Given everything you've been eating, it's a miracle you're still standing!😲 Man, after pushing yourself to the absolute limit, instead of sticking to tea, bottled water, crackers, and toast, you just went ham on eggs and heavy cream... it's gross... You really should have asked your mother what she fed you back when you were a baby dealing with diarrhea!!!
It was useless having a Mayo clinic every hundred yards—basically free insurance—or having a hospital straight out of Star Trek in every neighborhood whenever our healthcare system failed us through sheer incompetence... 😈
And now, here you are, hitting the road early in the morning to head to the doctor and provide a stool sample for testing...
What kind of biochemistry course are you taking? Surely not one at a medical school?!?
If it is, God help us all :ziba :
As for that itching, just use wet wipes and some Neven Ciganović ointment... ccccc....
General practitioners are stuck in an impossible bind. If they don't give a patient exactly what they want, that patient can just grab their files and walk right out the door to someone else. But if their patient count drops too low, Medicare won't renew their contract. On the flip side, if they're too lenient and overprescribe, Medicare just cuts their funding.
The entire system needs to be torn down. The only real solution is a solid basic package that covers the most vulnerable populations along with essential diagnostics and treatments, plus supplemental insurance—private or otherwise—to pick up the slack for everything else.
Just to be clear, I’m paying nearly $1000 a month myself, and I have to buy all my medications (from birth control onwards) out of pocket because they aren't covered by Medicare.
Betty Cox30 said:Wouldn't it be more effective to establish a basic coverage basket that every employer is required to fund—regardless of the salary reported—and then offer tax incentives for additional private policies to encourage better coverage?
I completely agree. This seems like the only viable way forward for everyone involved. It would provide patients with clear transparency regarding where their money is going, while also forcing primary care physicians to handle more cases themselves (in Canada, for instance, which was mentioned earlier, about 70% of patients are managed within primary care). By doing this, more funding could be diverted toward specialist care for those who truly need it, allowing for better equipment purchases and significantly shorter waiting lists...
However, I'm afraid we might all be waiting a long time before we actually see that happen.
Betty Bennett10 said:I don't understand why you, being a doctor, are so happy about these legislative changes. I haven't read much about it yet, but this article in The New York Times is truly terrifying; it clearly states that the reform is completely socially insensitive. Even for children, they will have to pay $3.25 via referral and prescription! It's awful 👎
I’m not celebrating; quite the opposite. As a physician, I am acutely aware of how limited we are under the current funding model. Because of general wastefulness, we can't procure new equipment, and we face shortages of medications and medical supplies. Above all, I see daily how much money is wasted—patients are issued referrals for things so senseless it breaks my heart. For example: a patient was scheduled for inguinal hernia surgery six weeks out (in the meantime, he has to get an internal medicine exam, an EKG, a chest X-ray, and lab work). He has a minor hernia that isn't urgent. Yet, he comes to see me four separate times within ten days because it's causing him discomfort. Every single time, he arrives with an "urgent" referral from his primary doctor. Each time he is examined, his condition remains unchanged. During his last visit, I finally asked him: "Look, why are you coming back just two days after your appointment when everything was explained to you and nothing has changed?" ? You know what he told me? "Well, my doctor said if I kept coming back enough, I'd 'annoy' you into operating on me immediately!"
And he isn't the only case... I deal with people like this every day. Because of them, those who actually need care and emergency services struggle to get seen. The examination cost $23... the government ended up spending about $100 on this one patient alone. Every single cent...
Furthermore, Muslim children are being issued referrals for circumcisions, which isn't a medical necessity and a cost that parents should bear themselves rather than Medicare... it's just more $233, paid for by all of us through our own contributions.
I could go on like this forever. That is why I believe this might actually change something. Though, I admit, the system being proposed isn't perfect either. People need to realize that healthcare isn't free. Unfortunately, there are always collateral victims whenever these kinds of changes occur.
