I actually had a mild (albiet very mild) concussion from it, they did the cat scan because i broke playing ultimate Frisbee when 2 people collided with me and then i went down. I also just asked my mother about this, she is a nurse she says that, her hospital at least, has a policy that all head injuries get some form of a test (usually a cat scan) done, i guess this prevents frivolous law suits if they would happen to miss something,you can refuse but you can refuse any service as long as your in a right state of mind, but then the hospital can't be held accountable because it was your choice. I would consider this a good indication about our society and how mistakes are punished to the point it hurts people and makes legitimate claims look bad. or as most people call it, we're a sue crazy society....
And it's a pretty sad indication of what the system's come to and why it's gotten to be so expensive that people can't afford it in the first place.
Unless your broken nose included other head trauma, there is absolutely no reason you needed a CAT scan. It did nothing more then subject you to a *huge* amount of radiation that you don't need, and it didn't do anything that a normal X-ray coudln't do.
And it's a pretty sad indication of what the system's come to and why it's gotten to be so expensive that people can't afford it in the first place.
This message last edited by rempires on 14/12/2010 at 08:40:19 PM
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law -
13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
- 1027 Views

*yawn*
13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM
- 689 Views
Another step closer to SCOTUS.....and that will be 5-4 decision in favor of repeal!
*NM*
13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
- 267 Views

So riddle me this...
13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM
- 679 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to.....
13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM
- 642 Views
That wasn't my question.
13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM
- 746 Views
I get what you're saying...
13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM
- 739 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber?
14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM
- 679 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber.
14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM
- 608 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system.
14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM
- 728 Views
*nods*
14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM
- 702 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule.
14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM
- 820 Views
It's judicial review
14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM
- 695 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect
13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM
- 719 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it...
13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM
- 728 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional.
14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM
- 647 Views
there is a major problem with this..
14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM
- 691 Views
Bad analogy.....
14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM
- 645 Views
Re: Bad analogy.....
14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM
- 660 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM
- 641 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM
- 659 Views
Just to note....
14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM
- 661 Views
Re: Just to note....
14/12/2010 06:44:54 PM
- 643 Views
Re: Just to note....
14/12/2010 08:32:46 PM
- 647 Views
yeah, but the courts exist to strike down dumb legislation, which is what this ruling does
14/12/2010 03:17:04 AM
- 605 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation.
14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM
- 623 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link.
14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM
- 793 Views
He partially owns the lobby aiming to make it unconstitutional, which the plaintiff was a client of *NM*
14/12/2010 05:35:21 PM
- 334 Views