Posts by Brandon Newman95

ruggedscout91 said:Some people on this forum act like they’re better than everyone else.
Just read one thread above and you'll see women constantly asking how much a hysteroscopy costs at a private clinic. Why? Because they can't legally get it done at the General Hospital. Mostly, it's women with polyps. Women suffering from heavy bleeding. They end up having several poorly performed curettages in a matter of days, and then they're sent home while still sick because they didn't live near the hospital.
Yesterday, I spoke with a woman for whom this was her sixth curettage. She’s constantly paying out of pocket for private care, had a hysteroscopy, and has a polyp that is destroying her life. They won't allow her the actual surgery; they just keep calling her back for more curettages until she feels like she's at her breaking point.
Why is this happening to women? Why just more curettages? And when the bill goes out, I bet they definitely list "anesthesia" as a service provided.
Why isn't a final solution found for these women? Why not just remove the uterine tissue? These are women in their early 50s dealing with constant bleeding and zero quality of life. Are we waiting for someone to pay a larger bribe before things move along? This isn't cosmetic surgery; why are these women being put through such misery?

And there are empty beds everywhere; it’s unnatural.
Almost every patient ends up paying for everything regardless of their supplemental insurance. They pay for meds just to avoid chasing down prescriptions. They pay for dentists regularly. They pay for breast ultrasounds. They pay for gynecological ultrasounds and never even see a bill from the private clinic. Hysteroscopies are paid for because the General Hospital refuses to use their equipment. Why?
And when you finally get stuck because of a serious illness, they don't even know how to treat it. That's when you realize you've been screwed, because you learn that every single procedure is essentially a cash grab. This applies to almost every cancer case.
It makes me wonder what we are even paying for. What kind of "basic package" is this? Something forced upon us, followed by a recovery where you can't even get your gynecologist to pick up the phone. That's the reality on the ground.

In America, you can only guard your health and prevent disease if you have a high salary—and even then, only if you aren't using it to feed an entire family. Everything else is just empty talk. There isn't money for the basics, let alone for serious illnesses.

Look, at the major city hospitals, private clinics just issue receipts however they feel like it.
It all depends on who you happen to run into. We end up paying for everything. I know how it is in the smaller towns.

Kate Collins67 said:1. Emergency patients and non-emergency patients do not have equal rights—and that goes for you just as much as anyone else.
2. There aren't enough doctors, and I know that firsthand—because if labor laws were actually respected, a huge chunk of the time the ER wouldn't even be running because there'd be nobody left to work. Everyone would have already maxed out their legally mandated hours for the week, month, or year.
3. You have a right to be hospitalized, sure, but it isn't up to you to decide when or where that happens.
4. CT scans run 24/7, 365 days a year, when there's a suspicion of an emergency. For routine screenings (meaning everyone not classified as an emergency case), they only run during regular business hours. I'm not trying to "convince" you of anything—I'm just stating how things are set up.
5. Yes, it could have been resolved faster and better, but if they actually fulfilled every single right that patients demand, you’d still be waiting for years—even with private providers—because you simply cannot grasp how many patients are constantly claiming they have a right to this and that...

1.) Emergency vs. non-emergency patients? Please. There are so many actors out there who always need something—they get priority at the ER without any issues. Meanwhile, someone else actually needs urgent help.
2) Maybe there aren't enough doctors, but look at how many of them work privately while being tied to the hospitals, and we all know how those "waiting lists" really function.
3) Yeah, sure, if I consider myself "treated within two weeks"—it would have cost the US healthcare system three times less.
4) You won't convince me that CT scans aren't available 24/7, 365 days a year. I know because I was at the hematology ER at 8 PM, and some people were getting brain CT scans right then.
5) We know all too well how "waiting lists" work, how people push through using connections or "knowing a guy," and how private clinics push patients forward if they find something. And we know certain private clinics have contracts with Medicare and partner with major General Hospitals. Don't even get me started on how they handle "available beds."

Kate Collins67 said:It seems like every system has its expiration date and that change happens in cycles.
In any system that lasts a long time, too many parasites start to settle in—they dig their roots in so deep that the system stops functioning for its actual purpose. They simply become an end unto themselves, and eventually, the whole thing collapses from within.