Sandra Hayes88, where else in the world can someone just decide to head to a lab one day, see a specialist the next, and then follow up with physical therapy whenever they feel like it, just like how we usually do things here? In the US, primary care doctors mainly just write the referrals, and about two-thirds of the population is essentially exempt from copays...
Even Saudi Arabia couldn't afford to cover all that... But honestly, things are starting to shift... Check out today's article in The New York Times 😈
electricwalker17 said:Personally, I’m not a fan of the idea of "protected" groups—specifically retirees—since they end up being the biggest consumers. Looking at my own family, my grandparents go in for checkups simply because they have the coverage to do so, not necessarily because they need them. For instance, my grandfather has a hearing aid that works perfectly fine, yet he still goes to get a new one just because he's entitled to it. As a result, waiting rooms are packed with people who are just exercising their "rights," while those of us in the workforce can't afford to wait months for an appointment and end up paying out of pocket for private care. We're essentially paying twice. And looking ahead, this is how it’s going to stay. We'll keep seeing deductions from our paychecks, yet we'll still be forced to pay for our own treatments and medical devices while this "protected" group continues to spend our money.
It's exactly because of people like you mentioned that there isn't enough funding for everything else; every single one of those unnecessary checkups adds up. Once the health insurance system undergoes reform, even they won't find everything as accessible as it is today. There will likely be limits—for example, maybe three free blood tests a year, and anything beyond that, you pay for yourself. Under that kind of model, there wouldn't be this issue of double-paying. It would work similarly to retirement pillars: one portion would be mandatory to fund emergency services and public health infrastructure, while the rest—much like the optional components of a 401(k)—would be contributed based on individual choice.
Your liver isn't a rug you can just steam clean once it gets dirty. 😈
Health is an investment. You have to put in the work—protecting it, looking after it, and making sure you aren't inviting illness through reckless choices like excessive drinking, unprotected sex, or just a generally messy lifestyle.
We're living in an era where people are finally realizing that "free" healthcare is an impossibility. When one person pays $667 every month while ten others pay $33, yet everyone expects equal access and treatment, your personal relationship with your own body becomes critical.
It needs to be understood: if you don't take care of yourself, nobody else is going to do it for you. And when you eventually get sick, if you haven't saved up, there won't be anyone offering you free medical care.
The government will continue, just like everywhere else in the world, to be responsible for emergency care, life-saving procedures, and protecting vulnerable groups like children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with chronic conditions.
No health insurance plan anywhere in the world covers absolutely everything; there is always a cap. Once you hit that limit, you're paying out of your own pocket.
I don't see why that would lower the quality of care. In fact, it could actually drive improvement—wealthier insurance companies can afford top-tier specialists and better equipment, allowing them to provide superior service and attract more customers. The ones who perform better will succeed, while the rest will fail.
Medicine is a business, just like anything else... People need to realize that investing in health is an investment, similar to building a house or expanding a business. Illness is a risk and an unfortunate circumstance. Those with more resources will be healthier because they can afford treatment. True equality doesn't exist anywhere. In our past, we tried to maintain a false illusion of equality through socialist fairytales, but it was never reality. If someone wanted healthy teeth, they bought high-quality toothpaste, went to the dentist, and wore braces. If they didn't care, they ended up with crooked teeth.
Social welfare is one thing, but healthcare shouldn't be treated as mere social welfare.😈
All the equipment, the machinery, the consumables, the surgical tools... it’s all sourced from global manufacturers at standard international prices. There is no room for haggling there. The only thing that remains cheap is the labor of nurses and doctors. That is true everywhere. On top of that, medication costs are massive.
Medicare covers a specialist consultation around $23. Or, for example, stitching a minor skin wound near $33. But just the suture alone can cost $8-$15 because it’s an imported product (usually Ethicon). Then you have to account for the gauze, the antiseptic solution, the bandages... if you use $50 worth of supplies but Medicare only reimburses $100, you end up in the red. You still have to pay the supplier for those sutures, otherwise they won't ship to you again. That is how healthcare losses are created. Additionally, even a basic ultrasound machine costs about $10,000...
