|
Post by BlackWidowNor on Dec 22, 2013 20:24:01 GMT
The previous doctor never put two & two together to see that fibromyalgia was the cause of the symptoms Nor? I can't decide if that's incompetance, sloppiness, or laziness. Regardless, it's great that you found a doctor who did find the real problem and helped you find treatment. My old doctor wasn't incompetent, sloppy, or lazy - he was just "old fashioned" and diagnosed me with arthritis among other smaller, minor annoyances (and.. I am some what of a klutz). I was diagnosed in 2003 and I had been seeing my old doctor for 10 years before that and we had a good working relationship. When my gall bladder decided to be stupid, he actually yelled at me because I walked out of the hospital ER AMA because they were doing NOTHING but giving me saline. He called the ER and gave them the verbal thrashing of their lives for not even giving me anything for pain or the vomiting. When I went back to the ER, I was admitted within the hour. I just don't think Dr. Cardona considered I could have fibromyalgia. Dr. Khan - I did very well picking him out of the provider book - he actually specialized in diabetes and pain management issues along with being a primary care physician.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Dec 22, 2013 21:22:59 GMT
The best Primary Care Provider (PCP) that I have ever had is my current one - who is a Nurse Practitioner, not an MD.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 23, 2013 0:57:11 GMT
CEOs have the power to destroy the economy in retaliation for pay cuts. it's essentially sanctioned extortion.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Dec 23, 2013 4:37:27 GMT
CEOs have the power to destroy the economy in retaliation for pay cuts. it's essentially sanctioned extortion. *Ponders for a moment* Yep. Sounds about right. There's a reason that they're given titles like "Titans of Industry"
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 23, 2013 5:44:12 GMT
CEOs have the power to destroy the economy in retaliation for pay cuts. it's essentially sanctioned extortion. *Ponders for a moment* Yep. Sounds about right. There's a reason that they're given titles like "Titans of Industry" They work hard at preventing the public from seeing that if they simply refuse to do business with these "titans" (by which I mean take their business to smaller businesses) the rank and file workers move to a different job; most likely with better conditions, and the CEO is left holding the bag.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 23, 2013 15:36:01 GMT
*Ponders for a moment* Yep. Sounds about right. There's a reason that they're given titles like "Titans of Industry" They work hard at preventing the public from seeing that if they simply refuse to do business with these "titans" (by which I mean take their business to smaller businesses) the rank and file workers move to a different job; most likely with better conditions, and the CEO is left holding the bag. And within a couple of years some of those mom and pop businesses get so many customers that they have to expand to keep up and before you know it, they're as bad as the companies we all left to begin with. Even Microsoft started out being only two guys with an idea.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 23, 2013 15:43:22 GMT
They work hard at preventing the public from seeing that if they simply refuse to do business with these "titans" (by which I mean take their business to smaller businesses) the rank and file workers move to a different job; most likely with better conditions, and the CEO is left holding the bag. And within a couple of years some of those mom and pop businesses get so many customers that they have to expand to keep up and before you know it, they're as bad as the companies we all left to begin with. Even Microsoft started out being only two guys with an idea. and if they continue with a fair business model, you keep patronizing them - but if they decide that since they are big they need to be selling cut-rate merchandise and paying their employees slave wages, you take your business to someone else.
