> if GB surgury is so dangerous, is it best to just leave things be and
> take pills to relieve the symptoms? This reminds me of baratic surgury
> where they staple your stomach so you feel full after a small potion of
> a meal. Very dangerous, 2% die from it. Some people get baratic or
> gastic bypass surgury when they didnt really need it. One actress was
> only 230 pounds and could have lost weight a thousand different ways
> but she was too lazy and unmotivated so she took the easy way out to
> slim down to 150. I would support and understand baratic surgury if she
> weighed at least 400 and was given 6 months to live if she didnt start
> losing weight. Then the risks of dying from obesity is greater than
> from baratic surgury.
> Free health? They make you pay whatever you have even if it means
> taking your car and house. Only when you are bankrupt then the state
> pays the rest. Youll be homeless, hungry and on the streets. But at
> least you arent sick anymore or dead and thats what matters.
> We spent a fortune each month on health insurance as does anyone that
> can afford it. If you get sick and need an operation or prolonged
> treatment, the costs can be $50,000, $100,000 or more. You got
> insurance? They pay most of it minus deductables. No insurance? Time to
> sell your car, your house or apartment, withdraw all your money from
> banks and funds and find a place to sleep outside on the street or in
> the woods! Hungry? Look for fruits and berries(in forests) or go to
> restraurants and eat peoples leftovers or look in garbage cans for
> anything still half editable.
> "LASIK really isn't that expensive relative to other surgeries. The
> benefits are so great, the relief from buying contacts or glasses and
> cleaning solutions and spending time fiddling with them is worth it
> alone..."
> The point is you arent gonna get sick or die from not getting lasik.
> Thats why lasik is elective. You make contacts to be much more trouble
> than it sounds. Glasses are about as much trouble as contacts because
> you have to clean the lens regulary and they sometimes fog up or smear.
> Still the trouble of contacts or glasses only takes very few minutes of
> your time a day. The way I think of lasik, you are spending $5000 and
> putting your eyes at risk in order to save few minutes of your time a
> day. My friends who wear contacts take 30 seconds to pop them in after
> they wake. Then they take 60 seconds to pour more solution in the
> contact lens case and pop them out. They see no reason for lasik just
> to save 90-120 seconds of their time per day. If lasik was as safe as
> contacts, they of course would get it. But the risks of lasik is much
> more than contacts. Its easy for you to say that lasik was "worth it"
> but for anyone with less than perfect experience, they wish they stuck
> with contacts or gone back to glasses. I know people who ended up -.5
> diopters undercorrected who werent happy because their vision was a
> tiny bit blurrier than with contacts. Yet their vision was good enough
> not to bother with contacts and they feel that their lasik would be
> wasted if they went back to contacts. Some who end up or regress more
> such as to -1 or -1.5 go back to contacts and consider the lasik
> experience a tease and complete waste.
> I know one lady who was like a -3 and a full time contact wearer. She
> got lasik and ended up 20/20 the first month. Slowly she regressed.
> After 3 years she was only 20/40 and back in glasses and she was
> looking to go back to contacts very soon.

> In article <1138433835.940832.4790[at]f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> ,
> "Ace" <acemanvx[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > the ambulance takes you
> > to the nearest hospital
> The ambulance takes you to the nearest PUBLIC hospital (ie. city or
> state, often The "Something" General Hospital) where they have to treat
> you whether or not you can pay. I've been in an ambulance without my
> insurance ID card. The most I got was a choice between the two public
> hospitals near my accident. Unless you call a private hospital directly,
> 911 services or EMS will take you to the nearest public hospital.
> Private hospitals can turn away the ambulance.

