Prepping the swamp cooler for summer. Unlike last year, the calcium scraped
off easily in the pan!
Changed one cooling pad and it wore me out. I'll have to do the others in
two steps - remove one day, put in new one the next. <sigh> Wasn't that
long ago I did all three quickly in one session. Soon fiddle with water
lines to pads. That's always a lot of fun, removing and cleaning out these
that are plugged up.
You know it's time to clean the refrigerator
when something closes the door from the inside.
For our old cooler, I installed a second pump, feeding the "spider"
from an opposite corner (wasn't a true spider; rather, a rectangular loop
originally fed from one corner) and putting check valves in each feed
(in case a pump failed, the pads would not dry out).
The EXTRA water made a noticeable difference in cooling efficiency.
Biggest hassle was periodica AGGRESSIVE cleaning, repainting,
etc. (previous owners had poorly maintained it; we should have
replaced it long before we *did*!)
New cooler purges the sump periodically to reduce mineral
build up (at the expense of greater water usage). But, it's
a naive implementation -- the "purge pump" can end up draining
the pan while the cooler is running (think: hot air).
OTOH, it has kept the pads and cooler in pretty good shape!
I'm at 70 and I swim 3x a week.
Still putting on muscle.
I'm wondering how long this can go on before I really
start to get less physically fit.
Anyway, my advice to all seniors. You need to exercise.
If you can't walk far, try walking farther.
If you can walk, run.
If you don't want to exercise, you've given up.
From what I've seen (friends, colleagues) what typically ends up
happening is an "accident" (e.g., fall) that breaks this routine.
Your body spends time healing AND not getting the benefits of
the exercise. You lose ground pretty quickly (easier to
lose muscle tone than gain it!).
SWMBO has taken to a less aggressive set of stretching exercises,
~30 minutes/day, 7 days/week (unless she has to leave for class
at 7:30 -- the days of getting up before the sun JUST to exercise
are long gone!). She has found that helps her strength and,
most importantly, balance. Prior to this, she did more
aerobic exercise -- but less frequently. She also hikes regularly.
[I think there are ~30 in the series so it doesn't get to be
I just walk the neighborhood, daily -- 3.8 miles in 56 minutes
(4MPH). But, it's not truly aerobic as I simply can't get my heart
rate up very high with that level of energy expenditure.
That's what I am trying to keep in mind.... also, I had direct
experience a couple years ago: intestinal infection + shingles that put
me on my back for 5 months.
I still have not fully recovered muscle strength/nerve function - and do
not expect to ever recover fully.....that showed me firsthand how
destructive inactivity can be.
I have been working on stair climbing/descending technique - against the
day when a leg collapses or something.
What I have come up with is both ascending and descending bent over in
the direction of upstairs - one hand on the railing and the other
touching a stair at all times. i.e. When I descend, I go down
My rationale is that will limit the distance/severity when the
inevitable fall occurs.
Yup. One rationalization I use for all the work I do around the
house, on the cars, etc. is to keep my body doing things OTHER
than what's my "norm". E.g., lugging 60 pound containers of paint
up onto the roof ("balancing" on the rungs of a ladder -- very
different than carrying 60 pounds across a room!)
Chances are, it will be something totally unexpected!
A friend tripped over her *dog* and struck her chin on the
edge of a coffee table -- breaking her neck in the process.
Another friend fell off a roof.
Surprisingly, many EYE injuries (in seniors) are the result of
falling and striking the eye on <something>.
I'd be leary that you might set a foot in the wrong place while unable
to see it (or something on the stair, etc.)
New business opportunity: Bubble Wrap *suits* for seniors -- endorsed
by AARP. Available in three exciting colors! Act now and we'll
include a second one, FREE (just pay separate shipping and handling).
Operators are standing by to take your call...
Kinda the same thing here - I've got knee hip and back pain and my
lungs aren't real good - but I can still walk or bike a good distance
if I take my time or use the "cheater bike" to help me on hills etc -
but the wife has a bad heart valve that may or may not get replaced in
the next couple years. Sure glad I live in Canada and not the USA on
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:45:49 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I force myself to walk some distance, but if I don't do it, I won't be
able to. Steps are more difficult and ibuprofen is a regular part of
My wife had CHF about 15 years ago and is now borderline for valve
replacement. It will be covered 100% with insurance if it does
happen. I think the big difference is how we pay for it. I pay for
insurance, you pay in taxes though overall it may be cheaper for you.