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Dec 26, 2013 4:09:25 GMT
I would like to see a law passed in the USA that states the minimum wage an hour can be no less than $15 per hour. I'm so sick of hearing stories of people forced to work 3 jobs just so their kids have something to eat! ![>:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/superangry.png) it would be better to establish it as what it would take for a 40hr/week 50week/year job to keep a family of three above the poverty line. that way the companies can't just trigger enough inflation to maintain their status quo. Here in America, $15 an hour would pretty much double the minimum wage. Therefore $15 an hour is not a reasonable request. The minimum wage should be raised though. Here in Michigan the minimum wage is $7.40 an hour, in my opinion, raising it to more than $9/$10 an hour would be a real issue as far as employers being able to afford without drastically raising prices. I can't remember ever walking into a minimum wage paying establishment where there were not people applying for work. I know that because places I (used to) frequent that payed minimum, or near minimum wage always had employees. For example, I used to stop at a particular Burger King quite frequently when I was delivering Pool Tables. I saw a lot of people come and go at that place. Every time someone left, they got out the stack of applications, scheduled interviews, and hired someone to replace them. Those jobs are not high skill jobs, it is insane to expect employers to pay the employees as if they were skilled labor. If someone wants more than minimum wage, they can take their butts to college or trade school, and learn a skill. Perhaps they can manage to do fairly well on their own in a "semi-skilled" position like I did. But "you get what you pay for" is actually a pretty good rule of thumb, if you are getting no skill help, they should be payed no skill wages. At least that is the way I see it.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 26, 2013 4:31:06 GMT
it would be better to establish it as what it would take for a 40hr/week 50week/year job to keep a family of three above the poverty line. that way the companies can't just trigger enough inflation to maintain their status quo. Here in America, $15 an hour would pretty much double the minimum wage. Therefore $15 an hour is not a reasonable request. The minimum wage should be raised though. Here in Michigan the minimum wage is $7.40 an hour, in my opinion, raising it to more than $9/$10 an hour would be a real issue as far as employers being able to afford without drastically raising prices. I can't remember ever walking into a minimum wage paying establishment where there were not people applying for work. I know that because places I (used to) frequent that payed minimum, or near minimum wage always had employees. For example, I used to stop at a particular Burger King quite frequently when I was delivering Pool Tables. I saw a lot of people come and go at that place. Every time someone left, they got out the stack of applications, scheduled interviews, and hired someone to replace them. Those jobs are not high skill jobs, it is insane to expect employers to pay the employees as if they were skilled labor. If someone wants more than minimum wage, they can take their butts to college or trade school, and learn a skill. Perhaps they can manage to do fairly well on their own in a "semi-skilled" position like I did. But "you get what you pay for" is actually a pretty good rule of thumb, if you are getting no skill help, they should be payed no skill wages. At least that is the way I see it. the issue we run into is that the minimum wage is not sufficient to support a family - and a "minimum wage job" is just that - a person can work for 10 years and improve their abilities significantly; and still be getting minimum wage. the other term for these particular employment categories is "dead end job"
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Dec 26, 2013 5:56:16 GMT
For the malpractice bit, at one point there was a push for hospitals to begin implementing checklists for pretty much everything. According to proponents, not only would checklists minimize hospital mistakes, they would also serve as a benchmark for conduct by employees against which their actions could be judged in the event of a suit. If you ask me, these checklists should go hand-in-hand with Texas-style tort reform in any future attempts at overhauling health care in America. I believe there was actually talk of that here at one point too, but I don't know if it was ever implemented. I somewhat like the idea. Not only does it provide peace of mind for the patient to know that there are lists that have to be checked for every type of medical complaint/procedure, ensuring the patient that no stone has been left unturned in the process, it also ensures that the doctors and nurses have their own asses covered in the event of complications and that the source of a previous mistake can be easily found and quickly rectified. I do see some potential problems though. One is that you could easily make the mistake of checking something off on the list at the moment you intend to do it and then get called away for something else before actually doing it. If the chart is then picked up by another doctor and they see that step checked off on the list, they're going to move on to the next step and may miss something critical. There's also the possibility that a doctor or nurse misses something on the list and then just checks it off anyway to cover their tracks. In the event of a later malpractice suit it may then become exceedingly difficult for the patient to make the argument that the proper steps weren't taken. After all, there's written documentation that they were. I'm certain that that happens far more than any of us would like to think, people checking off things they actually forgot, but would rather not get fired for forgetting. In this computerized age we are living in, it won't be long before much of the risk of falsifying a checklist could be curbed. The technology is here, its just a matter of implementation. A chip in the right place would record what is being done, then transmit to the checklist that the step was indeed taken. It remains to be seen if this will ever be implemented, but it should be given the relative simplicity of doing so. That would certainly cut down the number of people with the ability to falsify said checklist, you would need to be able to re-write the computer code to enter false data.
