Damn Puff Test

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:18:48 GMT, "rk"
<p_haha_medium@gmail.com> wrote:

>forget about the pap and pelvic I vote the worst test is an EMG!
>as much as they test me, I usually have 17-22 spots they check
>and over an hour.
>
>there are just somethings you need to just shut up about and
>have the tests done.
>--
Ultrasound is my least favourite; the tech here seems to
need to push the thing in as hard as possible.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Rome and Lazio

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:22:36 -0600, Hi_Therre
<KnotHead@Rosebud.com> wrote:

>>Don't whine about other people's testing habits when you are
>>so resistant to getting proper care yourself in another
>>area. What price eyesight? I could live without a toe but I
>>couldn't live with going blind.
>
>Boy, you are in a nasty mood today. The ophthalmologist costs $158 to
>just walk in the door while the optometrist cost is $55 total. Care
>to pay for it?

I don't think she was being nasty. She was giving a bit of
tough love mate.

Relax a little.

Which is more expensive: $103 difference now, or the white
cane and the guide dog later?

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Rome and Lazio

TigerLily wrote:
> your periferal vision depends on this! and you
> can't drive effectively without periferal
> vision....... it's one of the tests for getting a
> driver's license

Must depend on your state. I did not take one
in Indiana or New York. As far as I can remember,
not in Oregon or California, either.

--
Wes Groleau

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which
the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.
-- unknown

Alan S wrote:
> Which is more expensive: $103 difference now, or the white
> cane and the guide dog later?

The $103. Around here, the taxpayers pick up the tab for the other.

--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/Wes

"Alan S" <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news58ql2thhkjodu2vj1cf9g4kumas1lod23@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:22:36 -0600, Hi_Therre
: <KnotHead@Rosebud.com> wrote:
:
: >>Don't whine about other people's testing habits when you are
: >>so resistant to getting proper care yourself in another
: >>area. What price eyesight? I could live without a toe but I
: >>couldn't live with going blind.
: >
: >Boy, you are in a nasty mood today. The ophthalmologist costs $158 to
: >just walk in the door while the optometrist cost is $55 total. Care
: >to pay for it?
:
: I don't think she was being nasty. She was giving a bit of
: tough love mate.
:
: Relax a little.
:
: Which is more expensive: $103 difference now, or the white
: cane and the guide dog later?
:
: Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
: d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
: Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
: --
: http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
: http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
: latest: Rome and Lazio

Well, not to be a smartass but.. I do have a masters in Smartassology
so I have to comment..

Honestly.. Most states have organizations for the Blind and have facilities
to teach "Daily Living Skills" to the Blind... they give you the white
folding
cane for free as well as there are many organizations that train Guide dogs
and if you know where to look they are free as well. The only cost of
the Guide dog is the vet bills and feeding the pooch. You are required
however to make the dog retire after 4-5yrs of service, depending on the
breed might be sooner and you're subject to yearly visits to make sure
the dog is being used for the purpose the dog was trained. The ADA
also doesn't require a Guide dog to be certified so ANYONE can train
a Service dog.. and so long as that dog does ONE service for you, it's
considered a SD.

So, in the end, the white cane and guide dog are FREE. :P
--
Reisa, T1, Animas IR1250 Pumper
DX-5/00 ASD-7/00
A1C: 6.2% (8/24/06)
Daily CHO: 150-200gm
TDD: 34-38u

you have to for california as well as a color vision test.
ohio also has a periferal vision test. both danni and mike
had to take it when they got their licenses here. I still hold
my CA license until it expires in 2009, I got a 6yr license
for having NO tickets or accidents for 20yrs on the books.
didn't even have to take the test.. haven't taken a test for
the past 12yrs actually. :P

and yes, the state knows I'm diabetic and hold a handicap
slapper as well as another issue. no problems at all.

