I haven't really decided who I'm voting for in the primaries. I know, I'm from Texas, so it's supposed to be either Rick Perry or Ron Paul, right? Well, I'm afraid of all the Ron Paul Zombies, even though I agree with about 80% of what Ron Paul says. I don't think I like his international ideas. I'm not sure how I feel about Rick Perry yet. I think the only way I'd vote for either of these is if they won the Republican nomination. Anyone is better than Obama, but I said that 3 years ago. Even if Rick Perry turns out to be a RINO, he can't do more damage than Obama has done in the past couple or more years.
I am really leaning toward Herman Cain. Yes, I know, I'm a white, conservative Republican, I'm supposed to be racist. And I'm not like a liberal who is voting for the black man to make myself feel good or prove I'm not a racist. If Herman Cain won as President, we'd really have our first Black President. Obama is half black. We'd also have a patriot instead of a Marxist.
But, anyway, I just heard Herman Cain discuss his 9 9 9 plan, and I like it. I wanted to tell you why. First, here's the plan: From his article found at http://hermancaincommentary.blogspot.com/2011/08/mr-president-youre-fired-but-if-you.html
__________________
A 9% business flat tax. Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses, and all dividends paid to shareholders.
A 9% individual income flat tax. Gross income less charitable deductions.
A 9% national sales tax. This significantly expands the tax base, which helps everyone.
This plan has the following advantages:
It is fair, revenue-neutral, transparent and efficient.
It puts zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits.
It replaces the payroll tax.
It will aid capital availability for small businesses.
It saves taxpayers $430 billion in annual compliance costs.
It eliminates the uncertainty holding this economy down.
____________________________
The individual income tax would lower everyone who currently pays taxes (not counting the 47% who get all their taxes back or more). It may harm those who get more back, because the only deduction would be charitable contributions. That means you don't get paid by the government just because you have 8 kids. You don't get any earned income credit because you chose to work part of the year, but not enough to actually have to file. It will emliminate the attitude of "Oh, I can get by with a part time job, because I can sit on my butt the other half and get earned income credit to make it up. You put out money, and get to take it off your taxes. We're currently in the 15% tax bracket, 25% if you would happen to count his retirement check. So, that's about $5000 now. The retirement check doesn't all count right now, but it does lower how much we get back because we have to live on it. I think the difference was something like %1700, because I forgot to add it at first. At 9% it would be between $3000 and $4800 if they counted the whole retirement check. I believe it would closer to $3500-4000,
The corporate tax is also a flat tax. Small business owners will still be basically taxed twice if they own their own business, but they'll know how much and you get deductions (even for share holders).
He doesn't say it, but the flat national sales tax on new items would catch the illegal aliens, the foreign investors, any legal visitor who buys things here. Unless that's what he meant about expanding the tax base. That's a pay as you go. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy used. I go to thrift stores a lot. There are some really nice ones. And if you consider that a charitable contribution or keep it one), the "rich" will donate more of their clothes in order to get that deduction. I got a pair of beaded capri's that still had the origninal tag on it ($120) for something like $5. But if he rich don't want to buy used, they have to buy new and pay 9% national sales tax. That theoretically should satisfy the liberals who don't want the rich to have nice things, or to pay more because they have more. If they aren't willing to pay the sales tax, they too are able to shop at thrift stores. It will also eliminate those like Buffett who are trying to get out of millions in taxes, while at the same time saying people just like them should pay more. You want to pay more? Either don't give charitable donation, or don't claim them. You don't have to claim deductions.
I know this sounded like a commercial for Herman Cain, but like I said, I haven't really made up my mind yet. There are points I agree with from all the candidates, it's just that this is the first simple plan I've seen.
What I think they should all agree on, is that whoever wins the nomination (and they all agree to stay in until all primaries are done), appoints all the other nominees into the cabinet. We could use people like all those running (except Huntsman, I don't believe at all he's conservative). I'm sure they could find some small cabinet appointment for him, though.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
I've been thinking a lot about modern medicine lately. I guess partly because of undergoing cancer treatment, and the fact that my husband just recently broke his leg. There's a controversy over aspirin vs Tylenol. I found this about aspirin:
Hippocrates, a Greek physician, wrote in the fifth century B.C.E. about a bitter powder extracted from willow bark that could ease aches and pains and reduce fevers. This remedy is also mentioned in texts from ancient Sumeria, Egypt, and Assyria. Native Americans claim to have used it for headaches, fever, sore muscles, rheumatism, and chills. The Reverend Edward Stone, a vicar from Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, England, noted in 1763 that the bark of the willow was effective in reducing a fever.