There isn't an antibiotic that costs less than $33 (a pack of Amoxicillin is about $15, Augmentin $36...and those are last year's prices; they are higher now).
And then we wonder where all the money goes. A system where everyone contributes a percentage of their salary, only for it to be spent however anyone feels like, simply cannot function. If we had options where someone contributing, say, $33 per month had the right to spend, for instance, $667 during that year—and those who contribute more could spend more—then things might start to fall into place. Not before then.
Of course, certain categories (like the elderly, children under 16 or 18, patients with infectious diseases, and pregnant women) would be protected. For everyone else: you get as much healthcare as you can afford.
But the main issue is the smoke and mirrors used to claim that 3/4 of the budget goes toward healthcare worker salaries. A specialist's net hourly rate is roughly $12, while an RN's is about $6.75...so do the math yourselves.
I'll say it again: people pay for healthcare all over the world. It's like food—you die without it, too, and if you don't have the money, no one in the grocery store is going to give you bread for free. And you can't drive a car without gas.
Just as we've gotten used to paying for everything else, we will eventually have to do this 😈
James Newman4 said:PS: You guys are getting repetitive with the constant comparisons to MacGregor (it’s true we work in the same field, but still) ... 🙂
Wow... how embarrassing. How could we have possibly made such a massive mistake?!?! 😱 🙂 😵
Guys, let's chip in some cash so we can send Mac Hummer to Lourdes... he's in desperate need of some spiritual enlightenment 😈
Or maybe someone out there has connections with aliens... imagine if they abducted him just to study that "brilliant mind" of his... they could spend the next 50 or 60 years analyzing all the "material" inside his head (and I don't mean construction supplies). Maybe he could even sell them a few high-level powders 🙂
I honestly wonder when anyone actually has the time to be "giving dietary advice" when they're constantly hanging around here. Judging by the "massive enthusiasm" I'm seeing on this forum, I'm not exactly convinced they'll hit their monthly sales quota for HL shakes 😈:
You aren't going to get fired for this, are you? If you don't eat, your cells will just end up starving and miserable... how tragic... 🙂
High cholesterol and triglyceride levels aren't always about what you eat or your weight; genetics plays a huge role too. If those numbers go up while your HDL—the "good" protective fraction—goes down, the risk for cardiovascular disease increases significantly...
I know plenty of thin people who struggle with high cholesterol. It’s definitely worth getting your blood pressure, heart health, and vascular system checked out. 😎
You can't fix one problem by creating another... and in this situation, "extreme" measures might just lead to a mother completely losing herself...
Kyle Nelson2, I honestly don't understand how you could even think—let alone write—this:
it seems primary to ask parents to stop playing the victim... rather than worrying about their little feelings
Cancer, much like other chronic illnesses, is a DISEASE THAT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE FAMILY, not just the individual. The person who is dying isn't, unfortunately, the only victim or the only one in need of support.... It's clear you haven't experienced this firsthand... and frankly, it's better if you don't, but that doesn't give you the right to show this level of insensitivity here... 🙂
Kyle Nelson2 said:you have to confront your mother and her personality... you need to back her into a corner so she’s forced to decide whether she'll keep playing the victim and end up alone, or if she'll finally step up.
There's no room for democracy or mercy here; she's acting like a child, and that's exactly how you have to handle her...
Regarding everything else—the cancer and my sister—send me a private message.
You can't force anything, not even "correct" behavior, especially when that woman is dealing with the massive shock of losing her child. Just like you can't beat a toddler into learning how to use a spoon, these methods of backing someone into a corner won't achieve anything. Often, those around a person find it harder to accept the reality of a terminal illness than the patient does. And it isn't easy for the patient to watch their family tear themselves apart either. The mother, and indeed the entire family, needs professional psychological support. So what are you waiting for? Go to the Emergency Room at the local hospital and ask for help! This is a crisis situation.
Travocort is a corticosteroid ointment. These are topical creams containing adrenal hormones that work non-specifically to dampen the inflammatory response, though they can trigger a range of side effects, such as skin atrophy.