--
Reisa, T1, Animas IR1250 Pumper
DX-5/00 ASD-7/00
A1C: 6.2% (8/24/06)
Daily CHO: 150-200gm
TDD: 34-38u
"Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:BS97h.19018$l%2.4196@trnddc05...
: TigerLily wrote:
: > your periferal vision depends on this! and you
: > can't drive effectively without periferal
: > vision....... it's one of the tests for getting a
: > driver's license
:
: Must depend on your state. I did not take one
: in Indiana or New York. As far as I can remember,
: not in Oregon or California, either.
:
: --
: Wes Groleau
:
: Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which
: the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.
: -- unknown

Hi_Therre wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:08:57 GMT, "Ozgirl"
> <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi_Therre wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:05:46 -0700, "TigerLily"
>><me@privacy.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>take the appointment in 8 weeks.......... get to
>>>>see the ophthalmologist!
>>>>:-)
>>>>
>>>>your peripheral vision depends on this! and you
>>>>can't drive effectively without peripheral
>>>>vision....... it's one of the tests for getting a
>>>>driver's license
>>>>
>>>
>>> You and Wendy make a good point. I will think about it,
>>no guarantees
>>> though.
>>
>>Think about how foolish you think people are who are in
>>excellent control and don't test often. I see the same
>>foolishness in you for not getting the best you can for
your
>>eyes. I hardly test also, but I keep to the same carb
levels
>>and exercise levels almost every day. My A1c's are
>>consistently between 4.8 and 5.0. Even if they went to
5.2,
>>it's only 3 months between labs. I am on a low income with
>>nothing to spare, but I make the effort to keep $25 a
month
>>to pay for the ophthalmologist for myself and 1 son every
>>year. BTW, this one son is almost blind in one eye because
I
>>trusted his early testing to an optometrist. How you think
I
>>feel knowing that his condition was preventable if I had
>>used the right care. An ophthalmologist doesn't do all
those
>>extra years training for nothing.
>>
>>Don't whine about other people's testing habits when you
are
>>so resistant to getting proper care yourself in another
>>area. What price eyesight? I could live without a toe but
I
>>couldn't live with going blind.
>
> Boy, you are in a nasty mood today. The ophthalmologist
costs $158 to
> just walk in the door while the optometrist cost is $55
total. Care
> to pay for it?

As I said what price eyesight. I bet you spend more on
strips. $3 a week is all you have to save. Even on my very
limited income and tight budget I could find a way to put $3
a week in a jar for a specialist. In fact it is the only way
I can do things like that. You got very heated in one of
your posts about people who don't test as often anymore now
that they know what affects them yet you don't like to be on
the receiving end of the same sort of post.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:34:34 GMT, "Ozgirl"
<are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:

>Hi_Therre wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:08:57 GMT, "Ozgirl"
>> <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi_Therre wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:05:46 -0700, "TigerLily"
>>><me@privacy.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>take the appointment in 8 weeks.......... get to
>>>>>see the ophthalmologist!
>>>>>:-)
>>>>>
>>>>>your peripheral vision depends on this! and you
>>>>>can't drive effectively without peripheral
>>>>>vision....... it's one of the tests for getting a
>>>>>driver's license
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You and Wendy make a good point. I will think about it,
>>>no guarantees
>>>> though.
>>>
>>>Think about how foolish you think people are who are in
>>>excellent control and don't test often. I see the same
>>>foolishness in you for not getting the best you can for
>your
>>>eyes. I hardly test also, but I keep to the same carb
>levels
>>>and exercise levels almost every day. My A1c's are
>>>consistently between 4.8 and 5.0. Even if they went to
>5.2,
>>>it's only 3 months between labs. I am on a low income with
>>>nothing to spare, but I make the effort to keep $25 a
>month
>>>to pay for the ophthalmologist for myself and 1 son every
>>>year. BTW, this one son is almost blind in one eye because
>I
>>>trusted his early testing to an optometrist. How you think
>I
>>>feel knowing that his condition was preventable if I had
>>>used the right care. An ophthalmologist doesn't do all
>those
>>>extra years training for nothing.
>>>
>>>Don't whine about other people's testing habits when you
>are
>>>so resistant to getting proper care yourself in another
>>>area. What price eyesight? I could live without a toe but
>I
>>>couldn't live with going blind.
>>
>> Boy, you are in a nasty mood today. The ophthalmologist
>costs $158 to
>> just walk in the door while the optometrist cost is $55
>total. Care
>> to pay for it?
>
>As I said what price eyesight. I bet you spend more on
>strips. $3 a week is all you have to save. Even on my very
>limited income and tight budget I could find a way to put $3
>a week in a jar for a specialist. In fact it is the only way
>I can do things like that. You got very heated in one of
>your posts about people who don't test as often anymore now
>that they know what affects them yet you don't like to be on
>the receiving end of the same sort of post.

