(Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>Sure. I agree.

But of course... pontiff.

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Michel Boucher > wrote:
> >
> >> If people are paying rates with the expectaTion they will be covered
> >> should these cases arises, then refusing to authorize treatment when
> >> they do arise is criminal. It's called fraud.
> >
> > If I don't like the shape of my nose, then Kaiser will fix it. After
> > I sign the paper saying that I will pay 100% of the cost. If I want
> > Viagra, then Kaiser will give it to me. Either my plan agrees to a
> > fee hike, or I pay the full price when I pick it up at the pharmacy.
> > When I signed up for Kaiser, Viagra didn't exist. That doesn't sound
> > like fraud to me. If I expect Kaiser to provide recreational drugs at
> > little or no cost, I will be disappointed.
>
> However, if you had read the article, it states:
>
> "The state Department of Corporations is investigating whether the Kaiser
> Permanente health maintenance organization is violating state law by
> refusing to cover the cost of providing the impotence drug Viagra,
> officials said Thursday.
>
> "A corporations department spokeswoman, Julie Stewart, said the agency 'has
> been reviewing Kaiser's position regarding Viagra for over a month. A
> formal investigation was instituted as soon as we learned that Kaiser's
> decision to deny coverage was based on economic considerations.'"
>
> This has nothing to do with your weewee and all to do with their refusal to
> abide by regulations in areas in which they "operate". Obviously, they
> believe themselves to be above the law, which is the first sign of a
> general malaise in the insurance scam biz.


Actually, I did read the article. I found it very confusing, since you
stated in your original post, dated sep 27, 2009, that Kaiser "announced
last month", in an article in the LA Times dated Jul 3, 1998 (not a typo
- 1998). The LA Times references another article, dated Jan 1, 1999:

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jan...iness/fi-59448

The entire article reads:

"Kaiser Loses Bid to Drop Viagra Coverage
January 01, 1999

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, the largest nonprofit health maintenance
organization, said California's Department of Corporations has denied
its request to drop coverage in 1999 of anti-impotence drug Viagra and
other sexual-dysfunction treatments. Kaiser spokesman Jim Anderson said
the Oakland-based HMO's current policy of requiring patients to pay 50%
of the treatment costs will stand. He said the decision would probably
result in some rate increases "down the line" as the costs of such drugs
rise. The department, meanwhile, is considering similar requests from
several other large HMOs, including PacifiCare Health Systems and Aetna
U.S. Healthcare. Last year, the agency investigated Kaiser after the HMO
sought to exclude Viagra coverage. This week, Kaiser and the state
reached a settlement; no liability was found."

I wonder what has happened in the last 10 years? A search of Kaiser's
web site:

kp.org

says nothing of interest.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
>>
>> This has nothing to do with your weewee and all to do with their refusal
>> to
>> abide by regulations in areas in which they "operate". Obviously, they
>> believe themselves to be above the law, which is the first sign of a
>> general malaise in the insurance scam biz.
>
> If in violation of some law, they should do it. OTOH, as a corporate
> policy, I'd be against it. Should they also provide hookers for those
> unable to meet hot women?

I'm sorry, but do you know any men, Ed? THE WOMEN DO NOT HAVE TO BE HOT.

Dan Abel > wrote in news:dabel-249DD0.13150727092009@c-61-
68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:

> Actually, I did read the article. I found it very confusing, since you
> stated in your original post, dated sep 27, 2009, that Kaiser "announced
> last month", in an article in the LA Times dated Jul 3, 1998 (not a typo
> - 1998).

I was quoting the article, not suggesting it was last month.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>>> .247...
>>>> On Sun 27 Sep 2009 12:25:23a, Ophelia told us...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For Viagra, any large group that wants the coverage, can get it.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> costs will be raised to cover it. How many of you women want to pay
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> lot of money so that your plan covers Viagra?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dunno. Maybe. Ask me again a decade or so on down the line. It's a
>>>>>> quality of life thing, and NOT just for the gentlemen swallowing the
>>>>>> pills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Giddy-up Cowboy!"
>>>>>
>>>>> lol
>>>>
>>>> There is Viagara for women, as well.
>>>
>>> Good grief!
>>
>> Pardon me, doctor, but my little soldier is just not saluting at the
>> appropriate times. Can you help me?
>
> lol
>

I KNOW!!!! Stand up in that boat, boy, or I'll get the drugs to make ya!

