THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Here we go again. Paris Hilton arrested for felony possession of cocaine.
Hilton has had drug problems in France and South Africa and now she continues her drug binging in Las Vegas. Here's a 29 year old that wants to be a teeny-bopper and chose that lifestyle as her chosen profession. Hilton told police that the handbag wasn't hers but she couldn't identify the person the bag belonged to. However, she said that the $1,300, zig zag rolling paper, credit cards and a prescription pill found in the purse was hers. She went on to tell the officers that she thought the cocaine was " chewing gum". It's one of her lame excuses once again.
Side Note: This gal is so dumb that when she told the Las Vegas police officers the bag wasn't hers she forgot that she bragged about the Chanel bag on the internet when she purchased it, complete with a photo of the bag. It appears Hilton tells bold-faced lies whenever she feels like it and when it fits the occasion.
In her other drug busts around the world she also claimed the purse and/or drugs were not hers. What a rap and patter she puts out. The same ol' same ol'. When it come to her taking any responsibility she falls back on the the old "SODDI" defense, that being: (Some Other Dude Did It). When are the authorities going to wise up and quit giving this has been party girl breaks.
Even when Hilton got pulled over on the Las Vegas strip she conned the Las Vegas police officers to cut her a break and take her inside the Wynn hotel rather than being detained on the street sidewalk like any other person would be. You and I would be handcuffed and held on the street, possibly being allowed to sit on the curb while the police officer runs the proper checks. Instead, Hilton gets her way again. The cops fell for her fake excuses and did her bidding.
This wanna be somebody has been dropping in credibility on the who's who list for years. She's getting older and has lost her teeny-bopper charm. According to sources and reports she is uncouth, discourteous, rude and a real bitch to people in general as well as playing the ugly diva role with her staff and those in her close circle of hang on friends.
Sources and reports say that Paris Hilton was in the club Tao here in Las Vegas and she didn't want to wait for a ladies room stall like all of the other "ladies." Thinking she is above waiting with the little people and because she was Paris Hilton she decided to do whatever she wanted to do, so--she went to a corner of the washroom, did a squat like a bitch puppy in heat and proceeded to piss all over the floor to the surprise of everyone in the washroom. Class? Does she have any? I think not. If she has any, I would say it's all fourth class. Paris Hilton, famous for trying to be famous actually believes she has a right to entitlement and thinks the world owes her but I predict that the public will catch on to who and what she really is.
Other things bringing her down is that she is famous for showing up late to parties, media events and appointments. She takes delight in letting people wait for hours just so she can make some grand entrance. I predict that all of these types of actions on Hilton's part will come back to bite her in the butt.
I think what we may have here is a rich, raunchy, lazy adolescent minded person who for some reason used to be paid a minimum of $100,000 by some big wig Las Vegas club owners just to show up and walk and prance around like she was really somebody while doing sleazy and crazy things. These club owners must have been as loco as Hilton. I'm glad to see them stop paying Hilton who, by the way, has more money than God. If anything, she should be paying people to put up with her lousy antics.
Hilton's demand value has been diminishing for many years now. Her photos sell for 50 to 70% less than they did years ago. I would really be surprised if any casino executive in town would extend free rooms to her and her idiotic posse anymore. This unclassy person is angry that she is being ignored for younger, more stable women on the celebrity and night club scene. She's losing it. Her popularity is waning.
Finally, her only claim to fame was making a porn sex video in her younger days that was splashed all over the internet. Because of that porn tape she thinks she deserves the admiration of the masses. What a joke!
People, don't cry for Paris Hilton. She wants everyone to feel sorry for her by saying she is getting bad breaks. In California she promised the court that she would change her ways and lay off of the drugs and parties but instead she has embraced the drug and party scene and literally told the court to "step off." Remember people, she makes her own breaks and she brings all of these problems on herself.
I predict that there will come a time when her excuses and so-called celebrity status will cease to happen and she will pay the consequences for her actions instead of blaming her problems on everyone else. And, - that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Greedy Banks Using Our Money While Paying Us Near Nothing In Interest
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Banks are still ripping off consumers. Why? Using our savings in their every day business transactions by failing to pay us account holders a reasonable, prudent interest percentage rate on our funds that we have on deposit in their banks.
