Saturday, October 31, 2015
YOU ASKED ABOUT A MISDIAGNOSIS - HERE'S YOUR REPLY.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
This reply goes out to Beverly, from Laguna Beach, California.
Beverly, you asked me about how to approach the situation when a doctor has misdiagnosed your condition/ailment. Believe it or not a misdiagnosis occurs quite often in the medical field. I myself had a misdiagnosis by doctors and staff in an HMO health program. Briefly, the doctors told me I had a muscle strain and the pain would go away in about a week to a month. Guess what? Even after x-rays and other scans on my original visit they misdiagnosed a broken hip and let me walk around on that broken hip for one month with bone grinding against bone. When I returned to the clinic a month later and told them I was still experiencing excruciating pain they again scanned my lower limbs and then told me they make a "mistake" and said instead of a muscle strain I had a "broken right hip."They immediately transported me to a hospital and the following day they performed surgery. So, I can relate and know how you feel. The clinic, technicians and doctors didn't even apologize. I later wrote a complaint to the HMO, C.E.O., but all I got was a phone call from a low level employee saying "they were sorry." In any event, To this day I still experience pain in my hip and legs because of the HMO's technicians, doctors and staffs incompetence. Well, enough about my bad experience with an HMO. Clearly if a person goes to a clinic or hospital complaining about pain in their legs and hips the first order would be to x-ray and scan to determine if there are indeed any broken or fractured bones. And one would think that the technicians and doctors after reading and evaluating all the scans and x-rays they could "clearly" determine the extent of the broken limb. Right?
Beverly, here are some figures for you to consider when it comes to misdiagnosis, There have been numerous studies done and reported that on an average ten (10%) percent of exams on persons after death, on autopsy,showed that during malpractice lawsuits filed by various insurance companies nine (9%) percent of claims relating to "misdiagnosis"came from obstetrics; a whopping sixty-one (61%)came from pediatrics. It was also said that each and every year, five (5%) percent of adult outpatients are diagnosed with a misdiagnosed error. Wow! I guess I was one of those adults. Shame on this particular HMO and it's incompetent providers, including the doctors, technicians and staff.
What's my advice? First, for starters - after a diagnosis get a second opinion and question the original doctor as to how he or she came to their diagnosis. Is it something else than what he/she said it could be? Beverly, hope this rely helps. -And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns ca be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
THINK TWICE ABOUT MARCO RUBIO FOR PRESIDENT.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Marco Rubio, (R-Florida) is a United States Senator who is running for president of the United States. One of my questions is, Why? He's served less than ONE TERM and tells people he is "fed up" with serving. It has been reported in the media that he has told friends and colleagues that he "hates" his current job in Washington and will not run for reelection. He indicated to people that he wants to be president or it's "nothing." WOW!
Rubio, 40 something, has decided not to run for his seat again. He said as much during the last Republican debate. Could it be that he doesn't care to serve his constituents? That he doesn't know how to, or want to do his job as a senator?
Rubio has missed vote after vote in Washington. It appears he has no interest in serving the people he was elected to represent. Look at his voting record and you will find it an abysmal record. If things don't go his way, he quits. "He's a quitter." On Tuesday, he cast a vote, his first in 20 days or so.This guy is frustrated and clearly displays a character flaw of impatience.
It has been said that even in his first elected office, as a young city commissioner in West Miami, he constantly became frustrated and impatient and complained as to how slow his colleagues were at work.
I believe that possibly Rubio is being forced out of the Senate because of his poor voting record. He is what one can describe as an "absentee federal employee." In fact, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, has proposed that senators who miss work should have their pay "docked."It was probably meant as a reference to Rubio, but the shoe fits because Rubio has missed vote after vote. Bush said: "We're paying you to do something, it ain't run for president." Rubio's hatred and frustration and rejection of the Senate does not make for a person that would be a good president of the United States. Does it?
My view is that the Washington lawmakers do not work enough as it is. And when we have a Senator that refuses to show up to vote on issues it's time for someone else to be put in that spot. Needless to say, I'm glad Rubio made up his mind not to run for reelection. We as a nation are better off. However, if this guy, a fresh face in Washington, a newbie, can not or will not work as a Senator, how the devil can he work as the president of the United States? Do you really want someone with this man's alleged character flaws sitting in the White House? Think about it. - 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, October 26, 2015
PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATES COMES DOWN TO THE "TRUST FACTOR."