On 2009-09-27, Dan Abel > wrote:

> I have five years to go until Medicare. From what I understand from
> Kaiser, it will be very simple. My coverage will remain exactly the
> same.

Don't let go for a microsecond, Dan.

Mom has medicare and if it hadn't been for my excellent auto insurance,
she would have still had to copay $20K for a fractured kneecap. Just
the copay for the initial ambulance ride would have been $500, and she
had three rides, in all, to the tune of about $10K.

nb

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:31:13 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
>> Michel posted something negative about Kaiser, and the last part was their
>> refusal to cover Viagra. The claim was that some men were refusing
>> treatment for cancer because of fears of impotence. It didn't say, but
>> I'm assuming prostate cancer, since that is common in men. That says
>> something about priorities, since I believe most untreated prostate cancer
>> leads, in not too long, to death.
>
> I don't think that's correct. In fact, I'm fairly certain that prostate
> cancer is pretty slow; I remember reading an article about prostate cancer
> patients who were advised not to get treatment because of that.
>
> Lemme see....
>
> OK, here's one such article:
>
> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pro...cancer/PC99999
>
> "prostate cancer is usually slow growing, so in most cases there's no need
> to rush [into treatment]"
>
> Here's another:
>
> http://familydoctor.org/online/famdo...tment/264.html
>
> "Many prostate cancers are small and grow slowly. Because many men with a
> slow-growing tumor have the same life expectancy as men who don't even have
> prostate cancer, it may not be necessary to treat very small, very
> slow-growing prostate tumors. Also, some men feel that the side effects of
> treatment outweigh the benefits. In watchful waiting, you get no treatment,
> but you see your doctor often. If there's no sign the cancer is growing, you
> continue to get no treatment. Hormone therapy can be started if the cancer
> starts to grow."
>
> Bob

yep. if you have to get cancer, the prostate is the place to get it. you
may have the dilemma of to treat or not to treat, but that's better than
*of course* get treatment and maybe die anyway.

your pal,
blake

Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
>>> It's plain to see that cyber**** has some personal grudge against
>>> Kaiser. They probably ran out of penicillin trying to combat
>>> cyber****'s STDs. It's not like cyber**** was *insured*, anyway.
>>> What insurance provider would issue a policy for a grossly-obese
>>> crack-addicted menopausal AIDS-risky subhuman?
>>>
>> oh, come on. You two don't like each other... kill file her and get
>> it over.
>
> We have each other killfiled already. Doesn't stop it from attacking
> me, which I see in other's replies to it, so I feel free to retaliate.
>


Yup, I still like to "bang the cybertwot" (so to speak) around once in a
whiles...gives no sexual relief but does give some relief of the "comic"
variety.

:-D



--
Best
Greg

notbob wrote:

> On 2009-09-26, cybercat > wrote:
>
>> ................but his face was red and his hands were
>> shaking he was so angry.
>
> I have little doubt that's a response you are all too familiar with.
>


Heehee, nb...

;-)


--
Best
Greg

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Sun 27 Sep 2009 12:25:23a, Ophelia told us...
>
>>
>> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> For Viagra, any large group that wants the coverage, can get it.
>>>> The costs will be raised to cover it. How many of you women want
>>>> to pay a lot of money so that your plan covers Viagra?
>>>
>>> Dunno. Maybe. Ask me again a decade or so on down the line. It's
>>> a quality of life thing, and NOT just for the gentlemen swallowing
>>> the pills.
>>>
>>> "Giddy-up Cowboy!"
>>
>> lol
>
> There is Viagara for women, as well.


Tell us how it's working for you, Lil' Wayne...

Do you now have a vestigial penis growin' outta yer "mangina"...???

:-D


--
Best
Gregory Morrow

cybercat wrote:

> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>> .247...
>>> On Sun 27 Sep 2009 12:25:23a, Ophelia told us...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> For Viagra, any large group that wants the coverage, can get it.
>>>>>> The costs will be raised to cover it. How many of you women
>>>>>> want to pay a lot of money so that your plan covers Viagra?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dunno. Maybe. Ask me again a decade or so on down the line.
>>>>> It's a quality of life thing, and NOT just for the gentlemen
>>>>> swallowing the pills.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Giddy-up Cowboy!"
>>>>
>>>> lol
>>>
>>> There is Viagara for women, as well.
>>
>> Good grief!
>
> Pardon me, doctor, but my little soldier is just not saluting at the
> appropriate times. Can you help me?

