $100 to $200. I can understand the reason, other options (Urgent Care) are available and should be used. OTOH, I have to wonder if really serious situations are put off because people are afraid of or cannot afford $200.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required