Posts by copperfox28

Sam Hughes5 said:You mentioned your sister is a doctor, so do doctors have special scripts they can use to pick up meds at the pharmacy? Like, could she just go in and grab them? Some guy I know mentioned something like that, but I never really understood it.

They use private prescriptions, which let them go straight to the pharmacy to buy medication without going through Medicare. It’s the same deal for anything a general practitioner is authorized to prescribe, as well as things reserved specifically for specialists—for instance, certain eye drops might be within an ophthalmologist's scope, but a psychiatrist wouldn't be allowed to write those.

Lescolxl, the fact that lawyers aren't complaining is perfectly normal; their compensation is significantly higher, and unions there actually represent them more effectively than their counterparts in Germany. Professors, on the other hand, are clearly dissatisfied with the system, though I fail to see how pretending that everything is fine helps anything—even if things are objectively worse elsewhere. Scandinavians have longer life expectancies than we do; whether that's because they smoke less, move more, or simply eat better, I couldn't say, but it's evident their medications are effective given the end results. Besides, I doubt they suffer from higher rates of disability, chronic illness, or sick leave than we do.
About fifteen years ago, I cut my finger—it just wouldn't stop bleeding—so I went to the urgent care clinic at the local health center in a residential neighborhood. I walked into the exam room with a bandage that was completely soaked in blood, and the moment the doctor saw me from three feet away—before she even had a chance to get close enough to actually examine the wound—she sent me straight to the emergency room at the General Hospital. They ended up stitching me up there, and they made a point to tell me to tell her to actually start doing her job.
Three years ago, during a weekend, I was diagnosed with strep throat at an infectious disease clinic, and they prescribed penicillin injections. The doctor was actually terrified to administer them, fearing I might develop an allergy on the spot and go into anaphylactic shock right there in front of her. I took Silapen, but the infection flared back up four more times over the next six months. In fact, I ended up diagnosing the last two instances myself using a magnifying mirror, and a nurse from a former colleague's firm brought me antibiotics, since having tonsils removed in my 30s wasn't exactly a priority for me at the time. That finally settled it. Still, it's difficult for me to pin the blame entirely on doctors; if I were the one spending all day writing out prescriptions and referrals, I imagine I'd also be terrified of someone having an anaphylactic reaction on my watch.
A friend of mine is currently doing her residency in internal medicine in the US. She's been in it for three years now, and they feel identical to the first three years of training. I might be wrong, but when you look at the big picture, I think this approach is actually more cost-effective than our current model—especially if those three years were actually utilized meaningfully.

No, I’ve said it before—you might be able to get two at once depending on the medication, but this business with the Sylapen? I don't follow; that would be dual therapy. There is absolutely no way my primary care physician would just hand me an antibiotic like that unless there was a serious issue. I'm no doctor, obviously, but why on earth is such a long course required?
Certain medications simply cannot be listed together on a single prescription—or so they claim. Unless they are intentionally misleading me, which I see no reason for, as there is no benefit in it for me or for them.

And regarding the suggestion that one should pay for a consultation every single time a prescription is needed—what consultation? Such a thing doesn't even exist. Even if they were allowed to charge for it, what would they actually do? A GP examining a diabetic's eyes or deciding on a specific combination of drops for someone with high ocular pressure? Frequently, I must repeat, through no fault of their own, these doctors have no idea what kind of specialized medications they are dealing with.
Gregory Gomez45 and Harold Ramirez49, it is painfully obvious that your experiences from the patient side of things—to your good fortune—are extremely limited. You might think that because you are part of the system, everything will run smoothly when you finally need it, but that is nothing more than a delusion.
It honestly sickens me—for instance, we move away from mechanics, who are already expensive and prone to overcharging, only to hear a notary explaining that their fees are high because of their extensive education and the "responsible" nature of their work. Meanwhile, my sister has to work a month's worth of overtime shifts just to cover the cost of $4000 certifying a mortgage application—a process that takes twenty minutes. It seems if doctors aren't required to undergo more training than a notary, their job won't be considered any more responsible, and they won't be doing any more than they already do. But none of that is relevant
to what I wrote. And yes, it also weighs heavily on her, even though she is a physician, having to rush out of work because her father took her mother to the pharmacy; she had to stop by to grab something to eat because nobody accounted for the fact that under this new system, she'd be stuck there from ten in the morning until two in the afternoon. Diabetics can't exactly skip meals when they need insulin, and then she has to leave work to pick her up or provide $33 for a taxi. It also deeply affects her how her mother has had to struggle to get her prescriptions over the last few years, and the fact that being a doctor provides her absolutely no help or sympathy whatsoever.

