Posts by Justin Gray89

jadesailor14 said:The rules changed once the new year hit.
Where I used to Order, you actually had to show up in person with your referral form.
They take the referral back, and then you bring that same one to the actual appointment; apparently, it just serves as official proof that people are ordering things for legitimate needs, which is supposedly how they managed to shorten those massive waiting lists. 🤷
The expiration dates on these referrals vary, too. I was asking specifically about surgery because of the wait times, and since mine was issued toward the end of last year, they told me it’s valid for two years. 🤷

Well, this is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for clearing that up.🙏

Kimberly Ward said:That’s not quite right; you can actually place an order over the phone or just show up in person. Also, if I may be so bold as to ask, which hospital are we talking about here?

We're discussing the Mayo Clinic.
Actually, it isn't true that you can just call it in if you're looking to get a referral...
And just to circle back to the previous point: those referrals don't stay valid forever.
If I don't actually make it to the front of the line for another two months, then by then, it probably won't even be good anymore...

This whole healthcare reform thing is certainly... interesting. And by "interesting," I mean it’s practically unbelievable!
So, I headed down to the Mayo Clinic this morning to hit the desk and try to Order an appointment with a physiatrist. I went in knowing full well the waiting list is massive—I figured I'd be looking at a month or two of waiting at least.
But then, the nurse behind the counter asks me for my referral.
Naturally, I tell her I’ll just bring the referral along when I actually show up for the appointment.
"No," she tells me, "we need the referral right now to book the appointment."
So, according to this new system, you basically need two referrals just to get one single checkup. Just brilliant.😠
Anyway, on to the next one!👎

nimblestag31 said:hm, honestly, for a specific gentleman over at Mayo Clinic, I don't think any salary would ever be enough to stop him from looking for a bribe. I mean, he had a management contract that sounds like it was pulling in at least $30,000 a month. Or am I exaggerating?
Even if he were pulling in $60,000, he’d still be hunting for kickbacks because, let's face it, he clearly suffers from a nasty case of greed paired with a chronic lack of morals and medical ethics. It's a pretty terrible combination, I suppose.
If he actually had an ounce of shame, it would be 🙈 instead of him actually trying to crawl back into his job... But then again, if he actually had some dignity, he wouldn't have ended up in this mess to begin with... hm 🤔

That’s exactly how I see it too. There isn't a paycheck in the world large enough to satisfy a doctor who's already decided to take bribes. As far as I know, every physician takes the Hippocratic Oath, where they swear to perform their humanitarian duties with honor and responsibility. Unfortunately, there's a handful of "doctors" out there who have essentially turned their profession into something else entirely—corrupt hypocrites profiting off people's misery. I feel for the honest, humble doctors who give their all to their work; because of cases like this, people tend to generalize and lump them in with the crooks.

I’ve been catching up on all the posts here, and I couldn't help but notice the heated debate regarding doctors taking bribes...
I'm curious, though—what kind of salary do you all think would actually be high enough to satisfy specialists, like that gentleman over at the Mayo Clinic, so they aren't "forced" into accepting kickbacks? 😕

I suppose we shouldn't be pushing for an outright smoking ban here, but maybe there's a more logical way to handle it. It might make more sense to pass a law where smokers pay double for their health insurance premiums, essentially treating them like any other high-risk group.

Captured from my monitor:

It turns out secondhand smoke is significantly more dangerous than we previously gave it credit for, according to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Washington medical school. They carried out what might be one of the largest global investigations into the fallout of passive smoking, analyzing mortality data for some 600,000 individuals who were listed as non-smokers in census records back in 1981 and 1996, specifically targeting those aged between 45 and 74 at the time. The findings suggest that non-smokers exposed to tobacco smoke face a 15% higher risk of premature death compared to those living in smoke-free households. Based on this research, it's estimated that in the US, secondhand smoke leads to an average of 350 deaths per year, and roughly 500 infants under the age of two end up hospitalized due to respiratory infections.

Melissa Gonzalez9 said:It’s probably like that in London, but things are a bit different here in the States. We have very few luxuries and a much lower standard of living compared to the UK. Most people are far more preoccupied with just making ends meet on a daily basis than they are with their actual health—we just don't have that luxury yet...

