Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] [OT] regarding certain prosthetics

Subject: RE: [OM] [OT] regarding certain prosthetics
From: "James N. McBride" <jnmcbr@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:43:21 -0600
Omigod....And I have a urologist named Peter Cannon. Here in town we also
have had doctors named Pain, Costly, and Cash.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mickey Trageser
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:06 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] [OT] regarding certain prosthetics


Doctor Nadel, I apologize right up front here, but I must ask... Considering
your profession (of which I am a current patient) and your name, did anyone
ever refer to you as Dr. 'Nads'? You have to understand why I ask... I have
a podiatrist named Dr. Footer, and an opthomologist named Dr. Glasser. Seems
only natural....

-Mickey
:-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman S. Nadel" <nsnadel@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #3618


> Tom:
>
> Way back when......
>
> When I first started practicing urology it was the pre-silicone era.  If I
> had to remove a testicle for cancer or infection I was occasionally asked
to
> replace it with a prosthesis.
> There were none available at the time so guess what I used?  Yup .. I
opened
> up the "eye" tray and picked whatever one appeared to be the best size.
> These never felt good to the touch but "looked" OK to the casual observer.
>
> Norm
>
> Norman S. Nadel, M.D.
> Retired, Chief Urology
> Kaiser
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas A Simmons" <tasimmons@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:40 AM
> Subject: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #3618
>
>
> >
> > Grrrrrrrrrrr YES! Sure, it helps me look better (pun intended).
> > At a cost roughly equal to a LNIB 180 F2 each, and this is my 5th.
> >
> > B*^&%#$s!!!!!
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:14:20 -0700
> > From: "Timpe, Jim" <Jim.Timpe@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: RE: [OM] Digital photography article
> >
> > Tom...  my wife just had a new eye made this past summer.  She's had a
> > prosthesis since she was 10 months old.  What has perpetually infuriated
> me
> > is the insurance companies' insistence each time a new eye is
necessitated
> > to deem it a 'cosmetic' prosthesis, and therefore not medically required
> > (i.e. covered).  Curious if you've had similar experiences...
> >
> > - -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas A Simmons
> >
> >   I wear an interocular prosthetic, otherwise known as a glass eye.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
> >
> >
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz