Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

finding doctors

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

  • 5 years later...

Well there seems to be agreement on this. I understood Chuck to say basically

the same thing about not needing an endocrinologist.

Barb

Finding Doctors

hypothyroidism

Date: Monday, January 3, 2011, 8:02 AM

I think someone posted this before, but I just called the Mayo Clinic for a

referral service. I was told to check aace.com, which is the American

Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. There are only two listed within 100

miles of where I live, and one is the doctor I saw who didn't test antibodies or

anything else but TSH and calcium.

The other doctor has MD MBBS following his title. After checking, I found

this.......

" It stands for Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery. This degree is

typically awarded to individuals who complete medical school in a variety of

countries that follow the United Kingdom system. " I don't know how that system

compares to ours.

Read more:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_a_doctor_with_MBBS_after_his_name_mean#ixzz1\

9zJXRxz2

This doctor has listed these areas of interest:

Interest Areas:

Adrenal Disorders

Diabetes Mellitus

General Endocrinology and Metabolism

Hypertension

Lipid Disorders

Metabolic Bone Disorders

Parathyroid Disorders

Pituitary Disorders

Thyroid Dysfunction

Osteoporosis

PCOS

The endocrinologist I saw lists these:

Diabetes Mellitus

General Endocrinology and Metabolism

Lipid Disorders

It seems like the doctor I didn't see is better qualified to treat thyroid

disorders, and is in the same medical group as the one I saw. Since I know

nothing about the " United Kingdom System, " does anyone here have any thoughts on

this?

Thanks,

Barb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Chuck and I have at one time or another been a member of a

group advocating better treatment for hypo patients in the UK.

Unfortunately some of those who are the powers that be in that group

seem incapable of distinguishing facts from fiction and sometimes

advocate products or procedures considered to be those of crackpots.

And this is in spite of the fact that their intentions appear to be

totally positive. The net result is that they aren't likely to be very

effective in obtaining their goals; or of even getting a fair hearing.

The UK system of medical treatment is a socialist one run by a

bureaucracy [or bureaucracies] so it tends to be bureaucrats making far

too many medical decisions. Anyone who thinks socialized medicine

[whether Obamacare or any other] is a great idea for the US should do a

tiny bit of research to find out how difficult it is to get treatment

under such a system for hypothyroidism in the UK that is anything other

than T4 [Armour, for example]. And in case you haven't noticed both

medicare and medicaid are headed for a train-wreck of gigantic

proportions. Our Social Security problems pale in comparison.

Regards,

..

..

> Posted by: " H " macbarb0503@...

> <mailto:macbarb0503@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Finding%20Doctors>

westieabbey

> <westieabbey>

>

>

> Mon Jan 3, 2011 5:11 pm (PST)

>

>

>

>

>

> The guidelines for treatment of hypoT in the U.K. are to not treat at

> all until TSH exceeds 10. The only treatment considered is

> levothyroxine. The only test used for diagnosis and dose adjustment is

> TSH.

>

> Wow! That's intresting. It's also good to know that a GP is good

> enough to treat this condition.

> Thanks Chuck.

> Barb

>

> Re: Finding Doctors

>

> Barb,

>

> You wrote:

> >

> > ... It seems like the doctor I didn't see is better qualified to treat

> > thyroid disorders, and is in the same medical group as the one I saw.

> > Since I know nothing about the " United Kingdom System, " does anyone here

> > have any thoughts on this?

>

> My family has had mixed results with endocrinologists, all associated

> with major teaching hospitals and university medical schools, some

> fair, some excellent. However, I would suggest that you save the

> specialist for sorting out mixed or conflicting results, for example

> when several endocrine glands seem to be involved. From a very small

> sampling of opinions, mostly from lists such as this one, I think your

> odds of satisfaction are better with a GP.

>

> The guidelines for treatment of hypoT in the U.K. are to not treat at

> all until TSH exceeds 10. The only treatment considered is

> levothyroxine. The only test used for diagnosis and dose adjustment is

> TSH.

>

> ly, I would be terrified of treatment under the UK system. However,

> a doctor educated in the UK must still meet all the requirements to

> practice in another country. He might well be influenced by current

> local guidelines and accepted practices.

