Guest guest Posted June 25, 2001 Report Share Posted June 25, 2001 Medical studies are overseen by the FAA? Isn't that the agency that governs airlines? I'm sure he meant the FDA, but this and other typos indicate that this doctor didn't even bother to proofread his response to your concerns. I'd say can him and find a better doctor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2001 Report Share Posted June 25, 2001 I think it is time to find another pediatrician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2001 Report Share Posted June 25, 2001 It sounds to me that your doctor just doesn't " get it " when it comes to mercury in vaccines. He only addresses the vaccine, and not the mercury preservative. I am assuming that is because of the report you sent him? You may have to just agree to disagree. So long as he will comply with your wishes, it's not harming anyone. Or, maybe you'd feel more comfortable finding another pediatrician? You can't change people unless they want to be changed, and he's obviously firmly rooted in his opinions on this issue. And, by the way, autism isn't a " mental " disease. It's neurological. That comment right there shows me how little the doctor really knows. Missy Princess Shelby's Mom > The following is an e-mail I sent to our Pediatrician and his response. Can > anyone give me some good comebacks to this. I'm so sick of his ignorance and > " I'm never wrong " attitude. > > Dr. Bahan, > > Could you please read this and forward it to your assistant. I understand > where you guys are coming from but to give me the cold shoulder because I > care so much for my kids and am trying to do what's best for them is wrong. > Until any of you have walked a mile in my shoes, you'll never understand the > pain and heartache we've all been through. Since has a much higher > chance of developing autism, how can I not take every measure to prevent > this. She may be getting her vaccines slower than other children but at least > she is getting them. I have talked to so many Pediatricians, > Anesthesiologists, and other doctors who also have children with Autism. They > all agree that we're giving too many vaccines to these tiny infants whose > immune system isn't fully developed yet. I don't take this subject lightly > and do nothing but research everything before I make my decisions. I blindly > gave Hunter all his vaccines and in doing this injected him with so much > mercury that if he does indeed have a defect in metallothionein proteins that > we talked about, then his body had no way to eliminate it. Why is Dr. Holmes > having such a high success rate? She was actually the one to tell me to go > get 's Hib shot immediately and she believes she should have all of her > vaccines, including the MMR (separately) but to just space them out. I beg > you to both read the following because it sums it all up. > * I sent the speech from Dr. Yazbak* > Sincerely, > JoAnne Pike > > Here's his reply: > > I appologize for anything that Trilla may have said which was offensive, > and I sympathize with your pain, that is why I attempt to follow your wishes > unless it is something that truly clashes with my ethical duties. > Unfortunately, you continue to believe unreliable sources and completely > rebute every credible bit of science. Some of your sources are well meaning > but misguided by what is turning into the religion or autism and the evils > of everything. Others, such as many of the labs are less than ethical in > that they perform test that they know are less than credible. But let me > answer some of Dr. Yazbak's auestion. By the way, he is the only pediatric > infectious disease specialist I have ever heard with this view, and I know > many. It is safe to say that he is in the <1%of pediatricians and > subspecialist with this view. > > 1. 6 children per day because the california has a high birth rate. > 2. everybody looks at autism seriously. Like most mental diseases it is > difficult to study. > 3. The fda follows the CDC, AAP, AMA ,and every other physician > organization in promoting vaccinations they follow our recomendations. > 4.Most vaccines take at least 10 years to approve. Lice shampoos tend to > use a known toxic chemical called lidane which if absorbed can be > catastrophic > 5.epidemics are reported when they occur. strep pneumo has been a problem > for 30 years. > 6.all vaccines undergo extensive safety studies similiar to any new > medication.the final stage of the rotavirus study took 4 years. > 7. all medication studies are financed by the company making the drug. > these studies are strictly controled by the FAA and are usually perfomed at > major medical centers by the top phisicians in the field such as MUSC, DUKE, > MAYO CLINIC > 8.By definition, the safety studies are made to show that a vaccine does > not cause any illness. > 9. We only give vaccines together that we prove work equally well > together. the reason is obvious...fewer injections and the children get > protected sooner. > 10. to prevent epidemics. By the way, there are very few if any live > vaccines used anymore > 11. This is the question which shows the most ignorance. The immune system > gets a bigger workout sucking on the pacifier that fell on the floor than > from an immunization. Immunizations trigger a natural response in the body > in a natural way so that the immune system will recognize the offending > agent when seen. Maybe it would be better to let the children catch > pertussis and if they live they will be immune. > 12.because it is much more cost effective to repeat the vaccination. in > addition, many of theose 95% will lose immunity by 20 and will need a repeat > anyway. That is why in about 1990 we started giving the second MMR. > 13. Because we are trying to prevent children from getting life threating > illnesses. > 14. We don't have any new immune diseases. The numbers have been compatable > for decades. > 15. We have proved again and again that they don't cause Autism. How many > times to we have to prove the earth is round. > 16. there still is no addequate treatment for Autism. A better question is > why tdon't those who proport to have the answere perform a randomized trial > instead of depending on testimonial which are historically inaccurate > ...remember laitril > > Think about these as you read . I hope all goes well with > Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2001 Report Share Posted June 26, 2001 Here's my 2 cents (and it probably isn't worth THAT). Your doctor's personal views are not important as long as they don't interfear with the treatment of your child. I have made it a point, from past experience, not to get in debates with the " professionals " I have to deal with for the benefit of my son. Whatever your child's doc wants to believe doesn't help or hurt in the big picture if you have another source for help and information (like this wonderful board . Obviously if you have trouble getting what you need from this guy, it's time to change doctors. It isn't worth your breath to try to change views. Best of luck, Kaye > The following is an e-mail I sent to our Pediatrician and his response. Can > anyone give me some good comebacks to this. I'm so sick of his ignorance and > " I'm never wrong " attitude. > > Dr. Bahan, > > Could you please read this and forward it to your assistant. I understand > where you guys are coming from but to give me the cold shoulder because I > care so much for my kids and am trying to do what's best for them is wrong. > Until any of you have walked a mile in my shoes, you'll never understand the > pain and heartache we've all been through. Since has a much higher > chance of developing autism, how can I not take every measure to prevent > this. She may be getting her vaccines slower than other children but at least > she is getting them. I have talked to so many Pediatricians, > Anesthesiologists, and other doctors who also have children with Autism. They > all agree that we're giving too many vaccines to these tiny infants whose > immune system isn't fully developed yet. I don't take this subject lightly > and do nothing but research everything before I make my decisions. I blindly > gave Hunter all his vaccines and in doing this injected him with so much > mercury that if he does indeed have a defect in metallothionein proteins that > we talked about, then his body had no way to eliminate it. Why is Dr. Holmes > having such a high success rate? She was actually the one to tell me to go > get 's Hib shot immediately and she believes she should have all of her > vaccines, including the MMR (separately) but to just space them out. I beg > you to both read the following because it sums it all up. > * I sent the speech from Dr. Yazbak* > Sincerely, > JoAnne Pike > > Here's his reply: > > I appologize for anything that Trilla may have said which was offensive, > and I sympathize with your pain, that is why I attempt to follow your wishes > unless it is something that truly clashes with my ethical duties. > Unfortunately, you continue to believe unreliable sources and completely > rebute every credible bit of science. Some of your sources are well meaning > but misguided by what is turning into the religion or autism and the evils > of everything. Others, such as many of the labs are less than ethical in > that they perform test that they know are less than credible. But let me > answer some of Dr. Yazbak's auestion. By the way, he is the only pediatric > infectious disease specialist I have ever heard with this view, and I know > many. It is safe to say that he is in the <1%of pediatricians and > subspecialist with this view. > > 1. 6 children per day because the california has a high birth rate. > 2. everybody looks at autism seriously. Like most mental diseases it is > difficult to study. > 3. The fda follows the CDC, AAP, AMA ,and every other physician > organization in promoting vaccinations they follow our recomendations. > 4.Most vaccines take at least 10 years to approve. Lice shampoos tend to > use a known toxic chemical called lidane which if absorbed can be > catastrophic > 5.epidemics are reported when they occur. strep pneumo has been a problem > for 30 years. > 6.all vaccines undergo extensive safety studies similiar to any new > medication.the final stage of the rotavirus study took 4 years. > 7. all medication studies are financed by the company making the drug. > these studies are strictly controled by the FAA and are usually perfomed at > major medical centers by the top phisicians in the field such as MUSC, DUKE, > MAYO CLINIC > 8.By definition, the safety studies are made to show that a vaccine does > not cause any illness. > 9. We only give vaccines together that we prove work equally well > together. the reason is obvious...fewer injections and the children get > protected sooner. > 10. to prevent epidemics. By the way, there are very few if any live > vaccines used anymore > 11. This is the question which shows the most ignorance. The immune system > gets a bigger workout sucking on the pacifier that fell on the floor than > from an immunization. Immunizations trigger a natural response in the body > in a natural way so that the immune system will recognize the offending > agent when seen. Maybe it would be better to let the children catch > pertussis and if they live they will be immune. > 12.because it is much more cost effective to repeat the vaccination. in > addition, many of theose 95% will lose immunity by 20 and will need a repeat > anyway. That is why in about 1990 we started giving the second MMR. > 13. Because we are trying to prevent children from getting life threating > illnesses. > 14. We don't have any new immune diseases. The numbers have been compatable > for decades. > 15. We have proved again and again that they