Back in the 1990s, we started moving away from socialism, and now we are heading straight toward capitalism.
Social rights were handed out like there was no tomorrow, and increasingly, people are taking advantage of them without any justification—fake veterans, fake disability claimants, people retiring early for no reason, fake emergency patients, fake social cases... free healthcare, free education for everyone regardless of how little sense it makes when someone spends ten years in university (there are probably plenty more that don't come to mind right now).
I constantly hear people shouting about "our rights"... but honestly, look at the reality. How many of you are renters, students, or pupils? Or on the flip side, how many of you are the ones renting out apartments or condos and paying taxes on that income? If a landlord actually paid his fair share of taxes, he'd have less profit, and by that same capitalist logic, he'd just raise the rent to compensate. In the end, instead of $667 paying, say, $800 monthly rent, you'd be stuck with even higher costs.
It's funny, isn't it? We always fight tooth and nail for the rights that benefit us, yet at the same time, we all seem perfectly happy with those other "rights" remaining totally unregulated.

On the contrary, I pay for everything—living expenses plus tuition.

ruggedscout91 said:The doctor told me right away, without even checking me, that I’d be waiting at least two months for a CT scan. He certainly didn't offer any guarantees about my survival if my surgery was delayed by five days.
So, today is the 15th, the surgery is scheduled for 13 days from now, and there is still no guarantee I'll make it through.
He seemed to think it was perfectly normal for a patient to run out and pay privately, because what is $317 compared to a life? They always treat you this way, almost like a form of blackmail. He even expressed his blatant contempt for anyone trying to use their insurance to save a few pennies on their own health.
Thank God everything turned out fine, thanks to his professional and dedicated commitment.

Ultimately, this leads me to believe that poor organization within the healthcare system is to blame, rather than the doctor himself. It was his duty to say what needed to be said and explain what was impossible to achieve at the General Hospital, especially since he actually cared about performing the surgery correctly.

All of this has left me feeling completely indifferent toward life and survival. I was shocked by the total lack of humanity from the gynecologist who, after a five-year delay, simply pointed me toward surgery and sent me on my way.
Even now, despite all the obvious physical progress, I don't feel okay. It’s as if, after this surgery, I am no longer myself, but someone else entirely. I hate myself for it.

It depends on what kind of CT we're talking about. For me, I needed a gynecologist exam within a week—you call the General Hospital and they tell you they can see you in a month. Of course, you go private, because it's an emergency.

Casey Palmer5 said:Are you absolutely certain about those two weeks? I mean, you can get a handful of tests done at a day surgery center in just a day or two—there’s really no reason to be stuck in a hospital bed for two weeks, even if you're undergoing a series of surgeries, let alone just waiting for results. Now, if you're saying the waiting lists here in the States are absolutely insane, then yeah, you're totally right about that...

In my case, things dragged on for a year and a half. It sounds like you haven't had much luck with the US healthcare system either, and honestly, neither have I. I'll shoot you a private message to finish this conversation. And hey, I totally get why you're pissed off.

Kate Collins67 said:Look, our US healthcare system actually has a decent amount of cash flowing through it, but the way that money is being thrown around raises a whole host of other massive issues.

You guys keep insisting that you should have just stayed in the hospital for two weeks to get every single test done at once... Sure, that’s one way to handle it, but let’s be real—that doesn't rationalize spending; if anything, it usually drives costs through the roof, regardless of what you think you're achieving.

There is one thing you clearly don't grasp: imagine a Doctor is running a CT scanner that serves both outpatient visits and inpatient needs. If they can manage, say, 10 scans during their shift, and then you decide to get hospitalized so you can run "everything" at once—including that CT—two things happen. Either someone else loses their spot in line and gets pushed down the schedule because of you, or—which happens way more often—the Doctor just squeezes you in as number 11. That kills the quality of care because they have to rush through every single scan to stay on track, or thirdly, the Doctor ends up staying late working unpaid overtime just to finish the job.

Now, if we wanted that CT machine to run afternoon and night shifts specifically for EMERGENCY patients, we would need to hire two more Doctors. We'd have to pay for their training, their salaries, benefits, and everything else that comes with it. Honestly, that is the only actual way to shorten waiting lists if we aren't looking to strip away patient rights (whether those rights are justified or not).
Secondly—and this would be much more efficient and logical—the solution is to actually practice MEDICINE. Which brings us back to protocols and shutting down requests for tests that aren't medically indicated (at least not on the taxpayer's dime; if patients want to spend their own private cash on unnecessary testing, fine, let them).

Look, I’m telling you, I should have stayed hospitalized for those two weeks. I don't care who anyone thinks is "more urgent" than me. I have just as much right to a bed as anyone else. And please, spare me the lecture about how certain people—like addicts or alcoholics—are taking up space. We all know damn well there are "available" beds if they want them to be. There are plenty of doctors around, too, unless we're talking about psychiatrists—and yeah, maybe we're trailing behind the rest of the world on that one. If I had stayed those two weeks, I would’ve totally justified the cost. First off, to my employer, then to my primary care doctor and the specialists. Sorry, Mr. Know-it-all, but as someone whose employer (or I personally) pays into Medicare and social security—and let me tell you, it's not a small amount—I have a right to be admitted. They only find time for everyone when it suits their schedule and their whims. I’ll just go get my tests done privately, and then the hospital can try to ignore the results or claim something else entirely. Besides, we all know how the game is played: someone works privately and has a little "arrangement" with a specific hospital, and suddenly they're being fast-tracked to the front of the line. It's an open secret. And don't even get me started on the ER. They definitely bill overtime. They run CT scans during the afternoon and night shifts, so don't even try to convince me otherwise. I was stuck in the internal medicine ER because of blood clots in my legs, and sure enough, late in the evening—after 7 PM—they were running a CT scan. Not for me, obviously, but for some other patient. The media loves to sensationalize everything, but that's a different story. Instead, they'd rather just cut costs on actual people. Half of my tests were paid for out of my own pocket. It feels like it's in everyone's interest to just have fewer people getting help. I bet there are fewer empty beds than the journalists claim; they should spend more time looking at the actual state of the US healthcare system instead of chasing headlines. I'm the one paying for the beds, the water, the electricity, and all the other overhead in this system. Last year alone, I spent well over... $1000 I mean, I don't even know how much more of this we can take. We're talking about private stuff, all kinds of things, and even when it went through the DB—it was being handled within six weeks. Seriously? Couldn't that have been knocked out in two weeks? It would've been way simpler and honestly just better.

ruggedscout91 said:Take women in cities like Los Angeles, for example. They vent on women's health forums about how nearly impossible it is to get an abortion at a public hospital. Instead, they’re forced to pay private clinics double or even triple the price, risking their lives in the process. It turns out many doctors from the municipal hospitals perform these services privately. And if a woman actually manages to go through with it at a public facility? Well, the whole city finds out who she is.

If we take a look at the US healthcare system and analyze this specific sector, isn't it high time that a new maternity and gynecology wing brought with it a modern standard of conduct? Shouldn't patients have a fundamental right to privacy regarding why they walked into a General Hospital in the first place?
Do we live in Afghanistan? Why must women resort to clandestine procedures just to avoid being labeled a "social problem"? And why do doctors dodge these services so relentlessly, only to end up performing abortions or curettages under abysmal conditions with subpar anesthesia?
It leads to one inevitable conclusion: women in American society simply do not enjoy the same right to equal healthcare as any other group of citizens.

This is absolutely true, especially in smaller towns. Privacy should be a right.

Susan Rodriguez4 said:Well, that’s exactly why I say our healthcare system is drowning in money. Your sick leave payments come out of that very same system. I’ll go on record here—politicians would call it making a formal claim—that if those tests had been finished in two weeks, it would have cost the healthcare system several times less than this mess.

Exactly! My whole point is that I want my primary care doctor to have fewer sick days, and I want my own tests wrapped up in two weeks flat so everything functions normally and gets handled properly. I'll shoot you a private message with the full story. But seriously, the cost to the US healthcare system would be cut in half if things just worked.

I’m absolutely livid because I was supposed to have my results processed within two weeks. Does my primary care doctor actually benefit more from getting me sorted in fourteen days, or from letting my processing drag on for a year and a half? It’s not like it doesn't affect things—this delay automatically triggers medical leave filings and who knows what else. And yeah, I have every right to be pissed, whether you like hearing it or not. This wasn't just some "stomach bug" situation; there was blood in my stool because someone skipped a screening or someone totally dropped the ball. Casey Palmer5 is furious because someone she cares about didn't get treated, and if they had reacted in time, they might actually still be alive today. She knows deep down she won't change anything, though. Honestly, for that elderly woman, it was probably just a weekend of misery. Emergency rooms aren't called "emergency" for nothing, even if some people act like they aren't. Someone actually had to drive her to the hospital. This wasn't some minor thing. From what I understand, she had ruptured vessels in her intestine plus a blood clot.

