The hearing and cochlear implant debate! Share your opinion!

Frisky Feline said:
have anyone research on young kids like toddlers' heads, will CI thingy shape up those kids' heads differently once they get older? :dunno:

I have seen of a very few people who are no longer using CI and their heads were shaped a little that they had CI when they were kiddos. They are over 30's.
Click to expand...

In my daughter the spot that has the device pokes out a little. It lays under the skin so it isn't totally flat.
 
That's quite an unfair generalization to make, DD. I have bilateral CIs and I'm not an AG Bell AVT type.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you were a right off the bat canidate. I'm speaking of the canidates who havesemi decent residual hearing, who feel like they need to upgrade b/c it sounds like this device is something that removes all the barriers of being hoh. deafdude is right. While many canidates opt for it b/c they actually NEED it, with the loosening of who and who can't get it , there are still some people who opt for it b/c they believe that the latest technology always equates with better results. Exactly like the audiophilles who think that b/c they have some sort of gizmo, it allows them to hear what a superhero with bionic hearing would.
Besides, what's wrong with advocating for AVT? When someone opts to have a CI, speech understanding should be the main focus if a person is able to use their hearing to that extent
Click to expand...
. Ummmm.....not AVT. The Auditory verbal philosophy. This is a philsophy that encourages people to upgrade to the newest HA/listening device as soon as it comes out, so that the consumer will always be on the cutting edge.

Where do you get the idea that CIs result in higher health insurance premiums? The more people who receive CIs, the less health insurance will cost due to there no longer being a need for ENT services, hearing aid programming and hearing tests.
Click to expand...
Ummmm, HELLO! The device and surgery is NOT cheap. The more people opt for it, the more insurance rates will rise due to the fact that health care costs are SKY HIGH! Besides, a percentage of the people who opt for CI never even neeed hearing aid programming etc.
 
have a question... is there anyone on the site that did not benifit from CI.
Click to expand...
define not benifiting from CI. Benifit is measured very indivdually. For some people that might be being able to hear at hoh levels. For others that might be enviromental sounds or a slight increase in their speech perception skills.
 
Hear Again said:
A minimal risk. Life is a risk. I could get hit by a car crossing the street. Does that mean I should never leave my home?
Click to expand...

which is what I stated in my post #74
 
deafdyke said:
define not benifiting from CI. Benifit is measured very indivdually. For some people that might be being able to hear at hoh levels. For others that might be enviromental sounds or a slight increase in their speech perception skills.
Click to expand...

I would call all of those things benefitting.
 
Ummmm, HELLO! The device and surgery is NOT cheap. The more people opt for it, the more insurance rates will rise due to the fact that health care costs are SKY HIGH!

Ummmm, HELLO! The device and surgery are covered by insurance. The more people who opt for it, the less insurance rates will rise due to the fact that less money is spent on audiological and ENT services not to mention hearing aid programming. A CI may cost $50-60,000 initially, but after that, the expense is lessened since a person only requires a mapping every 6 or 12 months. Compare that to a hearing aid user who requires several visits for tweaking, annual hearing tests and a consultation with an ENT when problems arise with their ears.

Healthcare rates are sky right right now due to the expenses doctors charge for their services overall. Don't pin it on CIs because CIs have nothing to do with it.
 
. Ummmm.....not AVT. The Auditory verbal philosophy. This is a philsophy that encourages people to upgrade to the newest HA/listening device as soon as it comes out, so that the consumer will always be on the cutting edge.

Yet you have a problem with consumers who choose a CI for the same reason. Hmmm.
 
Hear Again said:
But you failed to state what degree the risk was. Major? Minor?
Click to expand...

no I didn't fail to state it. you'll have to take it up to FDA for not stating the specific degree of risk.
 
Yes, but you were a right off the bat canidate. I'm speaking of the canidates who havesemi decent residual hearing, who feel like they need to upgrade b/c it sounds like this device is something that removes all the barriers of being hoh. deafdude is right. While many canidates opt for it b/c they actually NEED it, with the loosening of who and who can't get it , there are still some people who opt for it b/c they believe that the latest technology always equates with better results. Exactly like the audiophilles who think that b/c they have some sort of gizmo, it allows them to hear what a superhero with bionic hearing would.