don't cause Autism. How many > times to we have to prove the earth is round. > 16. there still is no addequate treatment for Autism. A better question is > why tdon't those who proport to have the answere perform a randomized trial > instead of depending on testimonial which are historically inaccurate > ...remember laitril > > Think about these as you read . I hope all goes well with > Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2001 Report Share Posted June 26, 2001 Dear JoAnne, I imagine this must be a difficult situation to be in. There are so many issues intertwined, both in your note to Dr. Bahan, and in his reply, that it seems hard to even begin. I guess I'll just say that I feel for your frustration, and that the issues involved seem " complex " . If you would like more detailed commerntary, write me off the list. The item I would be most prone to address is #15. He is incorrect. Studies have failed to prove a connection. That is not logically the same as proving that there is NOT a connection. An important distinction in this case. If a study were to try to prove there is NO connection it would have to be quite a different study. Failure to prove an idea true does not prove it false. For #16, if you are willing to go to some trouble, you might give him some of the reasons, including maybe asking Dr. Amy about why. I think there are some reasonable reasons, such as that one cannot actually do a " randomized trial " on an individualized treatment like chelation; that studies take time and money, and have to be funded by someone; and that the people involved are more interested in helping kids that in " proving it " to skeptics who are unlikely to be swayed in any case. best wishes and good luck! Moria >15. We have proved again and again that they don't cause Autism. How many >times to we have to prove the earth is round. >16. there still is no addequate treatment for Autism. A better question is >why tdon't those who proport to have the answere perform a randomized trial >instead of depending on testimonial which are historically inaccurate >...remember laitril Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2001 Report Share Posted June 27, 2001 >It is because we are so unwilling to veer from the road well traveled that >orthodox medicine continues to thrive and treat its customers so badly. I >believe that when we give up our money to insurance companies, we have also >given up our consumer power. We have at that time abdicated our power. The >insurance company calls all the shots.... In more ways than one, they pay 'bonuses' to docs who push their vax poison! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 Of course you are right! I can't tell you how many times I have suggested a " natural " doc to people, only to have them ask, " sounds good, but will they be on my insurance plan? " And frankly, I cringe when I hear it. I feel like they are saying that money is more important than their child's (and their own) health. First of all, they don't have a clue as to how much LESS money they will end up spending in the long run. They seem to conveniently forget about their co-pays and that which treatment/tests they will receive depends on the latest game that the HMO is playing with the doc as their pawn. They forget that insurance will not cover alot of things so they will end up paying out-of-pocket anyway. Many don't even bother to investigate the costs of natural docs. My naturopath is so reasonably priced that I worry about him being able to stay in business. And trust me, I'm not rich. Don't even consider myself comfortable because every month the bills are such a struggle. But I FIND the money because my child's good health is priceless to me. I will not allow insurance companies to dictate how healthy my family will be. In my estimation, the only thing insurance is good for is trauma care. Kathleen In a message dated 6/28/2001 1:16:39 AM Central Daylight Time, georgic@... writes: > The " love affair with the MD " as you stated is " HEALTH INSURANCE " and " PAID > PRESCRIPTIONS for DRUGS " . Naturopaths and Homeopaths need to be paid " out > of pocket " .. Most folks don't have that $$$.. Take it from a homeopath who > is trying to eke out a living in an alternative healthcare practice. People > are " brainwashed " into believing that they need the MD pediatrician.. Maybe > one of the parents wants the alternative and the other is fighting " tooth > and nail " to stay with the conventional physician... " If homeopathy was so > good, why don't the MDs all use it " , is often the rebuttal of the parent who > feels that the other parent is " grasping at straws " . " Why do you believe > everything that you read against vaccines or drug therapies.... How bad can > an vaccine....antibiotic...Tylenol...really be... You are being > ridiculous...Don't experiment with my children!!!! " These were the mantras > of my husband as I was studying homeopathy and the dangers of vaccines. I > have fought long and hard in my own family to get my husband, my parents and > in-laws to let me treat me children as I felt was a valid medical practice. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <HolisticMomma@...> > > > > I don't get it. Why do people put themselves through this angst? Why not > > just find a doctor who actually wants his customers to be healthy? Find a > > doctor who is not reimbursed by the HMOs according to how high his vax > rate > > is. Why not hire a Naturopath physician as your pediatrician? What is > this > > love affair with the MD? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 I take huge offense at this. You imply that simply asking about insurance coverage means I care more about my wallet than my kids. You are wrong. Why should a question about insurance make you cringe? Seems like a reasonable question to me. In fact, it's one I've been asking all over town for a few weeks now as I'm eager to dump our pediatrician and my doctor, too. It does not mean I think money is more important than our health. It means I have financial limits and I can't live my life with a money-is-no-object attitude. I've heard the same argument made about organic foods: " You can't afford NOT to buy it. " " Sure, it's expensive, but what is your health worth? " " It'll save you money on medical expenses in the long run. " That's great, and may be true, but I really can't afford to drop big bucks I don't have, so we don't buy exclusively organics. All I can do is the best I can within my budget. And yes, I've checked into the cost of alternative health care. Here's the info from a holistic practice in my city: " The fee for holistic health consultation is $200/hour. The first visit is usually about an hour and a half, with follow-up visits lasting about 30 minutes. This fee does not include the cost of diagnostic testing, additional treatments, or products. Depending on the type of testing recommended, the cost could range from $100-$495. " So, for my family of five's initial visit, I'm looking at $300 (90 minutes at $200/hour) times five people, or $1,500. If I had $1,500 to spend I'd get the car repaired, or have the crumbling siding fixed on my house, or add it to my retirement fund. Plus, even if I did choose a doctor who didn't accept insurance, I'd still have to pay those insurance premiums because I do want coverage in case we end up in the emergency room for stitches or injuries from a car wreck or something. ---- Original Message ----- From: HolisticMomma@... Vaccinations Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:59 PM Subject: Re: Doctor's Comments Of course you are right! I can't tell you how many times I have suggested a " natural " doc to people, only to have them ask, " sounds good, but will they be on my insurance plan? " And frankly, I cringe when I hear it. I feel like they are saying that money is more important than their child's (and their own) health. First of all, they don't have a clue as to how much LESS money they will end up spending in the long run. They seem to conveniently forget about their co-pays and that which treatment/tests they will receive depends on the latest game that the HMO is playing with the doc as their pawn. They forget that insurance will not cover alot of things so they will end up paying out-of-pocket anyway. Many don't even bother to investigate the costs of natural docs. My naturopath is so reasonably priced that I worry about him being able to stay in business. And trust me, I'm not rich. Don't even consider myself comfortable because every month the bills are such a struggle. But I FIND the money because my child's good health is priceless to me. I will not allow insurance companies to dictate how healthy my family will be. In my estimation, the only thing insurance is good for is trauma care. Kathleen In a message dated 6/28/2001 1:16:39 AM Central Daylight Time, georgic@... writes: > The " love affair with the MD " as you stated is " HEALTH INSURANCE " and " PAID > PRESCRIPTIONS for DRUGS " . Naturopaths and Homeopaths need to be paid " out > of pocket " .. Most folks don't have that $$$.. Take it from a homeopath who > is trying to eke out a living in an alternative healthcare practice. People > are " brainwashed " into believing that they need the MD pediatrician.. Maybe > one of the parents wants the alternative and the other is fighting " tooth > and nail " to stay with the conventional physician... " If homeopathy was so > good, why don't the MDs all use it " , is often the rebuttal of the parent who > feels that the other parent is " grasping at straws " . " Why do you believe > everything that you read against vaccines or drug therapies.... How bad can > an vaccine....antibiotic...Tylenol...really be... You are being > ridiculous...Don't experiment with my children!!!! " These were the mantras > of my husband as I was studying homeopathy and the dangers of vaccines. I > have fought long and hard in my own family to get my husband, my parents and > in-laws to let me treat me children as I felt was a valid medical practice. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <HolisticMomma@...> > > > > I don't get it. Why do people put themselves through this angst? Why not > > just find a doctor who actually wants his customers to be healthy? Find a > > doctor who is not reimbursed by the HMOs according to how high his vax > rate > > is. Why not hire a Naturopath physician as your pediatrician? What is > this > > love affair with the MD? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 My point is that do we not then lose the right to complain about how badly we are treated by the orthodox health care system when we fail to seek affordable alternatives? I do tire of moms complaining to me about how unfairly or how badly they were treated by their MDs or how the insurance won't reimburse them or cover a particular treatment. And isn't it just a little too easy to claim that one is too poor when all that may be involved is buying a homeopathy book and buying a $5 remedy to drive illness from the body rather than paying a $5 copay and being told to give your child some powerful drug (which will probably involve another copay) to simply treat a symptom and mask what is truly causing the illness? It is because we are so unwilling to veer from the road well traveled that orthodox medicine continues to thrive and treat its customers so badly. I believe that when we give up our money to insurance companies, we have also given up our consumer power. We have at that time abdicated our power. The insurance company calls all the shots and makes all the ridiculous rules. While I do not advocate not having insurance, it truly is a necessity, however, it is up to us to seek affordable alternatives to maintain health and cure (not mask) various ailments. Just because