>

> Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but I think the gov't should reign in these insurance companies that

only want to collect premiums and not pay claims. They are making ridiculous

amounts of money and screwing as many patients as they can. I don't think

bureaucrats should make medical decisions either, but the insurance companies

are acting like omnipitent entities. They pretty much do what they want when

they want and how they want.

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

> >

> > ... It seems like the doctor I didn't see is better qualified to treat

> > thyroid disorders, and is in the same medical group as the one I saw.

> > Since I know nothing about the " United Kingdom System, " does anyone here

> > have any thoughts on this?

>

> My family has had mixed results with endocrinologists, all associated

> with major teaching hospitals and university medical schools, some

> fair, some excellent. However, I would suggest that you save the

> specialist for sorting out mixed or conflicting results, for example

> when several endocrine glands seem to be involved. From a very small

> sampling of opinions, mostly from lists such as this one, I think your

> odds of satisfaction are better with a GP.

>

> The guidelines for treatment of hypoT in the U.K. are to not treat at

> all until TSH exceeds 10. The only treatment considered is

> levothyroxine. The only test used for diagnosis and dose adjustment is

> TSH.

>

> ly, I would be terrified of treatment under the UK system. However,

> a doctor educated in the UK must still meet all the requirements to

> practice in another country. He might well be influenced by current

> local guidelines and accepted practices.

>

> Chuck

------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in case you haven't noticed both

medicare and medicaid are headed for a train-wreck of gigantic

proportions. Our Social Security problems pale in comparison.

Thanks for the information . I have noticed that too.

Barb

Re: Finding Doctors

>

> Barb,

>

> You wrote:

> >

> > ... It seems like the doctor I didn't see is better qualified to treat

> > thyroid disorders, and is in the same medical group as the one I saw.

> > Since I know nothing about the " United Kingdom System, " does anyone here

> > have any thoughts on this?

>

> My family has had mixed results with endocrinologists, all associated

> with major teaching hospitals and university medical schools, some

> fair, some excellent. However, I would suggest that you save the

> specialist for sorting out mixed or conflicting results, for example

> when several endocrine glands seem to be involved. From a very small

> sampling of opinions, mostly from lists such as this one, I think your

> odds of satisfaction are better with a GP.

>

> The guidelines for treatment of hypoT in the U.K. are to not treat at

> all until TSH exceeds 10. The only treatment considered is

> levothyroxine. The only test used for diagnosis and dose adjustment is

> TSH.

>

> ly, I would be terrified of treatment under the UK system. However,

> a doctor educated in the UK must still meet all the requirements to

> practice in another country. He might well be influenced by current

> local guidelines and accepted practices.

>

> Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree too, and think it is going to get much worse before it gets better.

Especially in states where politicians are in favor of privatizing Medicare.

Then it will be for profit, and we will be in big trouble. It will be no

different than a health insurance company, with the primary goal of making more

money. One of the best ways to increase profit is to cut services, especially

patient care.

Here in Florida it's already been done with Medicaid, and I have personally seen

the devastating effects of that when a family member in a nursing home ran out

of money, and was unable to pay privately. The difference in her care was like

the difference between night and day. She was moved to a different hall, and

instead of being surrounded by loving, helpful, cheerful caretakers who were

like family to her, she was put in a dark room and attended to by strangers who

kept their distance. Some medications she needed were denied, because Medicaid

refused to pay for them. The blinds were still down as late as noon, and she

still handn't been bathed. Unless a family member was there to help her eat,

trays were dropped off and picked up with the food untouched. She didn't live

very long after she was moved.

Since Medicare only pays for a short stay in a nursing home after

hospitilization, at least in this state, when you can no longer pay privately

the only alternative is Medicaid. Many people think of Medicaid as a government

handout for poor or lazy people who don't want to work, and expect the

government to take care of them. That is probably true in lots of cases, but

many who rely on Medicaid are elderly, in nursing homes, or both. The person

I'm talking about worked most of her life, and was a productive, contributing

member of society. She had planned well and had a substantial amount of money.

It can happen to anyone. How many of us could pay a minimum of $6000 per month

indefinitely? As far as reigning in the insurance companies, that's a great

idea, but how? If government trys to control what a corporation charges for

their goods or services, it is called socialist, and the complaints begin about

how government is interfering with the free market. The latest health care bill

mandates that at least 80% of the amount collected in premiums must be spent on

patient care, but many politicians are busy trying to undo that, and some other

provisions that would benefit patients rather than insurance companies. I'm not

saying I'm for the law, just that some parts of it are good.

Sorry, I got carried away.

Barb

Re: Re: Finding Doctors

I agree, but I think the gov't should reign in these insurance companies that

only want to collect premiums and not pay claims. They are making ridiculous

amounts of money and screwing as many patients as they can. I don't think

bureaucrats should make medical decisions either, but the insurance companies

are acting like omnipitent entities. They pretty much do what they want when

they want and how they want.

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

> >

> > ... It seems like the doctor I didn't see is better qualified to treat

> > thyroid disorders, and is in the same medical group as the one I saw.

> > Since I know nothing about the " United Kingdom System, " does anyone here

> > have any thoughts on this?

>

> My family has had mixed results with endocrinologists, all associated

> with major teaching hospitals and university medical schools, some

> fair, some excellent. However, I would suggest that you save the

> specialist for sorting out mixed or conflicting results, for example

> when several endocrine glands seem to be involved. From a very small

> sampling of opinions, mostly from lists such as this one, I think your

> odds of satisfaction are better with a GP.

>

> The guidelines for treatment of hypoT in the U.K. are to not treat at

> all until TSH exceeds 10. The only treatment considered is

> levothyroxine. The only test used for diagnosis and dose adjustment is

> TSH.

>

> ly, I would be terrified of treatment under the UK system. However,

> a doctor educated in the UK must still meet all the requirements to

> practice in another country. He might well be influenced by current

> local guidelines and accepted practices.

>

> Chuck

------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in agreement. The saddest thing is that the single payer feature of the

healthcare law was removed. That still leaves the insurance companies the

freedome to pretty much do what they want, which is to collect money and deny

claims.

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

> >

> > ... It seems like the doctor I didn't see is better qualified to treat

> > thyroid disorders, and is in the same medical group as the one I saw.

> > Since I know nothing about the " United Kingdom System, " does anyone here

> > have any thoughts on this?

>

> My family has had mixed results with endocrinologists, all associated

> with major teaching hospitals and university medical schools, some

> fair, some excellent. However, I would suggest that you save the

> specialist for sorting out mixed or conflicting results, for example

> when several endocrine glands seem to be involved. From a very small

> sampling of opinions, mostly from lists such as this one, I think your

> odds of satisfaction are better with a GP.

>

> The guidelines for treatment of hypoT in the U.K. are to not treat at

> all until TSH exceeds 10. The only treatment considered is

> levothyroxine. The only test used for diagnosis and dose adjustment is

> TSH.

>

> ly, I would be terrified of treatment under the UK system. However,

> a doctor educated in the UK must still meet all the requirements to

> practice in another country. He might well be influenced by current

> local guidelines and accepted practices.

>

> Chuck

------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having government bureaucrats " reign in " [control] anything is the most

certain route to disaster that I can imagine. Bureaucracies [especially

large ones] do not operate with efficiency, economy, timeliness or human

compassion.

In a free market system it is the responsibility of the consumer to

choose the business that operates in the manner desired by that

consumer. Those that do not provide perceived value will cease to exist

if we do our jobs properly.

Regards,

..

..

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

> <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Finding%20Doctors>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Tue Jan 4, 2011 5:16 pm (PST)

>

>

>

> I agree, but I think the gov't should reign in these insurance

> companies that only want to collect premiums and not pay claims. They

> are making ridiculous amounts of money and screwing as many patients

> as they can. I don't think bureaucrats should make medical decisions

> either, but the insurance companies are acting like omnipitent

> entities. They pretty much do what they want when they want and how

> they want.

>

> <>Roni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2011 10:32 AM, Roni Molin wrote:

> I'm in agreement. The saddest thing is that the single payer feature of

> the healthcare law was removed. That still leaves the insurance

> companies the freedome to pretty much do what they want, which is to

> collect money and deny claims.

Except that they have not been at all free to do what they want to

compete. In most states, they have been forced into " deals " by state

governments. In exchange for discounted rates for state employees, they

are given an exclusive market and allowed to make up the losses by

charging much higher than fair rates for everyone else. Companies from

other states are not allowed to compete.