Oh, did your strap-on *finally* rot and fall off, cyberkittie...???

:-D


--
Best
Greg Morrow

Michel Boucher wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
> .247:
>
>> There is Viagara for women, as well.
>
> Yeah, it's called the romance novel ;-)


Or watching the d'Oprah Winfrey Show...

;-)


--
Best
Greg

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> This has nothing to do with your weewee and all to do with their
>>> refusal to
>>> abide by regulations in areas in which they "operate". Obviously,
>>> they believe themselves to be above the law, which is the first sign
>>> of a general malaise in the insurance scam biz.
>>
>> If in violation of some law, they should do it. OTOH, as a corporate
>> policy, I'd be against it. Should they also provide hookers for
>> those unable to meet hot women?
>
> But we're not discussing the act of sexual congress, merely the
> acquisition of a drug as sanctioned by the local authorities. Once
> insurance companies start denying Viagra where they are obliged to
> provide it, it's a slippery slope to denying services to the mentally
> deficient, the elderly, etc.
>
> Too bad no one has identified conservatism as a pre-existing
> condition that would disqualify sufferers from cold remedies, or some
> such thing.
>
> If anyone has a plan to "kill grandma", it has to be the current
> slate of insurance companies.


Yep, those fearesome "death panels" *already* exist here in the states, they
are called "insurance companies"...

This is something that Obama and the Dems *should* be mentioning in the
current health care debate, but Obama's *first* action in proposing his
health care "plan" <cough>
was to strike a sweetheart deal with the insurance lobby...I mean WHERE do
you think those politicans (of both stripes) get the rubles to fund their
political campaigns...???

Still *another* reason to disdain his fraudulent "audacity of hope"
shtick...

What he did in giving away the country to Wall Street interests *pales*
besided the financial shenanigans of the Bush administration, and this
health care scam of his is still another example. The level of Obama's
complicity in all of this is heinous, in fact there is not a even a word
extant to describe it...


--
Best
Greg



--
Best
Greg

Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> cyber**** wrote:
>
>> I didn't say you were telling me what to do. I said you were making a
>> blanket statement about the benefits of Kaiser for both patients and
>> nurses looking for jobs that is just not accurate. Too broad a
>> generalization. I'd reather hear about Italy. Rome if that is all
>> you got.
>
> Stop morphing, whore.


How do ya think she can otherwise drum up "business" to an unsuspecting
"clientele", Bob...

<chortle>


--
Best
Greg

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:31:13 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> > Dan wrote:
> >
> >> Michel posted something negative about Kaiser, and the last part was their
> >> refusal to cover Viagra. The claim was that some men were refusing
> >> treatment for cancer because of fears of impotence. It didn't say, but
> >> I'm assuming prostate cancer, since that is common in men. That says
> >> something about priorities, since I believe most untreated prostate cancer
> >> leads, in not too long, to death.
> >
> > I don't think that's correct. In fact, I'm fairly certain that prostate
> > cancer is pretty slow; I remember reading an article about prostate cancer
> > patients who were advised not to get treatment because of that.
> >
> > Lemme see....
> >
> > OK, here's one such article:
> >
> > http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pro...cancer/PC99999
> >
> > "prostate cancer is usually slow growing, so in most cases there's no need
> > to rush [into treatment]"
> >
> > Here's another:
> >
> > http://familydoctor.org/online/famdo...atment/264.htm
> > l
> >
> > "Many prostate cancers are small and grow slowly. Because many men with a
> > slow-growing tumor have the same life expectancy as men who don't even have
> > prostate cancer, it may not be necessary to treat very small, very
> > slow-growing prostate tumors. Also, some men feel that the side effects of
> > treatment outweigh the benefits. In watchful waiting, you get no treatment,
> > but you see your doctor often. If there's no sign the cancer is growing,
> > you
> > continue to get no treatment. Hormone therapy can be started if the cancer
> > starts to grow."
> >
> > Bob
>
> yep. if you have to get cancer, the prostate is the place to get it. you
> may have the dilemma of to treat or not to treat, but that's better than
> *of course* get treatment and maybe die anyway.

Thanks for your corrections. I feel better already, although I don't
have it and hope I don't get it.