I saw a guy lose a foot because he refused to test frequently and eat
properly. And, now he is mobile only by crutches and a wheel chair.
One hell of a price to pay.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:40:24 +1100, Alan S
<loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:22:36 -0600, Hi_Therre
><KnotHead@Rosebud.com> wrote:
>
>>>Don't whine about other people's testing habits when you are
>>>so resistant to getting proper care yourself in another
>>>area. What price eyesight? I could live without a toe but I
>>>couldn't live with going blind.
>>
>>Boy, you are in a nasty mood today. The ophthalmologist costs $158 to
>>just walk in the door while the optometrist cost is $55 total. Care
>>to pay for it?
>
>I don't think she was being nasty. She was giving a bit of
>tough love mate.
>
>Relax a little.
>
>Which is more expensive: $103 difference now, or the white
>cane and the guide dog later?
>

Doesn't the same logic apply here as to your and Chris's infrequent
testing? We each think what we are doing is proper. Let's face it,
you and Chris are as bullheaded as I am. There is no way you can
argue with that logic.

rk <p_haha_medium@gmail.com> wrote:
: you have to for california as well as a color vision test.
: ohio also has a periferal vision test. both danni and mike
: had to take it when they got their licenses here. I still hold
: my CA license until it expires in 2009, I got a 6yr license
: for having NO tickets or accidents for 20yrs on the books.
: didn't even have to take the test.. haven't taken a test for
: the past 12yrs actually. :P

: and yes, the state knows I'm diabetic and hold a handicap
: slapper as well as another issue. no problems at all.

: --
: Reisa, T1, Animas IR1250 Pumper

In New York once you have the lisence you don't have to do anything
regarding testing except check soem boxes on the lisence renewal. I got a
renewal in 2003, after I had lost focal vision in one eye , but before I
had the WMD trouble in the other. My opthamologist gave me the eye test
adn told me not to crive at night. I was hardly driving anywhere except
near our summer home in a rural, uncrowded area. My renewal is good until
2011! My 85 year old husband, who droves very well, by the way, renewed
his the same year with a motor vehicle bureau eye test, and his is also
good for 8 years, untl he is 91. I think this is a disgrace!! Al least
have older folks, if not all folks com into the office so yu can see if
the person is reasonable compus and can get around!

Don't any New Yorkers worry, even though I have a liscence, I am not
currently driving and probably won't again except in some kind fo
emergency.

Wendy

Hi_Therre wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:34:34 GMT, "Ozgirl"
> <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi_Therre wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:08:57 GMT, "Ozgirl"
>>> <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi_Therre wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:05:46 -0700, "TigerLily"
<me@privacy.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>take the appointment in 8 weeks.......... get to
>>>>>>see the ophthalmologist!
>>>>>>:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>your peripheral vision depends on this! and you
>>>>>>can't drive effectively without peripheral
>>>>>>vision....... it's one of the tests for getting a
>>>>>>driver's license
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You and Wendy make a good point. I will think about
it,
>>>>no guarantees
>>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>>Think about how foolish you think people are who are in
>>>>excellent control and don't test often. I see the same
>>>>foolishness in you for not getting the best you can for
>>your
>>>>eyes. I hardly test also, but I keep to the same carb
>>levels
>>>>and exercise levels almost every day. My A1c's are
>>>>consistently between 4.8 and 5.0. Even if they went to
>>5.2,
>>>>it's only 3 months between labs. I am on a low income
with
>>>>nothing to spare, but I make the effort to keep $25 a
>>month
>>>>to pay for the ophthalmologist for myself and 1 son
every
>>>>year. BTW, this one son is almost blind in one eye
because
>>I
>>>>trusted his early testing to an optometrist. How you
think
>>I
>>>>feel knowing that his condition was preventable if I had
>>>>used the right care. An ophthalmologist doesn't do all
>>those
>>>>extra years training for nothing.
>>>>
>>>>Don't whine about other people's testing habits when you
>>are
>>>>so resistant to getting proper care yourself in another
>>>>area. What price eyesight? I could live without a toe
but
>>I
>>>>couldn't live with going blind.
>>>
>>> Boy, you are in a nasty mood today. The ophthalmologist
>>costs $158 to
>>> just walk in the door while the optometrist cost is $55
>>total. Care
>>> to pay for it?
>>
>>As I said what price eyesight. I bet you spend more on
>>strips. $3 a week is all you have to save. Even on my
very
>>limited income and tight budget I could find a way to put
$3
>>a week in a jar for a specialist. In fact it is the only
way
>>I can do things like that. You got very heated in one of
>>your posts about people who don't test as often anymore
now
>>that they know what affects them yet you don't like to be
on
>>the receiving end of the same sort of post.
>
> I saw a guy lose a foot because he refused to test
frequently and eat
> properly. And, now he is mobile only by crutches and a
wheel chair.
> One hell of a price to pay.