Not entirely true, in Ontario, Health Care is paid as a separate insurance
item on the income tax form for those who earn more than $20,000 in a year,
employers pay a portion for each employee directly, and the balance is paid
through federal and provincial tax contributions. This is only for items
covered, which is quite a lot, the rest we pay ourselves or have a separate
Health Care Supplement insurance. Over 65 years of age, our Medicare covers
some additional items and prescription drugs.
I'm sure I can look this up, <somewhere>, but easier when the horse
is on hand! :>
Neglecting, for a moment, the "Supplement", is your "Health Care"
a "single payer innsurance"? I.e., all health care "providers"
are independant entities (businesses) that *bill* the "Central
Government" for the services that they provide?
Or, is it more like Britain's -- where the providers are actually
EMPLOYEES of the government? As such, the government is providing
the service instead of just "underwriting" it?
The "Supplement", presumably, covers things that "Health Care"
doesn't. Is it really an insurance policy? Does it use the
same providers as the aforementioned? (gummit vs private sector)
Said another way, does this cover things that the aforementioned
CAN'T cover (chooses not to have the capabilities to provide)?
Or, does it cover things that yo (as a society) have decided
aren't "rights" but, rather, optional privileges?
And, of course, the toughest question of all (one that *I* would
be as clueless to answer as you may be), what sorts of things fall
into this Supplemental coverage?
To pick on more outrageous examples:
- if I broke a hip and was 97 years old, would that be covered
under the "basic"? Or, would I have had to have purchased
supplemental for it? presumably, if I broke it when I was 62
it would be part of basic coverage (but, at 97, your policies
may have decided that the expected value of the repair don't
significantly improve my REMAINING quality of life)
- if I wanted a sex change operation?
- breast augmentation/reduction? (with or without medical justification)
- IVF at 55 years of age? 65? 25?
(see where I'm going with this? i.e., what has your society
decided are the "rights" to health care and for which portions
of the population?)
Keep in mind, the US has the *best* health care, bar none!
(tongue planted firmly in BOTH cheeks!)
The hospitals are locally run and government funded.
Doctors bill the provincial health system directly
The Old Age "supplement" covers things like most perscription drugs
that pre-65 folks pay for themselves or hold private supplemental
There is no official cutoff age for any surgery - Hip and knee
replacements, heart valves, bypasses etc are covered as long as a
"quality of life" arguement can be made for it.
Cosmetic surgery is not covered unless it is "medically necessary"
Not sure about IVF or sex change - I'm pretty sure a sex change at 93
would not be covered!!!!
On 2/24/2016 3:29 PM, email@example.com wrote:
Not wanting to split hairs, but... my point is, are the hospitals
"for profit" entities that compete with each other -- just "billing"
the government for the services they provide?
Or, are their budgets set *in* the government -- there's no
"extra money" that they can glean from providing services?
If I hire someone to make me a sandwich, they will presumably
make a profit on that activity. OTOH, if I make a sandwich
for myself and have to dip into "petty cash" for the funds,
my "budget" only sees the cost of buying the provisions for
So, they are not *employees* of the health system?
Said another way, if one doctor can get by paying his
office staff 10% less (so, his cost of providing a service
is 10% less!), does he end up making 10% more than the
practitioner who pays a better wage (or, is less efficient
in providing care -- possibly because they provide BETTER
But there are limited resources. Who decides that the quality of THIS life
justifies these dollars whereas the quality of THAT life may not be AS
I'm thinking of a discussion I saw on TV in Manchester (England) many
years ago. An example that they put forth was: do we fix an 84 year
old's *hip* (expecting that 84 year old to be nearing or past nominal
life expectancy) OR use the SAME FUNDS to vaccinate a bunch of toddlers?
Presumably, the gummit doesn't just "bill the populace" (via taxes)
for the costs of the past year's health care. So, there are some
sorts of limits in place that RATION coverage?
A limit case: imagine a pandemic (or something similar) that suddenly
and dramatically increases the monies outlayed for health care in a
given year (AIDS, SARS, Hepatitis, etc.). Does anyone get turned away?
Or, does the service just operate at a deficit? What happens to the
tax levy NEXT year? Is it automagically increased to make up for
the deficit incurred in the previous year? Or, are benefits adjusted??
A friend is suffering from heart failure. An LVAD could extend his life
for some period of time -- at some significant expense (have to also
factor in expected complications and cost of treating those). But,
hes already "outlived his genes" by 30 years. If those monies are coming
from a gummit fund, somebody is potentially losing SOME benefit...
What's the calculus that's performed? Is it an actuarial calculation
or a "heart strings" one?
