I’m glad you reached out. Honestly, I didn't really have any issues with my vision in that eye—even with my -2.75 Dsph prescription, I can see one hundred percent out of it. The retinal tear was located on the periphery, so it didn't actually affect my sight. It was just that there was this constant risk of that small peripheral detachment spreading, which is why I had to go through with the laser photocoagulation.
Lately, though, I've been getting this pretty intense pain in that eye every now and then, so I suppose I’ll have to head in for a checkup. This wasn't happening last year or even at the start of this year. I was taking eye vitamins back then, but this year I haven't been as consistent with them. I really should pick some up, but I'm honestly not sure which ones to go for anymore. My routine has been taking them for a month and then pausing for two months. I suspect those Visionace vitamins from the UK might be the best option, since they seem to have the widest variety of vitamins and minerals, and they cost about $33.
So, I guess you first pick out a primary care doctor you actually want to see, and then you just ask them if they're taking on new patients. If they say yes, the nurse will give you some paperwork filled out with all the info from your insurance card. You’ll have to take those papers over to one of the Medicare offices on Fifth Avenue or Jukić to get everything verified. Once you have those certified documents, you head back to the doctor's office and hand over one copy of the application. I think... maybe? You can actually start seeing that doctor the very same day. As soon as you hand that paper over, you're officially registered with them.
I guess I’d suggest checking out the Breyer lab over on Broadway, just a few stops before you hit the Brooklyn terminus. They are honestly so kind, and they usually email your results later that same afternoon. You can always swing by to pick up the hard copies afterward if you want. There isn't any need to make an appointment or deal with huge crowds either; you can just show up whenever you like in the morning. I actually went there myself back in March this year. I had a full blood count, liver and kidney panels, and my sedimentation rate checked. I paid for everything through Medicare $60, but they really did cover a lot of ground for me. Maybe give them a call to ask about the cost for thyroid hormone testing? They have a website that lists all their services, though they don't seem to include the prices online.
A primary care physician can write a referral for a standard head CT, so maybe you could just ask her for one. I know radiation from a CT scan is a concern, but honestly, refusing to give a referral to someone battling melanoma just doesn't seem humane. As for PET/CT scans, I'm actually not sure which specialists handle those referrals. An MRI might be a better option since there's less radiation involved and the imaging is generally more precise. Usually, though, doctors start with a head CT because it's more cost-effective, and then they might move to an MRI if the results show it's necessary.
On another note, I caught a news report on TV yesterday saying that with this new budget reallocation, healthcare funding is being slashed by about $45 million. They’re trying to convince us that nobody will lose out, but I don't know... they even cut supplemental benefits for the unemployed, so it makes sense why getting referrals is becoming such a struggle lately. Who knows what they'll target next? I just really hope this whole administration is gone by next November. Maybe then things will finally start looking up.
Has anyone here registered with Dr. Helena Šimurina over at the community health center in the suburban neighborhood at 31a? I’m wondering what your experiences have been like with her so far. I think it’s a new branch for the community health center. I actually caught a glimpse of her office today—it's in that building right by Baschiera pizza. It looks really nice and modern, just a small clinic, I guess. I only saw it from the outside since the door was cracked open a bit. Since my current doctor is retiring soon, I've started looking for a new GP. If you happen to have any other recommendations for a good general practitioner who is currently taking new patients, please let me know. You can even send me a private message. Ideally, somewhere around the suburban neighborhood, downtown, or Brooklyn.
How old are you? My mom actually dealt with the exact same CSR about two and a half years ago, but for her, it cleared up completely. It was only in one eye, and honestly, her vision in that eye returned to normal in less than a month. She just took some Diamox tablets for a month and used corticosteroid drops in that eye. For her, it was just blurry vision; she didn't have the deformation you're describing. She doesn't even go in for checkups anymore—they don't even call her back. I guess this kind of thing happens more often with older people.
I’ve also had issues with the retina in my left eye. I actually had a rupture last year due to lattice degeneration, and I even had to undergo laser treatment, even though I'm only 32. So, I suppose these things can happen to us younger people too. Before that, I hadn't had any problems at all.