And I have a son who is almost blind in one eye because I
went the cheap route with an optometrist, hell of a price to
pay. I learned the hard way, you want to repeat my mistakes
because I was too stupid to save the cost of a cup of coffee
towrds a real specialist?

I am fully aware of my reactions to foods and exercise
levels. My bg is so tight that I can measure it all day long
and still come up with almost the same bg number. I know my
body, I know that I can skip testing these days. I have very
regular labwork and still my A1c and other results stay very
low. f my bg's were all over the place like yours then I
would be testing often. They aren't so I don't. But back to
eyes, with unstable numbers like yours, there is even more
reason to do everything in your power to see that eye
specialist once a year. If it means eating an omelette one
night a week instead of chicken or missing a coffee a week,
then it's not worth it to you?

Hi_Therre wrote:
> Went to the walmart optomistrist this afternoon for the annual eye
> exam. The gal did the puff test for glacoma. The result for the left
> eye test was 24. The gal said I most likely blinked, whereby the
> second test for the left eye was 19. The right eye test resulted in
> 14. Got to talking to her about the difference in the numbers and she
> couldn't explain it. Last year, the puff test was 18 for each eye.
[snipped for brevity]

I didn't read through every post in the thread, but I hope you will
decide on seeing a specialist.

For years my glaucoma went undiagnosed by a number of optometrists,
whom I saw because I thought I couldn't afford an ophthalmologist. I
only saw one after my diabetes was diagnosed and I was sent for a
diabetic eye exam.

I had a 21 in the right eye and 19 in the left. A couple months later I
was diagnosed with normal-tension glaucoma, having already lost a good
deal of peripheral vision in the right eye.

I was told it is not uncommon for the disease to progress in one eye
first, which explained the difference in the pressures and why my right
eye was worse. The intraocular pressures are not the only diagnostic
criterion. It's important to see someone not only qualified but well
equipped to make the diagnosis and prescribe treatment.

At this time the only way to treat (not cure) glaucoma is to reduce the
intraocular pressures. Fortunately, eye drops can sufficiently control
the pressures in many cases.

If I had gotten treatment earlier, eye drops might have worked for me.
Because of the advanced stage, the ophthalmologist referred me to a
glaucoma specialist who determined that I would be blind in 5 years
without surgical treatment.

Now I have permanent holes in both my eyes to help drain the fluid and
keep the pressures down. The surgery caused the vision in my left eye
to become distorted, and one of my eyelids droops -- I'll never be
pretty again and I'll never see perfectly again; but it beats going
blind anytime soon.

I think there are plenty of optometrists who are capable of diagnosing
glaucoma. My NEW optometrist is one. But in my opinion now, it's not
worth taking a chance.

Here is some more information about glaucoma, I hope it helps:
http://www.agingeye.net/glaucoma/gla...nformation.php

Cindy

rk wrote:
> you have to for california as well as a color vision test.

I'll take your word for it. I didn't have to take it
in California 25-30 years ago, New York in 1984, New Jersey
in 1995, or Oregon in 1974.

--
Wes Groleau
"Lewis's case for the existence of God is fallacious."
"You mean like circular reasoning?"
"He believes in God. Therefore, he's fallacious."

Well might be county wise, but I specifically remember when
I got my first license in 1982 I had to as well as I remember
my husband laughing about it in 1989 when he got his CA
license because he was in the Air Force stating he knew he
wasn't color blind because they'd kicked him out if he was.

We were in San Bernardino County.

--
Reisa, T1, Animas IR1250 Pumper
DX-5/00 ASD-7/00
A1C: 6.2% (8/24/06)
Daily CHO: 150-200gm
TDD: 34-38u
"Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:1kv7h.1286$JQ.671@trnddc06...
: rk wrote:
: > you have to for california as well as a color vision test.
:
: I'll take your word for it. I didn't have to take it
: in California 25-30 years ago, New York in 1984, New Jersey
: in 1995, or Oregon in 1974.
:
: --
: Wes Groleau
: "Lewis's case for the existence of God is fallacious."
: "You mean like circular reasoning?"
: "He believes in God. Therefore, he's fallacious."

