creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
3 Oct 2014
The President's Security

When you hear Rep. Darrell Issa, one of the president's harshest Republican critics in the House, demanding … Read More.

1 Oct 2014
Helen

Today would be my mother's 88th birthday, which is not so old, but my mother seemed very old eight years ago, … Read More.

24 Sep 2014
The Last of the Willie Horton Ads?

The spectacular failure of incumbent Alaska Sen. Mark Begich to use a "Willie Horton-style ad" (it's being … Read More.

Stomachaches

Comment

I've had stomachaches for as long as I can remember. As a kid, I called it an "uncomfortable feeling." As an adult, it was sometimes downright painful. But they came and went, and I chalked it up to stress and overwork and my long family history of stomachaches. And when it got a little worse, I dashed in to see the gastroenterologist, who wrote me scripts to stop spasms and break the cycle. But that stopped working, too. I couldn't break the cycle, and I entered a world in which trying to figure out my stomachaches produced even bigger ones — the world of modern American medicine at its best and worst.

I'm not covered by Obamacare, like it or not. One of the advantages of having two full-time jobs (law professor and lawyer) is having two comprehensive insurance policies. Most of the doctors I went to see — supposedly "the best" — had posted signs announcing that they do not participate in any plans, Obamacare or otherwise, no PPOs. Two of them, my two insurance policies notwithstanding, made me pay upfront for each visit. I had access to the best.

I've read a lot of stories about how you're supposed to "manage" your own health care, "produce" it even, as I've explained to my friends in the business, just like you might a program or a campaign.

If anybody should be able to do this, other than a doctor, it should be someone like me: smart, well-insured, good for the deductible, semi-famous, well-connected, not to mention charming, not demanding (really, I'm not), a well-liked patient who has done favors and extended thoughtful gestures to many of my doctors.

I spent almost two years trying to manage things. My family doctor tried to help me. And all I can say, in this small amount of space, is that other than in the past month, I failed completely.

Once in a while, a client will mention something he found online about an issue in a legal case, and I will try, kindly, to tell him he really shouldn't look for legal advice online, that situations are different and facts matter, that some people who write about law online have no idea what they're talking about even though they do it with great certainty, and that the most important thing a person can do is pick the right lawyer and listen to her or him. I may be wrong, I tell my clients, but the chances of my being right are so much greater than those of someone who doesn't know this system and understand its workings as I do after more than 30 years that it makes sense to trust me.

Get a second opinion, of course. But make sure it is from the right person. Ha!

I think I saw 14 different doctors. In critical respects, most of them were simply wrong. Wrong. The ones who were sure I needed surgery were wrong because the tests, until the last ones, didn't prove that. The one who was sure it was all in my head was definitely wrong. The surgeon who reassured me that I needn't worry about a bag ("I hate those bags; you just can't find shoes to match.") was right about that risk, but was completely inappropriate and proposed the wrong surgery anyway.

I say this assuming the most recent doctor, the one I met last week at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, is right. I didn't manage my medical care. I just endured long enough to find someone my gut told me I should listen to, in the same way my clients should listen to me.

But what I also found at Mayo, and not just from the doctor, was hope and courage. The people I was with for those three days of testing displayed a level of dignity, decency and determination I have rarely seen. To a person, they were sicker than me. I don't think any of them would tell you they were "managing" their care. We were just lucky to be there and trying to help each other through it. God bless them all.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM



Comments

37 Comments | Post Comment
Dear Ms. Estrich,

As a Blue Dog Democrat, I hope you don't take this as a two'fer because I disagree with your Liberal stances, but I hope your stomach ache is just that, nothing more than a benign stomach ache.

As a lapsed Roman Catholic, my praying for you would probably do no good, but I do wish you Good Health!

Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #1
Posted by: Dennis
Tue Oct 7, 2014 8:48 PM
You know what is utterly sickening and stomach churning?

That this clusterf*ck of a miserable failure of a president is still in office betraying America and Americans daily at home and on the world stage.

Gates, Clinton, Panetta, his chosen people, have all called him out as a liar and feckless failure as a leader, a coward, one who cannot bring himself to do the right thing.

It is bad enough when former recent cabinet members call out a sitting president but it becomes clear to all that he is a total miserable failure when Jimmy "loser on an epic scale" Carter gives truthful voice to the ineptitude and uselessness of the community organizer in chief.

