ScottRPosted by Julie on 11/28/04 at 14:42 (164804)
Do you think these protracted discussions-with-hidden-agendas about ESWT are useful? Are they in tune with the purpose and general spirit of the board? Are they helpful to people with heel pain?
Just wondering. Perhaps they are.
Re: JohnScott R on 11/28/04 at 15:41 (164805)
Julie, The eswt board is not only for patients but also for the ESWT professionals. Also I believe several patients are interested in the protracted ESWT discussions.
John, if you write negative things about a company or person, you need to disclose who you are. It doesn't matter if you're speaking honestly because only courts can decide what is true and not true in determining if libel has occured.
Re: ScottRDr. Z on 11/28/04 at 16:52 (164808)
I would like to try to explain what these discussions appear to be about.
They inform patients what machines have FDA approval in the USA . They inform patients what costs are involved. They inform patients about money policies and how they can hurt ESWT coverage.
They get somewhat heated but they should in the end bring about positive
information that make posters aware of what services and products they are getting or should be getting.
I still don't understand why when I pointed out sometime back that fees are only one part of the total picture when deciding an ESWT provider
On another note. Scott
I tried to research back the poster who asked if it were true that United didn't charge for the equipment when no insurance coverage was in place.
The search engine didn't go pass 30. I think that this specific post is a prime example of why this topic is brought up. This specific poster had asked about the no thrills United policy. He couldn;t get anything in writing. Could you bring this post back cause if will show why patients need to get things in writing and ask questions
Re: ScottRvince on 11/28/04 at 20:19 (164818)
The best place to find out about United's payment policys is directly from them. My podiatrist also assured me that what I was told was accurate and even though I didn't receive it in writing but the doctors assurance was all that I needed. Any podiatrist who work with them will tell their patients the same thing. My podiatrist has even done the same with patients whose insurance did not cover ESWT and didn't charge them either. He/she said it was sound marketing and that it would bring many new patients to the practice. He/she said doctors who have any degree of proffessioanl ethics often provide free medical care to those who can't afford it. Believe it or not there are doctors who do not feel that $$$$$ should always follow the MD or DPM after their name. Are there any that post here?
Re: ScottR ScottRDr. Z on 11/28/04 at 20:31 (164819)
I was providing ESWT at no charge years ago and still do.
Lets see you has low energy eswt treatments and didn't know that low energy wasn't FDA approved BUT you asked questions about United in great detail including that they had an FTC problem and then was told by your present podiatrist that hey don't worry no charge to you if your insurance company doesn't pay . How Santa Claus is real and is coming to my house .
Come on ScottR it time to stop this ridiculous posting by Vince. Vince has stated that there is no professional ethics by DR. Z . Its time to remove him. !!!!!!!!!!!!!
He/she said doctors who have any degree of proffessioanl ethics often provide free medical care to those who can't afford it. Believe it or not there are doctors who do not feel that $$$$$ should always follow the MD or DPM after their name. Are there any that post here?
Re: ScottRScott R on 11/28/04 at 21:06 (164822)
Dr Z, there's no reason to be mad at vince for saying doctors who don't work for free for the poor are unethical. Everyone knows that's absurd. If i banned people for making stupid comments, i wouldn't be allowed to post. It's hard enough trying to be nice.
I need to know words that may have occured in the united post to find it.
Re: ScottRDr. Z on 11/28/04 at 21:21 (164824)
I have to think of some words. I do remember that the poster had called United and ask them to put into writing and that the United people refused to do this . The post was this year
Re: United post - i found itScott R on 11/28/04 at 21:39 (164825)
Re: United post - i found itDr. Z on 11/28/04 at 22:07 (164826)
This is the exact post that I have been referring too. I will repeat if it true. the company should be wiling to place what they say in writing. Its just common sense. ScottR thanks for the effort to find this post. I feel that it is serves posters coming to this board for information.
Re: ScottR, Dr ZJulie on 11/29/04 at 01:25 (164830)
OK, I was just wondering. I still am, really, because it seems to me that the discussion has been loaded with veiled barbs from people who have - perhaps - not been up front about their interests, and also occasionally loaded with acrimony.
If I'm the only person who is uncomfortable about them, that's fine - I don't have to read this board.
Re: ScottREd Davis, DPM on 11/29/04 at 14:31 (164857)
I have been LOSING money on ESWT, on the net over the last two years but will do it because it is the RIGHT thing to do. I can make it up on referrrals and goodwill as I have a lot of greatful patients out there referring friends and neighbors. Also, United DOES place in writing its policy. I have given that to numerous patients who just 'could not believe it.'
Re: United post - i found itEd Davis, DPM on 11/29/04 at 14:41 (164861)
ScottR and Dr. Z:
I have a letter from United that plainly states their billing policy and have provided it to a number of patients. Contact me if you need a copy.
I use my Sonorex more for achilles tendinitis as it is off label but feel that I get remarkable results with it.
