Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Don Bowey on 18 Nov 2006 14:54 On 11/18/06 5:26 AM, in article ejn1lq$8qk_001(a)s771.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > In article <C1832D44.4D381%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, > Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> On 11/17/06 4:58 AM, in article >> ejkblm$8qk_012(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <455C8889.E558C69B(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> How many referrals do you think the person should be allowed? >>>>> >>>>> At the moment, I'd like to limit the number of referrals a _doctor_ >>>>> can make. Dad's on his 6th or 7th referral. And the basic stuff >>>>> hasn't been done yet. They're playing the Medicare system to its >>>>> max. >>>> >>>> You need an 'NHS'. >>> >>> He is on the US' NHS called Medicare. Diagnosis of an ill old >>> person now takes lots of referrals and tests and stuff. >> >> Your a complete, devious idiot, or you may be just a troll. >> >> *Regardless* of age, multiple referrals may be required. I'm an ill, old >> (not really - just 70) person with another illness, and the first referral >> by my PCP resulted in a likely cause diagnosis, requiring a second one which >> firmed the diagnosis. Another referral resulted in a plan for part of the >> treatment, etc., etc. >> >> So what in the hell is your real problem with what's going on with your dad, >> and what's with your pathetic attitude? >> >> By the way, some illnesses aren't fixable. > > Exactly. He is dying. Yet he is getting tested and chunks > taken out even though he has no intention of being "treated" > if they decide what he has. It is his choice to be treated or not. They *cannot* force him. > >> Get used to that concept and try >> to not blame anyone if that is the case. > > He can barely walk from his chair to the bathroom now. Yet > he has to go into the doctor's office every time they "need" > to talk to him. This is stupid. They have already diagnosed > him to have lymphoma; four days later, they have diagnosed > him to not have lymphoma. The same thing happened with > a diabetes diagnosis this week. Next week he's going in to > have yet another CT scan and more blood work. So I expect > they will diangose another disease and then undiagnose it. Lymphoma is rather straightforward to diagnose, but requires at least one (simple) surgery to remove lymph nodes to study, and probably will require another (simple) procedure to pull bone marrow from the hip or thereabouts. At that point you have it or you don't, and with the CAT scans, you know how far it's gone. *These require referrals.* At his age treatment (chemo) will be given at about 4 week intervals for probably 6 times. Each chemo treatment may be spread through several days and will require him to travel to the clinic. Each day he goes in, blood lab work is required, and he will see the doctor. They may need another CAT scan. The first treatment will leave him weak, with nausea, but a few days before the next treatment, he may start feeling much better. And so it continues..... Following subsequent treatments he will feel better, sooner. One of the chemcical mixes in the chemo treatment, affects the blood/sugar level. If your dad is even a marginal Type 2 diabetic, it will cause him to have a high blood/sugar which will need to be treated. If he is a diabetic who had it under control through weight loss and diet, he will need to go back on his diabetic meds for a week or so after teach week of chemo. Lymphoma is a Cancer, but it has a fairly high rate of cure. > > This is how Medicare is sucked dry. By now you must understand that I totally disagree. Alternatively, I believe you are totally out of touch with the facts. > > Meanwhile, they haven't done any of the obvious. All Dad wants > is for them to stop and send in Hospice. But he can't get > Hospice services until one of these idiots signs the paper. It's up to your dad to select: A. Maybe live longer, or B. Very likely die soon. In the meanwhile, he CAN refuse treatment and force the issue. Got that? It's HIS choice and it sounds like he has not made a choice, but is just letting the oncologist do what he thinks is in his patient's best interest. DO SOMETHING other that berate what you refuse to understand. Quality of life is important and must be considered, and the effects of treatment must be factored in BY YOUR DAD, possibly with your help. Good Luck to you both. Don't waste any time dealing with this. By the way, I seem to be beating my extensive lymphoma. No comments on this, please. I'm not depressed, unhappy, worried, etc. Don > > /BAH > >> >>> >>> /BAH >> >> I thought I could ignore you, but I failed.... >> >> I'm still wanting to know what is the "...basic stuff (that) hasn't been >> done yet." >> >> I really think either you or your parent has a serious communication >> problem. >> >>