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The first Democratic debate was nothing but a "love fest"between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. When the subject of emails was brought up against Clinton, Sanders gets emotional and says basically: " Enough with the emails, no one is interested in the emails". Clinton then turns to Sanders and with a big grin agrees with him. I disagree with Sanders on this point: I say the email fiasco is IMPORTANT to Americans. Sanders should have let the interviewer's continue with questions on the emails to see how Clinton would respond. Folks, he's running against Clinton for the presidency and should have let the email inquiry play out. Instead, he chose to shut down the subject of emails. After that exchange the entire group of Democratic candidates played nice, nice and danced around the Maypole together.
In the past Sanders has said he is a very good friend of Clinton so one of my concerns is why is he running for President against her if he doesn't present issues against Clinton that people care about. And they do care about what is happening with the email investigation. Hell, it's a DEBATE. It's not supposed to be a social. I really liked a lot of what Sanders is saying on the campaign trail but he lost a lot of credibility in my view during this debate just because he refrained taking on his challenger(s), or allow the interviewers to proceed with their inquires.
Sanders failed to mention that the email scandal was still under investigation, especially by the FBI. He could have said a lot of things to note the email investigation is not a dead issue. He could have said something like: "I'll wait until all the investigative agencies conclude their investigation and make their reports public before I comment." But he chose to play paddy cake with Clinton.
People, I believe it's a matter of trust. We Americans want someone we can actually trust in the White House and it has been said over and over again that when people are asked about Hillary Clinton, most say she is UNTRUSTWORTHY.
As I mentioned in previous blogs, Clinton did not have her security clearance removed, suspended and/or revoked. I think that should have occurred. There have been previous people in high ranking positions that have faced serious consequences for far less computer-related breaches than what Clinton is allegedly said to have committed. Remember John Deutch, CIA Director? He was stripped of his security clearances in 1999 after mishandling classified information on his "home computers." Also, CIA Director, David Petraeus had to resign from the top job as CIA Director in 2012 after admitting to an extramarital affair which the FBI uncovered regarding his persona emails.
My point, why is Clinton getting a pass on her emails even when the FBI investigation is still ongoing. I want to know I can trust the person I vote to sit in the White House and currently my trust factor for Hillary Clinton, on a scale of ONE to TEN is a whooping ONE. My trust factor for Sanders just fell to FIVE on the same scale. The only thing that may increase my trust in Sanders will be if he actually acts like a challenger in the presidential race and stops acting like he and Clinton are joined at the hip. He has to stop defending her and present his case as to why he wants to be president of the United States. - 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, October 19, 2015
HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T GET MY VOTE.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tells Americans her email fiasco was not or is not a National Security risk. Come on, folks! Her emails were hacked. Despite the hack of her emails two years ago, the State Department failed to take any action to protect and secure Clinton's private computer server.
The hacked emails, which included frequent correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal while Clinton, was still in office in 2012, were sent by a "Romanian": hacker to numerous news outlets, which were later posted online by the news organizations. The State Department failed to take"immediate" action by implementing security precautions such as updating software and securing passwords. So far, at least FIVE emails have been deemed classified and two were said to be "Top Secret." But Clinton and her posse along with the State Department is parsing the situation saying "the classifications were not marked "classified" at the time.
The State Department has displayed a total disregard for National Security because they turned a blind eye to Clinton's private server from the get-go. I submit that once the Clinton/Blumenthal hack was initiated the actual domain name for Clinton's host server was completely laid bare. Also keep in mind, after the email hack incident, in 2013 she went ahead and even hired a Colorado firm to manage her PRIVATE email sever.
People, here's a lady that is a top notch lawyer who has worked in government service for a large portion of her adult life yet she tries to play the dumb card. She certainly knew the rules of the federal government when she went rogue with the emails. I believe as many others in America do that Clinton knew that if she used a State Department account, her 60,000-plus emails would clearly become part of the official record, as they should be. However, she didn't want any of that. I would suspect that Hillary Clinton is a "control freak obsessed with privacy and secrecy issues. It appears that someone who may display such tendencies does not want to be transparent in any way, shape or form.
The lack of transparency is shown in the acts that she did. She obtained the private server which to my knowledge none of the previous Secretaries went to the trouble and great expense to set up a private email server for themselves.
At this point in time I see Clinton in political and "legal" trouble. And all of her denials and excuses she spouts doesn't change the fact that she brought all of this trouble down on herself.