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Dec 26, 2013 7:37:02 GMT
Here in America, $15 an hour would pretty much double the minimum wage. Therefore $15 an hour is not a reasonable request. The minimum wage should be raised though. Here in Michigan the minimum wage is $7.40 an hour, in my opinion, raising it to more than $9/$10 an hour would be a real issue as far as employers being able to afford without drastically raising prices. I can't remember ever walking into a minimum wage paying establishment where there were not people applying for work. I know that because places I (used to) frequent that payed minimum, or near minimum wage always had employees. For example, I used to stop at a particular Burger King quite frequently when I was delivering Pool Tables. I saw a lot of people come and go at that place. Every time someone left, they got out the stack of applications, scheduled interviews, and hired someone to replace them. Those jobs are not high skill jobs, it is insane to expect employers to pay the employees as if they were skilled labor. If someone wants more than minimum wage, they can take their butts to college or trade school, and learn a skill. Perhaps they can manage to do fairly well on their own in a "semi-skilled" position like I did. But "you get what you pay for" is actually a pretty good rule of thumb, if you are getting no skill help, they should be payed no skill wages. At least that is the way I see it. the issue we run into is that the minimum wage is not sufficient to support a family - and a "minimum wage job" is just that - a person can work for 10 years and improve their abilities significantly; and still be getting minimum wage. the other term for these particular employment categories is "dead end job" This is true, but nobody is keeping that person at that job but themselves. I seriously doubt that you could find too many companies that do not give regular raises to those who are deserving. Most employers will give "mandatory raises" to every employee that simply stays on the job for 90 days, this given their performance is at least average. My wife gets a raise every year, she also gets some pretty good bonuses. This also is NOT her first job. She has worked a few minimum wage jobs, including cleaning buildings, worked a couple near minimum wage jobs, including Subway, and continued improving her wages by working her way to where she is now. She started out at $7.40 per hour, she is now just under $10 per hour and going into her last year of college for her RN degree. An RN in MI earns a median wage of $42k Short story, she has been in America since 09/2005, she got her drivers license, went out, found a job. Some will stop at this point, she was not willing to settle for minimum wage, she never stopped applying for work or taking classes she needed to get where she is. She currently works in a group home. In a year or so she will be an RN earning RN wages. In the sea of people who need to work, the only thing that separates her from the dead-end-jobbers is her own motivation to succeed. She is open to continuing medical school beyond RN in some form or another but hasn't yet determined in what field. Nobody is stopping people from leaving a dead end job but themselves. There are all kinds of grants and student loans available for anyone who needs them and wants an education. The guy who owns this started out with nothing in the utterly run down city of Flint, MI. He now lives in a house that has a garage bigger than my house and garage. He worked his share of "dead-end" jobs, the difference is that he didn't see any "dead ends", he kept moving forward. I could surmise that there are no dead end jobs, only dead end people.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 26, 2013 16:12:39 GMT
the issue we run into is that the minimum wage is not sufficient to support a family - and a "minimum wage job" is just that - a person can work for 10 years and improve their abilities significantly; and still be getting minimum wage. the other term for these particular employment categories is "dead end job" This is true, but nobody is keeping that person at that job but themselves. I seriously doubt that you could find too many companies that do not give regular raises to those who are deserving. Most employers will give "mandatory raises" to every employee that simply stays on the job for 90 days, this given their performance is at least average. My wife gets a raise every year, she also gets some pretty good bonuses. This also is NOT her first job. She has worked a few minimum wage jobs, including cleaning buildings, worked a couple near minimum wage jobs, including Subway, and continued improving her wages by working her way to where she is now. She started out at $7.40 per hour, she is now just under $10 per hour and going into her last year of college for her RN degree. An RN in MI earns a median wage of $42k Short story, she has been in America since 09/2005, she got her drivers license, went out, found a job. Some will stop at this point, she was not willing to settle for minimum wage, she never stopped applying for work or taking classes she needed to get where she is. She currently works in a group home. In a year or so she will be an RN earning RN wages. In the sea of people who need to work, the only thing that separates her from the dead-end-jobbers is her own motivation to succeed. She is open to continuing medical school beyond RN in some form or another but hasn't yet determined in what field. Nobody is stopping people from leaving a dead end job but themselves. There are all kinds of grants and student loans available for anyone who needs them and wants an education. The guy who owns this started out with nothing in the utterly run down city of Flint, MI. He now lives in a house that has a garage bigger than my house and garage. He worked his share of "dead-end" jobs, the difference is that he didn't see any "dead ends", he kept moving forward. I could surmise that there are no dead end jobs, only dead end people. sounds good; looks good on paper. how many people are in your wife's RN class, and how many openings are there for RNs in your area? here we have people with doctorates competing with people with 50 years of experience - for a job at McNopes. the GOOD jobs - the ones at the casino - tend to have 10 or more applicants for every opening. the idea that anyone can work hard and improve their position is valid. the extrapolation that this means EVERYONE can work hard and improve their position is a non sequitur. and the simple fact of the matter is that a family with two parents and two children - and both parents in minimum wage jobs - is eligible for government support - which means that the minimum wage employers are actually using government subsidies to reduce their payroll. I don't mind helping out the working poor - I do mind my help for the working poor effectively putting money in the pockets of cheapskate bosses.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 28, 2013 10:24:31 GMT
I know someone who does three jobs to put food on the table...... Mostly take-aways....