It really comes down to the specific medication—some prescriptions allow you to pick up two boxes at once, while others don't; however, if you're in that first category, you can just grab both boxes right then and there. That isn't quite the same thing as a recurring prescription, where you'd return multiple times using the same authorization. I find this whole antibiotic thing a bit odd, though—they're typically packaged so that a single box covers the entire course. For instance, if you're taking one pill a day for three days and there are three tablets in a box, it works out perfectly; similarly, if you take two a day for seven days, you'd expect to see fourteen in the box.

My apologies once again for the repetition—I suppose time just does its thing and things tend to cycle back around...

My apologies, I made an error—let me pick up where I left off.

That entire 70% regimen, including the surgery and everything else, ran about $100, $0.00 so I have some firsthand perspective on how much treatment costs within the American system versus what it might cost elsewhere. It isn't even that pharmaceutical companies set their prices in the US the same way they do in other markets.

As for the States, well, it’s a mixed bag—but the real struggle is for those who contribute just a little to the healthcare pool. If you're unemployed or have zero income, Medicaid and Medicare essentially cover everything. For instance, you can give birth in a university hospital with an epidural infusion, stay in a private room that includes a sofa for a spouse or partner, a TV, and a direct line—all while having a smooth delivery—completely free of charge. Meanwhile, someone paying modest premiums might only be entitled to a midwife visiting their home for a natural birth.
The system pays its doctors astronomical sums, but what American physicians often point out as a primary reason for these skyrocketing costs is the sheer scale of malpractice settlements being paid out to patients.

And while money is obviously a massive factor, it isn't the only one. In America, doctors—and this isn't their personal fault, but rather a systemic issue—are part of a structure where everything is handed to them on a silver platter during their education. Consequently, what actually strains the healthcare system and what doesn't—take information access, for example—is managed through rigid algorithms and very strictly defined hierarchies.

I am surrounded by medical professionals—some in the public sector, some in private practice, others in pharma—and they all reach the same conclusion: there is plenty of money involved. Perhaps not at the extreme levels seen by those with massive wealth or those with none at all, but certainly far more than what we are dealing with here today.

I am fairly certain that the example I'm trying to recall—something regarding a Scandinavian country, I believe—about a doctor not dispensing a full box of medication, was likely referring to acute illness rather than chronic conditions.
Since we agree that money is being wasted needlessly, I assume you'll also agree that requiring a chronic patient to visit the clinic once or twice a month—as this system dictates—is a double expense. It’s a drain on both the individual funding the system and the primary care physician themselves. A six-month prescription doesn't mean you get a six-month supply; it means you have the authorization to return every single month to pick up that one small box. You don't solve the issue of medication hoarding through such methods; you solve it through education—which is consistently underfunded—while the budget is instead poured into these inefficiencies. This approach only reinforces the idea that primary care physicians are merely functionaries rather than practitioners. The fact that 80% of CT scans are unnecessary, or as I heard recently, that perhaps 50% of blood work and radiology results are never even picked up, isn't a failure of the patient—it is a failure of the system itself.
And by the way, regarding those seven medications—half of which are on the generic list—they are spending $50 a month on them; they aren't just throwing them away or swallowing them for the sake of it.

Harold Ramirez49 said:Gregory Gomez45, I really have to hand it to you—I am right there with you on this one. You laid everything out so calmly and clearly, though I sometimes wonder if people here actually grasp the gravity of it all. Because our healthcare system is essentially "free" at the point of service, we’re stuck in this cycle where it’ll likely stay for a long time. That’s why we see so many expensive medications just tossed in the trash, why half the population ends up getting unnecessary checkups, and why about 80% of those CT scans end up being totally redundant.
As for the parking situation, that falls under the city's jurisdiction, not the hospitals.

In any other country, the distinction regarding parking might actually hold water, but talking about such a clear-cut division here is almost laughable—when certain people need something, the federal government and the local city administration just cooperate seamlessly to make it happen.
But that’s beside the point. I am surrounded by doctors—some working within the public system and others in pharma—and roughly 90% of them believe there is sufficient funding within the system; the issue is purely organizational. Even among dentists, it's the same story. It isn't just that 80% of CTs are unnecessary; it's that nearly 50% of radiological reports and blood tests are never even picked up. Not that these facts don't reinforce my previous point. Returning to the core issue: the system is structured so that those who desperately need financial support waste their time waiting on prescriptions, while primary care physicians waste both time and money issuing them. The fact that they have been reduced to mere bureaucrats rather than actual clinicians is a systemic failure, and it is undoubtedly linked to the massive amounts of capital being mismanaged.