Mark, steveM, and all that voted for this creature, one trusts that you remain proud of the destruction you have wrought upon America and upon the future of your own children and grandchildren who will forever be paying off and suffering from the money debts and moral and life hazards created by Obama and this jewel of utter incompetence and hatred of all things American, Administration. An Administration that is infested with vacant bimbos, salon elite sycophants and traitors such as Kerry "the kept man" who is presently negotiating a nuclear Iran.

Comment: #2
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Oct 8, 2014 8:38 PM
Sorry to hear of your troubles, I hope they are resolved soon. We surely have made a mess of our healthcare system and it's just going to get worse until we start electing people who read and understand legislation before they vote for it.
Comment: #3
Posted by: pb1222
Wed Oct 8, 2014 8:46 PM
Re: pb1222
The challenge is electing people who ignore what their corporate masters tell them. One of the lovely "money saving" treasures so favored by the GOP is cutting legislative staff and shifting the writing of legislation to the corporations. If you have no staff or time to research the legislation, even a good intentioned politician is going to sign some turkeys.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Mark
Wed Oct 8, 2014 11:40 PM
Just gas!
Comment: #5
Posted by: Oldtimer
Thu Oct 9, 2014 6:58 AM
Re: Mark
I seem to recall that it was the wombat, the queen of botox, the wholly toxic Pelosi who announced when referring to the calamity that is obamacare " But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" and it was the other glittering jewel of work ethic Dem Congressman Conyers then chairman of the House judiciary committee who said " I love these members, they get up a say "Read the Bill". What good is reading the bill and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means." when referring to the same catastrophe.

Oh and you may want to actually find out who drafted large portions of obamacare before you, like bozo Biden, stick your foot firmly in your mouth again.

Lastly it is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seems that the only important matter to libs, progressives, and other such numbskulls is that they can despite all evidence to the contrary convince themselves that the bill had good intent, or that the voter had good intent, not the wholly predictable destructive results.
Comment: #6
Posted by: joseph wright
Thu Oct 9, 2014 1:37 PM
Re: Dennis;... I think the prayers of sinners are the only ones that work. If you know what I mean. Otherwise things would always be getting better without the firm hand of human intervention.
Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #7
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Oct 9, 2014 8:40 PM
Re: joseph wright;... Say it ain't so, Joe. Do you mean to say that all this nonsense is a war between those who think government can be made to work while changing nothing, and those who know it won't work because they won't let it work, -because letting it work is against their principals?
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #8
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Oct 9, 2014 8:45 PM
Re: James A, Sweeney
No!
Comment: #9
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:30 AM
Comment: #10
Posted by: Lou Toth
Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:47 AM
Comment: #11
Posted by: Lou Toth
Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:13 AM
Comment: #12
Posted by: Lou Toth
Fri Oct 10, 2014 12:42 PM
Re: James A, Sweeney

Hi James,

I do know what you mean about prayer!

I do hope Ms. Estrich isn't seriously ill, and that she's complaining about I guess the complexity of the Affordable Care Act, although I'm open to other suggestions to just what she's getting at.

I do support health care for all Americans, I'm just against THE WAY this legislation was passed with massive bribes to outgoing congressmen / women and re-elected ones too!

Added to this was as mentioned in previous posts was the members didn't even care enough about reading what it was, and bipartisanship was run over by a Mack truck, and then my Democratic Party has the absolute gall to complain about the Republicans lack of bipartisanship. All of this then was shoved down all of our throats whether we liked it or not!

Why can't the Liberals see just why we the people are fed up???

Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #13
Posted by: Dennis
Fri Oct 10, 2014 3:37 PM
Re: Dennis
Dennis,
There is lots of "fed up" to go around, thus political gridlock. We are in for interesting times.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Mark
Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:56 PM
Re: Mark

Hi Mark,

I'd love to blame the American people for gridlock, for not voting in the primaries thus letting the extremes set up the candidate for the general election. However, I can fully understand how disgusted people are who don't vote! I know I don't have the answer.

Take same sex marriage. In every election, the voters have rejected it, yet the courts keep shoving it down the people's throat, and the MSM keeps stating " but it's the way the people want it". Duh, am I missing something.