He has also a mortgage on a six bedroom house. A Brand New Audi, and a one year old BMW, and a one-and-a-half year old Jaguar....
You guess where this is going?... If they had stayed in the four bedroom house, it being the two parents and two kids, had only ONE car, and not spending the best part of a whole month in somewhere exotic every year, plus the obligatory two weeks sliding down a mountain on two planks of wood with a couple of broom sticks for brakes.....
Living beyond his means. Plus the wife is a lazy cow, she only has one part time job.... The rest of her time is spent in hairdressers and beauty saloons.....
Yes, I feel sympathy for the low paid. I was one of them. I got wise, reclaimed my sole from satan, got qualified and got paid better.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Jan 5, 2014 12:39:24 GMT
This would only apply to the US but I would LOVE to see a law stating that a Presidential candidate can not spend any more money on their campaign advertising, (TV, Poster, Pins ect) than the sum total of what they would earn during their four years in office as President. The same rule would apply to all Senators & to members of Congress. & that they can't vote themselves a pay rise without the approval of the voters.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 5, 2014 23:38:11 GMT
This would only apply to the US but I would LOVE to see a law stating that a Presidential candidate can not spend any more money on their campaign advertising, (TV, Poster, Pins ect) than the sum total of what they would earn during their four years in office as President. The same rule would apply to all Senators & to members of Congress. & that they can't vote themselves a pay rise without the approval of the voters. I say they live in government provided housing, drive a government provided car, and get paid minimum wage. of course, if we coupled that with your campaign finance rule, we would be blissfully free of obnoxious campaign advertisements for most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 6, 2014 10:39:37 GMT
I say go for broke, that all of the parties spend the same. To do that, all "Contributions" must be fed to a central pot and divided equally amongst all in the running.....
That way, the poor person who has all the right ideas gets the same coverage as the rich person-of-doubtful-parentage who has all the wrong ideas. No slant to Obama there, its just what he was accused of, and to be honest, given the choices available, he was the best one in the running?....
BTW, this is NOT political, how can it be, I aint a Yank..... I dunno what I am talking about?.... (But Mit "I aint got a clue" Romney as President?... that made even me worried... Palin?... that made me SCARED...)
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 6, 2014 15:10:39 GMT
I say they live in government provided housing, drive a government provided car, and get paid minimum wage. of course, if we coupled that with your campaign finance rule, we would be blissfully free of obnoxious campaign advertisements for most of the time. You forgot one thing: They get insured through Obamacare.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 6, 2014 15:19:19 GMT
I say go for broke, that all of the parties spend the same. To do that, all "Contributions" must be fed to a central pot and divided equally amongst all in the running..... That way, the poor person who has all the right ideas gets the same coverage as the rich person-of-doubtful-parentage who has all the wrong ideas. No slant to Obama there, its just what he was accused of, and to be honest, given the choices available, he was the best one in the running?.... BTW, this is NOT political, how can it be, I aint a Yank..... I dunno what I am talking about?.... (But Mit "I aint got a clue" Romney as President?... that made even me worried... Palin?... that made me SCARED...) one of my suggestions was to place a "sales" tax of 100% on campaign spending (including "donated" advertising value) it would either reduce the obnoxious ads, or it would equal our federal income tax revenue.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 6, 2014 15:20:43 GMT
I say they live in government provided housing, drive a government provided car, and get paid minimum wage. of course, if we coupled that with your campaign finance rule, we would be blissfully free of obnoxious campaign advertisements for most of the time. You forgot one thing: They get insured through Obamacare. Federal Romneycare is not an insurance policy. it is a rule that you must get an insurance policy which meets minimum coverage standards. their current policy far exceeds those standards.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 6, 2014 15:24:12 GMT
You forgot one thing: They get insured through Obamacare. Federal Romneycare is not an insurance policy. it is a rule that you must get an insurance policy which meets minimum coverage standards. their current policy far exceeds those standards. The insurance I have through work also exceeds the "standards", so Obamacare mandated the policy be lessened and employees pay higher premiums/deductables.
|
|