It is quite paradoxical, I suppose, how so many Americans, while struggling just to afford basic staples like bread and milk, feel the need to pair them with a pack of cigarettes. You see so many people complaining about barely surviving, yet they end up spending upwards of $333 a month on smoking between the husband and wife. 👎

bluewolf4 said:Just look at New York City, for instance—you won't find those ads in any bar or nightclub.🙂

And honestly, what’s the big deal with cigarette advertising? I mean, every company should have the right to promote their own products, shouldn't they?

Hey! I was asking about America, not New York City.
Regarding the advertising issue, in the US, the Law prohibits cigarette commercials. However, Altria uses indirect methods to advertise their products. Personally, I think even that kind of subtle promotion should be legally restricted.

bluewolf4 said:Look, if I’m an Atheist, I’m not exactly heading to a church just to protest religion. But I do notice how some non-smokers seem to gravitate toward bars where everyone is smoking just so they can cough on all that smoke and lecture everyone else about their rights.

Seriously, please—can you actually name a single bar in America where smoking is strictly banned?!
Are bars, pubs, coffee shops, or nightclubs really reserved exclusively for smokers? Who exactly is being discriminated against here?
Besides the whole smoking ban Law we have, maybe we should focus more on those cigarette companies that find every possible loophole to advertise their products anyway. Probably some fancy music club's idea of marketing, I guess.🙂

bluewolf4 said:I’ve got enough backbone to risk cancer just by smoking.
The people who avoid smoking are actually the ones with weak characters.

Well, look at how great this cigarette looks on me, haha. Honestly, cancer is probably going to suit me even better than it suits you... you guys are far too weak to handle cancer. And if we all manage to stick around for the next 30 years, we’re probably all going to end up with some kind of illness anyway. At least I won't be crying about it because I actually enjoyed the smoke while getting it, whereas you’ll have the same outcome without ever having had the fun.🙂

I mean, if you truly value your life that little, there are plenty of much faster ways to wrap things up than through smoking.
As for the whole cancer thing, sure, it's true that there are countless ways to develop it, especially since our environment seems to get more polluted by the day. But honestly, why go out of your way to jack up the odds even further just by lighting up?
You might think you aren't noticing the damage, but surely you can see the yellow teeth, the stained fingers, the constant coughing... or is that part of your "look" too?

It honestly feels like some people on this forum just don't have the backbone required to actually quit smoking. I guess it’s simply easier for them to cook up these ridiculous, half-baked excuses to keep the habit alive rather than facing the music.🙂

I was a smoker for about 15 years or so. Honestly, I don't think I ever would have even thought about lighting up a cigarette if I hadn't fallen in with the wrong crowd back then. Eventually, what started as just hanging out turned into a full-blown habit and a total addiction. I tried quitting a few times, but I failed every single time—at least, until I became a father. That was the moment I finally found a reason strong enough to push through the withdrawal symptoms. I just couldn't bear the idea of exposing my child to secondhand smoke, and—thank God—I haven't touched one in three years now. Looking back, it’s almost incomprehensible how foolish I was to smoke, and the ridiculous justifications I used to tell myself (stuff like, "you're not alone when you have a cigarette," "it helps me relax," or "it gives me the freedom to do what I want," etc.).
What I have now is a high-quality life; this is true freedom, because I'm no longer a slave to such an ugly habit.
The statistics show that so many people "try" to quit without any actual success. Perhaps if there were a more rigorous Law in place, it might actually help build some character.

We’ve already gone back and forth on the whole smoking debate quite a bit, but I felt compelled to reopen the discussion after stumbling upon an article in The New York Times.
Apparently, starting March 29th, Ireland is going to implement a total ban on smoking in pubs, restaurants, and all workplaces... and they aren't playing around—fines for violators are set at $3,000!
It seems like not a single member state in the European Union has stepped up to challenge this law.
Only time will tell if this becomes a broader trend across Europe.
What do you all think? Is this something the US should be looking to implement here as well?

Banks basically subsist on interest and fees. Honestly, they find people much more interesting when those folks are constantly dipping into overdraft or just living perpetually in the red. I mean, the interest rates on those unauthorized overdrafts aren't exactly pocket change, and if you ask me, a massive amount of revenue is generated right there. It’s probably why Citigroup adopted this specific business model in the first place.