SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumar89 who wrote (22548)11/16/2011 4:55:59 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 42652
 
Excuse me, you learned something new from that post or are pretending to have?

That was brand new information.

Previously all you had told me by way of explanation for the necessity of your MRI was 1) that your surgeon wouldn't do surgery without it (which connotes that its purpose was prep for surgery, not for diagnosis) and 2) that you can't see into the body without some kind of scan (which is a truism, which doesn't inform the discussion). Over and over you repeated each of those points. Over and over I prompted for something more. I was hoping you would write something along the lines of "he wasn't sure if the problem was A or B so he ordered the MRI so he could tell." Not only would that have been diagnosis, it would have adequately demonstrated medical necessity. And that would have been that.

But kept insistingt that it was a "prerequisite for surgery." We went back and forth a few times on the topic of cutting the patient open and seeing what's what vs doing the scan ahead of time so that the surgery would be better planned. I even acknowledged that there was value in "looking inside" before surgery to determine whether it would be an open surgery or something with a scope. You never gave any indication that he didn't know what was wrong with your knee until he saw the results of the scan.

To elicit explanation from you, at one point I wrote:

"Anecdotal evidence useful in countering that claim would have been that your MRI was instrumental in your surgery being done effectively, particularly if you or the surgeon would have done something different absent it. OTOH, if the surgeon had it done only because he's just in the habit of doing them or to protect himself from a lawsuit or because the MRI is a profit center for him, then your anecdote supports the POV of the article rather than countering it."

That was your cue to provide more info about the reason for the MRI beyond it being the surgeon's universal rule. But you blew it off. Instead of explaining, you accused me of game playing.

Why did you think I referred to it as an example of use as diagnosis from the initial post on it?

We had this discussion. You didn't offer a segue. The ensuing discussion on both sides was about surgery. There was no reason to suspect that "prerequisite for surgery" and "see inside" was about anything but effecting a quality surgery. It's a bit late to shift gears now. The text of our discussion is on the record.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News