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:34:56 GMT, "Ozgirl"
<are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:

>Hi_Therre wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:34:34 GMT, "Ozgirl"
>> <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi_Therre wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:08:57 GMT, "Ozgirl"
>>>> <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi_Therre wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:05:46 -0700, "TigerLily"
><me@privacy.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>take the appointment in 8 weeks.......... get to
>>>>>>>see the ophthalmologist!
>>>>>>>:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>your peripheral vision depends on this! and you
>>>>>>>can't drive effectively without peripheral
>>>>>>>vision....... it's one of the tests for getting a
>>>>>>>driver's license
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You and Wendy make a good point. I will think about
>it,
>>>>>no guarantees
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>
>>>>>Think about how foolish you think people are who are in
>>>>>excellent control and don't test often. I see the same
>>>>>foolishness in you for not getting the best you can for
>>>your
>>>>>eyes. I hardly test also, but I keep to the same carb
>>>levels
>>>>>and exercise levels almost every day. My A1c's are
>>>>>consistently between 4.8 and 5.0. Even if they went to
>>>5.2,
>>>>>it's only 3 months between labs. I am on a low income
>with
>>>>>nothing to spare, but I make the effort to keep $25 a
>>>month
>>>>>to pay for the ophthalmologist for myself and 1 son
>every
>>>>>year. BTW, this one son is almost blind in one eye
>because
>>>I
>>>>>trusted his early testing to an optometrist. How you
>think
>>>I
>>>>>feel knowing that his condition was preventable if I had
>>>>>used the right care. An ophthalmologist doesn't do all
>>>those
>>>>>extra years training for nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't whine about other people's testing habits when you
>>>are
>>>>>so resistant to getting proper care yourself in another
>>>>>area. What price eyesight? I could live without a toe
>but
>>>I
>>>>>couldn't live with going blind.
>>>>
>>>> Boy, you are in a nasty mood today. The ophthalmologist
>>>costs $158 to
>>>> just walk in the door while the optometrist cost is $55
>>>total. Care
>>>> to pay for it?
>>>
>>>As I said what price eyesight. I bet you spend more on
>>>strips. $3 a week is all you have to save. Even on my
>very
>>>limited income and tight budget I could find a way to put
>$3
>>>a week in a jar for a specialist. In fact it is the only
>way
>>>I can do things like that. You got very heated in one of
>>>your posts about people who don't test as often anymore
>now
>>>that they know what affects them yet you don't like to be
>on
>>>the receiving end of the same sort of post.
>>
>> I saw a guy lose a foot because he refused to test
>frequently and eat
>> properly. And, now he is mobile only by crutches and a
>wheel chair.
>> One hell of a price to pay.
>
>And I have a son who is almost blind in one eye because I
>went the cheap route with an optometrist, hell of a price to
>pay. I learned the hard way, you want to repeat my mistakes
>because I was too stupid to save the cost of a cup of coffee
>towrds a real specialist?
>
>I am fully aware of my reactions to foods and exercise
>levels. My bg is so tight that I can measure it all day long
>and still come up with almost the same bg number. I know my
>body, I know that I can skip testing these days. I have very
>regular labwork and still my A1c and other results stay very
>low. f my bg's were all over the place like yours then I
>would be testing often. They aren't so I don't. But back to
>eyes, with unstable numbers like yours, there is even more
>reason to do everything in your power to see that eye
>specialist once a year. If it means eating an omelette one
>night a week instead of chicken or missing a coffee a week,
>then it's not worth it to you?

God, you are as hardheaded as I am. I'm going to see the Walmart
optometrist in about two weeks. I will probably see the
ophthalmologist next fall. I want to determine what is the difference
between the dilation exam that the Walmart optometrist and the
ophthalmologist does. The gal at the ophthalmologist's office thought
they did the same thing. The optometrist not doing dilation on all
diabetics is a total surprise to me. I have a lot of questions for
that gal next month. If I do not like her answers, I just may see the
ophthalmologist from here on. They are so darn expensive.
_____________________________________
http://www.healthdiabeticsoftware.com/ Free

