Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Posted by Sharon W on 9/13/03 at 20:11 (129918)

ATTENTION MEDICAID PATIENTS AGE 21 & OLDER

Legislation is pending that will end your coverate for podiatric (and some other) medical services beginning Oct. 16, 2003, if Medicaid is your ONLY insurance coverage.

Please ask to speak with the business manager, office manager or administrator if you have questions. Thank you.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Sharon W on 9/13/03 at 20:15 (129920)

I actually saw that when I brought my daughter in to be treated for a plantar wart. Fortunately, it's a problem that doesn't relate to us.

Unfortunately, I fear it shows exactly how highly our government prioritizes foot care during this time of budget cuts...

Sharon
:(

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Sharon W on 9/13/03 at 20:22 (129921)

That should, of course, read, 'Legislation is pending that will end your coverage...'

Sorry.

Sharon
#-o

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Dorothy on 9/13/03 at 22:16 (129934)

The economist and NYT journalist Paul Krugman posits that one of the primary aims of this administration is to dismantle all of the social safety net programs going all the way back to the FDR era and that they will use the decimation of the budget as the way to do it without actually taking responsibility for it. I don't know whether Krugman is right or not, but there is evidence growing that he is. Phil and others who see the world as he apparently does should perhaps ask their ?parents? grandparents? great-grandparents? if they think that is a good idea.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Ed Davis, DPM on 9/13/03 at 22:24 (129935)

Dorothy:

Krugman is greatly exaggerating the positions of the Bush administration.
Bush is at best, a moderate on economic policy. Keep in mind that he is proposing an expansion of Medicare with a drug benefit.
Ed

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

marie on 9/13/03 at 23:52 (129946)

Oh my. What will be next? I just don't understand how we have come to this point. Is it all because of our leadership? Is it the economy? Thanks so much for sharing this sharon. I had no idea.

marie

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Sharon W on 9/14/03 at 09:18 (129952)

Marie,

Can you imagine what this will mean to, say, an elderly woman with diabetes who has been seeing a podiatrist for years and suddenly has to go back to her PCP for her FOOT NEEDS?? So many of the elderly do not have the ability to drive anymore (and some older women never did) -- so if the nearest foot and ankle ortho is 400 miles away, that's pretty much out of the question!

Sharon
:(

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Peter R on 9/14/03 at 09:38 (129954)

I hope they end ALL social programs- and all handouts including monies given to other countries. We should all stand on our own feet and not look to others for charity and that's what expecting the govt to pay for what you should pay for yourself is. Why should I be forced to support some lazy sloth who didn't think enough of themselves and their families to take care of the future. Someone who can't afford food, medicine or a place to live is of no concern to me- if YOU care then YOU buy them the food and medicine, YOU have them move in with you, but don't tell me that I have too. I have as much concern for other peoples problems as I do for the spotted owl or a slimy toad if it stands in the way of building a new nuclear fuled power plant and that is no concern at all. If 2 people will benefit and one won't then it's just too bad for the one. As soon as you want to put your hand in my pocket I consider you an enemy just as if you came into my house in the middle of the night with a mask and a gun. When will the ignorant people of this country realize that social programs were designed to keep politicians in office and not for the purpose of bettering the people. Liberals are great at running their mouths but I never knew one to step up to the plate and directly help anyone. They are wonderful at saying 'we must' but never say that 'You don't have to because I did'.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

R C on 9/14/03 at 14:55 (129983)

Nothing that Krugman writes is worth the paper it is printed on. He is not a journalist -- he is a left wing gas bag. My evidence for this consists of published line-by-line rebuttals of his columns in the Times, which you may also compare against his inadequate counter-rebuttals. Search under 'Krugman Truth Squad' and you'll get there.

As for the pending legislation, I wish that the federal government would slash spending across the board by about 50%, except (in some case) those areas of responsibility specifically directed to it by the Constitution. There is no such thing as a free lunch, people. If the elderly lady gets her foot treatment for 'free', it's coming out of our pockets. like so many other things.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Dr. Z on 9/14/03 at 14:59 (129985)

Medicaid is a STATE run medical plan.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Dorothy on 9/14/03 at 19:26 (130004)

You are correct, Dr. Z, but with important nuances. Most important these days is the fact that all or most of the states are in severe, dire fiscal condition and that is because of that 'beloved' trickle down economy. It trickles down good and bad.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Dorothy on 9/14/03 at 19:48 (130006)

So I take it that you think the elderly lady should go die in order to protect your wallet? And if the elderly lady is your mother? And if the foot is your very own foot? You know, R C, your prostate or your cardiovascular treatments are just too dang expensive - sorry; we're only going to allow you what you can pay for yourself out of your much touted wallet. Oh, can't pay for that? Well, sorry .... have you heard the parable of the free lunch?

