Here’s what happened at Emmett’s doctors appointment today

As I shared earlier, Emmett had an appointment with his pediatrician this afternoon for an ADHD intake, similar to Elliott’s from last week. 

The ADHD intake went just fine. Emmett’s ADHD was on full display while we were there. We kinda joked about whether or not I was sure he had ADHD because he was all over the place. 😁 

I’m grateful to have such a cool, young doctor because it sorta puts me at ease when the kids are in rare form, like they were today. 

The only other thing we needed to have checked out was Emmett’s ears. 

I explained to one of my readers earlier today that he doesn’t have issues with his ears but he tends to be really waxy and it can occlude his ear canal. Obviously, that makes it hard for him to hear. 

The reason we wanted to check was because Emmett doesn’t have an inside voice and he’s always shouting when he talks, even when we’re right next to him. 

I was shocked when the doctor said his ears were clean and clear because this kid is fucking loud, all the time. It’s been almost six months since they were cleaned out and I was sure they’d be clogged up. 
It’s great that his ears are clean but at the same time it sucks, because that means he’s being really loud for a different reason…. 

I have read articles before where they mentioned this could also be sensory related. I’m not sure of the mechanics there, but I’ll ask his OT next week. 

Anyway, I’m going to file that in the work in progress category and keep plugging away.  

On a side note, we were informed by the boy’s insurance company that if our doctor writes a script for Melatonin and/or vitamins, they will be covered. That’s a pretty big deal because that shit gets expensive and every area we can save is a good thing. 

I also want to give props to Mr. Elliott. He was along for the ride and aside from his compulsive need to do the dab all the time, just to annoy me, he did quite well. I’m super thankful for that and proud of him because we were there for awhile. 

You can check out some pictures from our trip below… ☺ 

Rob Gorski

Full time, work from home single Dad to my 3 amazing boys. Oh...and creator fo this blog. :-)
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Leave a Reply to Jimmy RockCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

14 Comments
most voted
newest oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
adriannecollee

“On a side note, we were informed by the boy’s insurance company that if our doctor writes a script for Melatonin and/or vitamins, they will be covered. That’s a pretty big deal because that shit gets expensive and every area we can save is a good thing”
————————
Okay, I think we can all agree that saving money is great, no argument there. But I have a little bit of a problem with having Medicaid pay for melatonin while you have Dish network and HBO. Maybe you’re not paying for Dish/HBO and if that’s the case I sincerely apologize for the assumption, but that is the sort of thing that gets to me where Government services are concerned. I don’t think people on assistance should live like cavemen, but Dish and pay channels are definitely luxuries.

paulinabisson5

I’m sorry that bothers you but I don’t make the rules. It doesn’t matter if we have paid TV or not.

I was simply told to have our doctor send in the scripts and they would be covered.

Why wouldn’t we or anyone else for that matter, take advantage of the coverage?

adriannecollee

It’s not taking advantage of the coverage that is bothersome, it’s that you want to save money wherever possible while having premium TV channels. To put it in a different light, I would also have issues with a person on welfare who could somehow afford cigarettes and beer. For anyone to have taxpayer dollars footing their bills while they spend that money on frivolous and/or luxurious items is problematic.

Jimmy Rock

Since I’ve been on Rob’s case lately…
Kim, in some ways I don’t disagree with you, but everyone has their own ideas regarding what constitutes luxury items with respect to their financial situations. Personally, I wouldn’t choose HBO over a number of things that I would guess Rob doesn’t have, but that’s just me (maybe when Curb Your Enthusiasm comes back I’d say differently). Now, if there was something specific that Rob wasn’t providing for his family that you could identify and challenge Rob on (“how could you pay for ‘x’ when you don’t have ‘y’ or ‘z’?) that’s another story, which may or may not be objectively debatable.

And it seems that Kim’s real point is to express frustration about the financial assistance rules and regulations which allow for those receiving such benefits to be able to purchase numerous luxury items. Yeah, I have a problem with that too, but as Rob said above, he doesn’t make the rules, and I can’t really blame him for taking advantage of such coverage. Could Rob make better financial choices? I really can’t say for sure, but I’d guess yes, but that’s because the large majority of the population could make better financial decisions. Should he be held to a heightened standard to make better financial choices because he is receiving public assistance? Go talk to your legislators about that.

adriannecollee

Taking Rob’s personal situation out of the equation and speaking in broad terms, I don’t feel that a person or family whose income is roughly 90% Government assistance should have HBO. It is a luxury item. Internet? Not a luxury. In this day and age it is almost a requirement, especially when you have kids in school. But pay channels? Those are not a necessity in any way, shape, or form, just like the beer and cigarettes I mentioned above. Back to Rob’s situation- I have been reading this blog for years; long enough to know that he has had utilities turned off repeatedly, almost lost the house more than once, had to borrow vehicles from family, not repaid doctors for a (necessary) surgery for Lizze, not paid legal fees from the fight for
Gavin. He has been depending on family and charitable organizations to help him bridge the gap for YEARS, and now that he finds himself even slightly flush with cash, he has Dish network and HBO. It is financial irresponsibility at it’s finest, and to be honest, it is maddening to read. It reminds me of last year when he got his tax refund and within days, it was raining tablets in the Gorski house, all while accepting help from outside sources. Sources which someone else who cannot afford HBO and new tattoos might need.