Kate Collins67 said:Look, you’ve got plenty of examples here, but honestly, the way the problem is being framed is just fundamentally wrong.

Diarrhea—which, let’s be real, we’ve all dealt with at some point—is usually totally harmless. Most of the time, it’s just an infection. People love to throw around vague nonsense about "a burst clot" or whatever that actually means, but half the time it's nothing.

So, here's the logic: if a patient is dealing with diarrhea and their primary care doctor can't get it under control, they should see an infectious disease specialist first—assuming there isn't obvious blood in the stool indicating something much more serious.

From what I can gather, this grandmother went straight to the ER... because of diarrhea? Seriously? Out of 10,000 cases of diarrhea, sure, maybe one is going to be life-threatening... but that doesn't mean you need an infectious disease expert, an internist, and a surgeon to look at every single one of those 10,000 cases.

No, she called 911 for an ambulance to come to the house. It wasn't some minor thing. And look, because the infectious disease unit insisted she go back to that hospital, she ended up getting surgery. Casey Palmer57 has every right to be pissed at everyone involved because this could have ended terribly.
From what I understand, blood vessels in the intestines burst along with a clot. I don't think diarrhea is ever "harmless." They found issues during hematology tests at the infectious disease ward. Why couldn't that have been caught at the first hospital?
And don't even get me started on how hospitals and departments can't coordinate. They just bounce you around—like how my GP sent me from ENT to neurology to psychiatry, then back to psych to neuro, then to internal medicine, then back to the GP. And that went on for a year and a half! You never know if things go better when you pull some strings, or if you don't, or if you follow the official recommendations. As a patient, I've seen far too much of this nonsense.

Check this out, here’s a story from just down the road: an elderly lady gets rushed to this hospital (I won't say which one, keeping it quiet), and she was dealing with some diarrhea. They transferred her over to the infectious disease ward, where they found blood in her stool. Those folks at the infectious disease unit wouldn't let it go—they insisted she be sent right back to the first hospital because they figured a blood clot in her intestine had burst, and she ended up needing surgery. Honestly, if the infectious disease team hadn't pushed so hard to get her back there, that poor woman wouldn't even be with us today.

Honestly, I’ve had pretty decent experiences with them so far. My time over at Vinogradski was actually okay, specifically in hematology—I guess I just lucked out and got a good doctor. From what I understand, they'll even start blood transfusions if you're dipping below 90.

Susan Rodriguez4 said:Alright, I figured it was time for me to jump into this discussion too.
By profession, I’m a dentist running my own private practice, so I know the healthcare system from both sides—as a provider and as a patient.
My expertise lies mostly in primary care, so I’ll stick to that perspective.
The fundamental issue with our healthcare system is disorganization, plain and simple. I am firmly convinced that there is enough funding and enough capacity for everything to run significantly better. We also have plenty of highly trained, talented doctors.

The bureaucratic top-down structure has absolutely gutted any chance of prosperity in primary care. The way the system is set up, those who do less actually spend less, which means more money stays in their pockets. Essentially, laziness is being rewarded.
Doctors get penalized for issuing too many prescriptions or referrals, yet at the same time, Medicare lacks any criteria based on the actual demographics or age of a doctor's specific patient pool. There's zero incentive for physicians to invest in further training or to use precise diagnostics to reduce the sheer volume of paperwork. (Personally, for years now, I’ve been tossing excess prescription pads and referral forms straight into the trash because I have way too many. I can't return them to the agency, so I literally just throw them away.)

Every single day, my office receives several notices from Medicare sent via USPS that deal with things like gynecology, labs, or other primary care sectors that have absolutely nothing to do with me. Similarly, every general practitioner gets useless mailings—paper, envelopes, stamps included—regarding dental services. Just think about how much money is leaking out through those wasted resources. And all this is happening while "digital transformation" is supposedly in full swing? We don't even have functional email communication.

There is no preventative care.