ScottR-- at least vince is letting us know who he IS. My problem is not so much with him but with those who come here professing or feigning expertise but refusing to let people know who they are affiliated with or what their qualifications are. I just went through a page of arguments with such an individual 'john' and did so about 18 months ago with a 'Bill.' ScottR, I think that there are basically two categories or people who should predominate here: patients seeking advice and/or relating experiences and advice givers who have legitimate credentials they are willing to give. There is no room for company shills! They are muddying the waters, misleading patients and distracting the doctors and other professionals from what we should be here to do-- help patients.
Re: United post - i found itDr. Z on 11/29/04 at 14:50 (164865)
I agree with all you had stated except how do you know when is this person telling the truth about who they are. There is an interesting post that John points out about Vince. Vince talks about United and their problems with the FTC. The problem is that the FTC was not about United but with the ESWL group Parkside. So common sense would tell me that the only way Vince knew about Parkside was because he works for United or one of their group. This post isn't about who Vince works for cause I really could care less but it is about how can you tell who is telling what and why.
I do know that John has never accused myself or anyone of not caring about patient and only money, this came from Vince. John has never attacked anyone on this board. He has backup his view point with literature. He expresses himself well and isn't mean.
Re: ScottREd Davis, DPM on 11/29/04 at 14:52 (164867)
The 'hidden agenda' comment is right on the mark. I am getting very tired of the company shills that distract us from our goal on this site-- helping patients.
Re: United post - i found itEd Davis, DPM on 11/29/04 at 14:54 (164868)
John is often courteous but he acts awfully like a company shill. He is extremely authoritative but will not let people know who is is or who he represents. Its called 'truth in labelling.' Lets be honest and lay ALL the cards out on the table.
Re: United post - i found itDr. Z on 11/29/04 at 16:19 (164875)
I have no problem with that position period.
Re: ScottRvince on 11/29/04 at 16:49 (164882)
You are probably getting lots of referals from those patients who you claim you are losing money on. Besides you have probably seen them 20+ times for conservative therapy so the ESWT treatment is just like one 15-20 min look at their foot for free if it really is without your getting any payment.
Re: ScottREd Davis, DPM on 11/29/04 at 18:36 (164891)
It varies. I get patients who have had the gamut of conservative treatments elsewhere and have come to me just for ESWT and I get patients who have exhausted conservative therapy at my office.
Re: ScottR, Dr ZEd Davis, DPM on 11/29/04 at 18:40 (164892)
The last thing we want to do is to be chasing valued people like yourself off this board. This board should exist to benefit patients but the shills and disinformation types need to be moderated.
Re: JulieLynn F. on 11/29/04 at 21:15 (164921)
Rest assured, you are not the only person questioning what these boards are becoming lately. As a recent newcomer here, and chronic PF sufferer, I have received tremendous support from yourself, Dr. Z, and other fellow sufferers. However, I am visiting less and less because of all the time it takes to sift through, what seems to be to me, alot of never ending debate, and egotistical banter. I realize everyone is entitled to their opinion, it just seems to diminish what I perceived this site's purpose to be when I first came upon it. I would imagine anyone trying to determine whether they should/shouldn't have surgery.. ESWT, would be absolutely confused reading all this. I know I would have been.
For what it's worth, I'm so glad you brought it up!
Re: ScottR ScottRHenry on 11/29/04 at 22:24 (164927)
Dr. Z, I agree with your assessment of Vince and his attitude. He is insulting to the doctors on the board and belittling to anyone who does not agree with him. If ScottR moderates this board then come on and do it.
Re: Lynn and EdJulie on 11/30/04 at 03:38 (164932)
Thanks, Lynn. I didn't think I was the only one. But I guess people have the right to discuss whatever they want to discuss on an internet forum, and as Scott says, the ESWT board is for ESWT professionals as well as for patients. I do wish, though, that there was not so much acrimony, and under-handedness. I'm for transparency and openness, but the discussions on this ESWT board in the last few weeks have increasingly demonstrated the opposite. I don't know, quite honestly, what it's all about - and I find it very tiresome and unhelpful.
Ed - I meant only that I would not read this (ie ESWT) board. But of course it's hard not to, as I always read all 'posts since your last visit'. I guess I'll just have to go on being bored with this board.
Re: ScottRvince on 11/30/04 at 05:13 (164936)
I will state it once more- I am not a 'shill' for United Shockwave. If I had been treated by 'Sams ESWT Company and Car Wash' and had found them to be honest and provided professional, safe, effective, affordable service I would state that here. Well, it wasn't 'Sams' it was 'UNITED SHOCKWAVE' and just like I would tell a friend about a good plumber or house painter I am telling it here.
Re: ScottREd Davis. DPM on 11/30/04 at 09:15 (164950)
I don't thnk that you are a shill. You have come out and identified yourself as a patient. I am concerned about those who don't identify themselves.
Re: ScottRDr. Z on 11/30/04 at 09:40 (164952)
I think a good idea would be to mention who your treating ESWT doctor was. He should share the success.!!!
Re: Lynn and EdEd Davis, DPM on 11/30/04 at 18:17 (164988)
My concern is that patients are being 'chased' off the board. There are a number of individuals with authoritative information and we ALL have our biases and opinions and should let readers know WHO we are. i beleive in 'being nice' but being honest is even more important.