Health Care reform from a Doctors perspective

[LittleSoldier]

I’ve re-read your post 3 or 4 times and it seems your point is that if people have insurance then they can get preventative care. I’m saying that you don’t need insurance to get preventative care b/c it is cheap. If that wasn’t your point then please tell me what it is.

Thanks for reading my post again. There is obviously a communication problem between us, so I’ll try to explain again.

My point is that preventive care, when used correctly, would save money for both the government (or insurance companies or whoever ends up in charge of a national or state health plan). If a person is running a fever and coughing a lot, there is obviously a problem. I will agree that OTC medication is appropriate, unless the problems continue. You can’t cure pneumonia with OTC medications. So the patient needs to understand if a national health care plan is instituted or a state plan is instituted that he/she needs to see the physician early enough and not wait until things get so bad that he/she ends up in the ER.

My point about the ER turning people away is only meant in case a national (or state) health care plan is instituted. If we end up with a national health care plan or even state plans, people need to be educated in the proper use of the health system. Someone walking into the ER with an early case of pneumonia might be told to see his/her physician ASAP or go to an Urgent Care Center, etc. People would need education so that they could understand that it would be a misuse of the system to suddenly appear at the ER with either symptoms that present no emergency or appear with symptoms of severe pneumonia which could have been taken care of by a pcp as part of a regular office call. Years ago I ended up at a Kaiser Hospital though I didn’t have Kaiser insurance. It was an emergency and the Kaiser Hospital was the closest. There was a sign somewhere that stated if a patient came in without a real emergency they would be charged a fee above what Kaiser would normally pay for emergency care. I thought that was a good idea because it would help stop people from running to the ER for a simple cold, etc.

My point about scans, etc. comes from a previous post in which I read that the government is attempting to cut back on scans. MRIs, CT scans, and other scanning is something the government should be pushing - both in research which would help in the development of better scanning equipment and in the current use of scanning equipment as a diagnostic tool. Scanning would save money IMO. My point about my father dying from pancreatic cancer is relevant here. I realize that an extremely low percentage of people who have that type of cancer live. From what I was told, once a person discovers the cancer it is already too late. The cancer has been present for about ten years without noticeable symptoms and when it is finally detected the patient is given a death sentence. My father died within a few months of receiving the diagnosis and it wasn’t a pretty death.

I want researchers to improve the quality of scanning equipment so that a person can be scanned and a whole host of problems can be diagnosed very early (as is the case with mammograms now). Early diagnosis of cancer and other medical conditions would be a more effective use of money IMO (although I don’t have hard data to back me up) and it would certainly be better for the patient.

I hope this makes more sense. I apologize for not being able to communicate very well on this subject. I am trying very hard to learn everything I can about the health care problem. At this point I still have no position on a nationalized health care plan - I don’t particularly like the federal government sticking its nose into programs that should be run by individual states. And I’m not happy at all with my state’s current health plan. I still believe there is an answer somewhere but it’s so complicated.

Preventive care, as you said, is cheap (at least compared to all the costs associated with treating a condition that could have been detected earlier), although some of what I would call preventive care would be expensive enough to make it not affordable for many patients. This would be true with scanning, especially if it’s new technology. It would be a great tool for diagnosis but when a patient needs to pay a couple thousand dollars out-of-pocket for a test, there is a problem. But I still think it would be less expensive to somehow have that scanning paid for by insurance (or a national or state health plan) than to have insurance pay for treating the disease that wasn’t detected early on.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A lot of extra tests are performed because doctors need to protect themselves from malpractice suits.

An example from long ago (33 years ago)—I hit my head really hard at work one day, and “saw stars.” It was a very hard knock on the head. I had a friend whose brother had died some time after a knock on the head due to its having been more serious than anyone had thought who persuaded me to see a doctor, so I went.