On 17 Nov 2006 19:26:19 -0800, "ankalime" <ankalime@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hi_Therre wrote:
>> Went to the walmart optomistrist this afternoon for the annual eye
>> exam. The gal did the puff test for glacoma. The result for the left
>> eye test was 24. The gal said I most likely blinked, whereby the
>> second test for the left eye was 19. The right eye test resulted in
>> 14. Got to talking to her about the difference in the numbers and she
>> couldn't explain it. Last year, the puff test was 18 for each eye.
>[snipped for brevity]
>
>I didn't read through every post in the thread, but I hope you will
>decide on seeing a specialist.
>
>For years my glaucoma went undiagnosed by a number of optometrists,
>whom I saw because I thought I couldn't afford an ophthalmologist. I
>only saw one after my diabetes was diagnosed and I was sent for a
>diabetic eye exam.
>
>I had a 21 in the right eye and 19 in the left. A couple months later I
>was diagnosed with normal-tension glaucoma, having already lost a good
>deal of peripheral vision in the right eye.
>
>I was told it is not uncommon for the disease to progress in one eye
>first, which explained the difference in the pressures and why my right
>eye was worse. The intraocular pressures are not the only diagnostic
>criterion. It's important to see someone not only qualified but well
>equipped to make the diagnosis and prescribe treatment.
>
>At this time the only way to treat (not cure) glaucoma is to reduce the
>intraocular pressures. Fortunately, eye drops can sufficiently control
>the pressures in many cases.
>
>If I had gotten treatment earlier, eye drops might have worked for me.
>Because of the advanced stage, the ophthalmologist referred me to a
>glaucoma specialist who determined that I would be blind in 5 years
>without surgical treatment.
>
>Now I have permanent holes in both my eyes to help drain the fluid and
>keep the pressures down. The surgery caused the vision in my left eye
>to become distorted, and one of my eyelids droops -- I'll never be
>pretty again and I'll never see perfectly again; but it beats going
>blind anytime soon.
>
>I think there are plenty of optometrists who are capable of diagnosing
>glaucoma. My NEW optometrist is one. But in my opinion now, it's not
>worth taking a chance.
>

I fully hear you and Ozgirl. I think the walmart gal is fully
qualified to properly diagnose any problems. I do not like the
practice that they do not do dilation on all diabetics. That is what
gets my attention. Next fall I will probably see the ophthalmologist.

My mother went blind from this disease. I'm well aware of the
consequences of this disease.

"Hi_Therre" <Bruce_The_KnotHead@Rosebud.com> wrote in message
news:k85ul25h7fqlp73jm2r6h1h6ri4pfiq732@4ax.com...
>
> I'm going to see the Walmart
> optometrist in about two weeks. I will probably see the
> ophthalmologist next fall. I want to determine what is the difference
> between the dilation exam that the Walmart optometrist and the
> ophthalmologist does. The gal at the ophthalmologist's office thought
> they did the same thing.
>

At least some of the difference is probably in how much they know about what
they are looking at. And the "gal at the optometrist" may not even know what
she doesn't know. She has less training, and most likely less experience, in
the kinds of problems you *might* be developing, and may not spot the early
signs.

You're not being hard headed. You're saying "I know what I should do I'm
just not going to do it (yet)."
bj

The "metr-" in optometry/optometrist refers to _measurement_.
While an optometrist does have some knowledge about eyes
from a medical perspective, his/her primary job is to measure
and adjust visual acuity. This does not require dilation.

If they do you the favor of dilating to get a better view of
your retina, fine. But if they think they see a problem
inside the eye, yet fail to refer you to an ophthalmologist,
that would be malpractice, IMHO.

--
Wes Groleau
-----------

"Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to
feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?"
-- Charles Wallace
(in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_)

rk wrote:
> Well might be county wise, but I specifically remember when
> I got my first license in 1982 I had to as well as I remember

My first was in Oregon in the 1970s. Second was in San Diego,
sometime between 1974 and 1980. Could have changed before
1982, or it could be that it wasn't required for a _transfer_
license.

--
Wes Groleau
-----------

"Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to
feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?"
-- Charles Wallace
(in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_)

I have to say...I really don't know. I haven't been tested for a whole
lot of years now. They just keep renewing by mail, but no color vision
test in the past, at least in my county, but could be now.