It was just recently, maybe about a month and a half ago, during a segment on Consumer Code over on ABC, that they mentioned how those overnight contact lenses can actually damage your eyes. They even brought up a case involving some school-aged girls from San Diego who ended up needing medical treatment in Washington, D.C., after wearing them. So, I guess it might be better to just stay away from them, especially if you're thinking about kids. I don't think anyone would ever recommend those overnight lenses to you anyway.
I’m honestly not sure why you’d respond like that. I mean, Lucas was just asking about something he missed because he hadn't finished reading the whole report yet—it's totally understandable that things aren't clear to him right now. If you actually knew the answer, maybe you could have just shared it? He never even suggested he’d be heading back to IBM multiple times. And look, if the report mentions conduction disturbances, it’s only natural to wonder what that actually entails. He isn't being dramatic; he’s just trying to understand what it means and if there's any actual danger involved.
If this is how you usually talk to your patients, then I really think there's a problem. That kind of approach doesn't help anyone. It just comes across as rude and... well, a bit insensitive, I guess.
So, it seems like the only issues being brought up are those three specific instances you mentioned. And everything else is just... well, it's being framed exactly like those three very real-life examples you're citing. I guess maybe there's a bit of overgeneralizing going on here? Why not mention the other cases where patients weren't just making things up, and they actually weren't at fault? Or is it your view that everyone is just lying? I also noticed some rather inappropriate language being used here—not necessarily directed at the forum members themselves, but still.
I mean, I guess people really should be getting help just to figure out what's going on and get an actual diagnosis... especially looking at that first case you mentioned involving that elderly woman. If it turns out she isn't seriously ill, then sure, they should obviously just send her home right away. I think there was actually some discussion here on the forum before about how doctors in the US always start from the assumption that patients are genuinely sick, and then they run the necessary tests to rule things out and confirm whatever it is.
I don't think I'm delusional at all. Besides, those people you're bringing up—they have health insurance, so why shouldn't they be provided with medical care? According to your logic, most people are just making things up, that nothing is wrong, and that illnesses don't even exist. It feels... I don't know, a bit inhumane, especially considering your profession. That whole stance of yours seems really unreasonable to me.
I feel like my actual points haven't really been addressed here. Instead, the conversation has drifted toward babies and some vague, undefined topic. And honestly, nobody even brought up lawsuits. We were talking about healthcare allocations. I was just citing data from The New York Times regarding how much the government allocates to healthcare.
I feel like you're making a lot of things up here. I mean, you can't just walk into a hospital and decide to stay. There has to be some kind of medical necessity for being admitted. Most people show up on a specific day because they have a scheduled surgery or something. They don't just wander in whenever they feel like it. And even then, patients often end up waiting hours just for a bed to open up. So, honestly, it seems pretty unbelievable that someone could just show up at a hospital and stay simply because they wanted to.
I know quite a few elderly people who were very ill and ended up passing away either at home or in a private assisted living facility that they paid for themselves.
And just because you say someone lives in a mansion, that doesn't mean they haven't been paying into the healthcare system. It's almost as if you think only people living in apartments contribute anything toward medical costs.
I was reading an article in The New York Times yesterday about healthcare spending, and it really got me thinking... It mentioned that here in the US, we're looking at about $1,000 per person annually. But then you look at other places—like Austria, where it's three times that amount, around $3,500, or Sweden at $3,000, and even Germany at $3,250. I think those figures were from back in 2007, though. It just seems like nowhere else in the Western world allocates such a tiny fraction of resources to healthcare compared to us. I guess that might be where the real issue lies.
What exactly makes these views "idealistic"? Honestly, I don't see it. Everything I wrote was based on reality. It seems like people find it controversial that she spent a few days at the hospital getting tests and scans done. But she was there because they needed to figure out what was actually wrong with her. They didn't have a diagnosis yet. I mean, you have to establish a diagnosis first, regardless of how old someone is, right? Only then can you decide who can be helped with certain treatments and who can't. We didn't walk in with any unrealistic expectations once we finally got the diagnosis. And we weren't expecting anything extraordinary from the healthcare system, either. In a situation like this, things would have played out exactly the same way in any other developed country.