The doctor checked me out and then said, knowing I had very little money, that he could say with 99% accuracy that I was all right, but that I could get X-rays and all that in order to be 100% sure. He gave me the choice, and I chose to not spend the money I didn’t have. But he said, even back then, that he wouldn’t even mention the X-rays except for fear of malpractice.

Alternatives are springing up. There are 24-hour clinics for when you are sick but not ER sick, and there are in-store (Wal-Mart and CVS for example) offices which offer the most basic care—checking on things like ear infections and the like for which a prescription might be necessary—since they are staffed by a PA or RN, they charge only a little.

Also, given what I have noticed, check out the overhead of where you are going. Sometimes a small doctor’s office will charge less than a large clinic staffed mostly by PA’s because the overhead is that much smaller. Also, if it’s new, they have to charge more to pay off the equipment, but if it’s older, then they’ve paid off their equipment and so keep their rates lower. I have seen big differences.

Thank you!! A positive, concrete response to the problems many people face re the current health care system. You have restored my faith in people.

Although the area I live in is about ten years behind everyone else (or at least it appears that way to me) I can imagine such things happening here eventually. Your post has helped me more than you can imagine. I was invited to a meeting about our local hospital several years ago and I had little to say except that an urgent care clinic would be a great idea. Of course they didn’t run out and build it - they had more important things to do, like building the skateboard park. But this is something I intend to become more personally involved in.

There are people in my town who need help. I want to help them. So I need to learn everything I can about how to do this. When anyone here gets very sick on a weekend they have no option other than the ER, or they have to drive 50-60 miles to get to the nearest large city and many times the road is closed due to the weather. This is a retirement community and I fear for the sick elderly who live here.

Thank you again. You have helped.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I presume dotors are interested in getting paid for these services that they occasionally provide for free.

Well, no, not really, they are doing them for free. That means they don’t get paid. That is what free means.

They also can’t consider the quality of life issues of the people who can “afford it”. My doctor wanted me to spend a bunch of money on some heath improvement program but for me there are other things that are just more important than the marginal improvement in health that the program would have made.

Agreed.

That is sometimes called turning something into a private “science project”. Technical people sometimes tend to do that, working things to the final point of knowledge instead of accepting close enough.

No, it means that some people want to do the best they can for people they care about. It has nothing to do with being a “technical” person. It has to do with being a caring person.

That compromise needs to be within the person.

OK. Yeah.

I have canceled several appointments insurance would have paid for just because I didn’t want to see anyone wasting money.

If you had no co-pay or any out-of-pocket expense I would say that 99% of the rest of the world wouldn’t have cancelled the appointments.

unfortunately there is no such concept as basic health care. every new procedure no matter how exotic goes right to the “must provide” list.

I disagree. There is a basic human right to health. We just haven’t been able to define it yet.

everyone would consider what they need to improve their health care to be basic health care. And as long as it is just the “evil rich” who are paying they don’t seem to care about the cost.

People shouldn’t be categorized like this. Not everyone (and probably not most) “poorer” people believe the rich are “evil.” People shouldn’t be categorized the way you are doing here. Good, caring, Christian people exist in every SES level. I am probably “poor” by your standards, yet I don’t look upon you as “evil.” I don’t look upon anyone as “evil.” What about someone like Mother Teresa? Do you honestly think a person as financially “poor” as she was believed the rich are “evil” and that she didn’t care about the cost of her health care because she wouldn’t have to pay?

It’s way, way more complicated than this. Why does this have to be turned into class warfare?

 

[wabrams]

You just hate governement.

I don’t hate anything, but I do not like government very much. The constitution lays out exactly how a minimalistic goverment should be run, and we need to get back to that. I agree with you about our monetary system and how we should correct it.

 

[wabrams]

My point is that preventive care, when used correctly, would save money for both the government (or insurance companies or whoever ends up in charge of a national or state health plan). If a person is running a fever and coughing a lot, there is obviously a problem. I will agree that OTC medication is appropriate, unless the problems continue. You can’t cure pneumonia with OTC medications. So the patient needs to understand if a national health care plan is instituted or a state plan is instituted that he/she needs to see the physician early enough and not wait until things get so bad that he/she ends up in the ER.