I remember back in the 1960's the banks were paying account holders minimum of 3% interest on their savings pass book accounts. That was fair interest. In the 1970's and 1980's the banks and savings and loans were fighting each other to pay us deposit holders interest rates ranging from 4% to 11%.
Those 1970's and 1980 days are gone. I can understand that but I believe that in the current present day marketplace the banks should be mandated to pay us saving account holders a minimum of (3%) interest on funds that we deposit in their banks, savings and loans and credit unions.
Currently many banks are only paying "less" that 1% on our monies deposited in a saving account. With that meager amount of interest being paid to an account holder the person cannot build up their savings from year to year. Rip off? You bet. I think so. The only ones that benefit from the banks low interest payments on our savings is the bank itself and the high rollers and finance titans in the business and financial industry.
We the people should have a set guarantee of at least a minimum 3% per year interest payment on our monies in our savings accounts. These greedy bankers are using our money to make money for themselves and paying us zilch. Where is the government when we need them? Come on Congress, do the right thing and make it law that us savings account holders can realize a 3% rate of interest on our money that we deposit in these banks. And,-that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Banks are still ripping off consumers. Why? Using our savings in their every day business transactions by failing to pay us account holders a reasonable, prudent interest percentage rate on our funds that we have on deposit in their banks.
I remember back in the 1960's the banks were paying account holders minimum of 3% interest on their savings pass book accounts. That was fair interest. In the 1970's and 1980's the banks and savings and loans were fighting each other to pay us deposit holders interest rates ranging from 4% to 11%.
Those 1970's and 1980 days are gone. I can understand that but I believe that in the current present day marketplace the banks should be mandated to pay us saving account holders a minimum of (3%) interest on funds that we deposit in their banks, savings and loans and credit unions.
Currently many banks are only paying "less" that 1% on our monies deposited in a saving account. With that meager amount of interest being paid to an account holder the person cannot build up their savings from year to year. Rip off? You bet. I think so. The only ones that benefit from the banks low interest payments on our savings is the bank itself and the high rollers and finance titans in the business and financial industry.
We the people should have a set guarantee of at least a minimum 3% per year interest payment on our monies in our savings accounts. These greedy bankers are using our money to make money for themselves and paying us zilch. Where is the government when we need them? Come on Congress, do the right thing and make it law that us savings account holders can realize a 3% rate of interest on our money that we deposit in these banks. And,-that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wal-Mart Quietly Raising Prices-Saving Are No More
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Wal-Mart is very disappointing. Believe it or not they have increased their prices within the last six month and they have been doing it on the downlow. Just in the past six months they have increased prices by at least 6 percent and still are increasing them.
For example, just one of their house cleaning solutions was increased by $1.00. My question is: How can they justify a $1.00 jump on a household cleaning solution?
I can remember when Wal-Mart came on the scene.They promoted their store as selling only products "Made in the USA". Once they acquired a customer base that idea soon fell by the wayside. Now present day, you can be hard pressed to find products in Wal-Mart "made in the USA." Mose products are made in China and Taiwan.
The prices Wal-Mart is charging customers now are basically comprable to the average grocery store pricing and Wal-Mart continues to raise their prices. For example, just look at food staples like a can of chili or a can of beans or things like hot dogs, cheese, etc.--
Items that used to be fifty cents a can now are priced at $1.32. When is the last time you saw their promotional "cut or slash the prices?" Instead of lower prices Wal-Mart is quietly increasing the cost of all items. Personally, I will look for other stores to shop for savings. I'm very disappointed with Wal-Mart and their continual price increases. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Wal-Mart is very disappointing. Believe it or not they have increased their prices within the last six month and they have been doing it on the downlow. Just in the past six months they have increased prices by at least 6 percent and still are increasing them.
For example, just one of their house cleaning solutions was increased by $1.00. My question is: How can they justify a $1.00 jump on a household cleaning solution?