Jimmy Rock

I understand your general point and don’t disagree, although I won’t pretend to be familiar with all of the above. But I would bet that with each circumstance you list above, Rob will have some justification or explanation, whether right or wrong. Either way, I doubt that your well meaning criticisms are going to change his financial approach. However, if you were offering to get him some pro bono financial planning services, I might think it would be beneficial for him to accept…

paulinabisson5

Thanks Jimmy. I don’t know how or why this is even up for discussion. The information I share may not benefit everyone but there are plenty of other people that it will.

No offense to any well meaning person out there but I’m not asking for financial advice or for anyone’s opinion on whether or not we should have pay TV.

I’ve paid my taxes, owned a small business that provided jobs for several local contractors and I destroyed my back saving someone’s life, while functioning as a civil servant.

I don’t think that anyone is in a place to judge anyone else’s life, especially when they are only viewing from the outside. Everyone’s welcome to their opinions and I respect that but I’m not sure what makes people think that their opinion is important enough to share with someone who’s not asking for it…

Again, all of this is so far off topic and absolutely unnecessary…

While I doubt she’s wanting to provide professional pro bono financial planning services, I would respectfully decline anyway.

Kim,

You bring a great many positive things go to this blog and I appreciate each and every one of them. This however, is so off topic and not something that I will entertain outside of this response.

Let’s keep things on topic and moving forward.

kimmy gebhardt

“On a side note, we were informed by the boy’s insurance company that if our doctor writes a script for Melatonin and/or vitamins, they will be covered. That’s a pretty big deal because that shit gets expensive and every area we can save is a good thing”
————————
Okay, I think we can all agree that saving money is great, no argument there. But I have a little bit of a problem with having Medicaid pay for melatonin while you have Dish network and HBO. Maybe you’re not paying for Dish/HBO and if that’s the case I sincerely apologize for the assumption, but that is the sort of thing that gets to me where Government services are concerned. I don’t think people on assistance should live like cavemen, but Dish and pay channels are definitely luxuries.

kimmy gebhardt

It’s not taking advantage of the coverage that is bothersome, it’s that you want to save money wherever possible while having premium TV channels. To put it in a different light, I would also have issues with a person on welfare who could somehow afford cigarettes and beer. For anyone to have taxpayer dollars footing their bills while they spend that money on frivolous and/or luxurious items is problematic.

Jimmy Rock

Since I’ve been on Rob’s case lately…
Kim, in some ways I don’t disagree with you, but everyone has their own ideas regarding what constitutes luxury items with respect to their financial situations. Personally, I wouldn’t choose HBO over a number of things that I would guess Rob doesn’t have, but that’s just me (maybe when Curb Your Enthusiasm comes back I’d say differently). Now, if there was something specific that Rob wasn’t providing for his family that you could identify and challenge Rob on (“how could you pay for ‘x’ when you don’t have ‘y’ or ‘z’?) that’s another story, which may or may not be objectively debatable.

And it seems that Kim’s real point is to express frustration about the financial assistance rules and regulations which allow for those receiving such benefits to be able to purchase numerous luxury items. Yeah, I have a problem with that too, but as Rob said above, he doesn’t make the rules, and I can’t really blame him for taking advantage of such coverage. Could Rob make better financial choices? I really can’t say for sure, but I’d guess yes, but that’s because the large majority of the population could make better financial decisions. Should he be held to a heightened standard to make better financial choices because he is receiving public assistance? Go talk to your legislators about that.

kimmy gebhardt

Taking Rob’s personal situation out of the equation and speaking in broad terms, I don’t feel that a person or family whose income is roughly 90% Government assistance should have HBO. It is a luxury item. Internet? Not a luxury. In this day and age it is almost a requirement, especially when you have kids in school. But pay channels? Those are not a necessity in any way, shape, or form, just like the beer and cigarettes I mentioned above. Back to Rob’s situation- I have been reading this blog for years; long enough to know that he has had utilities turned off repeatedly, almost lost the house more than once, had to borrow vehicles from family, not repaid doctors for a (necessary) surgery for Lizze, not paid legal fees from the fight for
Gavin. He has been depending on family and charitable organizations to help him bridge the gap for YEARS, and now that he finds himself even slightly flush with cash, he has Dish network and HBO. It is financial irresponsibility at it’s finest, and to be honest, it is maddening to read. It reminds me of last year when he got his tax refund and within days, it was raining tablets in the Gorski house, all while accepting help from outside sources. Sources which someone else who cannot afford HBO and new tattoos might need.

Jimmy Rock

I understand your general point and don’t disagree, although I won’t pretend to be familiar with all of the above. But I would bet that with each circumstance you list above, Rob will have some justification or explanation, whether right or wrong. Either way, I doubt that your well meaning criticisms are going to change his financial approach. However, if you were offering to get him some pro bono financial planning services, I might think it would be beneficial for him to accept…