Have you EVER been in need? Do you actually think that you are guaranteed never, ever to be in need?

Our entire country is based solely on reciprocal, collective, mutual aid everywhere in everything. You are an idiot if you think otherwise. Did you build your very own highways only to your smug little household? Do you fund all by yourself your little private school for your child? Do you grow all of your own food, weave your own clothing. Do you have your own little private electric grid? Do you own your very own airport? Well, buddy, I want you off my highways cause you are costing entirely too much money! Do you have a home mortgage and do you get the tax benefit for same? Well, aren't you the selfish reprobate! You probably go to doctors and hospitals - I guess those were all provided by you and your precious wallet. You - and your ilk - are selfish, self-centered, narrow-minded, dangerous little minds who massage your cruel vision of the world with your delusions of independence. We are ALL dependent on each other! Beyond the decent, compassionate way of looking at the world and the mutual aid that helps us all at one time or another - there is a more pragmatic reason for helping people in need. People who are made unemployed and unable to find work and have no income and get hungry and scared and angry have a way of finding YOUR wallet - and figuring that since you have proven yourself to be stone-hearted and dim-witted, guess that you won't miss it. Your attitude is not only cruel but it is short-sighted. There is no such thing as a free lunch; you are correct. But there is, by God, shared lunch when people are hungry or disabled or locked out.
You had better be praying every day of your life that you never have need of aid from your (American) neighbors because you may have people like yourself for neighbors and they might not take kindly to your designs on their 'treasure.' I think your attitude is the essence of un-American.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

R C on 9/14/03 at 22:02 (130041)

Dorothy, you weren't being very nice to me. I am not the monster you accused me of being. Anyway, I will respond to the main points.

* The elderly lady should pay for what she wants out of her own pocket. If she is truly needy, of course there should be a safety net. But this country provides Medicare without means testing -- and is about to expand this to prescription drugs.

* My mother very carefully attended to her finances through her life, and can afford her own health care (insurance). If she falls into dire need, I and my siblings will help her. She does not need the government to confiscate money from other people.

* Many of the services you list are properly furnished by the federal (or state or local) government, and I pay taxes to receive them. I have never advocated anarchy, as you seem to think. Rather, I am advocating government that is limited to constitutional powers. Some of the other things (food, clothing, home) lie outside the government's purview, and i purchase these things with money that I earn So what's your beef?

* You accuse me of being selfish, self-centered, narrow-minded, dangerous, stone-hearted...among other things. How you deduce these things from my post is a mystery, but I have plenty of evidence to the contrary. I helped to start a small company that provides nice jobs to about 600 people. I serve on the board of several charitable organizations - one in the arts, one in education, two that do community service projects, one religious, and one that serves the handicapped. I not only participate in their activities (to the extent my feet allow), I support each of them financially. One of the community organizations helps local families with loved ones in the military. I tutor some of thir children, and help to fund their support network.I think you've misjudged me, because that is one of the problems with liberalism: you react with emotion (which, I grant, is tied to your good and honorable intentions), rahter than reason.

* Now, I think we ulitmately want the same thing for our country. But your way is not going to get us there. Your 'shared lunch' is a lovely metaphor (and I'm all for sharing lunch) but that's not what's happening. Instead, my lunch is being forcibly grabbed by Big Government, who takes a huge bite out of it, and throws the crumbs at our feet.

* Now if you would like to engage me further on this subject, I'm game, but you'll have to put your considerable prejudices aside.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

john h on 9/15/03 at 08:38 (130052)

Dorthy: I wonder if the 1 million or so of illegal aliens that cross the border into California each year have anything to do with California's deficit? As a nation we can and do help the needy but we do not have the resources to help the world in a meaningful way. To those who complain about the needy not getting enough assistance I say first give away all your savings and property to them before you climb on the soap box. I see people like Ted Kennedy on his soap box all the time wanting to give more and more. I say to Ted give your millions away before you jump on someone else. Someone like Mother Tehresa can point fingers anywhere she wants because she not only talked the talk she walked the walk. No one should accuse anyone on this board of being uncaring or selfish because you have no idea what they have been through, where they started and came from or how they help each day in very substantial ways. Believe it or not there are a large number of people who do not want any help and refuse it. There was an older lady that for many years was always pushing a shopping cart around town with all the junk she accumulated. One Xmas I saw her on the street and attempted to give her $50. She cursed me out and told me where to go. Whether it was pride or whether she had some mental condition I do not know. There will always be those people who refuse to work and will look to the government for their livelyhood. We have people who are 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipitants. Out government attempts to help the poor have been a failure. We created inter city ghettos where people no longer have an incentive to work. Seemed like a great idea at the time for some politicians to get votes but look what it has let to. The most effective assistance for the needy comes from private organizations which are not corrupted.and do these things out of chairty and not to gain votes. About 15 years ago I stopped by a church in front of which gathers all the people who come for free food or may want to work. I called to a Black man that would it like to work for me that day. I was planting a bunch of red tops in my yard on a very hot day in very hard ground. We worked nearly 12 hours. I paid him and took him back to the church. Last year I was at a business meeting and a man walked up to me and said hello and asked if I remembered him. I of course did not. He was well dressed and seemed successful or else he would not have been at this event. He told me that he had helped me plant those red tops many years ago. He did not have his success because of anything I did but he did pick himself up by his bootstraps. I started life with very humble beginings. Lost my father at 10. I never asked for and never received any help. What I got is what I earned from age 13. People look to government more and more as time goes by for something free and our politicians are much to blame for this.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

marie on 9/15/03 at 11:52 (130070)

I would gladly give back all of the refund money that I got with tax cuts rather then think someone is doing without the basics to maintain quality of life. This is the USA and we are the best because we leave no one behind.

marie

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Sharon W on 9/15/03 at 12:11 (130074)

Well, it doesn't personally involve you, Marie, nor (I imagine) Peter R. or RC either, since as Dr. Z pointed out, Medicaid is a STATE run plan.

My comment was initially directed toward how relatively important foot care is considered to be (NOT!!!). The issue of whether tax money should be 'doled out' to help the needy and/or the elderly is something else.

Sharon
.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

marie on 9/15/03 at 14:22 (130084)

I must of misunderstood. I thought we started on foot care but somehow ended up on not helping an elderly person on a fixed income. Don't mind me I'm just trying to hang in there one day at a time. Thanks so much for letting me know.

marie

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Sharon W on 9/15/03 at 15:09 (130091)

Marie,

Reading it over, that last post sounded harsh (toward you) and that wasn't my intention. Sorry. I just wanted to point out that this isn't something going on at the federal level, and probably won't affect those worried about how much money comes out of their pockets...

Marie, you certainly weren't the one who detoured the topic toward whether taxing the rest of us to help elderly and needy folks constiutes 'theft' or not. And I did comment that an elderly diabetic lady who couldn't drive would most likely have to get her foot care from her PCP... not the most ideal option.

Sharon
.

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

marie on 9/15/03 at 15:29 (130097)

Oh that's ok...no big deal. I was in too much of a hurry and really didn't read things over to well.

marie

Re: POSTED IN MY POD'S FRONT OFFICE

Dorothy on 9/16/03 at 00:31 (130165)

I have taken a little time to think about what you have written and to think about why I reacted so strongly to what you wrote in your initial post in this set of posts. I don't even know where to begin. One of my family members said, 'Just say, 'never mind.'', but I guess I am constitutionally unable to know when to 'fold 'em'. I will simply say that your second note, the one beginning with 'Dorothy, you're not being very nice to me…' mitigates your comment in your original post, which was: 'If the elderly lady gets her foot treatment for 'free', it's coming out of our pockets. like so many other things.' Your second post modified, and mitigated, that comment when you said, 'The elderly lady should pay for what she wants out of her own pocket. If she is truly needy, of course there should be a safety net…'
You made no mention of any safety net in your original note. There is not much in your comments that lends support to your having much good opinion of ‘safety nets', but maybe you do. You sit on lots of boards, after all. I know full well that boards are important – or can be – and many do good work; people in my household and family and extended family sit/have sat on a number of boards. But, you know, R C – it just ain't trench work, now is it. And most honest board members would acknowledge that it could be argued that sitting on boards does as much or more for the board member as it does for the recipient of his/her ‘good works'. Those who sit on corporate boards make a very fine living, indeed, from sitting on boards and get lots of sweet perks, to boot. And sitting on one board easily leads to sitting on more boards. Life is grand, isn't it. Still, it doesn't sound like you are on corporate boards. Whatever, it sounds like you do make much effort to take care of your community in various ways.