Because of this broken system, everything gets pushed onto hospitals, creating massive backlogs, and then the disorganization just repeats itself within the hospital system.
What I believe a hospital truly needs is a Dr. House type.🙂
We simply don't do collaborative diagnostics here. You don't see a situation where a neurologist, an internist, a urologist, and an infectious disease specialist all review your results together. Instead, everyone stays strictly locked inside their tiny departmental silos. If you don't land in the right specialty immediately, they just shuffle you off to another silo where you have to start the whole process over again. How much money and time is wasted in a system like this? How many wrong diagnoses are treated with the wrong medications?

And one more thing: from 1990 to today, through every single healthcare reform in the US (and we've had plenty of ministers), not once has anyone actually mentioned "quality of service." It isn't part of the conversation, nor is it a goal anyone is aiming for.
The concept of service quality and improvement rests solely and exclusively on the shoulders of individual doctors—their ethics, their morality, and their personal drive to improve. The State doesn't support this. More often than not, the State obstructs it, or even punishes it.

That is exactly what I've been saying this whole time. My situation, and the one ruggedscout91 mentioned, could have been resolved in two weeks flat. And it gets even worse because every hospital wants its own specific set of tests. Is it really that hard to just review existing results? That happened to me—they wouldn't recognize each other's findings, except for my GP. Like I said, in most cases, laziness is what gets rewarded (even though I actually have a decent GP). My doctor was there to calm me down and support me during my toughest moments, and he was great. But it's true, they get penalized and constantly have commissions breathing down their necks.

ruggedscout91 said:No, the reality is simpler: hospitals don't want to foot the bill for tests. Instead, they force semi-conscious patients to scramble for results that their Medicare will eventually pay for, only for those same tests to be rerun by the staff at the General Hospital. Not to mention, the cost of these tests is significantly higher than the transport costs, which in my case was at least 1243 miles.
Furthermore, if someone pays top dollar for a private CT scan, the General Hospital won't have to perform it; the patient just does it themselves if they want to keep their head on their shoulders.
Mathematically speaking: the State pays for the patient's transport 1243 miles
Medicare - the gynecologist issues referrals for specialized exams.
Medicare covers all types of lab tests (while the patient wanders around).
The patient pays for CT scans and everything else (if needed).
The hospital bills for: the patient's days of stay
feeding and maintaining the patient in a cold holding pattern before surgery
feeding and maintaining the patient after surgery.
performing the surgery and the necessary procedures.
following up on the patient based on the referral.
Essentially, a prepared, examined, and referred patient goes in for surgery and then heads home as quickly as possible (for faster recovery), provided there are no complications.

Yet, nobody cares about the condition the patient is in while traveling and gathering these results. Does anyone care if an artery bursts or organs fail along the way? Does anyone care if, after being told the doctors have no idea what's wrong but that they might die, the patient harms themselves out of fear? No one cares.

That is why it seems better to wait until you are in an acute state and rush to the ER. It is better to drop dead in the emergency room than to survive the grueling journey of preoperative testing, constantly worrying about fainting in crowded hallways. And we are talking about people who live 62 miles far from the facilities where these tests are even conducted. Or else, they have to book a hotel room and commute to the General Hospital every single day, even when half the rooms in the hospital are sitting empty.

I know exactly how this machine works, and I'll send you the rest via PM.

Kate Collins67 said:Sure, from an individual perspective, it would be way easier to just get admitted and knock out a whole battery of tests in a single day. But in the real world? That’s just not feasible. Everything is limited—we're talking limited staff, limited beds, the whole nine yards. The system operates on a triage basis where you wait your turn relative to everyone else. If everyone decided to revolt and demand immediate specialized care, the entire medical system would collapse overnight.

You can't run a functional society based on "what if" scenarios... because if we did, everyone would be sitting in a hospital bed. Everyone has the potential to suffer a stroke or something else, right?
In a hospital setting, you treat things like urosepsis (that serious infection starting from the urinary tract), but bacteria in the urine? That isn't something treated in a hospital, and sometimes it isn't even treated in an outpatient clinic.
You’re describing exactly the situation I’m talking about: patients want to be the ones deciding what happens, when it happens, and how it happens—but that’s just not how it works. Otherwise, why would anyone bother with seven to thirteen years of medical school?

Look, it's our right to receive quality care, plain and simple. We're paying for this out of our own pockets! Plus, the tests that should have been finished within two weeks were delayed. It's also our right to fight for that. If I had actually been hospitalized and treated properly, Dr. Busic would have a healthy girl today who could function normally. And don't give me that "it's not feasible" nonsense—we all know exactly how "limited" those beds are and how "short" the staff is, especially since all the specialists and doctors are practically all buddies anyway.
And I'm not even talking about urine or urine cultures here.