I can remember when Wal-Mart came on the scene.They promoted their store as selling only products "Made in the USA". Once they acquired a customer base that idea soon fell by the wayside. Now present day, you can be hard pressed to find products in Wal-Mart "made in the USA." Mose products are made in China and Taiwan.
The prices Wal-Mart is charging customers now are basically comprable to the average grocery store pricing and Wal-Mart continues to raise their prices. For example, just look at food staples like a can of chili or a can of beans or things like hot dogs, cheese, etc.--
Items that used to be fifty cents a can now are priced at $1.32. When is the last time you saw their promotional "cut or slash the prices?" Instead of lower prices Wal-Mart is quietly increasing the cost of all items. Personally, I will look for other stores to shop for savings. I'm very disappointed with Wal-Mart and their continual price increases. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Obama Sues Arizona
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Arizona's new immigration law is a very good thing. I would like to see the appeals court find in favor of Arizona. The Federal Judge that gutted the law should be ashamed.
President Obama suing Arizona? Why? This lawsuit brought by the justice department and Obama is wrong, in all aspects. States law enforcement officers have enforced Federal laws for decades. City, county and state officers have arrested people for federal crimes such as :counterfeiting and yes, even immigration and they enforced federal warrants. It was common practice for local, county and state law enforcement to have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
The sad part is when the Federal government used it's political machine and agenda to instruct cities and the lawmakers to create "sanctuary cities." The "sanctuary cities" tied the hands of law enforcement because the city fathers of these cities directed police departments to no longer enforce immigration law.
I think it should be every states mandate (under law) to have municipal, county and state law enforcement enforce federal immigration laws. Consequences: If any police department and/or officer refuses to enforce federal immigration law they should lose their badge and any police power and certification in the state.
If there was such a mandate in all of the states the "sanctuary cities" would be no more and as to the old stale argument by the present administration and Obama that only the federal government has jurisdiction to enforce federal law would be a thing of the past.- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Arizona's new immigration law is a very good thing. I would like to see the appeals court find in favor of Arizona. The Federal Judge that gutted the law should be ashamed.
President Obama suing Arizona? Why? This lawsuit brought by the justice department and Obama is wrong, in all aspects. States law enforcement officers have enforced Federal laws for decades. City, county and state officers have arrested people for federal crimes such as :counterfeiting and yes, even immigration and they enforced federal warrants. It was common practice for local, county and state law enforcement to have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
The sad part is when the Federal government used it's political machine and agenda to instruct cities and the lawmakers to create "sanctuary cities." The "sanctuary cities" tied the hands of law enforcement because the city fathers of these cities directed police departments to no longer enforce immigration law.
I think it should be every states mandate (under law) to have municipal, county and state law enforcement enforce federal immigration laws. Consequences: If any police department and/or officer refuses to enforce federal immigration law they should lose their badge and any police power and certification in the state.
If there was such a mandate in all of the states the "sanctuary cities" would be no more and as to the old stale argument by the present administration and Obama that only the federal government has jurisdiction to enforce federal law would be a thing of the past.- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
The Democrats Are Enabling The Unemployed With Continued Weekly Benefits
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Rep. Shelly Berkley, D-Nev submitted a bill to lawmakers relating to extended unemployment benefits. This bill would create a "fifth tier" of benefits offering 20 more weeks to those people who have exhausted the 99 weeks (approximately 2 years) of unemployment benefits.
Where does this government handout stop? I have voted for Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents. I generally vote for those politicians that I feel will do the best job for the country regardless of their political party but I have to say that since the last presidential election the Democrats have been spending our money like a bunch of drunken sailors.
This bill by Berkley just adds to the billions of dollars that are being squandered. These Democrats that continue to pass legislation to pay benefits for the unemployed who have not worked in or over two years is unwarranted. It wasn't too long ago that the Congress extended the unemployment benefits and Senator Reid said that he would also continue to pass legislation that extended unemployment benefits still further.