These are the common side effects:
Gastrointestinal complaints (stomach upset, dyspepsia, heartburn, small blood loss). To help avoid these problems, it is recommended that aspirin be taken at or after meals. Undetected blood loss may lead to hypochromic anemia.
Severe gastrointestinal complaints (gross bleeding and/or ulceration), requiring discontinuation and immediate treatment. Patients receiving high doses and/or long-term treatment should receive gastric protection with high-dosed antacids, ranitidine, or omeprazole.
Frequently, central nervous system effects (dizziness, tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo, centrally mediated vision disturbances, and headaches). The higher the daily dose is, the more likely it is that central nervous system side effects will occur.
Sweating, seen with high doses, independent from antipyretic action
With long-term treatment with high doses (for arthritis and rheumatic fever), often increased liver enzymes without symptoms, rarely reversible liver damage. The potentially fatal Reye's syndrome may occur, if given to pediatric patients with fever and other signs of infections. The syndrome is due to fatty degeneration of liver cells. Up to 30 percent of those afflicted will eventually die. Prompt hospital treatment may be life-saving.
Chronic nephritis with long-term use, usually if used in combination with certain other painkillers. This condition may lead to chronic renal failure.
Prolonged and more severe bleeding after operations and post-traumatic for up to 10 days after the last aspirin dose. If one wishes to counteract the bleeding tendency, fresh thrombocyte concentrate will usually work.
Skin reactions, angioedema,, and bronchospasm have all been seen infrequently.
But, on the other hand, we have Tylenol.
However, when taken in excessive quantities or when combined with alcohol, acetaminophen may cause death due to liver failure. In fact, an overdose of acetaminophen is the most common cause of fulminant hepatic failure as well as the most common cause of drug-induced liver disease in the United States. After acetaminophen became readily available in 1960 as an over-the-counter medication, it became one of the most popular means of attempting suicide. For liver injury to occur, acetaminophen must generally be consumed in quantities exceeding 15 grams within a short period of time, such as in a single dose. Although uncommon, ingestion of 7 to 10 grams at one time may cause liver damage.
Acetaminophen has a narrow therapeutic index. This means that the common dose is close to the overdose, making it a relatively dangerous substance.
Acetaminophen single doses above 10 grams or chronic doses over 5 grams per day in a well-nourished non-consumer of alcohol, or above 4 grams per day in a poorly nourished consumer of alcohol, can cause significant injury to the liver. Without timely treatment, acetaminophen overdoses can lead to liver failure and death within days. Because of the wide over-the-counter availability of the drug, it is sometimes used in suicide attempts.
Acetaminophen should not be taken after alcohol consumption, because the liver, when engaged in alcohol breakdown, cannot properly dispose of acetaminophen, thus increasing the risk of hepatotoxicity.
_________________
So, let's see if I have this straight....God gave us a tree whose bark can reduce pain and fever, among other things. Instead of harvesting it with intelligence, and replanting, when they started running low on trees, they just made a man-made alternative. The natural remedy had a few drawbacks, mostly gastrointestinal, and the man-made one causes liver damage, and the overdose is close to the level of treatment.
This got me to thinking. Why, when the big pharmaceutical companies see how many people are going back to home-remedies, or herbal remedies, don't they just start making those? Why do they cling to their old standbys and not get into the herbal remedy business?
Well, I think I came up with an answer. Herbal remedies are natural, and therefore have fewer side effects. Pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, cause side effects that will lead to needing more pharmaceuticals. If they sold herbal remedies, they would make less money because people wouldn't need as many different kinds to treat the different side effects.
Mr. Obama slams big Pharma on one hand, and yet he wants to make herbal remedies regulated like pharmaceuticals. He wants to drive out the small store that sells natural remedies, so that big pharma doesn't have any competition.
Hippocrates, a Greek physician, wrote in the fifth century B.C.E. about a bitter powder extracted from willow bark that could ease aches and pains and reduce fevers. This remedy is also mentioned in texts from ancient Sumeria, Egypt, and Assyria. Native Americans claim to have used it for headaches, fever, sore muscles, rheumatism, and chills. The Reverend Edward Stone, a vicar from Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, England, noted in 1763 that the bark of the willow was effective in reducing a fever.
These are the common side effects:
Gastrointestinal complaints (stomach upset, dyspepsia, heartburn, small blood loss). To help avoid these problems, it is recommended that aspirin be taken at or after meals. Undetected blood loss may lead to hypochromic anemia.
Severe gastrointestinal complaints (gross bleeding and/or ulceration), requiring discontinuation and immediate treatment. Patients receiving high doses and/or long-term treatment should receive gastric protection with high-dosed antacids, ranitidine, or omeprazole.
Frequently, central nervous system effects (dizziness, tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo, centrally mediated vision disturbances, and headaches). The higher the daily dose is, the more likely it is that central nervous system side effects will occur.