Given that I was just slightly patronized... let's look at my mother's medical history. No, we all know how things work in this country—if she had relied solely on the public healthcare system, she would be blind by now, because the wait times alone would have been catastrophic. Consequently, about 70% of her various exams and surgeries were paid for through private providers—all of which added up, on top of the significant premiums she has been paying into Medicare for the last 35 years.

Harold Ramirez49 said:Maybe you’d actually appreciate all these medications more if you had to foot the bill yourself, rather than having Medicare cover everything from the prescriptions to the parking fees. Honestly, where does the human stupidity end?

Given that I find it hard to believe anyone is quite dim enough to use a compass to navigate their way through a sentence and still arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion, I can only assume you're being paid to post this.
I have no idea where you got the notion from my post that Medicare should be picking up the tab for parking; the point was that parking shouldn't be an extra cost at all—it ought to be guaranteed and free, just like it is at any other medical facility in the country.
As for the medication costs—well, once they refund every single cent my mother has poured into the healthcare system over her thirty-five years of coverage, plus interest, I’ll be more than happy to take it.

A "minor" headache, if you can call it that. My mother is diabetic and manages a daily regimen of about seven or eight different medications. My sister mentioned that according to the law, there is supposed to be a provision for recurring prescriptions—essentially a single script that covers six months—but apparently, the people actually running the show have no idea how to implement it. Theoretically, you could hit the pharmacy every few months for the same meds using one script, so one has to wonder: who exactly is ignoring the law??
She’s registered with a doctor in New York City, right in the heart of the downtown district, near a clinic that—unlike that local liquor store that shut down recently—has never once bothered to reserve even a single parking spot for patients. Today, that area was a total red zone. I won't go into too much detail about how infuriating it is to have to shell out $5.25, whether it's ten bucks in the city center or eight dollars in the suburbs, just to find a spot to pick up a prescription. Not to mention the parking garage near the hospital; if you’re trying to transport a patient with limited mobility, you’re forced to use the same garage and pay the premium just to get in.

With this new system, honestly, it’s better to park further away from the doctor's office; if you spend an hour navigating a red zone—assuming you even find a spot—it’s hard to actually get to the pharmacy window. But the absolute peak of absurdity happened today. I went to pick up my mother's scripts, and the doctor on the afternoon shift was covering for her regular physician, who is currently on vacation. I had been there two or three weeks ago, and regardless of the fact that Mom is currently at the beach, I couldn't get two specific medications because, according to the system, she still had about half a box left. To prevent the doctors from getting flagged by the auditors, they simply refuse to write them. So today, the doctor tells me: "Um... regarding this blood pressure medication, she picked it up on June 9th and still has three tablets left for the next three days." I told her: "No, she hasn't taken it since yesterday." She insists: "Yes, she has." I say: "No, she hasn't." She says: "Yes, the computer says so." I replied: "The computer can say what it wants, but she doesn't have them—and besides, what does it mean that she has enough for three more days!" Under this current setup, you’d practically need to visit the pharmacy every single day—one drug on Thursday, another on Monday, a third on Friday, and so on. Given that she is disabled—and even if she weren't—someone would essentially have to move in next door to the clinic. For a therapy that hasn't changed in six or seven years, you have to show up the exact moment you run dry. That's what the doctor said. According to Medicare: exactly.
Now, assuming she isn't just talking nonsense, is our healthcare system becoming increasingly "organized" in a way where, if you have a disabled family member, you might as well just quit your job? Because you'll be spending your life dealing with one prescription after another every single day. And do the people we fund to serve us have any inkling of what real life is actually like? Unfortunately, we have to pay them by decree, so they don't necessarily need to understand reality. In the real world, you work, and before you can even enjoy what's left, you've already paid them just so they can perform their jobs—jobs that you end up performing for them in the most convoluted way possible. Then, they'll take your money to hire some PR firm to explain to you how things aren't actually broken, but are instead functioning perfectly and logically.

Anyway, while I was tidying up my apartment, I stumbled upon some info on this forum about which kitchens to avoid, which doors not to buy, and so on.
So, I am calling on you—given that I unfortunately possess extensive, long-term experience with the American healthcare system—to join me in sharing your own experiences. Even if these services aren't officially "on the market" and we can't avoid them, perhaps through these small, incremental contributions, we can start fighting against being treated like we just fell off a turnip truck.
thanks