People, it costs at least 33 million dollars for each and every 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. We taxpayers who are working are picking up the freight for these unemployed people. It appears the Democrats like Reid and Berkley want to have a perpetual stream of income for unemployed people so that they do not have to work at any gainful employment.
The unemployed people are receiving close to $400 a week for not going out to a job site. This $1200 a month of "free" money well exceeds(I'll call him John Doe) social security check of $380.20 a month. Where's the justice? John Doe worked all of his life and now currently receives $380.20 a month in social security benefits but the unemployed people who have not worked in over TWO YEARS (and counting) receive approximately $1200.00 a month.
There has to be a stop to extending unemployment benefits for individuals over and over and over again. As I said in prior articles and blogs: Any unemployed person should be able to collect unemployment benefits for the original 13 weeks and then they should receive an extension of an additional 13 weeks. After that the benefits should cease. They should be stopped, period.
I suggest that a person can find some type of employment within (6 months). Six months is a long time to be out of work and it is apparent there is some employment out there for that unemployed person to take. The individual just has to accept the fact that they will possibly have to work for less money than they were making prior to being laid off or fired. They may also have to work in another field and/or occupation other than the one they held before losing their job. I would offer: There is no disgrace in that, it's work, it's a job.
There are many jobs available that pay exactly what that unemployed person is making on unemployment. I say to them, take the job and work for your money instead of saying, "why should I work on a job for the same money I can get on unemployment?" To those people I would respond: " your dignity, your pride, and the satisfaction that you are contributing to society."
These continual extensions of unemployment benefits year after year only enable the person to malinger and lose all incentive of going back on a job and earn their daily bread. Congress, use some tough love. After (6 months) of unemployment benefits cut the person off. When that unemployed person knows that there will be no more "free" money coming in I predict they will find some type of employment even though it may not meet their expectations. After six months of unemployment benefits that person can either find some type of job or look to family and relatives and "not the taxpayer."
An example of why extended unemployment benefits should be stopped is because in a majority of cases it is going to people that say they cannot work or survive but in reality, they can. This was clearly illustrated on a television segment news program a few weeks ago. The reporter interviewed a number of people in the state of Ohio that was saying they were out of work. Some said they haven't worked in over two years and one couple that was interviewed said they had no money coming in and also said that they were selling some of their items and personal property from around the house to buy food and claimed they had no other items to sell. Folks, the family had a roof over their head and the man of the family that said he couldn't work and didn't have anything else from around the house to sell was wearing a very heavy "gold" necklace, probably worth a couple thousand dollars with the current gold prices out there. If I were claiming poverty I clearly would have sold my gold necklace long ago to buy food. In fact, a couple of weeks after the program the reporter returned to the same town and the same people to see if there were any changes. Guess what, many of the families said that people from around the country contributed to their plight and believe it or not, the same guy that received help because of the television program and who said he was still out of work was still wearing the heavy gold necklace. My question to some of these unemployed people: Where are your priorities? Are you spending money on food and necessities or buying gold necklaces?
Stop these inappropriate extended unemployment benefits lawmakers! And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Rep. Shelly Berkley, D-Nev submitted a bill to lawmakers relating to extended unemployment benefits. This bill would create a "fifth tier" of benefits offering 20 more weeks to those people who have exhausted the 99 weeks (approximately 2 years) of unemployment benefits.
Where does this government handout stop? I have voted for Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents. I generally vote for those politicians that I feel will do the best job for the country regardless of their political party but I have to say that since the last presidential election the Democrats have been spending our money like a bunch of drunken sailors.
This bill by Berkley just adds to the billions of dollars that are being squandered. These Democrats that continue to pass legislation to pay benefits for the unemployed who have not worked in or over two years is unwarranted. It wasn't too long ago that the Congress extended the unemployment benefits and Senator Reid said that he would also continue to pass legislation that extended unemployment benefits still further.
People, it costs at least 33 million dollars for each and every 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. We taxpayers who are working are picking up the freight for these unemployed people. It appears the Democrats like Reid and Berkley want to have a perpetual stream of income for unemployed people so that they do not have to work at any gainful employment.