Sweating, seen with high doses, independent from antipyretic action
With long-term treatment with high doses (for arthritis and rheumatic fever), often increased liver enzymes without symptoms, rarely reversible liver damage. The potentially fatal Reye's syndrome may occur, if given to pediatric patients with fever and other signs of infections. The syndrome is due to fatty degeneration of liver cells. Up to 30 percent of those afflicted will eventually die. Prompt hospital treatment may be life-saving.
Chronic nephritis with long-term use, usually if used in combination with certain other painkillers. This condition may lead to chronic renal failure.
Prolonged and more severe bleeding after operations and post-traumatic for up to 10 days after the last aspirin dose. If one wishes to counteract the bleeding tendency, fresh thrombocyte concentrate will usually work.
Skin reactions, angioedema,, and bronchospasm have all been seen infrequently.
But, on the other hand, we have Tylenol.
However, when taken in excessive quantities or when combined with alcohol, acetaminophen may cause death due to liver failure. In fact, an overdose of acetaminophen is the most common cause of fulminant hepatic failure as well as the most common cause of drug-induced liver disease in the United States. After acetaminophen became readily available in 1960 as an over-the-counter medication, it became one of the most popular means of attempting suicide. For liver injury to occur, acetaminophen must generally be consumed in quantities exceeding 15 grams within a short period of time, such as in a single dose. Although uncommon, ingestion of 7 to 10 grams at one time may cause liver damage.
Acetaminophen has a narrow therapeutic index. This means that the common dose is close to the overdose, making it a relatively dangerous substance.
Acetaminophen single doses above 10 grams or chronic doses over 5 grams per day in a well-nourished non-consumer of alcohol, or above 4 grams per day in a poorly nourished consumer of alcohol, can cause significant injury to the liver. Without timely treatment, acetaminophen overdoses can lead to liver failure and death within days. Because of the wide over-the-counter availability of the drug, it is sometimes used in suicide attempts.
Acetaminophen should not be taken after alcohol consumption, because the liver, when engaged in alcohol breakdown, cannot properly dispose of acetaminophen, thus increasing the risk of hepatotoxicity.
_________________
So, let's see if I have this straight....God gave us a tree whose bark can reduce pain and fever, among other things. Instead of harvesting it with intelligence, and replanting, when they started running low on trees, they just made a man-made alternative. The natural remedy had a few drawbacks, mostly gastrointestinal, and the man-made one causes liver damage, and the overdose is close to the level of treatment.
This got me to thinking. Why, when the big pharmaceutical companies see how many people are going back to home-remedies, or herbal remedies, don't they just start making those? Why do they cling to their old standbys and not get into the herbal remedy business?
Well, I think I came up with an answer. Herbal remedies are natural, and therefore have fewer side effects. Pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, cause side effects that will lead to needing more pharmaceuticals. If they sold herbal remedies, they would make less money because people wouldn't need as many different kinds to treat the different side effects.
Mr. Obama slams big Pharma on one hand, and yet he wants to make herbal remedies regulated like pharmaceuticals. He wants to drive out the small store that sells natural remedies, so that big pharma doesn't have any competition.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Another result of Obamacare
Well, the hits keep coming. I wrote about losing a doctor to Obamacare, now we had another run-in.
My husband bought a scooter (only something like 125cc's) because gas has gotten so expensive. He's well trained on a motorcycle/scooter. We had one in Bermuda. I had a 50cc scooter and he had a 100cc motorcycle. He was coming home from work Friday, when the lady in front of him braked suddenly and hard. He braked hard, too, but his hand slipped off the back break and he went down. The first responders didn't even have surgical scissors to cut his pant leg and boot off of him. The guy had to use a buck knife.
Then, the couldn't transport him to the NEAREST hospital, because it didn't have a trauma center. Baylor of Garland is more for "old people's diseases," as a doctor friend of mine put it; heart attacks, etc. They had to transport to Baylor of Dallas. After we thought about it, Medical Center of Dallas would have been closer. He broke his leg really badly. It was a spiral fracture of the tibia and fibula, just above the ankle. We spent over 6 hours in the ER.
Finally, the came up and said we had 2 choices. They could admit us, but the only surgeon they had was up for the trauma duty and probably wouldn't get to him until Monday. Baylor doesn't take our insurance (except for the emergency room). We told the nurse this, so she sent in the financial advisor. She said she had no idea if they took our insurance or not (wasn't she the FINANCIAL advisor?) but they would work with us to pay it off. I can't even imagine what 3 days in the hospital would cost. So, my husband called his own orthopedic surgeon, and he said he would see him Monday and do surgery probably Tuesday, as long as we got the referral in. That was the other option she gave us, since the surgeon couldn't do anything until today (Monday). They would send him home splinted and with pain pills. So we took that route.