I mentioned she received a transfusion at the day hospital, and that’s exactly what happened. She spent some more time at home after that, but as her condition started to decline, she was admitted to the hospital to get a proper diagnosis. Up until then, she had been relatively healthy and lived quite a long life. After they ran all the tests at the hospital, they actually sent her home, even though she couldn't really move around. Given her age, she didn't undergo any intense chemotherapy. She passed away at home. I honestly don't see why this is such an issue for you. For what it's worth, she worked for over 30 years and paid her share into Medicare.
I really don't see why I should have to justify myself to you. It seems like you think you know everything and that you're always right. I just don't understand why you feel the need to pick apart my every word and take things completely out of context.
And I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. Of course everyone deserves help, regardless of their diagnosis. That comparison you made just doesn't make sense. Why on earth should we be choosing who gets help and who doesn't? Do you honestly believe that kind of selection is humane?
Believe me, we’ve been right there in that exact situation. My grandma was quite elderly and wasn't doing well. She passed away at home, and her primary care physician didn't just refuse to write referrals, as you put it. No, she provided them whenever they were actually needed and was always very fair. I mean, what should we be denying to all our seniors? They need regular checkups too, like monitoring their blood work. One time, my grandma even had to get a transfusion at a day hospital because she was dealing with severe anemia—back then, we didn't even know she had cancer yet. After that, she stayed in the hospital for a little while until they could confirm the final diagnosis. The transfusion didn't do wonders for her, but really, why deny her that care just because her illness was terminal? I truly believe we have to support the elderly. You can't just say, "Oh, let them die, they're old anyway, and they're costing the healthcare system too much." My grandma worked for thirty years as a professor, so... I guess you could say she earned the right to receive medical help. Grandpa also passed away at home; he was sick, and I doubt he cost the healthcare system much at all. He worked his entire life, too.
I mean, I’m pretty sure Canada allocates way more funding to healthcare than we do here. Even Anderson Cooper pointed out on his show how much more money is poured into the healthcare system in Austria compared to our situation. And honestly, I haven't heard of any GP just handing out referrals for no reason. In fact, it feels like it's actually much more common for them to deny you a referral, which basically forces you to pay out of pocket for a private visit. A few years back, I had this minor issue that my GP just couldn't sort out. He wouldn't give me a referral even though I practically begged him. I ended up handling it myself—my dad helped me out and took me to see a specialist he knows, and everything was resolved in just a few minutes. That specialist actually told me it was a good thing I came in when I did. What was I supposed to do? Just stay home and suffer because my doctor refused to give me a referral? Maybe if I had gone back there several times over the next two weeks, he might have finally felt merciful enough to give it to me. It was just an older GP covering shifts, probably close to retirement, so I doubt Medicare would have even cared if he had just given me the referral. For what it's worth, I hadn't even asked for a single referral in the five years leading up to that.
Isn't it just obvious that the healthcare system in Canada is better than ours? This guy wasn't even born in Canada. He spent a huge chunk of his life living here in the States and was covered by insurance, so... I guess he actually has some ground to stand on when making that comparison. Around here, it feels like hospital equipment is constantly breaking down. And even if you have supplemental insurance that you pay for out of your own pocket, if a machine is busted and they have no clue when it’ll be fixed, you’re stuck paying for a private scan yourself. I know about how Medicare handles cost reimbursements, but from what I've heard, even at places like Medikol, if you try to go in with a referral for an MRI, you could be waiting months—even if you're paying for that extra coverage. But, if you just pay for the full exam upfront without a referral, you can sometimes get it done within the same week. I haven't had to deal with that personally, but I've heard it from people who've booked appointments at Medikol. I suspect the same probably goes for other private clinics that take Medicare.
So, why isn't the care in Canada considered worse than it is here in the States? I mean, I haven't heard people complaining much about it. I actually had the chance to chat with an American who lived and worked in Canada for many years. I didn't even prompt him; he just started telling me how top-tier their healthcare services really are. He was in a serious car accident once, and he told me that the level of quality care he received there after the crash... well, I guess he wouldn't have seen anything like that back home in the US.