I'm not going to tackle each and every one of your points. I will match the number of people I have helped in this life, and the extent to which I have helped them, to your list of the boards on which you sit and people you say you have helped any day. I can assure you that my list is a mighty list and if I were ever able to feel righteous about anything in life, I could feel righteous about that. I assume you contributed your list because I said unkind things about you, to you.. I shouldn't have said those things and would never have said them had we been talking face to face. If we were face to face, I would probably smile, grit my teeth and say nicely, ‘well, we see things differently.' I was not nice to you because I let the attitudes that you express here anger me. I don't know you. I know what you say here. What you say here seems to come out of a self-satisfied, smug way of seeing things, of seeing all life through the way that YOU experience it. That kind of perception lacks imagination and lacks empathy, it seems to me. It seems that you may be one of the people who can't even entertain the possibility that because your mother 'very carefully attended to her finances throughout her life…' other mothers and fathers shouldn't just more 'carefully attend to their finances' – when, in fact, maybe they don't have finances to attend to. Or to entertain the possibility that it is by sheer luck and grace that you have the family you describe and that others may have a whole set of challenges that you, apparently, can't even imagine. What feeling do you have for the families whose elderly are struggling and whose offspring are unemployed and have no income and can't help their mother? Yes, I know: they should have managed their finances more carefully. What a tidy life you describe, a life where things don't go wrong and go wild, where people's ‘finances' don't get wiped out, where illness doesn't alter all hopes forever, where siblings and parents can't do the familial support you describe. You wrote, 'Now, I think we ulitmately want the same thing for our country. But your way is not going to get us there.'

You make some assumptions there that I don't think you are entitled to make - like that we 'ultimately want the same thing for our country.' I don't know what you want for our country, and you don't know what I want. I trust that you mean that we both want good for our country. And you seem to think you know what 'my way' is, but you don't. Furthermore, you don't have any place to speak to me with that kind of condescension when you say, 'your way is not going to get us there..' You speak with an authoritative tone of smugness, when, in fact, it is just your opinion. I'm glad you're comfortable and secure, but they are states that elude many other people, people who also pay taxes, work hard, and have fine mothers. This doesn't make you better than they are or they worse, lazier, stupider, more profligate, less responsible than you. It is all just a state of grace and luck and chance and people who enjoy a smug, self-satisfaction don't know that – and that annoys me, to put it mildly. I am probably just as comfortable and secure as you are, but I don't think I have any special entitlement to that. Yes, I have worked very hard in my life but so have millions of others who are not comfortable and secure. I don't fancy myself any better than they are.

Those who have labeled and tried to belittle and distort my comments on this board like to falsely associate my views with some kind of dogma or rhetoric or party line. That's their problem, not mine. I consider any failure to use one's mind agilely and broadly a failure of one's education. However, this nonsensical effort to link poverty with criminality is specious - and I think evil. Those people must long for 'debtors' prisons' and 'paupers' fields'. There IS need for reform in many areas of our society, but some minds here - and unfortunately, elsewhere as well - seem to think that the only reform that is good reform involves harsher treatment of the poor and more flesh and blood from the middle-class. There are RICH people who 'work the system', take advantage of the system, enjoy 'corporate welfare' - and they benefit on a much grander scale than any poor person does who has ever exploited the system. I happen to think both are wrong, not just the poor guy. It is fascinating to me that in contemporary America any expression of compassion for fellow citizens automatically gets labeled 'liberal' - in spite of GWBs odd 'compassionate conservatism' which bears no relationship to his actual policies - and 'liberal' gets equated with wanting to 'take what YOU earn' and spend it on some criminal derelict. What great, dishonest rhetoric that is simply designed to disguise the impulse to greed. The fact is that national budgets and deficits have been HUGE under Reagan, Bush and Bush.

What actually worries me greatly is neither the rich nor the poor in the U.S. but what appears to be a vigorous effort to eradicate the 'middle class'. Soon there will be only the uber-rich and the very poor. I have a whole theory about this but I will spare us both from elaborating.

My final comment to you is: who exactly do you think you are to say to me that 'You will have to put aside your considerable prejudices' to engage with you? Did I lead you to believe that I am interested in taking orders from you? If what you want to say is that YOU think I have ‘considerable prejudices', then say so. That is simply your opinion, apparently, and an opinion that I think comes from a very self-satisfied, patronising mind.
All that blather about liberal = emotional and conservative (new brand) = rational is just that: absurd, unfounded blather.

I wish you good foot comfort, but you and I will not see eye to eye and I don't see any reason for us to continue this particular conversation. We will simply be exchanging barbs and inanities. I can hold my own in both, but it's probably not a good use of our time. Let's just smile, grit our teeth and realize that we see things differently.