Preventive care, as you said, is cheap (at least compared to all the costs associated with treating a condition that could have been detected earlier), although some of what I would call preventive care would be expensive enough to make it not affordable for many patients. This would be true with scanning, especially if it’s new technology. It would be a great tool for diagnosis but when a patient needs to pay a couple thousand dollars out-of-pocket for a test, there is a problem. But I still think it would be less expensive to somehow have that scanning paid for by insurance (or a national or state health plan) than to have insurance pay for treating the disease that wasn’t detected early on.

That is what I thought you were saying. My whole counter-point was we don’t have to have a single payer system to get preventative care for most people. I see both sides of it.

With re: to scanning as a preventative method, that is a good way to create pathology by using it in that capacity (i.e. annual scans or bi-annual scans). It should be used only to rule out and/or diagnose problems.

My point about scans, etc. comes from a previous post in which I read that the government is attempting to cut back on scans.

That was me that posted that. The rationale I read was that too many scans are being done for the governments liking and our equipment is too expensive to upgrade every few years.

MRIs, CT scans, and other scanning is something the government should be pushing - both in research which would help in the development of better scanning equipment and in the current use of scanning equipment as a diagnostic tool.

A free market takes care of that. Better equipment, more money for the manufacturer, ordering MD, radiology dept., and radiologist.

I want researchers to improve the quality of scanning equipment so that a person can be scanned and a whole host of problems can be diagnosed very early (as is the case with mammograms now). Early diagnosis of cancer and other medical conditions would be a more effective use of money IMO (although I don’t have hard data to back me up) and it would certainly be better for the patient.

Mammograms are unique in that they use low dosages of radiation and the beam is restricted to a small area of anatomy. CT uses a lot of radiation; a CT scan of the ABdomen and Pelvis w/ oral and IV contrast is the equivalent of 500 consecutive chest x-rays. You need the contrast to see if tumors are present and if they are obstructing or pressing against other structures. This is the simplified version, as I could go into a lot more detail but that is easier to do orally than typing. I spent two years in x-ray school learning all about this and then added CT to that after I graduated. It’s a lot of stuff.

I know I skipped over responding to some of your post, but I did read it and now understand what you were trying to say; thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

That is what I thought you were saying. My whole counter-point was we don’t have to have a single payer system to get preventative care for most people. I see both sides of it.

With re: to scanning as a preventative method, that is a good way to create pathology by using it in that capacity (i.e. annual scans or bi-annual scans). It should be used only to rule out and/or diagnose problems.

That was me that posted that. The rationale I read was that too many scans are being done for the governments liking and our equipment is too expensive to upgrade every few years.

A free market takes care of that. Better equipment, more money for the manufacturer, ordering MD, radiology dept., and radiologist.

Mammograms are unique in that they use low dosages of radiation and the beam is restricted to a small area of anatomy. CT uses a lot of radiation; a CT scan of the ABdomen and Pelvis w/ oral and IV contrast is the equivalent of 500 consecutive chest x-rays. You need the contrast to see if tumors are present and if they are obstructing or pressing against other structures. This is the simplified version, as I could go into a lot more detail but that is easier to do orally than typing. I spent two years in x-ray school learning all about this and then added CT to that after I graduated. It’s a lot of stuff.

I know I skipped over responding to some of your post, but I did read it and now understand what you were trying to say; thank you.

Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t hate anything, but I do not like government very much. The constitution lays out exactly how a minimalistic goverment should be run, and we need to get back to that. I agree with you about our monetary system and how we should correct it.

I don’t like government very much either, especially the federal government which is so huge and bloated that it can’t maintain any control whether it be financial or anything else. I’ve talked to people who are afraid that the federal government will take their money, say it is to be used for health care, and then spend it on something else, or spend it for abortion on demand (which is absolutely wrong IMO).