Maybe that is the answer after all. Just let the Federal Courts rule the country, and do away with Congress altogether. Have you ever noticed the only laws that are ruled constitutional are the ones passed by Liberals.

Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #15
Posted by: Dennis
Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:13 AM
So now we know why you cut back to one "Tuesday" article per week.

Time is the fire in which we all burn.

The smell of death is pretty strong from where I am standing too.

Life goes by in the blink of an eye. Too quickly to waste one day being a liberal.



Comment: #16
Posted by: SusansMirror
Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:11 AM
Re: Dennis
Dennis,
The people in the mid twentieth century south wanted segregated schools, restaurants, no inter-racial marriage and for black people to sit in the back of the bus. That did no make it right and the courts said so. (And southern conservatives screamed about the courts ignoring southern culture, traditional marriage, majority opinion, etc.)
.
I suspect that the majority of the GOP is secretly thrilled with the courts resolving this one. The majority opinion in the matter of gay marriage, especially that of younger voters, is rapidly shifting in favor of gay marriage. In those states that have had gay marriage for a while the result has not been the sudden failure of traditional marriage, or some such, loudly predicted by right wing nuts. The sky has not fallen and the shift in public opinion has accelerated. This leaves GOP candidates with a choice: They can be rabid RINOs on the issue and win TEA party support or they can appeal to the majority of voters by focusing on more important issues and lose the primary. Having the courts push the issue off the table is a godsend to the GOP.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Mark
Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:25 AM
Re: Dennis
" Have you ever noticed the only laws that are ruled constitutional are the ones passed by Liberals."
.
I suspect that you are the victim of observational bias. Of course, it could just be that liberals just pay more attention to the constitution when they pass laws. (Probably not.)
Comment: #18
Posted by: Mark
Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:49 AM
Re: Mark

Hi Mark,

Actually, I was half joking when I wrote the only laws ruled constitutional are the one's passed by Liberals. What I meant was if you ask Conservatives if they feel they'll get a fair shake from the courts I sort of think you'll hear NO! I don't mean to suggest this is a 'fact', just an 'opinion' based on the level of frustration I seem to hear and read.

As for same sex marriage I'm not stating it's right or wrong, only that in 'fact' every time it was voted on by the voters it did lose! It has only won in the courts. I too have read the statistics about same sex marriage and the younger generation. However, it is the MSM pushing that statistic, and we all know the MSM has a Liberal agenda.

You're probably correct about my observational bias, but I do try to see both sides. Some times I'm successful, and others, I just don't understand. I also agree that the Republicans are happy to see the courts handle this problem, but I have to add so are the Liberal Democrats for obvious reasons.

Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #19
Posted by: Dennis
Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:17 PM
Re: Dennis
Actually liberal democrats are more than happy to push the issue. It makes the base happy and it attracts younger voters. It's moderate dems in more conservative areas that don't want to get too vocal in support of gay marriage. Prediction: In ten years it will be about as easy to find a major party candidate who is opposed to gay marriage as it is to currently find one that opposes interracial marriage, and for the same reason; once the typical voter knows a gay married couple they will get that the happiness of another does not cause them harm.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Mark
Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:02 PM
Dear Susan,
I suffered from stomach aches for years as well. I was diagnosed with a number of different problems during that time, incliding, collitus, h.pylori, pre ulcers....and placed on a plethora of different medications at various times. Allmof them made me more sick.

Finally,mafter being hospitailzed for a rare infection, and placed on 3 antibiotics, 3x a day for over a month, my stomach and intestines were shot! The pain was horrible and i no reprieve. I began to reseacrh herbal remedies and homeopathy because i was desparate. Plese read on....the University of Maryland and several other prestigious schools have been studying TURMERAC EXTRACTfor its medicianl properties - the biggest being digestive disorders. I purchased an organic herbal extract and began taking one dropper full 2x day and within 12 hours, my stomach and allmof its pain and misery completely disappeared.

I give this to friends and family everytime they have a disgestive problem and they experience the same results.
I wish you well.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Tumbalina
Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:24 PM
Re: Mark
Each and every post you make is a demonstration of a pathetic towering ignorance of the true history of Southern Democrats, ignorance of the history of the Democratic Party and abject ignorance of the Constitution and of the dangers of the advance of liberal relativism.

