Who does this benefit?

This post may or may not get up. After a dozen calls to Verizon FIOS for both phone and internet issues, still no action, but will give it a try.

I was reading Wheelchair Dancer's post about Debbie Brown this morning. She's the woman who is sitting in a rented 1200 dollars a year wheelchair that could be bought, according to CNN, for $440.

Those of us who buy our own wheelchairs find out quickly that online providers offer better deals. It doesn't take us long to figure out that we can save a lot of money by buying that way. So it's always confounded me why our government can't figure that out too. (And, as WD points out, other medical equipment- it's NOT just about wheelchairs.)

As WD points out the difference in costs is high.

I've since wondered about the difference in costs. Where do they come from? If I order 25" wheels online, I will pay 2/3 of the price my provider quoted me for the same pair of wheels. Where's that money going? I can't believe it's going to support good customer service (they've had my chair for ages now -- and haven't called to tell me they need a prescription for repair... as if my doc knows that my front casters are trashed. Please oh, doctor doctor, can you heal my casters?). Overhead? Rental? Salaries? Who knows. Certainly, I cannot immediately come up with a way to justify their costs. (Or their attitude.)

So who does it benefit not to have an open discussion about all of this? The DME industry.

And she also questions why this woman was in a rented chair, when "this "debilitating illness" forced Ms. Brown into early disability retirement. Doesn't sound like a temporary kind of thing".

Who does that benefit? The DME industry.

After all, Brown says the wheelchair barely works for her now. So guess what? Now she needs a new chair. And who does that benefit?

The DME industry.

Despite all this, as WD points out, the article is not a "bitter indictment" of the DME industry, but a human interest story.

Who does that benefit?

Well, you get the point.