Weird Sickness??

[mike1]

It seems like I keep getting fevers at night and can't sleep and get all dizzy and fall down tmy stairs and stuff.. then my fever peaks in the morning and goes away and I feel great... then at night I start feeling weird again and can't sleep and get a terrible fever/vertigo thing ( but I neve throw up).. has anybody ever had a sickness like this? It really suck

Fever can cause the vertigo. Sounds like you could have had a viral infection dude. If you can’t or won’t go to the doctor then get a good book or find some other good online resource. What ever you do, don’t listen to anyone here. We’re climbers not doctors captain!

[TREETOAD]

His mom would have taken him to the hospital if it was serious

[Bug]

When it hurts, cut it off.

[mike1]

You'll only do that once.

[cheamclimber]

When it hurts, cut it off.

It would suck to get a headache

[mattp]

I think it is pretty funny that JayB and others who hate the idea of socialized medicine would seize upon an experience like that reported by CheamClimber to argue that Canadian (socialized) healthcare doesn’t work.

 

The last time I called my doctor for an appointment I couldn’t get a same day appointment either. In fact, the last two doctors I called (one was for a foot issue and the other for back - and both were doctor's I'd seen before) couldn’t see me for a month. Even with a month's notice, the foot doctor canceled and rescheduled the appointment.

 

And the back doctor? I actually think she's a pretty good doctor (that's why I went back), but when I first saw her she definitely ordered expensive tests that would almost certainly make no difference in what she would recommend for treatment. So I paid the deductible and my insurance company paid the big bucks for the "standard of care" when it was completely unjustified.

 

Anyway, in this situation I bet Cheam could have gone to the emergency room, just as any of us can, had he really been scared he was going to die (or just didn't want to wait).

[archenemy]

last month I had a little medical issue that scared me, but not enough to go to the emergency room. I just went to my doc's office first thing in the morning so I was there when they opened up. I told them what was up and that I had to see her today. She made time for me--saw me before her first patient b/c I was there before the first appt.

 

Doctors are people and they really do care about you. They'll do whatever they can to help you. If you have one that doesn't, change doctors and find one who does.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

last month I had a little medical issue that scared me, but not enough to go to the emergency room. I just went to my doc's office first thing in the morning so I was there when they opened up. I told them what was up and that I had to see her today. She made time for me--saw me before her first patient b/c I was there before the first appt.

 

Doctors are people and they really do care about you. They'll do whatever they can to help you. If you have one that doesn't, change doctors and find one who does.

 

I tried to make an appt a few weeks back for a lingering chest infection. They said they had no openings for 3 days. I pressed the issue - they saw me that day.

 

[JayB]

I think it is pretty funny that JayB and others who hate the idea of socialized medicine would seize upon an experience like that reported by CheamClimber to argue that Canadian (socialized) healthcare doesn’t work.

 

The last time I called my doctor for an appointment I couldn’t get a same day appointment either. In fact, the last two doctors I called (one was for a foot issue and the other for back - and both were doctor's I'd seen before) couldn’t see me for a month. Even with a month's notice, the foot doctor canceled and rescheduled the appointment.

 

And the back doctor? I actually think she's a pretty good doctor (that's why I went back), but when I first saw her she definitely ordered expensive tests that would almost certainly make no difference in what she would recommend for treatment. So I paid the deductible and my insurance company paid the big bucks for the "standard of care" when it was completely unjustified.

 

Anyway, in this situation I bet Cheam could have gone to the emergency room, just as any of us can, had he really been scared he was going to die (or just didn't want to wait).

 

I'm all for conducting an experiment in which we socialize medicine, on the condition that we first socialize legal services using the same mechanisms proposed for health care, and see how that goes.

 

As far as your appointment is concerned, what imperative do you think was driving your doctor's decision to order the battery of expensive tests to satisfy the "standard of care," if it wasn't her clinical judgment?

 

 

[rbw1966]

"standard of care" = what I have to do to keep a lawyer from suing the shit out of me.