something is easy does not make it worthwhile. Where there is a will, there is a way. Kathleen In a message dated 6/28/2001 7:33:48 PM Central Daylight Time, brittgower@... writes: > , > I agree with you 100%. I have such great coverage that we get for > free through hubby's work that the meager copays of $5 make it easy > to afford. We are poor and are currently draining our savings. I > don't have one spare cent to spend on alternative care that is not > covered. I want desperately to find alternative care, but it's just > not in the cards for us either. I feel the same about organics as > well...I buy some organics but not all as it would double my grocery > bill each month. Do what you can and don't worry about what others > think...there is always going to be someone who doesn't think that > what you do is good enough. I try to remember that as a mantra to > myself. > > Britt, SAHM to (4 - partially vaxed) and Alison and Casey (vax > free) > > > > I take huge offense at this. You imply that simply asking about > insurance coverage means I care more about my wallet than my kids. > You are wrong. > > > > Why should a question about insurance make you cringe? Seems like a > reasonable question to me. In fact, it's one I've been asking all > over town for a few weeks now as I'm eager to dump our pediatrician > and my doctor, too. It does not mean I think money is more important > than our health. It means I have financial limits and I can't live my > life with a money-is-no-object attitude. > > > > I've heard the same argument made about organic foods: " You can't > afford NOT to buy it. " " Sure, it's expensive, but what is your > health worth? " " It'll save you money on medical expenses in the long > run. " That's great, and may be true, but I really can't afford to > drop big bucks I don't have, so we don't buy exclusively organics. > All I can do is the best I can within my budget. > > > > And yes, I've checked into the cost of alternative health care. > Here's the info from a holistic practice in my city: > > > > " The fee for holistic health consultation is $200/hour. The first > visit is usually about an hour and a half, with follow-up visits > lasting about 30 minutes. This fee does not include the cost of > diagnostic testing, additional treatments, or products. Depending on > the type of testing recommended, the cost could range from $100-$495. " > > > > So, for my family of five's initial visit, I'm looking at $300 (90 > minutes at $200/hour) times five people, or $1,500. If I had $1,500 > to spend I'd get the car repaired, or have the crumbling siding fixed > on my house, or add it to my retirement fund. Plus, even if I did > choose a doctor who didn't accept insurance, I'd still have to pay > those insurance premiums because I do want coverage in case we end up > in the emergency room for stitches or injuries from a car wreck or > something. > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----- > > From: HolisticMomma@a... > > Vaccinations@y... > > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:59 PM > > Subject: Re: Doctor's Comments > > > > > > Of course you are right! I can't tell you how many times I have > suggested a > > " natural " doc to people, only to have them ask, " sounds good, but > will they > > be on my insurance plan? " And frankly, I cringe when I hear it. > I feel like > > they are saying that money is more important than their child's > (and their > > own) health. > > > > First of all, they don't have a clue as to how much LESS money > they will end > > up spending in the long run. They seem to conveniently forget > about their > > co-pays and that which treatment/tests they will receive depends > on the > > latest game that the HMO is playing with the doc as their pawn. > They forget > > that insurance will not cover alot of things so they will end up > paying > > out-of-pocket anyway. > > > > Many don't even bother to investigate the costs of natural docs. > My > > naturopath is so reasonably priced that I worry about him being > able to stay > > in business. And trust me, I'm not rich. Don't even consider > myself > > comfortable because every month the bills are such a struggle. > But I FIND > > the money because my child's good health is priceless to me. I > will not > > allow insurance companies to dictate how healthy my family will > be. In my > > estimation, the only thing insurance is good for is trauma care. > > > > Kathleen > > > > In a message dated 6/28/2001 1:16:39 AM Central Daylight Time, > > georgic@s... writes: > > > > > > > The " love affair with the MD " as you stated is " HEALTH > INSURANCE " and " PAID > > > PRESCRIPTIONS for DRUGS " . Naturopaths and Homeopaths need to > be paid " out > > > of pocket " .. Most folks don't have that $$$.. Take it from a > homeopath who > > > is trying to eke out a living in an alternative healthcare > practice. People > > > are " brainwashed " into believing that they need the MD > pediatrician.. Maybe > > > one of the parents wants the alternative and the other is > fighting " tooth > > > and nail " to stay with the conventional physician... " If > homeopathy was so > > > good, why don't the MDs all use it " , is often the rebuttal of > the parent who > > > feels that the other parent is " grasping at straws " . " Why do > you believe > > > everything that you read against vaccines or drug therapies.... > How bad can > > > an vaccine....antibiotic...Tylenol...really be... You are being > > > ridiculous...Don't experiment with my children!!!! " These were > the mantras > > > of my husband as I was studying homeopathy and the dangers of > vaccines. I > > > have fought long and hard in my own family to get my husband, > my parents and > > > in-laws to let me treat me children as I felt was a valid > medical practice. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: <HolisticMomma@a...