Cheri

rk wrote in message ...
>Well might be county wise, but I specifically remember when
>I got my first license in 1982 I had to as well as I remember
>my husband laughing about it in 1989 when he got his CA
>license because he was in the Air Force stating he knew he
>wasn't color blind because they'd kicked him out if he was.
>
>We were in San Bernardino County.
>
>--
>Reisa, T1, Animas IR1250 Pumper
>DX-5/00 ASD-7/00
>A1C: 6.2% (8/24/06)
>Daily CHO: 150-200gm
>TDD: 34-38u
>"Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message
>news:1kv7h.1286$JQ.671@trnddc06...
>: rk wrote:
>: > you have to for california as well as a color vision test.
>:
>: I'll take your word for it. I didn't have to take it
>: in California 25-30 years ago, New York in 1984, New Jersey
>: in 1995, or Oregon in 1974.
>:
>: --
>: Wes Groleau
>: "Lewis's case for the existence of God is fallacious."
>: "You mean like circular reasoning?"
>: "He believes in God. Therefore, he's fallacious."
>
>

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:14:18 -0600, Hi_Therre
<Bruce_The_KnotHead@Rosebud.com> wrote:

>The gal at the ophthalmologist's office thought
>they did the same thing.

They may do the same thing, in that they dilate with the
drops and look in your eye. But they don't look in the eye
with the same training and knowledge.

A computer tech and I would be doing the same thing if we
removed the cover from your computer and started messing
about inside it. However, if you ever wanted to use your
computer again - you'd pay the tech and not me.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Rome and Lazio

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:17:04 GMT, "bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net>
wrote:

>"Hi_Therre" <Bruce_The_KnotHead@Rosebud.com> wrote in message
>news:k85ul25h7fqlp73jm2r6h1h6ri4pfiq732@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> I'm going to see the Walmart
>> optometrist in about two weeks. I will probably see the
>> ophthalmologist next fall. I want to determine what is the difference
>> between the dilation exam that the Walmart optometrist and the
>> ophthalmologist does. The gal at the ophthalmologist's office thought
>> they did the same thing.
>>
>
>At least some of the difference is probably in how much they know about what
>they are looking at. And the "gal at the optometrist" may not even know what
>she doesn't know. She has less training, and most likely less experience, in
>the kinds of problems you *might* be developing, and may not spot the early
>signs.

You have a perfectly valid point - What they know. I will ask the
Walmart gal a lot of questions about their training about dilation and
its interpretation. I just have a problem with spending several
hundred dollars when spending $55 will do the same job.
_____________________________________
http://www.healthdiabeticsoftware.com/ Free

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:55:20 -0800, "Cheri" <gserviceatinreachdotcom>
wrote:

>I have to say...I really don't know. I haven't been tested for a whole
>lot of years now. They just keep renewing by mail, but no color vision
>test in the past, at least in my county, but could be now.
>

California renews by mail? In Arkansas, the DL is renewed every 4
years. We have to take an eye test each time which includes your
peripheral vision.

Yes, I haven't been there for many years. Two times in a row they have
renewed for 5 years. Will have to see what happens in 2009. :-)

--
Cheri

Hi_Therre wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:55:20 -0800, "Cheri" <gserviceatinreachdotcom>
>wrote:
>
>>I have to say...I really don't know. I haven't been tested for a whole
>>lot of years now. They just keep renewing by mail, but no color vision
>>test in the past, at least in my county, but could be now.
>>
>
>California renews by mail? In Arkansas, the DL is renewed every 4
>years. We have to take an eye test each time which includes your
>peripheral vision.

"Hi_Therre" <Bruce_The_KnotHead@Rosebud.com> wrote in message
news:0m7vl29iib20p77k5iruca4g6e72d9e48h@4ax.com...
>
> You have a perfectly valid point - What they know. I will ask the
> Walmart gal a lot of questions about their training about dilation and
> its interpretation. I just have a problem with spending several
> hundred dollars when spending $55 will do the same job.
>

Obviously, nothing any of us says here is going to convince you that you are
not getting the same job from an optometrist as from an ophthalmologist
(though there are certainly more-capable optometrists and less-capable
ophthalmologists) -- knowledge base, training, experience all go to knowing
what to look for, what you're looking at, what questions to ask &
recommendations to make.

