Aelwydd
-
Posts
3,105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Aelwydd
-
-
Little Nyssa is correct that a potential side effect of all inhaled steroids is some growth retardant. However, the good news is, that with medications such as Advair, several studies have indicated that over the course of treatment, any initial slowing of growth tends to be made up later on. Kids "catch" up.
My ds, Jackson, was hospitalized 4 times by his fourth birthday. Pulmicort did little to stem his asthma flare-ups. However, as soon as he went on Advair, we noticed an amazing improvement. He was first put on the 45/21 strength, but bumped up to 115/21 this past winter, due to a series of flare-ups from viral infections. It controls his asthma well enough for him to be one of the top players on his ice hockey team, ride his bike, swim, and basically be very active.
I would also point out that though inhaled steroids can hinder growth temporarily, uncontrolled asthma has far worse implications. Chronic reduced oxygenation to the body's cells will definitely affect growth, to say nothing of the effects of scar tissue building up in the lungs from inflammation, and how that can also lead to permanent loss of function.
So, controlled asthma with steroid inhaler definitely beats uncontrolled, or poorly controlled asthma in my book!
-
Hi Sydney! Welcome to the board!
I've only been a member for a few weeks, myself. Like you, hs'ing wasn't mine and dh's first choice either; our son was in a Montessori charter school and doing well. Then, last fall, his asthma really took a turn for the worse, and excessive absenteeism meant he would get booted to his local ps right in the middle of the school year. So, home schooling it was.
Anyway, feel free to join in (the political threads, too :D). Don't let your atheistic liberal-ness hold you back; some of us here are quite appreciative of those qualities. :hurray:
What areas of research are you currently interested in?
-
He makes a sound argument for why college is important. I have noticed a trend lately of different people in the media questioning the value of college, and if it is truly something most kids should pursue.
-
It wasn't the home schooling that killed this girl; it was a brain-washed mother following the teachings of a cult.
Furthermore, according to the article, the STATE was made aware of the girl's sad living conditions 2 years ago, when the girl's godparents petitioned a court for custody.
So, the state and child protective services knew this child "existed," and yet the legislator says the problem is hs'ing?
Methinks she is shamelessly using this tragic incident to push her own agenda. If anything, this case should prove that just having the state be aware of a child's condition is no guarantee against child abuse and neglect.
Poor, poor little girl.
-
You have made me so hungry with this thread. I love tiramasu! :drool5:
-
How pleasant. I never said unions went into polls and forced people to choose (although the Black Panther case was right on the edge of that, no?) Anyway, you know exactly what my point is and I feel you are being purposefully obtuse and argumentative. I have no problem with opposing points of view, but attacks aren't my style.
An attack is me saying something personally about you, which I have NOT done. I am purposely demanding proof of your statement that the government isn't, in fact, elected into office by citizens. You have not produced any proof. You have merely sought to deflect by accusing me of attacks, and using rhetoric to ignore the legal, constitutional truth of what I said.
That is: the United States government is for the People, and by the People.
Again, if you wish to dispute it, show me some proof. You are the one who made the assertion that unions, and corporations and other groups are actually putting people into office. The burden is on you to prove that assertion. I already told you I agree that they can influence voters, but influence does not equal taking the choice away from voters.
-
I work in the oil and gas business for those people who do not know you can not live unless we continue working hard. Attached is a link to an article discussing how much energy it takes to feed each American, and that is without getting it to the grocery store or cooking it. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
But the entitelment crowd continues to steal more of my pay all the time. I recently took two years off, I know many others who are choosing to produce less and enjoy life more. I can not think of a better way to express myself than by not working, and therefore not feeding, heating or cooling for those who do not want to earn there own, Or provide there own health care.
My only problem is that there are those who have already produced more than enough for a lifetime and others who still produce, and I would hate for them to starve or freeze to death as a result of free loaders.
daddygeek, since the United States gets the largest portion of its oil from Canada, a country that is full of "entitelment crowd" types, perhaps we'd better not offend them.
-
I :001_wub: you.:D
Your sentiments are wholly and ardently returned. :001_tt1: :D
-
First of all, I use the term sheeple, not as my choice of words, but as politicians' use of it. (I have actually spoken to politicians IRL who used the term!)