If the voters of the separate states, with whom the constitutional power to decide resides, want gay marriage let them say so.

Oh but they have spoken and have spoken clearly.

They have all said no, but by a misapplication of the Fourteenth Amendment activist federal liberal judges, who have absolutely no legitimate Constitutional power to rule on the matter have acted overrule the will of the people.
But for Mark and his ilk that wholly acceptable because per Mark ......

"....once the typical voter knows a gay married couple they will get that the happiness of another does not cause them harm"

Why not apply that argument to pedophilia, to bestiality, to polygamy which, incidentally, some liberals are already doing to justify the federal courts overreaching on the Fourteenth amendment on those maters as is has done in the gay marriage issues?

It seems that if to a liberal his pedophile or polygamist or "animal loving" neighbor is happy doing what he does, and if he doesn't actually harm the liberal by his perverse behavior its just fine.. right Mark? That's the logical extension of your argument.

So legalized pedophilia, legalized bestiality and legalized polygamy on its way to, just as the destruction of the economy, the destruction of American hegemony and the opening of our borders to terrorists, illegals and deadly disease has already been brought to you, curtsey of liberal activist judges and progressives like Mark.
Comment: #22
Posted by: joseph wright
Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:59 AM
Re: joseph wright
Gosh Joseph,
In your rush to an extreme slippery slope argument, you seem to have skipped right over inter-racial marriage. In Joseph's odd little world, would state bans on inter-racial marriage be just a simple "states rights" issue? It has been 47 years since the Loving vs. Virginia decision. Has federal court forced acceptance of inter-racial marriage led to a legal acceptance of pedophilia? After all, in Joseph-land, doesn't the argument for accepting inter-racial marriage lead straight down that slippery slope?
Comment: #23
Posted by: Mark
Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:19 PM
Re: joseph wright

Hi Joseph,

Although these last couple of posts including this one is straying from Ms. Estrich's column, and I do plead guilty, I have to mention I believe I have read in a news article a Utah state court judge has already ruled polygamy legal which if true now sets up a 'case law' argument. Let's face it, if three or more 'adults' want to get married how much different is it from either interracial or homosexual marriage other than DPW supporting the children?

Pedophilia and bestiality leaves out 'adult' at least for pedophilia and of course legal 'consent'. I hope our Federal judges have stooped to such low standards yet! Yet many are Liberal, and I may be proven quite wrong.

Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #24
Posted by: Dennis
Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:58 PM
Dear Ms. Estrich,

Addendum to my above post:

No matter how many times I preview my posts, a typo will get through.

I hope our Federal judges 'haven't' stooped to such low standards yet.

Sorry about my typo.

Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #25
Posted by: Dennis
Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:03 PM
Re: Mark
No Mark I did not. Your post once again demonstrates a total ignorance of what is or is not constitutional and what is or is not coming.

There was no federal court forced acceptance of inter racial marriage in the manner you posit. Interracial marriage was a constitutional right arising out of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the rights of blacks to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court simply and correctly upheld those rights.

Loving v Virginia was properly and constitutionally decided. Activist Democrat federal judges striking down state laws against homosexual marriage voted upon by the electorates of the various states by an improper use of the Fourteenth Amendment is not.

The sole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment as ratified by the states was to guarantee black rights after Democrats in the states passed laws discriminatory of the freed blacks. The equal protection clause was specifically ratified to ensure that all races had the same rights. The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by Republicans. The rationale in Loving was that no part of a state law could be constitutional if it created criminality out of an act based solely on the race of the actor. That was what the Virginia law banning inter race marriage did and accordingly the court struck it down. Is that so difficult to understand?

Why is it so difficult for you and those like you to understand that enforcing a Constitutional Amendment with a specific purpose is a very different matter from the illicit activism of liberal federal judges finding a fictional constitutional right members of the same sex to marry.

It is the illicit unconstitutional activism of liberal judges supported and endorsed by the ignorant that creates the slippery slope.

Just like Ebola and ISIS are or will be slipping in through porous borders created by an activist president so too will pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality eventually slip through via activist immoral Democrat federal judges and your it does no harm bs.