 

[royal_archer]

All it takes is one chronic condition and boom, wipe-out. I doubt my situation is the case for 40million, but I would suspect it is in the hundreds of thousands or millions, maybe not the extent that which I have, but it is still a large number of people. I’m still sick, getting worse by this system with every passing month. I won’t shut-up until I die.

however if we did not have the system we have we would not have many of the advancements in medicine that have resulted in the savings of many more lives around the world.

 

[royal_archer]

Well, no, not really, they are doing them for free. That means they don’t get paid. That is what free means.

They are doing it for free because they can’t pay. I doubt they are offering free care to those who can pay. I don’t doubt they are being generous. However If there were an additional source of money where they could be reimbursed They would want to get paid or in other words they want a source of revenue so they wouldn’t feel compelled to do it for free.

No, it means that some people want to do the best they can for people they care about. It has nothing to do with being a “technical” person. It has to do with being a caring person.

Sorry, I’ve seen to many cases of individuals search for knowledge blinding them to the cost to bennefit ratio and to the reality that the resources may be more productive elsewhere.

I disagree. There is a basic human right to health. We just haven’t been able to define it yet.

There is a basic human right to not be retroactively forced into labor for the bennefit of another.

People shouldn’t be categorized like this. Not everyone (and probably not most) “poorer” people believe the rich are “evil.” People shouldn’t be categorized the way you are doing here. Good, caring, Christian people exist in every SES level. I am probably “poor” by your standards, yet I don’t look upon you as “evil.” I don’t look upon anyone as “evil.” What about someone like Mother Teresa? Do you honestly think a person as financially “poor” as she was believed the rich are “evil” and that she didn’t care about the cost of her health care because she wouldn’t have to pay?

It’s way, way more complicated than this. Why does this have to be turned into class warfare?

Read through even this thread and you will see some of the hatred although the word evil was not used that I know of, the tone used by them portrays the impression that they feel those who have more than them are evil. I would prefer it not be class warfare but wealth redistribution is inherently class warfare and exploitation of individuals because of their income.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Sorry, I’ve seen to many cases of individuals search for knowledge blinding them to the cost to bennefit ratio and to the reality that the resources may be more productive elsewhere.

.

On the final judgement day God is not going to enter cost/benefit where you go for eternity

 

[LittleSoldier]

On the final judgement day God is not going to enter cost/benefit where you go for eternity

I think on judgment day Christ is going to say, “What you did to the least of these, you did to me.” I try to live my life using that as my goal. I am so amazed by this class warfare thing. I’ve never run across it before but it is rearing its ugly head in this thread and others. I am amazed by how angry people can get. It’s one thing to be afraid that the federal government is going to take away one’s money and misuse it; it’s a completely different thing to refuse to help people in need.

I wonder how people can pigeonhole and categorize people so easily - it’s those labels of conservative, liberal, radical, reactionary, rich, poor, etc. It really makes no sense to me. There are so many more important aspects of wealth such as spiritual life, sense of purpose, sense of humanity and so on. And as far as conservative and liberal, I try to look for universal laws which transcend laws made by humans. So every issue is different and that’s why I’m not conservative or liberal. I’m both, depending on the issue.

If I ever have another person approach me who is starving I will do whatever I can to help that person even if it means I lose every cent I have.

And that is simply because that is what Christ tells us to do.

Peace to you!!

 

[wabrams]

it’s a completely different thing to refuse to help people in need.

I find it intertesting that all of us here that are against government healthcare have all advocated for loosening restricitons re: buying insurance across state lines, individual HSA’s, tax deductions for medical expenses, reigning in gov’t spending so more money stays in our pockets so we can decide which charities we want to donate to, and passing small bills to fix the actual problems one at a time to get it right.

