My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple cleaning plus a few
pictures (not X-rays). Told her she needed two fillings - $525 each.
Plus a crown - $1050.
Doesn't this seem a bit steep? I know medical inflation has been high,
but really. Note that her old dentist retired. A young guy took over
his practice and raised all the prices. Maybe he's trying to recoup his
med school costs and the cost of the practice all in the first year or
Or I might just be out of touch. I got dentures 36 years ago. I'm now
on my 4th set. Almost no problems - much less than folks with real
teeth. As far as cost, it has averaged out about $100 a year - latest
set was $800.
But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.
Sounds high for fillings but a crown can be in that price range and has
been for some time. You might inquire as to what kind of crown, gold or
porcelain. At one time the more natural apearing porcelain crown was
more expensive than gold. These days the gold is probably more expensive.
Now you say you have almost no problems with your dentures and yet you
are on your 5 set of teeth. I'm still on my first set. ;~)
You do know that we, those that still have our originals, like to go to
the dentist for the gas. Huh?
The first thing you need to look at is the 2.3% tax that obama care
placed on medical devices. Medical devices are just about everything
you see in the doctor's office. from band aids, to x-ray machines, to
the medical computer on his desk.
You also have to figure in the cost required by obamacare to computerize
medical records, so it is easier for the NSA to snoop.
Sure, it would be easier for *anybody* to snoop, but how about putting
aside your paranoid tendencies for one minute and consider some of the
advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient, the
list goes on and on.
Really??? That's one of the most shortsighted comments I've ever seen
you make. I wonder how quickly you'd change your opinion if the
medical communications technology of this day and age was suddenly
dialed back to that of thirty years ago?
Sure, everybody likes their privacy, no argument. However, the US
faces many levels of terrorism both foreign and domestic. I also have
to wonder how many home grown domestic acts of terrorism have been
caught and dealt with because of that invasion of your privacy? I
certainly don't like or approve of governments spying on their
citizens, but in this day and age, it's become a very necessary evil
if you value your health and safety.
On 12/20/2013 8:45 AM, email@example.com wrote:
I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved except
to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records. Most
people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
lives go to one or two doctors.
WHY is it necessary for a doctor a thousand miles away have access to
those records. If the person is traveling, the family doctor should be
involved in any medical decision the other doctor makes, if necessary
records can be a transmitted at that time.
Government computerized medical records have no bearing on the quality
of medicine as a person is not getting his dental work in California,
blood checked in Maine and his heart work in Florida. Also talking about
the quality of medicine 30 years ago has no bearing on the government
controlling and nationalizing of medical records.
WHAT does a person's medical records have to do with preventing
terrorism. The last thing a person who is planning a massacre or
blowing up a building is thinking about is his heart condition. BASED
ON HISTORY, the only thing he is thinking about is serving Allah.
Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to the
2.3% obamacare tax.
The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
device and drugs are safe and effective.
In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
medical records went into the system, were stored in the system without
being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the system.
and that there was an effective protection system to prevent tampering
with those records.
The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
drug that created birth defects, etc
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the
Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to
regulate local vehicle traffic, that power is reserved to the States.
Cities and counties are subdivisions of the states, who collectively,
under the Constitution, have the power under the Tenth Amendment to
regulate local vehicle traffic. That includes the state/local
government power to erect stop signs and provide penalties for failing
to stop at an intersection where a stop sign has been erected.
Since I took the time to show how the Constitution allows states to
regulate traffic, return the favor, and show me where the Constitution
empowers Congress to enact federal laws regulating the accuracy and
universality of medical record keeping.
I looked at the enumerated powers of the Federal Government under the
Nope, not there.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Since I was not alive when the FDA was created, I assume like the
ability to tax citizens for not having health insurance, it was
considered constitutional under the commerce section of the
constitution. With the FDA regulating drugs and medical devices, it
provide a uniform set of law for all states to operate under when
engaged in interstate commerce.
I believe this same section was the justification for the social
The commerce section has been significantly been abused, as with the
obamacare ruling. Tax are to be applied equally, not targeted at
specific groups or individuals, which obamacare does
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.