Government run health care

[pomtzu]

And if you are on welfare it does mean that you are either mentally unable to take care of yourself or physically not, able or both. What other option is there?

In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting. You dropped out of sight in your own thread and left it for others to give it a new life and direction.
Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

[RICHARD]

Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

But can you be easily amused?

[pomtzu]

But can you be easily amused?

But of course! I keep coming here, don't I??? There's never a lack of laughable posts.........

[Edwina's Secretary]

In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting.

Don't feel bad. I often don't get answers either!

[pomtzu]

Don't feel bad. I often don't get answers either!

I guess it's easier to just back off when you're cornered.

[Puckstop31]

I guess it's easier to just back off when you're cornered.

Awwww..... You beat me to it.


<golf clap>

[Marigold2]

I am sorry I didn't realize you were waiting for an answer, I only come on about once a week and this Sat my son is getting married so I have been so busy, but in a great way.
Plus I work full-time so I am limited to how much time I have for PT, judging from everyones posts I guess that is a good thing. LOL
Got to run but I will get back to you next week.

In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting. You dropped out of sight in your own thread and left it for others to give it a new life and direction.
Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

[pomtzu]

I am sorry I didn't realize you were waiting for an answer, I only come on about once a week and this Sat my son is getting married so I have been so busy, but in a great way.
Plus I work full-time so I am limited to how much time I have for PT, judging from everyones posts I guess that is a good thing. LOL
Got to run but I will get back to you next week.

I'll check back for an answer in about a month.....

And I wouldn't have asked the question if I wasn't expecting to receive an answer.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I'll check back for an answer in about a month.....

And I wouldn't have asked the question if I wasn't expecting to receive an answer.

Should we have a pool...whether she answers your question first or he answers mine?

[pomtzu]

Should we have a pool...whether she answers your question first or he answers mine?

I'm not a betting woman. Besides, I wouldn't want to start a competition between the parties involved.......... There might be an off forum pool somewhere.

[RICHARD]

Funny.

[blue]

Funny.

Yes.

[Marigold2]

I have a moment so yes I will try and answer your question as best as I can.
What I meant by mental or physical is that if a person has a mental issue such as depression which can come about through a physical condition or a tramatic incident I don't feel it is a proper time to have a child until one is healed. If one is bi-polar and this disease is not stabilized on medicine it is not fair in my opinion to bring a child into this world when one is mentally stressed and having problems. The same can be said in my opinion for schizophrenia if the condition is to the point that you cannot function and take care of yourself then no I don't believe you should have a child until you are able to take care of yourself.
Also if you have a physical condition that keeps you from taking care of yourself such as cancer, heart disease or a thousand others I don't think it is fair to bring a child into this world if you probably won't be around to raise said child or be healthy enough to spend time with them.
It is not up to the grandparents to raise the child, they did their job and they are getting older and will have health issues. It is not fair for grandma who is 68 to have to raise a 14 year old with welfare money and social security.
Yes people lose their jobs, people get cancer, have car accidents, fall of the roof, lose an arm or a leg to accidents. I am not talking about those things. I am talking about people who decide to have a child when they are unable to take care of themselves and know that the chance of ever being able to take care of themselves is slim. I am talking about people who are on welfare for gererations. Welfare was designed for short term care to help people get training and get back on their feet. It should be there to help and there are many who deserve it and also deserve more money then what the government gives them so they can live a decent life and not feel deprived because they fought for our country and lost their eyesight or a limb.
And there are those that decide to have another child so they can stay on welfare longer and food stamps.
Again if one is on welfare or medicaid I think you have to look deep inside and ask yourself if having a child is the right thing to do today, tomorrrow and years from now. If the need to be with a child is so great perhaps being a foster mom or a big brother or a favorite aunt or uncle, working in a day care or reading to sick children in a hospital can be just as for forfilling in the long run.
So I hope that answers your question and if not well it's how I feel and that is that.

In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting. You dropped out of sight in your own thread and left it for others to give it a new life and direction.
Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

[pomtzu]

So I hope that answers your question and if not well it's how I feel and that is that.[/FONT]

No - it doesn't answer what I asked, but I'll not pursue it further.

[Miss Z]

Please explain that sentence.

I am sitting here, stunned.

And give me an example-I'm stripping my brain thinking about this.

Stunned? It's medical fact. Not like it's my opnion, or anything.

To echo ES, I don't understand how you don't know this if you indeed worked in a medical environment, but I'll explain it for you anyway.

Pathogens, bacteria in particular, undergo mutation in a number of their population. The change in their genotype may give them an immunity to the effects of a drug. Most of the time, it doesn't. But sometimes it does.

Under normal circumstances, i.e. without the presence of drugs, the typical strains and the mutated, resitant organism live alongside each other, in the ileum, for example. The strains compete with one another to survive. In these conditions, the resistant organism have no advantage over the typical strains, and it is highly likely that the resistant organism will die out. Thus, it's resistant gene is lost.

However, introduce a drug into the environment. All the typical strains are destroyed, but the resistant organism remains. It now has no competition and is able to reproduce quite happily, each of it's daughter cells carrying this saving grace gene. The drug administered is rendered useless against the pathogen. The pathogen spreads to other people and now we have nothing effective to fight it.

That is how natural selection works - a change in the environment favouring a particular genotype, causing extinction and evolution.

The more drugs that are being exposed to the pathogens, the better conditons we are providing for much more dangerous strains. Plus, many bacteria are able to exchange genetic information via plasmids, or indeed their own DNA, to other species of pathogen, so the resistance genes are not limited to only one condition.

An example? Staphylococcus aureus! S.Aureus is present in your respiratory system and on the surface of your skin right now. Occasionally, it will cause a mild throat infection. At first, we treated it with penicillin, as pencillin was the wonder, cure-all drug at that time. Before long, penicillin no longer worked. At that time, no one really knew why.

Then this condition was treated with methicillin. It was oversubscribed as people wanted to keep popping these pills everytime they felt a bit hoarse. So we get methicillin-resistant staphyloccocus aureus. The first MRSA.

So then we're in a bit of trouble, and combat MRSA with vancomycin. We can't find anything else to administer but vancomycin. The inevitable happens. Now the most dangerous form of MRSA is Multiple Resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

So, again, it is practically and morally wrong to oversubscribe drugs.