The unemployed people are receiving close to $400 a week for not going out to a job site. This $1200 a month of "free" money well exceeds(I'll call him John Doe) social security check of $380.20 a month. Where's the justice? John Doe worked all of his life and now currently receives $380.20 a month in social security benefits but the unemployed people who have not worked in over TWO YEARS (and counting) receive approximately $1200.00 a month.
There has to be a stop to extending unemployment benefits for individuals over and over and over again. As I said in prior articles and blogs: Any unemployed person should be able to collect unemployment benefits for the original 13 weeks and then they should receive an extension of an additional 13 weeks. After that the benefits should cease. They should be stopped, period.
I suggest that a person can find some type of employment within (6 months). Six months is a long time to be out of work and it is apparent there is some employment out there for that unemployed person to take. The individual just has to accept the fact that they will possibly have to work for less money than they were making prior to being laid off or fired. They may also have to work in another field and/or occupation other than the one they held before losing their job. I would offer: There is no disgrace in that, it's work, it's a job.
There are many jobs available that pay exactly what that unemployed person is making on unemployment. I say to them, take the job and work for your money instead of saying, "why should I work on a job for the same money I can get on unemployment?" To those people I would respond: " your dignity, your pride, and the satisfaction that you are contributing to society."
These continual extensions of unemployment benefits year after year only enable the person to malinger and lose all incentive of going back on a job and earn their daily bread. Congress, use some tough love. After (6 months) of unemployment benefits cut the person off. When that unemployed person knows that there will be no more "free" money coming in I predict they will find some type of employment even though it may not meet their expectations. After six months of unemployment benefits that person can either find some type of job or look to family and relatives and "not the taxpayer."
An example of why extended unemployment benefits should be stopped is because in a majority of cases it is going to people that say they cannot work or survive but in reality, they can. This was clearly illustrated on a television segment news program a few weeks ago. The reporter interviewed a number of people in the state of Ohio that was saying they were out of work. Some said they haven't worked in over two years and one couple that was interviewed said they had no money coming in and also said that they were selling some of their items and personal property from around the house to buy food and claimed they had no other items to sell. Folks, the family had a roof over their head and the man of the family that said he couldn't work and didn't have anything else from around the house to sell was wearing a very heavy "gold" necklace, probably worth a couple thousand dollars with the current gold prices out there. If I were claiming poverty I clearly would have sold my gold necklace long ago to buy food. In fact, a couple of weeks after the program the reporter returned to the same town and the same people to see if there were any changes. Guess what, many of the families said that people from around the country contributed to their plight and believe it or not, the same guy that received help because of the television program and who said he was still out of work was still wearing the heavy gold necklace. My question to some of these unemployed people: Where are your priorities? Are you spending money on food and necessities or buying gold necklaces?
Stop these inappropriate extended unemployment benefits lawmakers! And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Government Squandered The Social Security Trust Fund
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The Federal government is considering tinkering with Social Security and even cutting back benefits. What a racket. The feds want to increase the age to 70 years old before a person can see their first social security check. The incompetent politicians have been robbing the social security funds for decades and spending the money on all sorts of projects of their own choosing.
When social security was initiated in the 1930's it was meant only for a supplemental for elderly workers, a safety net so to speak. However, over the years these lawmakers have been raiding the fund and changing the rules as to who can collect benefits from the social security fund and they brought the well-meaning program to its knees.
Over the past 25 years the Social Security trust funds have built up a $2.5 trillion surplus but because of the governments borrowing of that money and it's spending that money on other programs the fund is expected to be completely broke in the year 2037. Right now the Social Security trust fund is paying out more money than it is taking in. Who's fault is that? You guessed it. The Federal government and past and present administrations.
Remember when Vice-President Gore said that he would put a "lock box" on Social Security? It was an empty campaign promise. He, like all lawmakers, knew that they were raiding the fund over the years and he said he wanted to have the practice stopped but he knew that the borrowing of Social Security funds would continue.