The one person who had it that I knew, and not that well, chose an
"alternative" treatment, and died. I thought it was quick, but, upon
thinking about it, he could well have had it a long time but didn't
mention it until it got bad. It seemed like a senseless death, and as
an RN, why didn't he pursue normal treatment? To be honest, I don't
know the details, and maybe there weren't simple solutions.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-09-27, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > US$200 for life sounds good. TOO good. Kaiser raises their rates to
> > keep up with costs. You certainly would have trouble signing up with
> > them today for that rate for a single person.
>
> I meant I would be covered "for life". I sure rates do increase.
> OTOH, getting on Kaiser, if not through a group plan, is very
> difficult. A friend's wife was rejected because she exceeded 10lb
> above allowed weight for her size/age.

I don't know how old your information is. They appear to be looking for
new members now, both groups and individuals. Check out:

kp.org

I know our son lost his coverage a few years back through us (he got too
old), and applied for individual coverage. They never "got around" to
making him an offer, despite repeated phone calls. They said to just
wait until they contacted him. Right. I suspect they looked at his
record and found some issues, and they just didn't want him. After he
got a decent job, he is now covered with Kaiser through his employer.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel > wrote in
:

>> > "Many prostate cancers are small and grow slowly. Because many men
>> > with a slow-growing tumor have the same life expectancy as men who
>> > don't even have prostate cancer, it may not be necessary to treat
>> > very small, very slow-growing prostate tumors. Also, some men feel
>> > that the side effects of treatment outweigh the benefits. In
>> > watchful waiting, you get no treatment, but you see your doctor
>> > often. If there's no sign the cancer is growing, you
>> > continue to get no treatment. Hormone therapy can be started if the
>> > cancer starts to grow."
>>
>> yep. if you have to get cancer, the prostate is the place to get it.
>> you may have the dilemma of to treat or not to treat, but that's
>> better than *of course* get treatment and maybe die anyway.
>
> Thanks for your corrections. I feel better already, although I don't
> have it and hope I don't get it.

My doctor has advised against testing for it because if they find
*anything* they will want to operate and the benefits of the operation are
seriously contested.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

In article >,
Christine Dabney > wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:02:07 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> >Christine, I chatted with Lin just a few moments ago, and she remembers the
> >conversation, but doesn't believe I was in the chat at the time.
> >
> >Bob
>
> Okay, maybe I am thinking of someone else. I could have sworn you
> were there though.
>
> Christine, now wondering who she is thinking of.

You were probably thinking of Bob, or maybe Bob, or maybe you were NOT
thinking of BOB at all (notbob). This place is confusing.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Nathalie Chiva <Nathaliedotchivaatgmail.remove.com> wrote:

> I did cook one meal a day for a week when we were in Venice last
> October, but then we were eating that meal on a lovely terrace on the
> Giudecca... (Yes we were insanely lucky, including with the weather).
> And the fresh shrimp was to die for :-)

Yes, Venice is at its best out of season, but then so are most other
places. We were there in January and had the city practically to
ourselves. The weather was great most of the time and there was no
acqua alta! Many restaurants are closed in January, but there is still
enough choice. People tend to say that one can't eat well in Venice,
but that is nonsense. Most of our meals were good to very good and one,
at Alle Testiere, was great. At that place, they'll hand you a menu,
but do not try to order anything from it - they'll tell you it is there
only to give you an idea of the prices they charge. They'll tell you
what they cooked that day - which always depends on what was best at the
market that morning. It is a fish and seafood only place.

Victor

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

>
> IOW, Kaiser will become your supplemental to Medicare. I could choose to
> stay with United Health Care through my company, but the premiums would be
> higher, there would be a deductible, and there would also be co-pays on
> many services. Oddly ehough, the plan I've tentatively chosen instead is
> also United Health Care, but subscribed through AARP. The premium is less,
> there is no deductible and no co-pays for anything.


Don't bet on it, Wayne, unless it varies tremendously from state to
state. We're on that plan in CO and it does save us a lot but we do
pay some copays and a recent nuclear cardiac stress test which was
originally billed to the insurance at over $1000 did cost me $135.
It was the first one I've had in about 5 years altho my pcp has been
nagging me about it for the past 3 years. Everything was fine.

My prescriptions come to about $60 copay for me every three months for 5
or 6 different meds, quite a good deal compared to pre-Medicare
employer insurance, but not free.

gloria p

notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-09-27, Dan Abel > wrote:

>> I have five years to go until Medicare. From what I understand from
>> Kaiser, it will be very simple. My coverage will remain exactly the
>> same.