> the ambulance takes you
> to the nearest hospital

> Ragnar wrote:
> > This doesn't really apply to eye care.. since very little involving
> > eye care is covered by insurance. (I guess vision is not considered
> > important)
> > Many doctors ask for proof of insurance on the first visit to their
> > office. If you do not have insurance, they are very reluctant to
> > treat you, and often refuse to treat you... or at least discourage
> > you.
> > Why? Because if someone is paying money out of their OWN pocket, they
> > are much more likely to sue. If an insurance company is footing the
> > bill, then the patient just goes elsewhere if necessary and doesn't
> > bother suing since they have no financial investment in the procedure.
> > For example... if one paid $9,000 out of their own pocket for dental
> > bridgework that fell apart and required another $9,000 to replace..
> > that person is likely to sue. If paid for by insurance.. the patient
> > is likely to say "oh well! that happens! I will pick up by new
> > bridge next week.."
> > > It should not be legal to require proof of insurance before an initial
> > consultation. Requiring proof of insurance before having the surgery
> > is one matter.. requiring proof of insurance before a consultation is
> > quite another. Whether or not the person has insurance.. and the
> > "right" insurance should not be a factor in the doctor's consultation.
> > > Imagine this.. Someone goes in for a consultation for heart
> > surgery... they have the best insurance around.. the surgeon says.. we
> > need to do this super duper procedure on you. Some person goes in
> > with no insurance or the wrong insurance.and the surgeon says... you
> > are fine!! Go home.
> And then they have a massive heart attack and sue the doctor anyway! No
> doctor will send a sick patient away. This is just absurd!
> Linda

> No doctor will send a sick patient away. This is just absurd!

> Ragnar wrote:
> > This doesn't really apply to eye care.. since very little involving
> > eye care is covered by insurance. (I guess vision is not considered
> > important)
> > Many doctors ask for proof of insurance on the first visit to their
> > office. If you do not have insurance, they are very reluctant to
> > treat you, and often refuse to treat you... or at least discourage
> > you.
> > Why? Because if someone is paying money out of their OWN pocket, they
> > are much more likely to sue. If an insurance company is footing the
> > bill, then the patient just goes elsewhere if necessary and doesn't
> > bother suing since they have no financial investment in the procedure.
> > For example... if one paid $9,000 out of their own pocket for dental
> > bridgework that fell apart and required another $9,000 to replace..
> > that person is likely to sue. If paid for by insurance.. the patient
> > is likely to say "oh well! that happens! I will pick up by new
> > bridge next week.."
> > > It should not be legal to require proof of insurance before an initial
> > consultation. Requiring proof of insurance before having the surgery
> > is one matter.. requiring proof of insurance before a consultation is
> > quite another. Whether or not the person has insurance.. and the
> > "right" insurance should not be a factor in the doctor's consultation.
> > > Imagine this.. Someone goes in for a consultation for heart
> > surgery... they have the best insurance around.. the surgeon says.. we
> > need to do this super duper procedure on you. Some person goes in
> > with no insurance or the wrong insurance.and the surgeon says... you
> > are fine!! Go home.
> And then they have a massive heart attack and sue the doctor anyway! No
> doctor will send a sick patient away. This is just absurd!
> Linda

> This doesn't really apply to eye care.. since very little involving
> eye care is covered by insurance. (I guess vision is not considered
> important)
> Many doctors ask for proof of insurance on the first visit to their
> office. If you do not have insurance, they are very reluctant to
> treat you, and often refuse to treat you... or at least discourage
> you.
> Why? Because if someone is paying money out of their OWN pocket, they
> are much more likely to sue. If an insurance company is footing the
> bill, then the patient just goes elsewhere if necessary and doesn't
> bother suing since they have no financial investment in the procedure.
> For example... if one paid $9,000 out of their own pocket for dental
> bridgework that fell apart and required another $9,000 to replace..
> that person is likely to sue. If paid for by insurance.. the patient
> is likely to say "oh well! that happens! I will pick up by new
> bridge next week.."
> It should not be legal to require proof of insurance before an initial
> consultation. Requiring proof of insurance before having the surgery
> is one matter.. requiring proof of insurance before a consultation is
> quite another. Whether or not the person has insurance.. and the
> "right" insurance should not be a factor in the doctor's consultation.
> Imagine this.. Someone goes in for a consultation for heart
> surgery... they have the best insurance around.. the surgeon says.. we
> need to do this super duper procedure on you. Some person goes in
> with no insurance or the wrong insurance.and the surgeon says... you
> are fine!! Go home.