This is the very definition of restraint of free trade, but since the

monopolies are operated by state governments, it gets around current

federal laws. A simple law prohibiting state sponsored monopolies would

bring premiums in California down by about a factor of 1/5th, but it

would increase costs for their state workers by more.

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the insurance companies operate efficiency, economy, timeliness or human

compassion. I am not suggesting the government run these companies, just that

they

keep them in line from overcharging people and not paying legitimate claims.

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Finding Doctors

hypothyroidism

Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 9:43 AM

Having government bureaucrats " reign in " [control] anything is the most

certain route to disaster that I can imagine.  Bureaucracies [especially

large ones] do not operate with efficiency, economy, timeliness or human

compassion.

In a free market system it is the responsibility of the consumer to

choose the business that operates in the manner desired by that

consumer.  Those that do not provide perceived value will cease to exist

if we do our jobs properly.

Regards,

..

..

>       Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>       <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Finding%20Doctors>

>       matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

>         Tue Jan 4, 2011 5:16 pm (PST)

>

>

>

> I agree, but I think the gov't should reign in these insurance

> companies that only want to collect premiums and not pay claims. They

> are making ridiculous amounts of money and screwing as many patients

> as they can. I don't think bureaucrats should make medical decisions

> either, but the insurance companies are acting like omnipitent

> entities. They pretty much do what they want when they want and how

> they want.

>

> <>Roni

------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your idea is very valid.

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

> I'm in agreement. The saddest thing is that the single payer feature of

> the healthcare law was removed. That still leaves the insurance

> companies the freedome to pretty much do what they want, which is to

> collect money and deny claims.

Except that they have not been at all free to do what they want to

compete. In most states, they have been forced into " deals " by state

governments. In exchange for discounted rates for state employees, they

are given an exclusive market and allowed to make up the losses by

charging much higher than fair rates for everyone else. Companies from

other states are not allowed to compete.

This is the very definition of restraint of free trade, but since the

monopolies are operated by state governments, it gets around current

federal laws. A simple law prohibiting state sponsored monopolies would

bring premiums in California down by about a factor of 1/5th, but it

would increase costs for their state workers by more.

Chuck

------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roni,

You wrote:

> I think your idea is very valid.

The other abuses you mentioned to are also prevalent, because

states protect select companies from competition. My other son (not the

hypoT one) was caught in the middle of this, since he works for a

California based company but lives in Kansas. The company could legally

only contribute to coverage from a short list of companies approved in

California, even though my son could find plenty of insurance companies

in Kansas that would charge 1/5th in premiums and had more complete

coverage, including some existing conditions.

So, his choices were to pay 100% of his insurance to a Kansas licensed

company or pay 250% more to one in California with his company matching

that larger payment.

Nothing in Obamacare addresses this problem, except for the threat of

eventually putting all the private firms out of business. If the law

goes into operation, you will quickly get your single payer system.

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is sad is that there are many systems, including the one one we have, or

single payer that could work if it weren't for the greedy, stealing lying

individuals that ruin it for everyone. There are individuals  fro example that

set up shop in a storefront with a few 'phones and bilk Medicare out of millions

and millions of dollars. There are so few safeguards and inspectors to oversee

this kind of theft that they get away with it and then if they get shut down

they open someplace else.

It's digusting.

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

> I think your idea is very valid.

The other abuses you mentioned to are also prevalent, because

states protect select companies from competition. My other son (not the

hypoT one) was caught in the middle of this, since he works for a

California based company but lives in Kansas. The company could legally

only contribute to coverage from a short list of companies approved in

California, even though my son could find plenty of insurance companies

in Kansas that would charge 1/5th in premiums and had more complete

coverage, including some existing conditions.

So, his choices were to pay 100% of his insurance to a Kansas licensed

company or pay 250% more to one in California with his company matching

that larger payment.

Nothing in Obamacare addresses this problem, except for the threat of

eventually putting all the private firms out of business. If the law

goes into operation, you will quickly get your single payer system.

Chuck

------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roni,

You wrote:

> ... There are so few safeguards and inspectors to oversee this kind of theft

that

> they get away with it and then if they get shut down they open someplace

> else.

