helmets are not optional

((Robyn,)) how can you and I agree on all that stuff, and have gotten into a disagreement on some technicality? :D:rolleyes::cool:

+1 on preferring social coverage of all medical costs, even those caused by an individual's negligence. I reckon that no matter what it costs the rest of us in dollars, the victims are paying the most in every other way, every day.

Apropos wearing a helmet, I like this aphorism: don't bother with a helmet if you've nothing to protect.

Ages ago, I came across a 2-page excerpt from a trial transcript. The case involved a 40yo man, hs grad, responsible job, solid citizen, who was clipped by a car as he was peddling along. Not a big hit, just a brush with the fender, enough to knock him off the bike. But he wasn't wearing a helmet. Despite how minor the accident was in superficial terms, he suffered permanent brain damage to the point he could no longer work and could barely function at any level. The transcript made poignantly clear that the poor soul could hardly string a coherent sentence together, and it was questionable whether he could truly understand much that was said to him. The excerpt closed with him saying (not as clearly as this) "I should have been dead. They tell me I should have been dead".

I wish I still had that excerpt, because it was terrifying to read. I can't imagine anyone reading it and then going out on their bike without a helmet. They'd truly have to have nothing to protect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

That may be true, but the other problem with people going to the ER for things like that is that it contributes to overcrowding and long waits in the ERs. A lot of people seem to think it's OK to go to the ER for minor/non-emergent things because they know they'll get treated and possibly for free, but it really isn't appropriate use of the ER. That's what urgent-care centers are for.

---

I've used the ER three times since I've lived here. That's 3 times more than the last 10 years before that.

Because we don't have urgent care centers. We have walk-in clinics, but they don't have xrays or do stitches, and they're not open 24/7.

Karen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuckervill

I've used the ER three times since I've lived here. That's 3 times more than the last 10 years before that.

Because we don't have urgent care centers. We have walk-in clinics, but they don't have xrays or do stitches, and they're not open 24/7.

Karen

---

I guess I was referring to the walk-in clinics when I said "urgent care". Stitches and possible broken bones are perfectly reasonable things to go to the ER for (and some ERs now have a "fast track" section for those types of patients, separating them from the more acute ones); things like the norovirus (unless it's a young child and they're getting dehydrated) not so much. People with that type of issue (or other more minor things that sometimes show up in the ER) should go to the walk-in clinic--if they have to wait until the next morning it's not going to hurt anything.

Oh, that's hard! I hear ya - but that's still hard.

I don't go to the ER for just anything, and I've got the kind of pain threshold where when I spilled hot oil and melted my carpet, it didn't really hurt my foot; when I cut my thumb so deeply I had a scar contracture for a year, it didn't much hurt my hand (and I kept on cooking after I got the bleeding stopped), and I never needed medical care for either one of those.

But when I had food poisoning a couple of weeks ago, another eleven hours of moaning in pain with a headache that ultimately Demerol and a liter of fluids helped but didn't eliminate (actually I think mostly it made me stop caring about the headache), and the most miserable nausea you can imagine - sorry, another eleven hours of that wasn't in the cards.

No, I wouldn't have died of it. But to say that was an abuse of the ER is just hard :o

Mostly what I've done that I would consider an abuse of the ER is when my PCP has refused to see me for a sprain because "I'd have to send you to the ER for X-rays anyhow." :mad: I wonder how in tune ER staff are with the state of primary care in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

Oh, that's hard! I hear ya - but that's still hard.

I don't go to the ER for just anything, and I've got the kind of pain threshold where when I spilled hot oil and melted my carpet, it didn't really hurt my foot; when I cut my thumb so deeply I had a scar contracture for a year, it didn't much hurt my hand (and I kept on cooking after I got the bleeding stopped), and I never needed medical care for either one of those.

But when I had food poisoning a couple of weeks ago, another eleven hours of moaning in pain with a headache that ultimately Demerol and a liter of fluids helped but didn't eliminate (actually I think mostly it made me stop caring about the headache), and the most miserable nausea you can imagine - sorry, another eleven hours of that wasn't in the cards.

No, I wouldn't have died of it. But to say that was an abuse of the ER is just hard :o

Mostly what I've done that I would consider an abuse of the ER is when my PCP has refused to see me for a sprain because "I'd have to send you to the ER for X-rays anyhow." :mad: I wonder how in tune ER staff are with the state of primary care in this country.

---

Sorry if my previous post came across as a bit harsh--that's the problem with typing things rather than saying them sometimes. I agree with you that a lot of the problem is the state of primary care. As far as your food-poisoning incident, from what you describe it sounds like it was worse than the standard stomach bug (which is more what I was thinking of in the previous post) and I can't really blame you for going to the ER in that case. Again, apologies if my post was offensive.