The hospitals set a budget and apply to the government for funding.
They are not SUPPOSED to run a deficit.
The doctors own or rent their own clinics, and pay their own
receptionists and nurses, and buy their own equipment - all paid out
of what they charge the provincial healthcare system.. There is a
limit as to how much a doctor can bill the system. There is a limit to
how many procedures he can perform.
Surgeries are done at the hospitals where the doctor has "privileges"
- the hospital gets paid for the use of the facility, and the doctor
gets paid for doing the procedure. Anything not covered by the
provincial health care sydtem is charged to the patient or his/her
private supplemental insurance provider. Some billing is direct to
the insurer - some is billed to thepatient who submits to the insurer
If a doctor owns his own clinic building and it costs less than
leasing, he makes more than the doctor who leases. There are
standards in place that limit how much different the "profit" of one
doctor is than another - but some doctors do "make" a lot more money
than others under the same system - efficiencies are rewarded - and if
they cut too many corners trying to make money, the "college of
physicians" will discipline them
(self governing professional body)
On 2/24/2016 4:10 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Man of our hospitals are "non-profit". But, that doesn't mean that they
don't *turn* a profit (i.e., take in more than they need to provide
the services). Where does that surplus go?
But can they run a SURPLUS? Even if they "absorb" that surplus by
spending it on, say, new "executive waste baskets" for everyone in
Administration? Or, remodeling a waiting room, doctor's lounge, etc.?
I.e., what's to stop waste, over billing, etc. -- the very same issues
that US institutions face?
But, a doctor can decide to pay his staff *less* than some other
doctor might. A doctor can opt to spend 5 minutes with each
patient -- instead of 15 -- and "pocket the difference" (i.e.,
leave early for a round of golf).
Again, where are the controls that suggest you have a BETTER
handle on providing more efficient ($$) care?
I don't see how that inherently won't also lead to the same abuses
that we have here -- unnecessary procedures, etc.
Shirley you jest? We have many such "self-governing professional bodies"
here. I think you have to be caught on national TV screwing a goat
before they even THINK about slapping you on the wrist.
I just don't see anything different, here, that would account for
the perception that it's "better" than our "money takes all" approach.
I'd like to understand where the savings/efficiencies creep in.
It just seems like you *might* have done away with share holders (?)
but still left the providers to run surpluses that THEY control
(surplus == inefficiency, from the patient's viewpoint).
Sometimes they can apply a surplus to past deficits, sometimes it
reduces the amount of funding they need from the government system
next year - sometimes it goes towards expansion or new equipment, or
hire back a few staff members that were trimmed last yer to meet
budjet - but it is a very odd occurrence for a Canadian (ontario,
anyway) hospital to run a surplus
The budget is so SLIM there is no room for significant waste - the
budget is pretty closely scrutinized
Paying less than average means he's always looking for help Qualified
staff don't grow on trees. As for time spent - everything is booked
and open to scrutiny. The Ontario Medical Association (and other
provincial groups) are self governing, self monitoring, self policing
associations, but are open to public scrutiny.
They can only bill so many procedures, and we are far from having a
surplus of doctors or opperating room space, so things get prioritized
and abuses are very rare - and when they happen they are publicised.
When doctors are charged it is news.
No shareholders, and no surpluses controlled by the medical
institutions - and like our banking system, checks and balances are
built in. On the whole, they work.
On 02/25/2016 11:48 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> They can only bill so many procedures, and we are far from having a
> surplus of doctors or opperating room space, so things get prioritized
> and abuses are very rare - and when they happen they are publicised.
> When doctors are charged it is news.
It's been a while since quit the traveling road show supporting coal
analyzers but when in Saskatchewan for SaskPower, the locals there
routinely drove to Minot, ND owing to extreme waiting times for
appointments. Don't know if it's improved or not...
We're in rural area with continuing shortage of medical professionals
willing to locate outside the major metro areas where are amenities and
potentially much more lucrative practices but there seems always a ready
supply of Canadian doctors willing to give up the hassles of the system
north of the border. We typically have from 3 to 5 in town at any one
time. Like all the rest, the wives generally are unhappy with the
locale so it's difficult in retaining them for long-term, but there
seems an unending supply or replacements.
A lot of doctors have left Canada for the USA over the years - and a
vast majority come back when they realize the grass isn't any greener
and isn't any more palatable on the other side of the fence.
There was a time a few decades ago when Canada produced more nurses
than we had jobs for, and a lot of them headed south. Quite a few
stayed..Some went on to further their education and became doctors. A
lot of others married doctors - - -
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.