Those for government healthcare seem to think the government can do a better job, but have yet to asnwer the questions we keep posing asking what does gov’t do well to get us to agree to let them run 1/7th of the economy. Or the idea of to “h*ll w/ those who have more than me.” They seem to want a huge bill all at once (not all supporters, but most).

 

[LittleSoldier]

They are doing it for free because they can’t pay. I doubt they are offering free care to those who can pay. I don’t doubt they are being generous. However If there were an additional source of money where they could be reimbursed They would want to get paid or in other words they want a source of revenue so they wouldn’t feel compelled to do it for free.

They are doing it for free because they are altruistic and they have the ability to help people.

Sorry, I’ve seen to many cases of individuals search for knowledge blinding them to the cost to bennefit ratio and to the reality that the resources may be more productive elsewhere.

Do you believe in human kindness, in altruism, in following the example set by Christ?

There is a basic human right to not be retroactively forced into labor for the bennefit of another.

True, but nobody is retroactively forcing anybody into labor. That would be slavery and it is illegal in the USA, though it is prevalent in other countries.

Read through even this thread and you will see some of the hatred although the word evil was not used that I know of, the tone used by them portrays the impression that they feel those who have more than them are evil. I would prefer it not be class warfare but wealth redistribution is inherently class warfare and exploitation of individuals because of their income.

Sometimes I think that people read anger into messages where there is no anger. That is one of the problems with communicating via computer. We have no body language and no inflections in speech. Putting an emphasis on one word versus another can have the effect of completely changing the intent of what was written.

I agree that the tone of anger is there; however, do you see that you use the word “them?” Are you saying that you, personally, are conceived as “evil” by “them?” You seem to have a lot of anger, IMHO. You are doing exactly what you say “they” do. It’s a shame that anyone, whether “rich” or “poor” feels anger and hatred toward an entire class of people with a different SES.

I’m sorry that you have seen hatred but can’t you see that not everybody feels that the “rich” are evil? My sister earns a lot of money but I never look upon her as “evil.” And I know she doesn’t think of me as “hateful” and “evil” either. We’ve just gone in different directions in our lives and I have had a lot of tragedies happen. It’s just the way it is. We love each other, no matter what effect money has on us. And frankly I think I am far richer because my sister is agnostic and I have the gift of faith.

 

[LittleSoldier]

One topic that I have brought up several times is abortion on demand. I’m surprised that nobody else has discussed that and the related possibilities that physicians may feel forced to provide abortions even if they believe it is murder and that Catholic hospitals may actually close their doors to everyone because the government will demand that they provide abortions on demand.

Isn’t this part of the problem with a government run health care program? If I were a physician and I was told that I must provide abortions I would quit. There is no way that I would provide an abortion to anyone, unless it was being done in order to save the mother’s life.

If Catholic hospitals close their doors where are all the sick people going to go? I don’t know how many hospitals in this country are Catholic but I think it is a significant percentage.

Several people have posted that they don’t want the government telling them what to do with their money and I guess the problem of abortion on demand would be a part of this problem, but I don’t understand why Catholics are not more angry about the possibility that our federal and/or state governments will be telling us we have to pay for murder. To me, that is the worst part of a nationalized or state health care plan.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

One topic that I have brought up several times is abortion on demand. I’m surprised that nobody else has discussed that and the related possibilities that physicians may feel forced to provide abortions even if they believe it is murder and that Catholic hospitals may actually close their doors to everyone because the government will demand that they provide abortions on demand.

Isn’t this part of the problem with a government run health care program? If I were a physician and I was told that I must provide abortions I would quit. There is no way that I would provide an abortion to anyone, unless it was being done in order to save the mother’s life.

If Catholic hospitals close their doors where are all the sick people going to go? I don’t know how many hospitals in this country are Catholic but I think it is a significant percentage.

Several people have posted that they don’t want the government telling them what to do with their money and I guess the problem of abortion on demand would be a part of this problem, but I don’t understand why Catholics are not more angry about the possibility that our federal and/or state governments will be telling us we have to pay for murder. To me, that is the worst part of a nationalized or state health care plan.