Comment: #26
Posted by: joseph wright
Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:41 PM
Re: joseph wright
Joseph,
Let's go back in a time machine to 1967. Were the extreme southern conservatives, the Josephs of that day, if you will, saying "I'm so glad that we have these nine wise men to show us the error of our thinking on this inter racial marriage thing. It was right there in the constitution, if we had only bothered to look." or was it more like "Dammed activist judges making up the law as they go. The 14 amendment doesn't say a dam thing about inter racial marriage. They just usurped states rights and made up the law with no regard for our deep traditions, etc. etc." If you believe the former, I have a bridge to sell you. (If Rush said so would you believe it?)
.
I am glad to discover that there is a limit to even your extremism. I was beginning to have my doubts. At last! Something we agree on! Loving vs. Virginia as correctly decided. One could argue that the law was equal in VA. It gave equal access to marriage to blacks and to whites. They were equally free to marry within their own race. They were equally forbidden to marry outside of their race. Yes, the case was properly decided, but the parallels to gay marriage are obvious. Gay adults have always had same access to marriage as hetero-sexual adults even in the most homo-phobic states, as long as they marry outside of their gender. Of course such "equality" is meaningless. And yes, this extends the 14th amendment to places the authors probably did not intend, as did Loving vs. Virginia.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Mark
Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:49 PM
The (obvious) goal of the liberals (Progressives) is to do away with the Republican Party by concentrating on social issues which are anti-conservative principles.
They may be successful. What results is totalitarinism, a dictatorship so similar to what we are fighting in the world to eliminate.
Comment: #28
Posted by: Oldtimer
Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:00 AM
Re: Mark

If Mark went back in a time machine to 1967 he would find that all officials elected statewide elections in Virginia from 1886-1969 were Democrats and that the Virginia General Assembly was dominated by the Democratic Party with only a handful of elected Republicans.

The 1902 State Constitution drafted by Democrats disenfranchised all non white voters and the challenge of defining what was "white" culminated in the Virginia General Assembly of Democrats passing the 1924 Racial Integrity Act which amongst other matters made racial inter marriage illegal and punishable by prison, It was this Act which was at the heart of Loving v Virginia. Repeat the 1924 Racial Integrity Act was a Democratic Party Act.
And so those "extreme southern conservatives" were not Josephs at all, but Mark's and every other Democrat's racist predecessors and forbearers. Lets get that part straight.

It never ceases to amnuse how the Democratic Party which was and remains the party of slavery, its supporters and progressives and liberals always seek to scrub that history and seek to ignore the Democratic Party's present attitude and policy of enslaving blacks and other minorities on the welfare plantation. Still !

And if Mark thinks for one second that the southern Democrats who enacted the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924 gave a damn about the Fourteenth Amendment then it is I that have a bridge to sell Mark, a bridge which the delusional fool might actually buy.

Further It is doubtful if Mark has actually read the Fourteenth Amendment because had he done so it would have been difficult to miss the express words " No State shall make or enforce any law which ......". The notion of those extreme southern Democrats wrongly bemoaning Dammed activist judges making up the law as they go. The 14 amendment doesn't say a dam thing about inter racial marriage or racial integrity may be truer than Mark would like.
That said, Loving v Virginia was properly decided not on an activist extension of the Fourteenth Amendment but on the words and original intent and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment which was intended to address equal treatment of races and to prohibit criminalization of an act based solely on the race of the actor.

Mark by referring to the striking down of laws regarding same sex marriage as an extension of the "14th amendment to places the authors probably did not intend" makes my point for me.

If a liberal court can find a right to slaughter 50 millions plus unborn children in the womb in the "penumbra of the emanations" of the Bill of Rights and can find a right to marriage between same sexes in the Fourteenth Amendment, then there is no doubt that some perverse liberal federal judge will find a right to "love children" or a right to "love animals" or the right to "love several women in marriage simultaneously" therein also.
Now what was Mark saying about slippery slopes?
Comment: #29
Posted by: joseph wright
Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:08 PM
Wow! News flash! Southern conservatives of the early to mid twentieth century were Democrats! Who knew? And I thought that democrats were a long line of saints. Joseph, just which party do you think the still living democrats of that era now vote for? Yes, the southern Josephs of that day were democrats and the GOP got their support starting with Nixon's southern strategy. Signing the voting rights act was not without cost to the democratic party.
Comment: #30
Posted by: Mark
Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:18 AM
Re: Mark
Spinning your way to stupidity!
Comment: #31
Posted by: Oldtimer
Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:56 AM
Re: Mark

Still delusional and still in denial. LOL! Liberals do love their make believe fictional history of civil rights and southern "conservatives" in drag as Democrats.