Folks, the Social Security trust fund was just a piggy-bank for our politicians. They saw trillions of dollars accumulating and couldn't resist dipping their greedy hands into the fund with "promises" that they would pay back the fund. What a joke!
I say that if the Social Security trust fund is tinkered with the first thing that should happen is put it back on the same footing that it was originally intended. Pay the elderly worker and stop all of the other payouts that may be going to "illegal aliens", disabilities that are not disabilities, change the rules for children collecting social security, etc., --
All of these other irrelevant payments was not intended when Social Security began. It was simple. A person and employer paid a portion of their wages into the fund and when that person reached the age of 65 years old they could begin receiving monthly benefits. But through the years and decades that individuals payments were being used for many other people and for other things. That's wrong!
I submit that if each individuals payments over their working life was deposited into the Social Security trust fund (for them only), and not touched by the Federal government they would be able to collect their monthly payment for the remainder of their life. The money would be there, in their name, for them. There should be no other payments being made from that fund to anyone.
If a person doesn't pay into the Social Security trust fund that person should not be able to collect any monthly check, period. Christ, right now we have prisoners collecting large disability payments from social security just because they happen to be prisoners. Is that right? NO! Others that have never paid one red cent into social security are collecting a monthly check. Again, wrong!
Children are collecting social security for many varied reasons that are questionable and the child has never worked a day in their life and has never paid one cent into the fund. That's not right. I would suggest that the children live off of the parents social security, if the parent worked and paid into the fund.
I would propose that only the people that paid into the Social Security trust fund be allowed to receive any benefit check and that check should be based solely on their wages made over their lifetime.
The Federal government has to make this program right. The first thing the Feds have to do is stop borrowing any monies whatsoever from the Social Security trust fund. They should make a public commitment that they will not borrow from the fund with a date certain. Congress should mandate that the government has to cease and desist its borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.
Social Security benefits should be paid only to person(s) that actually paid into the system. There is nothing hard about that idea. The idea is basically like an individual having a saving account at the bank. The person pays into the fund and their personal account all their life and when it comes time to retire (at 65 years old) that person can see how much they paid in over the years and can see how much they will receive for the remainder of their life. Nothing hard about that, right? If a person has an account, they collect a monthly benefit. If they do not or never had an account that they paid into, they get no money, period. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The Federal government is considering tinkering with Social Security and even cutting back benefits. What a racket. The feds want to increase the age to 70 years old before a person can see their first social security check. The incompetent politicians have been robbing the social security funds for decades and spending the money on all sorts of projects of their own choosing.
When social security was initiated in the 1930's it was meant only for a supplemental for elderly workers, a safety net so to speak. However, over the years these lawmakers have been raiding the fund and changing the rules as to who can collect benefits from the social security fund and they brought the well-meaning program to its knees.
Over the past 25 years the Social Security trust funds have built up a $2.5 trillion surplus but because of the governments borrowing of that money and it's spending that money on other programs the fund is expected to be completely broke in the year 2037. Right now the Social Security trust fund is paying out more money than it is taking in. Who's fault is that? You guessed it. The Federal government and past and present administrations.
Remember when Vice-President Gore said that he would put a "lock box" on Social Security? It was an empty campaign promise. He, like all lawmakers, knew that they were raiding the fund over the years and he said he wanted to have the practice stopped but he knew that the borrowing of Social Security funds would continue.
Folks, the Social Security trust fund was just a piggy-bank for our politicians. They saw trillions of dollars accumulating and couldn't resist dipping their greedy hands into the fund with "promises" that they would pay back the fund. What a joke!
I say that if the Social Security trust fund is tinkered with the first thing that should happen is put it back on the same footing that it was originally intended. Pay the elderly worker and stop all of the other payouts that may be going to "illegal aliens", disabilities that are not disabilities, change the rules for children collecting social security, etc., --
All of these other irrelevant payments was not intended when Social Security began. It was simple. A person and employer paid a portion of their wages into the fund and when that person reached the age of 65 years old they could begin receiving monthly benefits. But through the years and decades that individuals payments were being used for many other people and for other things. That's wrong!