You repeating the pejorative does not make it any less so. And politicians are not a monolith, cdrumm. They come from many different backgrounds, and have been shaped by different experiences. Using the crass words of a few to sum up the whole is neither logical, nor is it particularly fair.
Second, if you believe our processes haven't been circumvented, you're incorrect. Unions, corporate entities, and other groups with political clout garner votes and get politicians elected. I am from CHICAGO, for goodness' sake. So, theoretically, you are correct. But, in the real world those votes are bought and paid for.Then you will need to produce evidence that unions, corporations, and other political groups have physically gone into polls, and forced the hands of citizens to vote their politicians into office. Do you? Have that proof? Because I'm pretty sure it that kind of circumvention would quickly reported and decried by the masses. I'd love to see the picture of a union leader forcing, say, an old lady to hit the button for "Democrat," for example.
Now, influence? Yes. These groups can and do INFLUENCE voters, to vote one way or the other. But they still do not CAST EACH VOTE for the voter. They cannot control or order or otherwise remove your or my right to vote for whoever we choose.
I'll tell you a little secret: I'm getting ready to work for a grass-roots environmental group. Here. In Texas. A state known for its political, um, disdain for such niceties as clean air and potable water. All the money and power are on the side of those opposed; yet this environmental group has a number of pivotal successes in getting laws passed to protect Texans from pollution and dumping.
In giving people information about an issue and telling them who their representative is, they can write about it, resulting in huge numbers of letters and phone calls coming in to the state capitol and to legislators' offices. And all that money and power on part of those super influential groups is not enough to silence the will power of concerned citizens, no matter WHAT their political affiliation is.
Conclusion: our government is still (at the moment) comprised of legally elected members of the populace. And because of the power to vote, citizens still can remove or put into office who they will.
-
We home school now because ds' asthma caused him to miss more than the allowable number of absences. We felt it was unfair to have him repeat the semester, when it wasn't his comprehension or his academic performance that was the problem. Merely, too many missed days.
We will continue to home school this fall, because we want a curriculum that is focused on observation, questioning, reasoning, gathering evidence, and making conclusions based upon the evidence. These are essential elements to all subjects, from writing to science, but are woefully absent from much of Texas' standard curricula.
Also, dh wants our son to learn French, and none of the local schools offer it.
-
It looks as though even the powerful doctors' lobbies are increasingly joining the ranks of those who support universal health care. For more and more doctors, medicine is becoming less about business, and more about "patient experience."
-
Theoretically, you are correct. Actually, it is a group of political elites who make decisions for their sheeple based on what they think is best for them.
No. Actually, legally, morally, and realistically, I'm right. "Sheeple" is a pejorative you use to obfuscate and navigate around the truth. And that truth is, constitutionally we are a democratic Republic, and We The People elect our leaders into office.
The government isn't made up of androids sent over by some nefarious outside force or country to subvert our freedom. It's made up Real People , some of whom are male, some female, some conservative, some liberal, some Christian, some not. They have names like Tom Coburn and Gabby Giffords.
They are American citizens, and they wouldn't be governing unless they got the majority vote. Even if some of them got there with the shameless help of corporate dollars -- they still had to be VOTED in.
Whether you or I participate or not, we are still part of the government, because We Are The People. Governing officials don't elect themselves, nor is the office they hold inherited. I am part of that government, because I choose to fulfill my civic duty, and my religious duty, to exercise my power of choice for what will accomplish the most good.
-
Hey guys - fun debate. I'm going to take a break now and go swimming and eat hamburgers. I'll be back later.
Just didn't want you guys worried that I'd bowed out early or something. :D
-
It is not up to the government of take care of its people in those ways. It's up to the people to take care of themselves.
As to the high road, I absolutely do encourage everyone to keep their money to themselves and decide for themselves who to give it to. I firmly believe in charity. I believe the impersonal government takes away a very personal scenario: that of the giver directly to the givee. Jesus did not say,""For I was hungry and the government gave me food, I was thirsty and the government gave me drink, I was a stranger and the government welcomed me, I was naked and the government clothed me, I was sick and the government visited me, I was in prison and the government came to visit me."
What is the government of the United States, if it is not the People?