There several problems/arguements that Catholics could have a beef with socialized heath care

1. Abortion and/or any other treatment that we find morally questionable/wrong may be covered by such a plan; there would be not choice to use a different plan that does not cover these things (or as much of these things).
2. Many of these large social programs are frowned up upon because of the concept of subsidiarity - please see the CCC paragraphs #1883, 1885, 1894, 2209

 

[LittleSoldier]

Without knowing your story (maybe I missed it) two things come to mind:

1. I don’t know what went on, but did they have a quick look at you and deem that no further treatment was necessary? Or there was nothing they could do? Are you sure that they flat out denied you, or did they deem your situation “not serious” (it is, by all means the “emergency room”) [Again, I don’t mean any disrespect here.]
2. You also may need to see a lawyer, to advise you on point #1. It is illegal to leave someone out in the dust.

I apologize if I have already answered this. I thought I did but I can’t find it so I must not have posted it.

The physician on duty came right out and told me I was a tweaker (he didn’t use that word but that is what he meant). He never examined me. He just looked over at me and said I didn’t need any help. He did ask for the name of my pain doctor and then he left. When he came back he said there was no such person listed in the phone book and he threw the phone book down. Then he said there were real patients who needed him and he walked away, leaving me.

I was in agonizing pain. There is a medication called toradol which can be very useful in treating chronic pain. Unfortunately it only works well when it is injected. That is what I wanted. If I had been a tweaker I would have been asking for opiates (which I had at home and I had told the doctor this).

I picked up the phone book and it wasn’t even the right book. Then I got furious and I hobbled out to the desk and told them that they might have at least looked in the correct phone book. They did so and lo and behold, my pain doctor’s name was in it.

Later on the physician apologized and said that he was always running into tweakers so he just assumed I was one. If he had examined me he would have found the 12-inch scar on my back and the 8-inch scar on my abdomen - little reminders of the three back surgeries I have had (and they all failed). I had gone to the ER before with the exact same problem and I was given toradol, just as I requested. I had never had a problem.

It caused quite a furor as the hospital staff believed that pain control was one of their major objectives and they were quite proud of their track record in treating it. They were very surprised that such a thing had happened.

So, I obviously was not at death’s door because I am still alive, typing away. But it was an emergency. I wouldn’t have gone to the ER if it hadn’t been.

I never thought about getting an attorney. I think it’s a grey area and besides, the doctor did apologize and he did order the toradol. But he also turned me away and he insulted me.

I couldn’t stand the pain anymore. I had to stop it.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I apologize if I have already answered this. I thought I did but I can’t find it so I must not have posted it.

The physician on duty came right out and told me I was a tweaker (he didn’t use that word but that is what he meant). He never examined me. He just looked over at me and said I didn’t need any help. He did ask for the name of my pain doctor and then he left. When he came back he said there was no such person listed in the phone book and he threw the phone book down. Then he said there were real patients who needed him and he walked away, leaving me.

I was in agonizing pain. There is a medication called toradol which can be very useful in treating chronic pain. Unfortunately it only works well when it is injected. That is what I wanted. If I had been a tweaker I would have been asking for opiates (which I had at home and I had told the doctor this).

I picked up the phone book and it wasn’t even the right book. Then I got furious and I hobbled out to the desk and told them that they might have at least looked in the correct phone book. They did so and lo and behold, my pain doctor’s name was in it.

Later on the physician apologized and said that he was always running into tweakers so he just assumed I was one. If he had examined me he would have found the 12-inch scar on my back and the 8-inch scar on my abdomen - little reminders of the three back surgeries I have had (and they all failed). I had gone to the ER before with the exact same problem and I was given toradol, just as I requested. I had never had a problem.

It caused quite a furor as the hospital staff believed that pain control was one of their major objectives and they were quite proud of their track record in treating it. They were very surprised that such a thing had happened.