I submit that if each individuals payments over their working life was deposited into the Social Security trust fund (for them only), and not touched by the Federal government they would be able to collect their monthly payment for the remainder of their life. The money would be there, in their name, for them. There should be no other payments being made from that fund to anyone.
If a person doesn't pay into the Social Security trust fund that person should not be able to collect any monthly check, period. Christ, right now we have prisoners collecting large disability payments from social security just because they happen to be prisoners. Is that right? NO! Others that have never paid one red cent into social security are collecting a monthly check. Again, wrong!
Children are collecting social security for many varied reasons that are questionable and the child has never worked a day in their life and has never paid one cent into the fund. That's not right. I would suggest that the children live off of the parents social security, if the parent worked and paid into the fund.
I would propose that only the people that paid into the Social Security trust fund be allowed to receive any benefit check and that check should be based solely on their wages made over their lifetime.
The Federal government has to make this program right. The first thing the Feds have to do is stop borrowing any monies whatsoever from the Social Security trust fund. They should make a public commitment that they will not borrow from the fund with a date certain. Congress should mandate that the government has to cease and desist its borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.
Social Security benefits should be paid only to person(s) that actually paid into the system. There is nothing hard about that idea. The idea is basically like an individual having a saving account at the bank. The person pays into the fund and their personal account all their life and when it comes time to retire (at 65 years old) that person can see how much they paid in over the years and can see how much they will receive for the remainder of their life. Nothing hard about that, right? If a person has an account, they collect a monthly benefit. If they do not or never had an account that they paid into, they get no money, period. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Hospitals Need To Be Held Accountable For Deadly Infections
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Recently the Las Vegas Sun did a wonderful expose on hospital care here in Las Vegas. Needless to say, the results were dismal. Health care in Las Vegas and Nevada as a whole is very poor. The Las Vegas Sun found 2,010 instances in 2008 and 2009 wherein patients were infected in one of the 13 acute care area hospitals by the lethal bacterium MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and another called C Diff. (Clostridium difficile). Believe it or not 239 of the infected patients "died."
State Senator Shirley Breeden championed a bill last year to require stricter reporting of such infections but the doctors, health care workers, hospitals and their lobbyists opposed the bill and their monies from their large political war chests won out and the bill was watered down to the point where all the hospitals have to do is "voluntarily" report the infections and the hospitals made it clear that the public cannot see the results.
These sociocomial diseases (another word for hospital-acquired infections) kill patients and the hospitals do not want the public to know which hospitals have the worst infection rate. The hospitals do not want the public to read any data rating the infection rates that may pertain to any given hospital. The hospitals in Nevada have fought facility-specific reporting of infections since 2002 long and hard.
Following the Las Vegas Suns excellent reporting on hospital infections UMC and St. Rose hospitals said they would give permission to the state of Nevada to publish the information. Other hospitals in Las Vegas refused to give permission and it appears they do not want transparency of any kind. For those hospitals that do not want to make infection rates public information would make any patient wonder: "What are these hospitals hiding?" "What are they covering up?"
I would submit that public reporting of quality-of-care information and hospital infections by individual hospitals should be a mandate nationwide. It's no secret that the health care workers and the hospitals at any specific hospital actually know how many patients are infected within the walls of their facility but they want to keep this information from the public.
I would suggest that doctors and hospitals that don't want consumers/patients to know about the quality-of care borders on a criminal act. These doctors, health care workers and hospitals should be held legally responsible for their infection injuries and/or deaths as well as their failure to alert the consumer/patient of hospital infection rates.
Personally, speaking for myself, if I'm the one going into the hospital I am putting all of my trust and faith and my life in their hands. How can a patient make an intelligent and informed decision as to where they want their health care provided if they do not have the proper information? The patient/consumer cannot tell where they might be at risk for injury and/or death and the patient(s) are prevented from determining where outbreaks are occurring.