CIs do eliminate alot of the barriers of being HoH. If someone can go from having moderately-severe to profound, severe-profound or profound hearing loss to mild-moderate hearing loss, I would consider that to be one way barries are removed from being HoH. Instead of a person struggling as much as they did prior to receiving a CI, communication is made so much easier thereby eliminating alot of barriers. CIs don't eliminate all barriers, but they eliminate a majority of them.
 
Jiro said:
no I didn't fail to state it. you'll have to take it up to FDA for not stating the specific degree of risk.
Click to expand...

If you're going to cite a source, then you need to back up your statement instead of making a generality about risk. You didn't indicate what degree of risk. You simply stated that there was a risk. I also said there was a risk of me crossing the street and getting hit by a car. So? Does that mean I shouldn't leave my home? Just because there's a small risk of facial paralysis, does that mean I shouldn't take the chance of being able to hear better? If you are opposed to CIs, that's fine, but don't exaggerate risks where little to none exist.
 
deafdyke said:
define not benifiting from CI. Benifit is measured very indivdually. For some people that might be being able to hear at hoh levels. For others that might be enviromental sounds or a slight increase in their speech perception skills.
Click to expand...

No benefit after they had the CI put in... I am wondering if there is anyone who had CI then happen not to wear them, I am interested to see who on the site doesn't wear CI anymore and their reasons...
I know there is Travis...
And thanks to Bott... Foxrac but he wants to wear it again although i haven't heard anymore off foxrac so i guess he's still non wearer.
 
Do anyone of you who need to follow up with audiologist and pay fee every time you visit? just curious.
 
Last edited:
Hear Again said:
I don't.

Mappings (and AVT) are covered by most insurers, so this is a non-issue for a majority of CI users.
Click to expand...

Oh, thats nice. my dh stopped going to folllow up with the audiology for the visit fee that costs us for 100 bucks. Our insurance does not cover to pay fee for his visiting to the audiology. So far, he is doing ok with his ci and feel that he doesnt need to change it or so unless it is reallly necessary. Then we would have to pay the fees for his visiting to check up with his CI.

Look like medicare, and medicaid are covered with the fees for the visiting.
 
Frisky Feline said:
Oh, thats nice. my dh stopped going to folllow up with the audiology for the visit fee that costs us for 100 bucks. Our insurance does not cover to pay fee for his visiting to the audiology. So far, he is doing ok with his ci and feel that he doesnt need to change it or so unless it is reallly necessary. Then we would have to pay the fees for his visiting to check up with his CI.

Look like medicare, and medicaid are covered with the fees for the visiting.
Click to expand...

Ouch! I'm sorry that happened to your DH.

Standard health insurance plans also cover mappings and AVT -- not just Medicaid and Medicare.

As far as Medicare is concerned, they only pay for 80% of the total cost/visit while Medicaid pays 100%.
 
Hear Again said:
Ouch! I'm sorry that happened to your DH.

Standard health insurance plans also cover mappings and AVT -- not just Medicaid and Medicare.

As far as Medicare is concerned, they only pay for 80% of the total cost/visit while Medicaid pays 100%.
Click to expand...


Yeah that sucks about the visitor fees. thanks anyway.
 
Hear Again said:
If you're going to cite a source, then you need to back up your statement instead of making a generality about risk. You didn't indicate what degree of risk. You simply stated that there was a risk. I also said there was a risk of me crossing the street and getting hit by a car. So? Does that mean I shouldn't leave my home? Just because there's a small risk of facial paralysis, does that mean I shouldn't take the chance of being able to hear better? If you are opposed to CIs, that's fine, but don't exaggerate risks where little to none exist.
Click to expand...

again - direct your complaint to FDA at 888-463-6332 to clarify its statement regarding risk :)

and I'm not opposed to CI at all. I simply choose not to have it for myself if my hearing has degraded to the point where HA is useless.
 
Back
Top