>Don't let go for a microsecond, Dan.

>Mom has medicare and if it hadn't been for my excellent auto insurance,
>she would have still had to copay $20K for a fractured kneecap. Just
>the copay for the initial ambulance ride would have been $500, and she
>had three rides, in all, to the tune of about $10K.

Dan should be okay as a former public servant. Although
Medicare becomes his primary insurer at age 65, the
state government will backstop most of the rest, and
Kaiser remains the service provider. It's a sweet deal
actually.

Steve

"Dan Abel" > wrote :
>
> I don't know how old your information is. They appear to be looking for
> new members now, both groups and individuals. Check out:
>
> kp.org

I just bet they are.

Christine Dabney wrote:
> On a slightly different note, Kaiser tends to treat it's nurses very,
> very well. Good pay (some of the best in the SFBA for nurses), and
> good retirement plans. Some of the best, in fact.
>
> And Kaiser was one of the first hospital systems to promote safe
> staffing for nurses, before it was put into law and practice by
> California. It was ahead of the curve.
>
> Hence, a lot of nurses love to work for Kaiser...
>
> Christine

And I've had a couple of nurses from CA tell me they'd never work for
Kaiser again. One mentioned that they use mostly LVNs with fewer RNs on
entire hospital floors, which could be a problem? I don't recall what
their other complaints were as this was years ago.

sf wrote:

>
> Horror of horrors. My heart just bleeds for those poor men who can't
> get it up who have and to shell out cold hard cash to pretend a few
> more years that they aren't old.
>
How about hormone replacement therapy for women who don't want those
menopausal hot flashes? Would your heart bleed for them also? Or should
they be told they're just old and deal with it?

notbob wrote:

> End of sad story: My COBRA ran out and PruCare would no longer cover
> me at any price. If I'd stayed with Kaiser, I still have full care
> for under $200 mo FOR LIFE!! The worst part, my brilliant
> dermatologist quit PAMC and defected to Kaiser.
>
> My advice, Bob, is to investigate what you'll actually have in the way
> of coverage if you lose your current job under your current plan. You
> may be in for a rude awakening.

Thanks for the advice; I'll look into it.

Bob

Gloria wrote:

> "Vacation" is when someone else cooks ALL the meals (or at least
> breakfast.)
>
> VENT: I do notice when the husbands suggest renting a condo and "eating
> in", the wives still do all the shopping, prep, cooking, and cleanup.
> Yeah, the guys in our family are spoiled rotten.

Ideal vacation for Lin and me would be if we did all the shopping, prep, and
cooking, and someone else did the cleanup.

Bob

Dan wrote:

> Speaking of blackouts, cc can't remember her newsgroup name. She has more
> than one computer, so when she set up access from the other computer, she
> used her Email address as her name. You can either set up another entry in
> your killfile (because she doesn't appear to morph), or you can just
> killfile her Email address, since that first word appears for both her
> computers.

Done, thanks -- until it decides to implement a *third* identity.

Bob

Dan wrote:

> https://members.kaiserpermanente.org...r/entrypage.do
>
> is a map of facilities. Kaiser would be a bad choice if you like your
> local hospital, and the nearest Kaiser hospital is in Sacramento (or
> maybe not). The map also shows medical offices.

The Roseville Medical Center is about the same distance from me as the
hospital I currently use, and I don't care much for that one.

Bob

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:09:19 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>That sounds like the monthly rate for Kaiser Senior Advantage,
>which Obama wants to ax, because it's "waste and fraud".
>(Nevermind that the retired public employees have the
>essentially identical coverage, under Medicare-approved Kaiser
>employer plans, but there it's not "waste and fraud", it's a reasonable
>public expenditure.)

I don't know if I'm happy or sad. I'm sad because Senior Advantage
will go, but I'm happy I'm a retired public employee still covered by
Kaiser.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:21:08 -0600, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

>No, I think you were in chat since then. It was one night, when Lin
>and I, Steve Pope and maybe a few other folks were talking. I think
>sf was there.

Not me. I haven't seen him in chat for a long time. I think it was
before he and Lin got married. I've talked to Lin recently though.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:26:24 -0600, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

>
>I swear it was you. It was before we moved servers...and were at the
>old chat place. Several months ago.....
>
>I could be mistaken..but still..I thought you were there...