Personally, I would prefer to see fewer inspectors but much harsher

penalties for the ones they do catch. Eventually the system would catch

up or the deterrence would become effective.

I would suggest the same approach for identity theft. No one bothers to

investigate most instances, because the penalties are so negligible.

Banks just write it off as part of the price of doing business.

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to agree with .

Govt. has been the main player in the cost of healthcare going up.

When you look at the cost per patient of Medicxxx it's astronomical. The whole

system is plagued with fraud.

Insurance companies unfortunately isolate the customer from market dynamics, so

they play a part as well.

Technology - that too. High tech equipment is not cheap.

Let's not forget about lawsuits. I know some folks from India who work in

medical technology. Can't believe the difference in the cost of an operation

from here to there. There's very little litigation risk added into the cost of

medical care over there.

I was born in '66. A few years ago, my dad showed me the bill from my birth

which he had saved.

The grand total: $125

Here's the punchline - I was born CESAREAN!

Something has gone seriously wrong. Maybe we need to look back instead of coming

up with clever laws and government interventions.

>

> Having government bureaucrats " reign in " [control] anything is the most

> certain route to disaster that I can imagine. Bureaucracies [especially

> large ones] do not operate with efficiency, economy, timeliness or human

> compassion.

>

> In a free market system it is the responsibility of the consumer to

> choose the business that operates in the manner desired by that

> consumer. Those that do not provide perceived value will cease to exist

> if we do our jobs properly.

>

> Regards,

>

> .

> .

>

>

> > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

> > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Finding%20Doctors>

> > matchermaam <matchermaam>

> >

> >

> > Tue Jan 4, 2011 5:16 pm (PST)

> >

> >

> >

> > I agree, but I think the gov't should reign in these insurance

> > companies that only want to collect premiums and not pay claims. They

> > are making ridiculous amounts of money and screwing as many patients

> > as they can. I don't think bureaucrats should make medical decisions

> > either, but the insurance companies are acting like omnipitent

> > entities. They pretty much do what they want when they want and how

> > they want.

> >

> > <>Roni

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roni sent me a quote I'll pass on: " If the US government were put in

charge of the Sahara desert within 5 years there would be a shortage of

sand " .

But that's not all.

1] I'll suggest that the Department Of Sand would by that time have

267,000 employees and a budget of over $100,000,000,000 per year.

2] There would be 46,000 ex-congresspersons on that payroll.

3] The Department Of Sand Safety would only be half that size.

4] OSHA's printed regulations for sand safety would total over

13,000,000 pages.

5] Taxes on sand would total over 1/2 trillion dollars per year.

6] Possession of more than 5 lbs of sand would be punishable by up to 5

years in prison.

7] There would be 414,000 persons incarcerated for no other offense.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Dave " dcbaden@...

> <mailto:dcbaden@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Finding%20Doctors>

> dcbaden <dcbaden>

>

>

> Thu Jan 6, 2011 9:49 am (PST)

>

>

>

> Have to agree with .

> Govt. has been the main player in the cost of healthcare going up.

> When you look at the cost per patient of Medicxxx it's astronomical.

> The whole system is plagued with fraud.

>

> Insurance companies unfortunately isolate the customer from market

> dynamics, so they play a part as well.

>

> Technology - that too. High tech equipment is not cheap.

>

> Let's not forget about lawsuits. I know some folks from India who work

> in medical technology. Can't believe the difference in the cost of an

> operation from here to there. There's very little litigation risk

> added into the cost of medical care over there.

>

> I was born in '66. A few years ago, my dad showed me the bill from my

> birth which he had saved.

> The grand total: $125

> Here's the punchline - I was born CESAREAN!

>

> Something has gone seriously wrong. Maybe we need to look back instead

> of coming up with clever laws and government interventions.

>

>

> >

> > Having government bureaucrats " reign in " [control] anything is the most

> > certain route to disaster that I can imagine. Bureaucracies [especially

> > large ones] do not operate with efficiency, economy, timeliness or

> human

> > compassion.

> >

> > In a free market system it is the responsibility of the consumer to

> > choose the business that operates in the manner desired by that

> > consumer. Those that do not provide perceived value will cease to exist

> > if we do our jobs properly.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > .

> > .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...