From: Eeyore on 18 Nov 2006 14:56 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>unsettled wrote: > >>> Don Bowey wrote: > >>> > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> >>Don't blame Bush for this one. It was easily predictable > >>> >>and *had* to happen. > >>> > > >>> > Why did it have to happen? > >>> > >>> Because when there's money available to be grabbed, it will > >>> be grabbed. > >> > >>That will happen in a money-grabbing society for sure ! > >> > >>The wholesale corruption of the USA never fails to amaze me. > > > > There are a few British businesses who bought US companies > > and skimmed the cash out. The corruption is not a US > > invention. > > Yet unsettled and yourself seem to think anything the US tries to change > will fail because of greedy, corrupt people. They seem to be fixated on 'getting round' the symptoms and totally failing to address the cause. Such a policy is doomed to failure. Graham
From: Eeyore on 18 Nov 2006 14:58 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>unsettled wrote: > >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > >>> > You underestimate them. These people buy things. They also > >>> > are quite aware about x costing more than y. > >>> > >>> They made the news. Over the past few days they were standing > >>> in line waiting at store doors for the release of the latest > >>> Sony game platform. Other than making sure they had enough > >>> money for the purchase, I don't think they have any grasp > >>> of value. Betcha if you asked them how many had health > >>> insurance..... > >> > >>A Play Station probably costs about the same as one month's health > >>insurance. > >> > >>One is within their means, the other isn't. > > > > You aren't giving them any credit. Think about the fact > > that they know about these games; they know about new > > gear; they know when and how to get it; they also know > > how much money they will need and they acquire that money. > > That's pretty good. Most people who can "think well" ask > > their parents for the money or put it on a credit card > > and don't bother thinking about money. > > You need to get rid of your middle class assumptions. Most people don't have > parents who they can ask for the money or can put it on a credit card for > them. Most of the poor, badly educated people this thread is about come from > equally poor, badly educated families. Kind of amusing. BAH lies to criticise 'our' middle class thinking yet falls into the very same trap herself. Some ppl don't even have *any* plastic. They can only pay with cash or cheque. Graham
From: Don Bowey on 18 Nov 2006 14:57 On 11/18/06 5:28 AM, in article ejn1q0$8qk_002(a)s771.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > In article <C1832E32.4D383%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, > Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> On 11/17/06 5:03 AM, in article >> ejkbuo$8qk_014(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <455C9097.30011163(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:40:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We pay the development costs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What about drugs from Roche or Clin-Midy and so on? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sigh! We pay the development costs. If Roche didn't include >>>>>>> theirs in US prices, they'ld sell a lot more drugs. >>>>>> >>>>>> What's not discussed in this thread is the fact that >>>>>> the manufacturers have been advertising on US TV for >>>>>> some time now that if you can't afford the medicines >>>>>> you need you should contact them because they have >>>>>> programs to assist those living in poverty needing >>>>>> their products. >>>>> >>>>> Those have existed all along. It does seem odd that >>>>> the drug companies are started to adverstise these on >>>>> TV when the Drug Medicare Bill became law. >>>> >>>> I find the idea of advertsising prescription drugs to the general public >>> rather >>>> bizarre. >>> >>> How would a person find out about drugs? The naming is bad >>> enough. Trying to find out all the side effects, efficacies, >>> etc. is very diffitult to do. The existence of the net is helping. >>> >>> /BAH >> >> Finding the side effects of every drug is SO SIMPLE anyone with a computer >> could do it. Further, in the US most pharmacies provide a sheet of such >> info with each prescription drug they provide. >> >> Get Real! >> > You have just made my point. It is the patient who has to do all > this learning and analyzing and work. > > /BAH No, it isn't, but the patient must attempt to understand and participate in his care. If he can't or won't, the Doctor isn't going to dump him. See my previous post.
From: Ben Newsam on 18 Nov 2006 14:44
On Sat, 18 Nov 06 14:59:30 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <v86ul2ptr7oev3a76fe96hb720ak07hlmq(a)4ax.com>, > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>On Sat, 18 Nov 06 12:52:36 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>There are a few British businesses who bought US companies >>>and skimmed the cash out. The corruption is not a US >>>invention. >> >>That's not corruption, that's capitalism. > >I see. If the UK does it, it's capitalism; if the US does >it, it's corruption. Well, no. I didn't say that. |