-
Have you lived in a nation with socialist healthcare?
a
Not yet. We're moving to Canada in another year. I'm sure you'll wish me luck. :)
-
I disagree that nothing but government regulation will keep plans reasonable priced. If we were allowed a truly free choice, supply and demand would prevail.
A truly free market would mean that pharmaceuticals could patent their medications and charge what they want, for as long as they want. (No regulation to stop them).
A truly free market would mean that hospitals could deny care to any that they wanted, even in emergency situations. (No regulation to require them to give care.)
A truly free market would mean obscene profits for the owners of insurance companies, because they can deny, deny, deny. They can hold pre-existing conditions against their clients, and they can reject that expensive medication for the child with cancer, for a less expensive, and less effective one.
A truly free market means that cures will only be developed where the market is most profitable. That means finding ways to MANAGE diseases like diabetes, because it means a lot more profit if you can keep them coming back for treatments, medications, and so forth.
A truly free market, would as we seen with the de-regulated airline companies, see a drastic increase in profits, with a corresponding decrease in service quality.
Health care should be predicated upon service to others; not constructed as a monument to greed.
-
No. They just die.
They've been conditioned that "The State" will take care of them, so they wait. And wait. No matter what is wrong. And things get worse and worse. Until they are at the point that there *is* no fix.
And they die.
How's that for dramatic? It's true.
a
And yet, asta, they are dying at older ages, and at slower rates than citizens here in the U.S. Statistics bear this out repeatedly.
I have never argued that socialized programs in other countries are flawless. Merely, that they are less flawed, more equal in their distribution of health care, and therefore more successful in keeping their respective populations healthy.
Emotional arguments cannot supercede the objective facts.
-
Or, it's trying to force them to get a job. I have no problem paying into welfare situations for people who legitimately cannot work. I have a neighbor that is a single mom on disability and food stamps. She absolutely needs it, she cannot work. She has a rare, chronic disease that prevents it. SHE is what the welfare programs should be for.
I do, however, have a problem paying for people's poor choices or simple lack of initiative and ambition. I know a woman who was a professional with a large shortage of jobs (she's an RN) who lived off of unemployment for almost 3 years, simply because she could. That's bull. THAT'S what people have a problem paying for.
And of course there will be similar abuses in a universal health care system. I shouldn't have to pay for people to live because said people refuse to get a job. Similarly, I shouldn't have to pay for people who decide to abuse the health care system or their bodies, or both.
Ok, so you don't want to pay for others who make poor choices. I understand that, but I feel differently.
Again, my viewpoint is not going to be popular, especially since it is based on Christianity. I believe, like Jesus said, that the poor are blessed, not cursed. I believe it is a privilege to be able to work and help others who either can't, or won't. I'm not interested in forcing others to do work; of course, there are always people who have some flaw that makes them unattractive, in terms of choosing who to help. Laziness is but one flaw. There is also disease (mental and physical), mental impairment, drug addiction, and many others.
We always need more workers. That's always been the case, as Jesus said, the fields are ready to be harvested, but the workers are few. But I can't re-make them, and I'm not going to make my values (helping the poor) contingent upon their willingness to reform. Jesus did not say only to visit those prisoners who were sorry for their crimes; he said, visit the prisoners.
And when he healed people, he healed both those who thanked him, and those who did not. Those who appreciated it, and those who did not. He fed the poor, those who worked, and those who didn't.
I know, it's a very radical idea, of not linking one's worth, in terms of being helped, to what one DOES.
I want to help people simply because they ARE people.
-
That is incredibly admirable. The only problem is that the government cannot require that same position from everyone. You are responsible for only you and your actions. You could also give away a majority of your income and decide where it goes, instead of giving it to the government so they can decide.
Except, with the government dispensing it, I don't have to worry that it's only going to people who of a specific religion, or gender, or political persuasion. Charities are dependent upon the whims of those who contribute, and they also are not beholden to help every people in every situation.
John (Whitworth) and I do and have donated to charities, because they serve a function of filling in the gaps. But, they cannot build bridges or span the gulf of a whole society the way that government services do. Just look at some of the posts on this thread, by people who have tremendous medical needs. There is no charity that can meet those kinds of needs.
Furthermore, because I believe that government is BY the people and FOR the people, I also believe that there is no more appropriate use for the government than to serve in this capacity, and protect the greatest asset this nation has -- its citizens. And that means making sure they don't all die from preventable, curable diseases, and incur huge personal debts that straddle them, and keep them competing with other societies.