> > > > > > > > > > > I don't get it. Why do people put themselves through this > angst? Why not > > > > just find a doctor who actually wants his customers to be > healthy? Find a > > > > doctor who is not reimbursed by the HMOs according to how > high his vax > > > rate > > > > is. Why not hire a Naturopath physician as your > pediatrician? What is > > > this > > > > love affair with the MD? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 , I agree with you 100%. I have such great coverage that we get for free through hubby's work that the meager copays of $5 make it easy to afford. We are poor and are currently draining our savings. I don't have one spare cent to spend on alternative care that is not covered. I want desperately to find alternative care, but it's just not in the cards for us either. I feel the same about organics as well...I buy some organics but not all as it would double my grocery bill each month. Do what you can and don't worry about what others think...there is always going to be someone who doesn't think that what you do is good enough. I try to remember that as a mantra to myself. Britt, SAHM to (4 - partially vaxed) and Alison and Casey (vax free) > I take huge offense at this. You imply that simply asking about insurance coverage means I care more about my wallet than my kids. You are wrong. > > Why should a question about insurance make you cringe? Seems like a reasonable question to me. In fact, it's one I've been asking all over town for a few weeks now as I'm eager to dump our pediatrician and my doctor, too. It does not mean I think money is more important than our health. It means I have financial limits and I can't live my life with a money-is-no-object attitude. > > I've heard the same argument made about organic foods: " You can't afford NOT to buy it. " " Sure, it's expensive, but what is your health worth? " " It'll save you money on medical expenses in the long run. " That's great, and may be true, but I really can't afford to drop big bucks I don't have, so we don't buy exclusively organics. All I can do is the best I can within my budget. > > And yes, I've checked into the cost of alternative health care. Here's the info from a holistic practice in my city: > > " The fee for holistic health consultation is $200/hour. The first visit is usually about an hour and a half, with follow-up visits lasting about 30 minutes. This fee does not include the cost of diagnostic testing, additional treatments, or products. Depending on the type of testing recommended, the cost could range from $100-$495. " > > So, for my family of five's initial visit, I'm looking at $300 (90 minutes at $200/hour) times five people, or $1,500. If I had $1,500 to spend I'd get the car repaired, or have the crumbling siding fixed on my house, or add it to my retirement fund. Plus, even if I did choose a doctor who didn't accept insurance, I'd still have to pay those insurance premiums because I do want coverage in case we end up in the emergency room for stitches or injuries from a car wreck or something. > > > > ---- Original Message ----- > From: HolisticMomma@a... > Vaccinations@y... > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:59 PM > Subject: Re: Doctor's Comments > > > Of course you are right! I can't tell you how many times I have suggested a > " natural " doc to people, only to have them ask, " sounds good, but will they > be on my insurance plan? " And frankly, I cringe when I hear it. I feel like > they are saying that money is more important than their child's (and their > own) health. > > First of all, they don't have a clue as to how much LESS money they will end > up spending in the long run. They seem to conveniently forget about their > co-pays and that which treatment/tests they will receive depends on the > latest game that the HMO is playing with the doc as their pawn. They forget > that insurance will not cover alot of things so they will end up paying > out-of-pocket anyway. > > Many don't even bother to investigate the costs of natural docs. My > naturopath is so reasonably priced that I worry about him being able to stay > in business. And trust me, I'm not rich. Don't even consider myself > comfortable because every month the bills are such a struggle. But I FIND > the money because my child's good health is priceless to me. I will not > allow insurance companies to dictate how healthy my family will be. In my > estimation, the only thing insurance is good for is trauma care. > > Kathleen > > In a message dated 6/28/2001 1:16:39 AM Central Daylight Time, > georgic@s... writes: > > > > The " love affair with the MD " as you stated is " HEALTH INSURANCE " and " PAID > > PRESCRIPTIONS for DRUGS " . Naturopaths and Homeopaths need to be paid " out > > of pocket " .. Most folks don't have that $$$.. Take it from a homeopath who > > is trying to eke out a living in an alternative healthcare practice. People > > are " brainwashed " into believing that they need the MD pediatrician.. Maybe > > one of the parents wants the alternative and the other is fighting " tooth > > and nail " to stay with the conventional physician... " If homeopathy was so > > good, why don't the MDs all use it " , is often the rebuttal of the parent who > > feels that the other parent is " grasping at straws " . " Why do you believe > > everything that you read against vaccines or drug therapies.... How bad can > > an vaccine....antibiotic...Tylenol...really be... You are being > > ridiculous...Don't experiment with my children!!!! " These were the mantras > > of my husband as I was studying homeopathy and the dangers of vaccines. I > > have fought long and hard in my own family to get my husband, my parents and > > in-laws to let me treat me children as I felt was a valid medical practice. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <HolisticMomma@a...