In the Presidential campaigns of 1958 the Republican Platform expressly endorsed and supported the anti segregation decision in Brown v Board of Education. The Democrat platform did not. Instead 99 members of Congress, all Democrats save 2 signed the "Southern Manifesto" denouncing Brown.

At the same time the Brown decision was being openly defied by Democrat governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubas, (friend of Bill "Bubba" "Monica" Clinton) who refused to admit black students to Little Rock Central High requiring Eisenhower to send in troops.

The defiance by Faubus was made possible by a weak 1957 civil rights bill that was stripped of its enforcement provisions by Democcrat LBJ. Even that weakened bill was opposed by 18 Senators-all Democrats. (Surprise? no !)
That 1957 bill was sent to Congress by Eisenhower, passed with the intervention of Nixon and opposed exclusively by guess what? Yes.....Democrats.

But not Mark's fictional Josephs, it was opposed not by "southern Democrats" not by fictional "conservative Democrats" but just Democrats being Democrats, such as Wayne Morse of Oregon, Warren Magnuson of Washington, Murray or Montana, Mansfield of Montana and O'Mahoney of Wyoming to give some examples.

Contrary to the liberal myth only one of the segregationist elected Democrats ever became Republican- Thurmond. The rest just continued on being not just Democrats but liberal Democrats namely Harry Byrd, Robert Byrd, Allen Ellender, Al Gore Sr., William Fullbright, Walter George, Russell Long, Richard Russell.

These "southern" Democrats were liberal Democrats when they were racists and remained liberal Democrats after they stopped being racist, at least stopped being racist in public. They remained and voted Democrat.
According to a steward travelling on Air Force One LBJ explained to fellow Democrats after doing a 180 on civil rights and pushing the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed by Republicans, "I'll have them n*ggers voting Democratic for two hundred years" ( Mugged)

As stated before the Democratic party was the party of slavery and the party of segregation and remains just that way today, only its continuines its slaver and segregationist role by deliberately keeping minorities on the welfare plantation and by divisive race, gender and class warfare politics.

And you Mark, sorry to say for you, are either a willing or duped part and parcel of it.
Comment: #32
Posted by: joseph wright
Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:37 AM
Susan,
I pray for your good health!
Comment: #33
Posted by: Oldtimer
Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:54 AM
Re: Oldtimer

As do I Oldtimer. I suspect because this column has been up longer than usual, Ms. Estrich's stomach aches may be more than a stomach ache.
Comment: #34
Posted by: Dennis
Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:13 PM

There are rumors given that barry has put the O in ebOla that Air Force One is to be renamed

the EbOla Gay.
Comment: #35
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:44 AM
Re: joseph wright
Many of the younger generation (under fifty) won't get your pun.
Comment: #36
Posted by: Oldtimer
Mon Oct 20, 2014 7:40 AM
First, it's not just "the best" doctors who have decided insurance doesn't work for them in the age of Obamacare. I have a good job, am in good health, but my old doctor retired and I couldn't find a new doctor within 15 miles of here that would accept my insurance (and it's not even Obamacare). Fortunately, I have an out of network option and can pay for my own care. If obamacare does anything, it will be to guarantee it creates two tiers of medicine. One for those who can afford to pay and another for those who can't.
On the overall more important point of the stomach ailments you've been experiencing. Of course you've probably heard it all before. I, too, have suffered from them off an on most of my adult life. The solution for me was to take a low dose of a serotonin inhibitor. Poof, away they went. This does not mean your symptoms are "in your head". If you haven't tried it, and if your Phoenix experience doesn't work out, give it a try. Good luck.
Comment: #37
Posted by: CowboyRick
Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:45 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 23 Oct 2014
Matt Towery
Matt ToweryUpdated 23 Oct 2014
R. Emmett Tyrrell
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.Updated 23 Oct 2014

4 Apr 2008 Grace and Acceptance

21 May 2010 Guns and Drugs

4 Nov 2011 Welcome to the Show, Mr. Cain