Pardon me if I believe that the burden is easier to carry if everyone contributes via taxes; I don't take the moral "high" road of encouraging most people to keep their money to themselves and their own interests, while extolling the saintly few who give up most of their earnings to help the unfortunate.
-
If in America we are only valued for our work, why are half of us paying for some type of government assistance to the other half? If that were really true, that percentage would be 0.
Because there are enough of us that resist the people = commodity ideal to demand that we have SOMETHING in place. And what assistance IS available is constantly under attack by those who want the U.S. to become nothing more than a corporate-run state.
Ergo, the attack on Medicare. The attacks on "welfare queens" in the 90's. The attacks on jobless benefits. The attacks on education.
You didn't think these were unrelated did you? They are not. They are part of a systematic assault on anything even remotely socialized in this country, in order to force people in these segments of society to either pay for private options, rely upon charity, or , I guess, die in a ditch somewhere.
-
The only problem I have is who is going to pay for it.
I don't have medical insurance, and whether or not I can afford it is irrelevant.
Why should I expect others to pay for me? If that is the case then are they going to expent me to exercise 20 mins a day every other day, take my vitamins every day and eat my veggies 5 times a day? When does it stop? What will be next? You can't afford healthcare so you can't have kids. Call me a conspiracy theorist, call me whatever you want but give an inch and they take a mile.
How can they just pay for healthcare for someone who doesn't give a **** about taking care of themselves? For instance to smoker who has emphysema yet they still smoke or the diabetic that doesn't watch their diet? What about the alcoholic that needs a liver transplant but refuses to stop drinking? (Yes I know there are a lot of what if's but I am giving examples here) Should that really be paid for by other people who do take care of themselves?
I would hate knowing that when I went to the Dr. for my kidney stones that perhaps, if I couldn't afford it, someone else is going to pay it for me. Why should they.
Sure people should have access to healthcare but to make it a law that others have to pay for my healthcare is ludicrous IMO.
Rachel, you may find this difficult to believe, but I want my tax dollars to go to provide health care for you and others like you. I don't "know" you, but according to Jesus, you're my neighbor anyway. So, it's very important to me, when I go to sleep at night, knowing that the fruit of my labor is going to help others; it saddens me that much of the time, it's actually going to fund wars that have been initiated in order for corporations to procure access to more resources. So they produce more stuff. And CEOs can become richer.
So, maybe it comes as a surprise to you, and you may not agree that I am sane for feeling this way. But, I want my money to go to you, even if you don't work. Even if you were a drug addict, or a lady who has 6 kids by 5 different fathers on Welfare. I WANT MY MONEY TO HELP YOU AND YOUR KIDS.
It's MY responsibility to see that that happens. I am a citizen of the U.S., and as such, I have a say in where my tax dollars go. I say they go to people like you. Because you're my neighbor, and that means I am responsible for you. I am your keeper, just as I like to think that you are mine.
-
This reminds me of a story...
I know an older woman who lives in Germany who has Multiple Sclerosis. While she was working (first for the German government, then for a private firm), she had "top tier" private insurance and was seen by all of the top doctors. When she "aged out" of the system, she was placed on the German equivalent of Medicare (I have no idea what they call it).
She relayed to me once that she was sitting in a waiting room and saw one of her old doctors ( - literally, old - he had been her doctor for over 20 years - ) and tried to engage him in a friendly chat. But she was on the "medicare" list (and he knew it), not the "private insurance" list... and he just kept walking.
She told me that she volunteers anywhere she can, just to keep herself busy, because if she stops moving, she's dead (she's quite ill). "Dead?" I said to her? Oh yes, she replied, I'm of no use to a socialist state; I no longer contribute to the state as a worker, and as someone who is ill, I am a continual drain on the system. If I cannot take care of myself, I have only two options: the first is for my church to take me in to one of their "homes" (which, in her case, would likely happen, as she is a volunteer canon lawyer), or go to a state home to die.
WHAT???
Um, you mean to a "nursing home", right?
No, we don't have those like they do in America. In Germany, you just go to a room with a bed. You're fed, you're bathed. Eventually, you'll die there. You're no good to the state if you're not contributing.