 

 

[mattp]

I'm all for conducting an experiment in which we socialize medicine, on the condition that we first socialize legal services using the same mechanisms proposed for health care, and see how that goes.

 

What are you talking about JayB? What is this "same mechanism" and how would you think it might be applied? (Or is this just a rhetorical jab?)

 

As far as your appointment is concerned, what imperative do you think was driving your doctor's decision to order the battery of expensive tests to satisfy the "standard of care," if it wasn't her clinical judgment?

 

It was a combination of things that drove those recommendations, I'm sure. In medicine as in the practice of law, and likely even in other professions where the issues may be less "subjective" as well, a lot of what we do is driven by a business model and concerns for "professionalism" that are quite apart from our clients' needs.

 

Attorney's, billing by the hour, frequently seek to raise rather than resolve issues. They bill more for this and they will not later be accused of missing something.

 

I think the same sort of dynamic lies behind doctors' proclivity to order expensive tests even when they will not affect treatment and there is little sign of any of the problems they are used to detect. In my case, muscle spasms in my upper back could have been caused by a problem in the spinal core that would be detected by two series of MRI's, but the treatment was going to consist of anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxers, and physical therapy either way -- and I was already responding to these therapies. The doctor more or less told me the MRI's weren't necessary, but she said it was a good idea to order them "just in case." As I said, I think she's a good doctor and I certainly want my doctor to be careful, but I think the manner in which insurance companies pay for certain treatment protocols and not others, and concerns for liability, and business concerns drive the industry. Order a set of tests and there will be a short follow up visit that is easy to schedule, takes little preparation, requires no expense or supplies, and for which you will never be criticized.

[JayB]

The answer to the first is that "the mechanism" would be whatever combination of taxation and centralized administration that the proponents of single payer health-care dream up - and then apply it to attorneys.

 

In the second case, since I've been privy to several hundred hours of off-the-record gossip by all kinds of doctors, I can tell you that most of them dream of a world where they can exercise independent clinical judgment and only order those tests that they think are necessary - but since that's not the world we live in, they do what they need to do in order to avoid being sued.

 

I don't think that this is an altogether bad thing, as I've said before that I think that the prospect of liability in the event of malpractice is important. I also think that it's also made things more expensive - not necessarily because of higher premiums - but because the manner in which malpractice claims are adjudicated is such that there are more incentives to cover your ass by ordering a battery of tests than there are to restrict the testing to what you deem medically necessary.

 

I personally think that you could align the incentives of doctors and patients much more effectively under a (progressively subsidized) high-deductible scheme, where patients both pay for and have final say over which tests they opt for. I'm convinced that would diminish some of the distortions that arise from concerns over malpractice liability and from the compensation schemes administered by insurance companies.

[mattp]

Ah. The answer to “the first” is complete dookie. You DID just offer that as a rhetorical jab.

 

And the second point? How could I have overlooked the obvious. Everything that is wrong with medicine in America is due first and foremost to the “medical malpractice crisis” and the fact that doctor's try to see as many as possible patients in as short as possible appointments and a simple treatment for a sprained ankle is likely to result in three follow up appointments is all due to this and has nothing to do with trying to make money either. Thanks for clearing that up.

[JayB]

I'd be interested in hearing why you think it's a good idea for medicine, and a bad idea for legal services.

 

I think you've misread the second portion of my post. I think that the incentives at work in the medical system are such that medical decisions are significantly distorted by considerations centering around the following questions. "What will prevent a lawsuit?," and "what will the insurance companies pay for?"

 

I think that the model I've proposed has the potential to reduce the extent to which either distortion enters into the medical decision-making process, at least for non-catastrophic situations.

[rbw1966]

I think that the model I've proposed has the potential to reduce the extent to which either distortion enters into the medical decision-making process, at least for non-catastrophic situations.