> > > > > > > > I don't get it. Why do people put themselves through this angst? Why not > > > just find a doctor who actually wants his customers to be healthy? Find a > > > doctor who is not reimbursed by the HMOs according to how high his vax > > rate > > > is. Why not hire a Naturopath physician as your pediatrician? What is > > this > > > love affair with the MD? > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 Kathleen: " First of all, they don't have a clue as to how much LESS money they will end up spending in the long run. They seem to conveniently forget about their co-pays and that which treatment/tests they will receive depends on the latest game that the HMO is playing with the doc as their pawn. They forget that insurance will not cover alot of things so they will end up paying out-of-pocket anyway. " I couldn't agree with Kathleen moore. I think the best way to go is to have a conventional insurance policy that covers hospitalization only. That way you won't be facing financial ruin should something untoward occur and a family member would have to be hospitalized. As an example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield charges a bit over $100 per month for a family of four. A conventional policy through dh's job would have cost us much much more, and we would have been paying for coverage for services that we don't use, such as " well-baby checkups " , vaccines etc. Then use cash to pay for a homeopath, naturopath or whatever your practitioner of choice may be. Many conventional practitioners will also give patients who pay cash a good discount. Lilian, Chicago, IL _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 Kathleen, I understand what you are saying. On some of your points I agree with you. But I think it is very unfair of you to characterize those of us who have less money as inept budgeters who would pinch pennies at the expense of our children's health. You concede that insurance is necessary, but also chastise us for giving our money to insurance companies. I can't let my family go without insurance coverage; I think that would be irresponsible. (What if I get hit by a bread truck?) At the same time, those premiums add up and make us less able to afford other alternatives. So when I say I don't have extra cash, I mean I simply don't have it. That doesn't mean I'm spending frivolously while forcing my children to do without cheaper and better care. I think in your example you're comparing the worst-case MD scenario to the best-case homeopathic scenario. If homeopathy is really that simple, why do we need professional homeopaths at all? We all have competing needs and limited resources. Yes, I should be fully funding my IRA, saving for my children's education, saving for a new car (our old one is falling apart), buying organic, supporting only socially responsible companies, and changing my oil every 3,000 miles, all while paying the mortgage. Am I doing all these things? No. Are you? If so, good for you. I wish I had your income. The safest place for a child is in the center of the back seat; I have three carseats in the back of my little car. Am I a bad mom to the kids who aren't in the center? I don't think so. Telling me " where there is a will, there's a way " does not help me at all. Re: Doctor's Comments > > > > > > Of course you are right! I can't tell you how many times I have > suggested a > > " natural " doc to people, only to have them ask, " sounds good, but > will they > > be on my insurance plan? " And frankly, I cringe when I hear it. > I feel like > > they are saying that money is more important than their child's > (and their > > own) health. > > > > First of all, they don't have a clue as to how much LESS money > they will end > > up spending in the long run. They seem to conveniently forget > about their > > co-pays and that which treatment/tests they will receive depends > on the > > latest game that the HMO is playing with the doc as their pawn. > They forget > > that insurance will not cover alot of things so they will end up > paying > > out-of-pocket anyway. > > > > Many don't even bother to investigate the costs of natural docs. > My > > naturopath is so reasonably priced that I worry about him being > able to stay > > in business. And trust me, I'm not rich. Don't even consider > myself > > comfortable because every month the bills are such a struggle. > But I FIND > > the money because my child's good health is priceless to me. I > will not > > allow insurance companies to dictate how healthy my family will > be. In my > > estimation, the only thing insurance is good for is trauma care. > > > > Kathleen > > > > In a message dated 6/28/2001 1:16:39 AM Central Daylight Time, > > georgic@s... writes: > > > > > > > The " love affair with the MD " as you stated is " HEALTH > INSURANCE " and " PAID > > > PRESCRIPTIONS for DRUGS " . Naturopaths and Homeopaths need to > be paid " out > > > of pocket " .. Most folks don't have that $$$.. Take it from a > homeopath who > > > is trying to eke out a living in an alternative healthcare > practice. People > > > are " brainwashed " into believing that they need the MD > pediatrician.. Maybe > > > one of the parents wants the alternative and the other is > fighting " tooth > > > and nail " to stay with the conventional physician... " If > homeopathy was so > > > good, why don't the MDs all use it " , is often the rebuttal of > the parent who > > > feels that the other parent is " grasping at straws " . " Why do > you believe > > > everything that you read against vaccines or drug therapies.... > How bad can > > > an vaccine....antibiotic...Tylenol...really be... You are being > > > ridiculous...Don't experiment with my children!!!! " These were > the mantras > > > of my husband as I was studying homeopathy and the dangers of > vaccines. I > > > have fought long and hard in my own family to get my husband, > my parents and > > > in-laws to let me treat me children as I felt was a valid > medical practice. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: <HolisticMomma@a...> > > > > > > > > > > I don't get it. Why do people put themselves through this > angst? Why not > > > > just find a doctor who actually wants his customers to be > healthy? Find a > > > > doctor who is not reimbursed by the HMOs according to how > high his vax > > > rate > > > > is. Why not hire a Naturopath physician as your > pediatrician? What is > > > this > > > > love affair with the MD? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2001 Report Share Posted June 29, 2001 Wow, I didn't even know that a person could get only a hospitalization policy! Actually, we have the standard PPO insurance through my husband's employer. The policy costs $127.24/week. We have been fortunate that we haven't needed to use it. When things come up, I have either been able to treat them myself or go to my naturopath. By the way, I wanted to talk about the fees that my naturopath charges. I never had to pay him a " consultation " fee so I asked him how much he charges for consultations the last time I saw him. The cost depends on the length of time he spends with you. For 30-60 minutes, $30-$50. I never had to pay a consultation fee because when I go in, I'm usually there for a particular service. And it is that particular service that I pay for. Which is a weird concept when you compare it to most MDs who see you for 10 minutes and charge $100. Also, my naturopath accepts credit cards and offers payment plans. And the poor guy, he even gives my husband and me discounts cuz he knows we're kinda strapped. Course I spose you could consider them volume discounts because it seems several things have come up lately. Kathleen In a message dated 6/29/2001 5:54:30 AM Central Daylight Time, lholm2@... writes: > Kathleen: > " First of all, they don't have a clue as to how much LESS money they will > end > up spending in the long run. They seem to conveniently forget about their > co-pays and that which treatment/tests they will receive depends on the > latest game that the HMO is playing with the doc as their pawn. They forget > that insurance will not cover alot of things so they will end up paying > out-of-pocket anyway. " > > I couldn't agree with Kathleen moore. I think the best way to go is to have > a conventional insurance policy that covers hospitalization only. That way > you won't be facing financial ruin should something untoward occur and a > family member would have to be hospitalized. > As an example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield charges a bit over $100 per month > for a family of four. A conventional policy through dh's job would have > cost > us much much more, and we would have been paying for coverage for services > that we don't use, such as " well-baby checkups " , vaccines etc. > > Then use cash to pay for a homeopath, naturopath or whatever your > practitioner of choice may be. Many conventional practitioners will also > give patients who pay cash a good discount. > > Lilian, Chicago, IL > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2001 Report Share Posted June 29, 2001 > I have to agree with the " co-pay " portion of this.. Working with me at my > most expensive rate per for an entire 12 month peroid from the initial > consultation fee to the 11 months of follow-up per year costs only $640 and > the next year it would be only $540. This is about the cost of most > co-payments that are made yearly through insurance. Is this for an entire family or one person? I added up all my copays for the last year (prescription and dr. visits) and for the WHOLE FAMILY we paid less than $400 and because we have such good insurance there has been nothing that wasn't covered (plus no premiums and no deductables). We are fortunate. I can understand how a family who does have to pay premiums, deductables AND copays (plus uncovered things...which in 3 years we have yet to experience) would be better off with homeopathy or naturopathy which would cost roughly the same but be better for the family -- that's just not us. Does anyone have any good suggestions for a homeopath in the Portland, OR area? There are some on Sherri's site but if someone has a recommendation that would be of greater help. I might be able to eek out enough to do one consult with a homeopath (in a few months though when we aren't still dipping in to savings to make ends meet) for my asthmatic daughter -- would like to hear if they have any good suggestions on how to treat that. Britt SW Washington State Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 brittgower@...: >I can understand how a family who >does have to pay premiums, deductables AND copays (plus uncovered >things...which in 3 years we have yet to experience) would be better >off with homeopathy or naturopathy which would cost roughly the same >but be better for the family -- that's just not us. But the point to healthcare isn't choosing the cheapest option, it's about achieving the highest level of health!! Many people using HMOs would save money on a short-term basis. That is not the point. The point is - how do you best take care of your health? If you stop paying the HMOs, the money can be re-directed to e.g. homeopaths that will actually do something for your overall health, instead of breaking it down with vaccines, tests causing irradiation, medicines causing organic damage etc. Lilian, Chicago, IL _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Gretchen, That's what I thought it sounded like too but in my face to face with my doctor SHE said disability, NOT early retirement. Early retirement wouldn't require a doctor to work with HR which she said she would do. So, again, I think what she SAID and what she wrote in HER mind meant " can't work " but it won't fly with an employer. Thanks for the advice. I've got the fax machine warmed up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.