I would say it is time for the Federal and state governments to pass legislation that requires every individual hospital to make quality-of-care and infection rates public and they should put some teeth in the legislation that fines the hospitals that fail to be transparent. Giving these hospitals a slap on the wrist is an act of futility. All the hospital does is pay the small fine and look at it as part of doing business. These sentinel events of infections should not be occurring so the penalties should be severe. What price is a father, mother, grandparent, even a child worth?
I say that if the doctors, nurses, and all other health care workers wash their hands between patients and as often as they should (as they are taught in medical school), clean their equipment properly and properly clean rooms between patients and stop exposing uninfected patients to infected ones the rate of deadly infections would subside dramatically. However, it appears these professionals fail to do just that over and over again. It's a shame!
Because of the lax attention to personal and institutional hygiene and quality-of-care by these health care professionals the hospitals fight transparency. They do not want patients/consumers to see the results of hospital and staff errors and mistakes. That's wrong. Where are the lawmakers when we need them? And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Recently the Las Vegas Sun did a wonderful expose on hospital care here in Las Vegas. Needless to say, the results were dismal. Health care in Las Vegas and Nevada as a whole is very poor. The Las Vegas Sun found 2,010 instances in 2008 and 2009 wherein patients were infected in one of the 13 acute care area hospitals by the lethal bacterium MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and another called C Diff. (Clostridium difficile). Believe it or not 239 of the infected patients "died."
State Senator Shirley Breeden championed a bill last year to require stricter reporting of such infections but the doctors, health care workers, hospitals and their lobbyists opposed the bill and their monies from their large political war chests won out and the bill was watered down to the point where all the hospitals have to do is "voluntarily" report the infections and the hospitals made it clear that the public cannot see the results.
These sociocomial diseases (another word for hospital-acquired infections) kill patients and the hospitals do not want the public to know which hospitals have the worst infection rate. The hospitals do not want the public to read any data rating the infection rates that may pertain to any given hospital. The hospitals in Nevada have fought facility-specific reporting of infections since 2002 long and hard.
Following the Las Vegas Suns excellent reporting on hospital infections UMC and St. Rose hospitals said they would give permission to the state of Nevada to publish the information. Other hospitals in Las Vegas refused to give permission and it appears they do not want transparency of any kind. For those hospitals that do not want to make infection rates public information would make any patient wonder: "What are these hospitals hiding?" "What are they covering up?"
I would submit that public reporting of quality-of-care information and hospital infections by individual hospitals should be a mandate nationwide. It's no secret that the health care workers and the hospitals at any specific hospital actually know how many patients are infected within the walls of their facility but they want to keep this information from the public.
I would suggest that doctors and hospitals that don't want consumers/patients to know about the quality-of care borders on a criminal act. These doctors, health care workers and hospitals should be held legally responsible for their infection injuries and/or deaths as well as their failure to alert the consumer/patient of hospital infection rates.
Personally, speaking for myself, if I'm the one going into the hospital I am putting all of my trust and faith and my life in their hands. How can a patient make an intelligent and informed decision as to where they want their health care provided if they do not have the proper information? The patient/consumer cannot tell where they might be at risk for injury and/or death and the patient(s) are prevented from determining where outbreaks are occurring.
I would say it is time for the Federal and state governments to pass legislation that requires every individual hospital to make quality-of-care and infection rates public and they should put some teeth in the legislation that fines the hospitals that fail to be transparent. Giving these hospitals a slap on the wrist is an act of futility. All the hospital does is pay the small fine and look at it as part of doing business. These sentinel events of infections should not be occurring so the penalties should be severe. What price is a father, mother, grandparent, even a child worth?
I say that if the doctors, nurses, and all other health care workers wash their hands between patients and as often as they should (as they are taught in medical school), clean their equipment properly and properly clean rooms between patients and stop exposing uninfected patients to infected ones the rate of deadly infections would subside dramatically. However, it appears these professionals fail to do just that over and over again. It's a shame!
Because of the lax attention to personal and institutional hygiene and quality-of-care by these health care professionals the hospitals fight transparency. They do not want patients/consumers to see the results of hospital and staff errors and mistakes. That's wrong. Where are the lawmakers when we need them? And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)