Maybe you dreamed it. I sometimes have dreams that I later wonder
were real or not.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:21:08 -0600, Christine Dabney
> > wrote:
>
>>No, I think you were in chat since then. It was one night, when Lin
>>and I, Steve Pope and maybe a few other folks were talking. I think
>>sf was there.
>
> Not me. I haven't seen him in chat for a long time. I think it was
> before he and Lin got married. I've talked to Lin recently though.
>
So when are they serving the papers?

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:48:24 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>the other two i've had/have are pretty sharp people
>who don't mind questions.

What I like about mine is that she invites questions and wants me to
unload on her... tell her every little thing. I think that's great!

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:48:24 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>the other two i've had/have are pretty sharp people
>>who don't mind questions.
>
> What I like about mine is that she invites questions and wants me to
> unload on her... tell her every little thing. I think that's great!
>

It IS great! I still have not that in a doctor.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:23:36 -0400, "cyberpurrs"
> wrote:

>
>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:26:37 -0400, "cybercat" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>That sure is my understanding, and my experience supports that. This
>>>doctor
>>>was clearly and visible angry at me because I wanted an allergy test. That
>>>is a doctor? His argument was that most people are allergic to things they
>>>cannot avoid. So I should just go ahead and use the steroid spray, maybe
>>>get
>>>allergy shots. As it turns out, I am allergic to things I can avoid. I
>>>manage my allergies by doing this, except for the cat allergy. Claritin
>>>works fine on that. Another thing is the very cheap OTC drug store there,
>>>it's like an incentive to "do it yourself." Unbelievable.
>>
>> The flip side of that coin is all the allergy doctors selling
>> unnecessary testing and shots to make themselves a few bucks when all
>> you needed to do was avoid the allergen or use an inexpensive OTC.
>>
>> I certainly don't want to be the cash cow who pays some doctor's
>> country club dues.
>
>You could not have missed the point more completely. He wanted me to just
>take a whole lot of systemic steroids to treat a reaction without knowing
>what caused it. HE WAS SELLING THE SHOTS AND DRUGS. The drugs were
>dangerous. I am allergic to dust, mold, and cats. No plants at all. So I
>could ditch all the carpeting, buy hepa filters and a hepa vaccuum, and
>begin a bathroom and kitchen cleaning regimen that prevents 90% of the mold.
>
>It's not the end of the world. You are just wrong.

That's not how Kaiser operates, Cyber. They *don't* over prescribe...
ever. People get mad at them for NOT doing more allergy testing and
shots. I have NEVER heard anyone except you say the opposite. I'm
beginning to think you didn't have "my" Kaiser at all. Maybe it was a
similar name like Wayne mentioned his experience with... two
completely different companies, same name.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:52:14 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 27 Sep 2009 12:25:23a, Ophelia told us...
>
>>
>> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> For Viagra, any large group that wants the coverage, can get it. The
>>>> costs will be raised to cover it. How many of you women want to pay a
>>>> lot of money so that your plan covers Viagra?
>>>
>>> Dunno. Maybe. Ask me again a decade or so on down the line. It's a
>>> quality of life thing, and NOT just for the gentlemen swallowing the
>>> pills.
>>>
>>> "Giddy-up Cowboy!"
>>
>> lol
>
>There is Viagara for women, as well.

My opinion remains the same. I also think in vitro fertilization
should not be covered by health insurance.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:46:53 -0500, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
5.247:
>
>> There is Viagara for women, as well.
>
>Yeah, it's called the romance novel ;-)

That is too true, Michel. They aren't called bodice rippers for
nuttin'.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:12:31 -0500, "Summers Eve"
> wrote:

>Tell us how it's working for you, Lil' Wayne...

and we are wondering why you have such a hard on for him.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:06:20 -0500, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>This has nothing to do with your weewee and all to do with their refusal to
>abide by regulations in areas in which they "operate". Obviously, they
>believe themselves to be above the law, which is the first sign of a
>general malaise in the insurance scam biz.

It has *everything* to do with your weewee, Michel. Most lawmakers
are male.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:49:01 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If anyone has a plan to "kill grandma", it has to be the current slate of
>> insurance companies.
>
>In UK we are currently teetering on the edge of that particular
>abyss..........
>
>
There's a difference between "killing grandma" and pouring tens, if
not hundreds of thousands of dollars down the drain during the last
six months of life.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.