 

I think the biggest problem with your proposed model is you assume the average patient can be an arbiter of what tests/treatments he or she might need to treat their malady. We go to the doctor precisely because we do NOT know how to do that. We do not know what we do not know and if a doctor omits a critical test/procedure from the list of options presented to us is he somehow now free from liability because we made our own decisions?

[mattp]

I'd be interested in hearing why you think it's a good idea for medicine, and a bad idea for legal services.

You have set forth no idea that I could say is good or bad. Do you mean the abstract concept of single payor services, or managed care or whatever it is that you imagine I would recommend for the medical industry? At the most abstract level I suppose that without really thinking about it I'd guess there would probably be more benefit in "socialized" criminal defense than most of the other things that attorney's do, but I can't really talk to your straw man unless you stand him up first.

 

I think you've misread the second portion of my post

As to the “second point,” you need only read my posts above to see that I agree that medical decisions are significantly distorted by considerations for liability exposure and the reimbursement mechanisms imposed by insurance companies. They are also, in my view, distorted by the drive to maximize income. Maybe you agree?

[Hugh Conway]

I think that the model I've proposed has the potential to reduce the extent to which either distortion enters into the medical decision-making process, at least for non-catastrophic situations.

 

I think the biggest problem with your proposed model is you assume the average patient can be an arbiter of what tests/treatments he or she might need to treat their malady. We go to the doctor precisely because we do NOT know how to do that. We do not know what we do not know and if a doctor omits a critical test/procedure from the list of options presented to us is he somehow now free from liability because we made our own decisions?

 

Well duh - this is about corporatism. What the corporation does for itself will trickle down and benefit you, eventually, maybe.

[mattp]

Another problem I see with it, RBW, is that people who are cheap or maybe genuinely cannot afford it will continue to make poor decisions and likely end up costing either themselves (if they have money) or society (if they don't) more in the long run.

[JayB]

I think that the model I've proposed has the potential to reduce the extent to which either distortion enters into the medical decision-making process, at least for non-catastrophic situations.

 

I think the biggest problem with your proposed model is you assume the average patient can be an arbiter of what tests/treatments he or she might need to treat their malady. We go to the doctor precisely because we do NOT know how to do that. We do not know what we do not know and if a doctor omits a critical test/procedure from the list of options presented to us is he somehow now free from liability because we made our own decisions?

 

I guess what I envision isn't a situation where the doctor withholds any information about his diagnosis, or omits any tests and procedures from the list that he or she presents to the patient - or withholds any advice concerning what he or she thinks the best course of action is, why he or she thinks that the tests are necessary, etc.

 

I don't think that this is terribly different than what happens today, except that the patient gains more control, and considerations centering on legal liability and what the insurance company will pay for become less significant.

 

I'd love to expand on this a bit more, but I have an appointment of my own to get to...

[JayB]

Another problem I see with it, RBW, is that people who are cheap or maybe genuinely cannot afford it will continue to make poor decisions and likely end up costing either themselves (if they have money) or society (if they don't) more in the long run.

 

I think that there are incentive structures that would minimize these problems, but I'll have to leave that for later.

 

I certainly wouldn't deny that doctors take making a living into account, but I also think that a patient centered model would align the incentives of doctors and patients more closely than the current insurance-driven model.

[rbw1966]

Again, my problem with a "patient-driven model" is that a patient isn't always the best arbiter of what they need. I am not saying a doctor would "withhold" critical information but rather that a doctor may forget, misdiagnose, etc.

 

What do you do in the case of a hypochondriac who wants all kinds of ridiculous tests that have little or no benefit?

[G-spotter]

Only on cc.com would the resident blowhards take a 15 yr old kid's clueless spray posting about sickness and turn it into a yawn-inducing rhetorical circle jerk about medical service funding and delivery models.

 

Holy fuck! save it for C-SPAN

[cheamclimber]

I think this is the most responses Ive got on a thread of mine... I think I got 5 or so real answers... I guess it is cc tho

[tomtom]

You feel better, dontcha?

 

Our work here is done.