The stupid (and yes, I meant to use that word) guys in the hospital did a pi$$ poor job of splinting his leg. It flopped every time he moved it. Then they sent us home. We got home at midnight. They gave him a prescription of Hydrocodone (10/325), which I had to wait until Saturday morning to fill. Luckily, I have neck pain from degeneration, and had some 7.5/325 hydrocodone. So, instead of getting immediate surgery, for a really bad fracture, the hospital was short staffed and didn't take our insurance anyway.
And we have military insurance, which is government insurance. I suppose when Obama care actually kicks in, they'll just make the hospitals and doctors accept it. I know why they are dropping out like flies falling off a carcass.....the government reimburses MRI's at about 19%. If all insurance is forced into this, or all facilities are forced to take insurance like government single payer they'll all go out of business. The government will have to bail out the hospitals. If they can tell GM to make an electric car, when no one wants to buy one, don't you think they'll tell hospitals who to treat and how much to charge? They've already said in the health care bill that all doctors will be paid the same, no matter whether they have a specialty or are a general practitioner. Let's face it, specializing takes more education. They should be able to charge a bit higher, they have more knowledge. Now, do I think they charge TOO much? Maybe, but we'll never know because the government won't let natural selection work. If no one had insurance, and every one had to pay their own bills, the doctor's would be in competition with each other. The prices would lower.
I have one doctor (my cardiologist) who currently charges what my primary (general practitioner, who is by the way, a Physician's assistant) charges. It's less than the pediatrician my kids go to. But, he's from Canada and believes in socialized medicine.
My husband bought a scooter (only something like 125cc's) because gas has gotten so expensive. He's well trained on a motorcycle/scooter. We had one in Bermuda. I had a 50cc scooter and he had a 100cc motorcycle. He was coming home from work Friday, when the lady in front of him braked suddenly and hard. He braked hard, too, but his hand slipped off the back break and he went down. The first responders didn't even have surgical scissors to cut his pant leg and boot off of him. The guy had to use a buck knife.
Then, the couldn't transport him to the NEAREST hospital, because it didn't have a trauma center. Baylor of Garland is more for "old people's diseases," as a doctor friend of mine put it; heart attacks, etc. They had to transport to Baylor of Dallas. After we thought about it, Medical Center of Dallas would have been closer. He broke his leg really badly. It was a spiral fracture of the tibia and fibula, just above the ankle. We spent over 6 hours in the ER.
Finally, the came up and said we had 2 choices. They could admit us, but the only surgeon they had was up for the trauma duty and probably wouldn't get to him until Monday. Baylor doesn't take our insurance (except for the emergency room). We told the nurse this, so she sent in the financial advisor. She said she had no idea if they took our insurance or not (wasn't she the FINANCIAL advisor?) but they would work with us to pay it off. I can't even imagine what 3 days in the hospital would cost. So, my husband called his own orthopedic surgeon, and he said he would see him Monday and do surgery probably Tuesday, as long as we got the referral in. That was the other option she gave us, since the surgeon couldn't do anything until today (Monday). They would send him home splinted and with pain pills. So we took that route.
The stupid (and yes, I meant to use that word) guys in the hospital did a pi$$ poor job of splinting his leg. It flopped every time he moved it. Then they sent us home. We got home at midnight. They gave him a prescription of Hydrocodone (10/325), which I had to wait until Saturday morning to fill. Luckily, I have neck pain from degeneration, and had some 7.5/325 hydrocodone. So, instead of getting immediate surgery, for a really bad fracture, the hospital was short staffed and didn't take our insurance anyway.
And we have military insurance, which is government insurance. I suppose when Obama care actually kicks in, they'll just make the hospitals and doctors accept it. I know why they are dropping out like flies falling off a carcass.....the government reimburses MRI's at about 19%. If all insurance is forced into this, or all facilities are forced to take insurance like government single payer they'll all go out of business. The government will have to bail out the hospitals. If they can tell GM to make an electric car, when no one wants to buy one, don't you think they'll tell hospitals who to treat and how much to charge? They've already said in the health care bill that all doctors will be paid the same, no matter whether they have a specialty or are a general practitioner. Let's face it, specializing takes more education. They should be able to charge a bit higher, they have more knowledge. Now, do I think they charge TOO much? Maybe, but we'll never know because the government won't let natural selection work. If no one had insurance, and every one had to pay their own bills, the doctor's would be in competition with each other. The prices would lower.
I have one doctor (my cardiologist) who currently charges what my primary (general practitioner, who is by the way, a Physician's assistant) charges. It's less than the pediatrician my kids go to. But, he's from Canada and believes in socialized medicine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)