------------
Now, this is a woman who is almost 70 years old. Her memories of WWII are fuzzy, but she remembers the aftermath quite well enough. She is very proud of her country, and its ability to take care of its citizens (in general). Yet, she finds herself elderly and sick. And with a contradiction: she has worked her entire life to build her nation, and now they have no use for her. Worse, they make no bones about telling her that she is simply 'not needed', is 'in the way'. (her words, not mine)
Further, she wonders what will happen to all of the immigrants whose religious centers are not establishing "old age homes", to all of the people who are not 'attached' to religion at all -- the state has no "safety net" in place for such people. It weighs on her.
----------------
I relay this story because, in America, "healthcare for all" sounds lovely. I mean, why not? Canada, the UK, and Western Europe can't be wrong, can they? Only America isn't any of those places. America is huge. W. Europe fits into Texas. (think about that one a second)
There is a certain social contract that is made between a people and their government for, well, everything. In Europe, for guaranteed medical, that means higher taxes (40% of income minimally), longer waits (from weeks to months), fewer choices of physicians and/or caregivers, and the reality that, at some point, a person WILL be told that whatever is wrong with them is not worth the cost of the care.
And yes, that is an uncomfortable thing to think about.
Look around this board. There are many, many people here who have serious health issues in their families. Under a socialized health system (which is what a universal health system is - don't kid yourself), you're golden. As long as you are able to continue contributing into the system. As long as you have a worker in your family. Because it's all about The State. When that worker is unable to do so? It's not so pretty.
In America, you can have whatever you can pay for. That isn't the case everywhere you go. At least not legally.
a
Asta, the problem with your view is that in capitalism, you are only valued for your work no matter what your age. Literally. You deserve food, health care, shelter, etc., only if you can pay for it. Your life has a dollar sign attached to it by the insurance companies that decide whether they will honor your claim.
If you can't work, or if your parents can't work, or even if they do work, but their workplace doesn't provide insurance, you are SOL.
-
:iagree: MY mom was told if she could not pay her bill even though she had insurance, which was lousy, that she could not have her chemo or radiation treatments until the bill was paid. DH was with her when they told this. There are tons of people falling through the cracks even with cancer:(.
Pris, that's terrible about your mom. How stressful! That's just like what happened my friend I mentioned earlier in the thread. She had stage 2 breast cancer, and her own mother had died from ovarian cancer that spread from breast cancer, so you know. Strong genetic history there.
Anyway, they waited two weeks to begin treating her, because that was as soon as she could come up with the $1500 to meet her deductible. She had to keep making payments to continue receiving therapy.
Good thing she could pay; her two boys would be motherless now, otherwise.
-
But what about the medical care that the government does provide? Like I said in our case, it has been wonderful and always covered everything. That's only been for pregnancies/children's health care but it's covered everything- specialists, etc. I wonder why no one talks about that, because we've had great experiences with it in every state we've lived? There is a MAJOR stigma about using the gov't care we do have (because people whine and gripe about it using their tax money), and I find that interesting since there is a big push about having 100% government controlled healthcare. From what I understand, the countries that have "free" health care are taxed through the ROOF and it's certainly not anymore quick or efficient than the health care we have here.
Blessed, there is another thread that is discussing the relative costs of health care, but basically, when you compare the average American's health care expense (premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, co-pays, etc.), and you add that to his tax burden, and turn around and compare that to the average, say, Canadian, guess who comes out on top?
Our family health care costs were staggering. Adding that to our tax bracket, we lost 1/3 of our total income. And we only made about $45K last year, since I was finishing up my B.S. and couldn't work much.
I'll ask the Canadians here; would a couple making $45K stand to lose 33% of their income to super high taxes and health care costs?
Yikes! Calling Dr. Hive!
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
If he's feeling faint, you could try placing a rolled up, cool, moist wash cloth around the back of his neck and on his forehead. But make sure he has a light blanket or is covered up so he doesn't start shivering or becoming hypothermic. Have him recline with his legs slightly raised above his head.
To reduce swelling, an NSAID such as ibuprofen or naproxen sodium can help, along with ice. No heat on the ankle, because that will make the swelling worse.
These are temporary measures. I think I would look for an urgent care or an ER if he continues feeling nauseated and faint. If he has a break, you don't want blood clots and infection setting in.