Maybe you'll get off cheap for $55; maybe you'll wish you'd gotten off
cheaper at several hundred. You just don't know.
bj

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 01:57:31 GMT, "bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net>
wrote:

>"Hi_Therre" <Bruce_The_KnotHead@Rosebud.com> wrote in message
>news:0m7vl29iib20p77k5iruca4g6e72d9e48h@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> You have a perfectly valid point - What they know. I will ask the
>> Walmart gal a lot of questions about their training about dilation and
>> its interpretation. I just have a problem with spending several
>> hundred dollars when spending $55 will do the same job.
>>
>
>Obviously, nothing any of us says here is going to convince you that you are
>not getting the same job from an optometrist as from an ophthalmologist
>(though there are certainly more-capable optometrists and less-capable
>ophthalmologists) -- knowledge base, training, experience all go to knowing
>what to look for, what you're looking at, what questions to ask &
>recommendations to make.
>
>Maybe you'll get off cheap for $55; maybe you'll wish you'd gotten off
>cheaper at several hundred. You just don't know.
>bj
>

As usual, you are all correct 100%. But, also remember we have only
one ophthalmologist in a town of 23K. If I remember correctly,
Arkansas has the highest rate of diabetes in the country. If
everybody with this disease went to this one eyedoc, he would be
overwhelmened very quickly. Doesn't it make sense to let this one doc
treat people like Wendy, Will, Chris J who have real eye problems?
Next fall I may go to see him just out of curosity. Presently, I see
no need to see him. Plus, there is a sizeable cost differential that
cannot be ignored.

Hiya, Hi There

the problem IS that YOU DO have an eye problem as
serious as Wendy's...... the difference being that
she loses central vision and you lose periferal
vision

glaucoma is one of the leading causes of blindness
in this country...... early treatment of higher
occular pressures is thought to be the way to
avoid blindness due to glaucoma....... and 19 is a
pressure that is high enough for a diagnosis of
glaucoma, and time to put yourself on drops for
it...... this information was all in the link that
someone posted as information for you to review
before making your decision to not see the
opthamologist

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((HUGS))))))))))))))))))
))))))))))
go spend the $158 and see the opthamologist in 8
weeks

kate
--
Join us in the Diabetic-Talk Chatroom on UnderNet
/server irc.undernet.org --- /join #Diabetic-Talk
More info: http://www.diabetic-talk.org/
http://www.diabetic-talk.org/freeveggies.htm
I have no medical qualifications beyond my own
experience.
Choose your advisers carefully, because experience
can be
an expensive teacher.

"Hi_Therre" <Bruce_The_KnotHead@Rosebud.com> wrote
in message
news:t141m2tbfgtfqufvmq7c364lo6cqicb38e@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 01:57:31 GMT, "bj"
<bjones44@bellatlantic.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Hi_Therre" <Bruce_The_KnotHead@Rosebud.com>
wrote in message
>
>news:0m7vl29iib20p77k5iruca4g6e72d9e48h@4ax.com ..
..
> >>
> >> You have a perfectly valid point - What they
know. I will ask the
> >> Walmart gal a lot of questions about their
training about dilation and
> >> its interpretation. I just have a problem
with spending several
> >> hundred dollars when spending $55 will do the
same job.
> >>
> >
> >Obviously, nothing any of us says here is going
to convince you that you are
> >not getting the same job from an optometrist as
from an ophthalmologist
> >(though there are certainly more-capable
optometrists and less-capable
> >ophthalmologists) -- knowledge base, training,
experience all go to knowing
> >what to look for, what you're looking at, what
questions to ask &
> >recommendations to make.
> >
> >Maybe you'll get off cheap for $55; maybe
you'll wish you'd gotten off
> >cheaper at several hundred. You just don't
know.
> >bj
> >
>
> As usual, you are all correct 100%. But, also
remember we have only
> one ophthalmologist in a town of 23K. If I
remember correctly,
> Arkansas has the highest rate of diabetes in the
country. If
> everybody with this disease went to this one
eyedoc, he would be
> overwhelmened very quickly. Doesn't it make
sense to let this one doc
> treat people like Wendy, Will, Chris J who have
real eye problems?
> Next fall I may go to see him just out of
curosity. Presently, I see
> no need to see him. Plus, there is a sizeable
cost differential that
> cannot be ignored.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:12:18 -0600, Hi_Therre
<Bruce_The_KnotHead@Rosebud.com> wrote:

> Doesn't it make sense to let this one doc
>treat people like Wendy, Will, Chris J who have real eye problems?
>Next fall I may go to see him just out of curosity. Presently, I see
>no need to see him. Plus, there is a sizeable cost differential that
>cannot be ignored.

Look up a new word for the day in your dictionary Bruce:

"Rationalisation"

I'll help:

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ationalization

–verb (used with object) 1. to ascribe (one's acts,
opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable
and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true,
possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable
causes.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Rome and Lazio