So, I obviously was not at death’s door because I am still alive, typing away. But it was an emergency. I wouldn’t have gone to the ER if it hadn’t been.

I never thought about getting an attorney. I think it’s a grey area and besides, the doctor did apologize and he did order the toradol. But he also turned me away and he insulted me.

I couldn’t stand the pain anymore. I had to stop it.

Again, I am sorry you had to go through this. Please understand your doctor is only human and works in an ER - one of the most stressful jobs you can have. Not that this excuses his actions.

 

[LittleSoldier]

however if we did not have the system we have we would not have many of the advancements in medicine that have resulted in the savings of many more lives around the world.

So are you saying that it is more important to advance medicine in order to save more lives while at the same time a person like Pathia should die? Should Pathia die in order to save 100 lives?

 

[aspawloski4th]

One topic that I have brought up several times is abortion on demand. I’m surprised that nobody else has discussed that and the related possibilities that physicians may feel forced to provide abortions even if they believe it is murder and that Catholic hospitals may actually close their doors to everyone because the government will demand that they provide abortions on demand.

Isn’t this part of the problem with a government run health care program? If I were a physician and I was told that I must provide abortions I would quit. There is no way that I would provide an abortion to anyone, unless it was being done in order to save the mother’s life.

If Catholic hospitals close their doors where are all the sick people going to go? I don’t know how many hospitals in this country are Catholic but I think it is a significant percentage.

Several people have posted that they don’t want the government telling them what to do with their money and I guess the problem of abortion on demand would be a part of this problem, but I don’t understand why Catholics are not more angry about the possibility that our federal and/or state governments will be telling us we have to pay for murder. To me, that is the worst part of a nationalized or state health care plan.

The Catholic hospital in my city is Catholic in name, otherwise it’s just another business. There is no aspect of medical charity to it anymore. If we want our Catholic hospitals to stay Catholic, they must be ran like they are a part of the church, not a business.

 

[wabrams]

I apologize if I have already answered this. I thought I did but I can’t find it so I must not have posted it.

The physician on duty came right out and told me I was a tweaker (he didn’t use that word but that is what he meant). He never examined me. He just looked over at me and said I didn’t need any help. He did ask for the name of my pain doctor and then he left. When he came back he said there was no such person listed in the phone book and he threw the phone book down. Then he said there were real patients who needed him and he walked away, leaving me.

I was in agonizing pain. There is a medication called toradol which can be very useful in treating chronic pain. Unfortunately it only works well when it is injected. That is what I wanted. If I had been a tweaker I would have been asking for opiates (which I had at home and I had told the doctor this).

I picked up the phone book and it wasn’t even the right book. Then I got furious and I hobbled out to the desk and told them that they might have at least looked in the correct phone book. They did so and lo and behold, my pain doctor’s name was in it.

Later on the physician apologized and said that he was always running into tweakers so he just assumed I was one. If he had examined me he would have found the 12-inch scar on my back and the 8-inch scar on my abdomen - little reminders of the three back surgeries I have had (and they all failed). I had gone to the ER before with the exact same problem and I was given toradol, just as I requested. I had never had a problem.

It caused quite a furor as the hospital staff believed that pain control was one of their major objectives and they were quite proud of their track record in treating it. They were very surprised that such a thing had happened.

So, I obviously was not at death’s door because I am still alive, typing away. But it was an emergency. I wouldn’t have gone to the ER if it hadn’t been.

I never thought about getting an attorney. I think it’s a grey area and besides, the doctor did apologize and he did order the toradol. But he also turned me away and he insulted me.

I couldn’t stand the pain anymore. I had to stop it.

Well, even though the doctor thought you were a med seeker, he should have still checked you out. I find what he did as very unethical. I will say this, though: in the future I wouldn’t tell anyone what meds work for you or that you are seeking meds for pain relief until AFTER the doctor exams you. This way they have done an H&P and already understand the situation before getting to pain meds.