But a "cold" can lead to a bacterial infection, such as pneumonia, by
reducing the body's resistance. An antibiotic, in this case, can be
The vast majority of deaths attributable to the "Spanish Flu" epidemic were
caused by pneumonia. Of course this was before both pneumonia vaccinations
On 6/30/2012 8:10 PM, email@example.com wrote:
You are probably are more right than not on that comment. The housing
bubble that started this latest mess in 08 was because people that could
not afford houses were qualifying for loans to buy them since the
government was guaranteeing the loans. And then the government had the
nerve to blame the banks for the whole mess.
Had the government not guaranteed the loans this would not have
happened. And yes the lenders did twist the qualification thresholds
but the government expected them to do so, why else would they have
guaranteed the loans. No need to guarantee loans for applicants that
actually have the means to pay the money back!
The other necessary factor was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Without
that, the banks would have had no way to dump their bogus paper on other
banks. These same banks then bought bogus paper through the other door from
other banks, never stopping to think that they were buying the same crap they
Yes, it was a government cluster-.... The banks did nothing illegal, only
what the government wanted (in many cased demanded) them to do. Without
Congress, both sides of the aisle, this would never have happened.
Uh, they already did.
Well, not actually "require," but they made is so attractive that the vast
It all started with the Community Re-Development Act under President Carter,
but it really took off under the Clinton administration.
The "individual mandate" was one of the biggest sticking points about
Obamacare. What it amounted to was, either buy insurance or pay the
feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For people
who don't already have insurance because they can't afford it, it
amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going, Barack Hussein.
It's a common refrain. In Holland too, they have had to adjust premiums
upward. Probably savings come from the fact that there is no or far less
cost caring for indigent. I wish I know how I could get healthcare costs
to go down. On the other hand, several of my medications have gone
generic, and they cost me far less now (and the cost to the insurance
company is down too, probably).
I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on the
ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually prescribe water for
their hospitalized patients so they won't die of dehydration!
Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health care
providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients alive. If alive,
they live to be treated another day.
In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor, nurse,
or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report claimed that upwards
of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from non-treatment or poor
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
I read something that put it closer to a million a year. Gary Null
says 480k from adverse drug reactions/medical errors.
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne
Yep ... alive, just not healthy enough to live without Big Pharma. There
is no profit in a healthy population.
Agreed ... not to mention that the past three decades, approximately
109,000 people die DIRECTLY each year from drug interactions in the US
... to put that in perspective, about 30,000 die from automobile accidents.
A medical profession, and culture, where "nutrition" is not on the menu,
plus government malfeasance while Food, Inc and Big Pharma poisons the
population, insures profits.
There is NO profit in "healthy" for politicians, the medical and/or drug
You are what you eat ...
So the solution is simple - pay the medical providers on the basis of the
health of their patients. Oh, wait, that's just bookkeeping ...
That was for the kidding. I believe some progress is being made in
hospital reimbursements. No more reimbursement for preventable side
effects (hospital-acquired infections, readmissions because something
didn't go right during the first admission, etc).
Nowadays with the computerization of pharmacy records it is easier to
flag potential drug interactions. But it's difficult in some respects,
since almost everything you put into your body is a drug in some respect
(if you're on coumadin, as some in this newsgroup are, either eating or
not eating broccoli acts as a drug, becausethe vitamin K in broccoli
prevents the coumadin from doing it's job).
Not US media at all. A cursory check, or neutral question, would have
prevented a knee-jerk reaction on your part.
"[LONDON, June 21, 2012] An eminent British doctor told a meeting of the
Royal Society of Medicine in London that every year 130,000 elderly patients
that die while under the care of the National Health Service (NHS) have been
effectively euthanized by being put on the controversial Liverpool Care
Pathway (LCP), a protocol for care of the terminally ill that he described
as a "death pathway."
And from a UK newspaper:
"NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly
hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a
senior consultant claimed yesterday.
"[The Liverpool Care Pathway] is designed to come into force when doctors
believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent. It
can include withdrawal of treatment - including the provision of water and
nourishment by tube - and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours."
To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician writing "LCP"
on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely different critter.)
Everywhere it is really important that advance directives, living will
etc are in order, legally speaking. Plus the next of kin need to know
and be willing to execute the wishes of the patient. IMNSHO that is
paramount and should govern the actions of patients, next of kin,
doctors, hospitals, all to whom the care of the patient is entrusted.
However, there will always be situations where there is little if any
hope that medical science will be able to "resurrect" an elderly or
otherwise infirm individual to what I would call a quality life. Then
the question is whether such a "vegetable" should be articifially kept
alive in the sole sense of having a beating heart. It is of note that
being kept alive could be extremely painful, physically, mentally or
both, for the affected individual. The treatment-related questions then
are soul searching to the max. If and when one gets to the point of
having to make such decisions for others, he/she will (hopefully) lay
awake long hours trying to make the correct decisions.
I could relate several stories in this respect, but they are kind of
personal. One involves that an ambulance was called. "They needed" to
take the patient to the hospital for care, because the relevant paperwork
(living will, advance directives) couldn't be located. The patient might
have expired without the care. Some may contend that "living" weeks or
months longer at that point is something good, others that it isn't
really living. My point is that we should comply with the wishes of the
person involved, and not necesarily commit huge resources to keep someone
alive who might not wish that.
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.