Linda Ross said:My apologies if this topic has already been started elsewhere; I searched, but came up empty-handed, so I figured I would just ask: does anyone actually know the distinction between Missouri and Missouri SR?

I finally picked up my prescription from the psychiatrist yesterday and took my first dose today—starting at 0.25mg. I’m feeling incredibly drowsy, though I am hopeful that this lethargy will eventually subside. Has anyone else dealt with unpleasant side effects? Specifically, has anyone experienced that heavy, weighted sensation often attributed to Missouri, or perhaps significant sleep disturbances similar to what is listed in the literature?
Furthermore, what is the clinical significance of "slow-release"?
I would truly appreciate hearing about your personal experiences. Thank you!

If it’s the Misur SR version, it’ll keep you under all day. It hits pretty hard.

Carol Hayes84 said:It’s only day two on Zoloft and I feel like absolute garbage. My stomach is doing somersaults... when does this part actually end?????

Don't go quitting right out of the gate. I made that exact same mistake back in the day. It’s gonna suck at first, honestly, but once you get through the hump, you'll feel more energized and just... great. 😉Just try to power through the side effects for a few days.

Angela Wright said:I’m not being naive; I’m clearly more aware of my democratic rights than you are. It’s obvious to me that this "democracy" everyone keeps yapping about doesn't actually exist unless we all start practicing it. I have no intention of spending my life acting passive like some worm, constantly making excuses for my own incompetence or inertia by claiming nothing can be done except showing up to vote every four years and praying for the best.
I’ve stepped up into civil society—actually, I’m one of the founders of what’s becoming one of the strongest patient advocacy groups in America. We’re just a small handful of people, but that’s only because we refuse to stay quiet. We don't believe our purpose is to just sit here, shut up, and stroke the ego of the government; we’re here to scream when things go wrong. And it works. We get results that actually help people living in this country. Honestly, I can't even imagine where we'd be if people acted like actual humans instead of worms, and finally started speaking out about everything the system throws at them alongside their diagnosis. My God, in places like New York, there are three-month waiting lists just for radiation treatment (ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!) at the major hospitals. Do I really need to spell out what a three-month delay means for someone fighting cancer? Most likely metastases, then death. Yet, these same people are terrified to speak up and say, "Hey, I've been waiting three months for radiation!" They’re scared of retaliation, scared of being targeted, or worse... what on earth are we even talking about here, people?!
You have the government and the system you deserve. Things aren't going to get better unless you go out and make them better yourselves. Everything else is just talk. There’s the truth—now deal with it however you want.

You have to fight, but people are just too passive.

Kate Collins67 said:The whole premise of what was mentioned above assumes that every local clinic has its own lab or at least somewhere they can send blood samples without just sending the patient away, plus having radiology on-site—which, let’s be real, isn't the case for most community clinics.

And honestly, people are right to ask what these clinics are even for. In practice, they mostly just exist to write referrals and prescriptions alongside a bunch of paperwork, with maybe a tiny bit of actual medicine thrown in here and there (usually depending on whether your family doctor actually gives a damn or has any energy left).

But what happens when their equipment is constantly breaking down? Look, my GP was literally the only person who actually looked at both the patient AND the specialist results.
It was like, go to the clinic, wait for this test, then that one, then this other thing... then thyroid hormones, which took a month and a half, then another six weeks for something else. Then they tell you, "If you don't feel better, come back." Same old story. Eventually, you just give up and go to a private doctor because you have no idea what's happening anymore. I mean, imagine if you had a minor stroke that didn't get caught in time because they wouldn't just do a urine test and instead insisted on bloodwork? You end up paying privately just to find out, "Oh wow, miracle! There's bacteria in your urine," like it's some big revelation.
Wouldn't it have been way simpler if this was all sorted in two weeks and I was actually hospitalized?

Look, I know you can get Zoloft $28, Paxil $25, Wellbutrin $17, or even Librium $2.75, and honestly, the list just keeps going. If you don't want to deal with a private prescription, getting things like Zoloft or Paxil won't break the bank, and neither will Librium. Even Xanax and Misar seem to be around $7.00 depending on what your doctor writes you, plus there's a whole mountain of other stuff out there.