As to any transparency, I will say this. The only thing transparent about Hillary Clinton is that she "flip-flops" on most all positions she chooses to take. Foe example, while campaigning in one section of the country she is "for" an issue or policy but in another city, town or state she FLIPS and takes the other side, "against" it. It appear Clinton tries to cover all of her bases to pander to whatever group she's campaigning in front of, no matter which issue or policy comes up. She's for it today, against it tomorrow. Clinton strikes me a a person that will do and say "anything", to be elected. She promises any group, such as unions, the Latino, etc., anything, as long as that group is useful to her for that particular moment in time. No matter what the problem or question by groups and individuals are her response seems to be: ""I'll solve it."
Clinton's shifts on issues and policies should be evident to any person in the country. Just listen to her claims and statements on any issue/policy. In 2008, she was all for the "Defense of the Marriage Act", but now: She's for "Pro-Gay Marriage." In the late 1990's she was for more incarcerations of criminals, now she's against incarcerations.Clinton was for the Pacific Trade deal. She said it was the "gold standard." Now, she's against it. It's laughable, people. Her middle name should be "waffle,", better yet "Pinocchio", since a majority of people polled in the U.S. believe she is "untrustworthy", a "liar."
What we really need serving in the office of President of the United States is a person with conviction, someone who is consistent on issues and policies, and clearly a person of principle. Does Hillary possess these qualities? Personally, I don't think she does. Her past actions speak for themselves. Things like past scandals (not counting the current email or the 2012 Benghazi scandal), questionable stock deals, contributions from foreign donors and her flip-flops on issues and policies are just the tip of the iceberg as to why I could not support Clinton's campaign.- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tells Americans her email fiasco was not or is not a National Security risk. Come on, folks! Her emails were hacked. Despite the hack of her emails two years ago, the State Department failed to take any action to protect and secure Clinton's private computer server.
The hacked emails, which included frequent correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal while Clinton, was still in office in 2012, were sent by a "Romanian": hacker to numerous news outlets, which were later posted online by the news organizations. The State Department failed to take"immediate" action by implementing security precautions such as updating software and securing passwords. So far, at least FIVE emails have been deemed classified and two were said to be "Top Secret." But Clinton and her posse along with the State Department is parsing the situation saying "the classifications were not marked "classified" at the time.
The State Department has displayed a total disregard for National Security because they turned a blind eye to Clinton's private server from the get-go. I submit that once the Clinton/Blumenthal hack was initiated the actual domain name for Clinton's host server was completely laid bare. Also keep in mind, after the email hack incident, in 2013 she went ahead and even hired a Colorado firm to manage her PRIVATE email sever.
People, here's a lady that is a top notch lawyer who has worked in government service for a large portion of her adult life yet she tries to play the dumb card. She certainly knew the rules of the federal government when she went rogue with the emails. I believe as many others in America do that Clinton knew that if she used a State Department account, her 60,000-plus emails would clearly become part of the official record, as they should be. However, she didn't want any of that. I would suspect that Hillary Clinton is a "control freak obsessed with privacy and secrecy issues. It appears that someone who may display such tendencies does not want to be transparent in any way, shape or form.
The lack of transparency is shown in the acts that she did. She obtained the private server which to my knowledge none of the previous Secretaries went to the trouble and great expense to set up a private email server for themselves.
At this point in time I see Clinton in political and "legal" trouble. And all of her denials and excuses she spouts doesn't change the fact that she brought all of this trouble down on herself.
As to any transparency, I will say this. The only thing transparent about Hillary Clinton is that she "flip-flops" on most all positions she chooses to take. Foe example, while campaigning in one section of the country she is "for" an issue or policy but in another city, town or state she FLIPS and takes the other side, "against" it. It appear Clinton tries to cover all of her bases to pander to whatever group she's campaigning in front of, no matter which issue or policy comes up. She's for it today, against it tomorrow. Clinton strikes me a a person that will do and say "anything", to be elected. She promises any group, such as unions, the Latino, etc., anything, as long as that group is useful to her for that particular moment in time. No matter what the problem or question by groups and individuals are her response seems to be: ""I'll solve it."
Clinton's shifts on issues and policies should be evident to any person in the country. Just listen to her claims and statements on any issue/policy. In 2008, she was all for the "Defense of the Marriage Act", but now: She's for "Pro-Gay Marriage." In the late 1990's she was for more incarcerations of criminals, now she's against incarcerations.Clinton was for the Pacific Trade deal. She said it was the "gold standard." Now, she's against it. It's laughable, people. Her middle name should be "waffle,", better yet "Pinocchio", since a majority of people polled in the U.S. believe she is "untrustworthy", a "liar."
What we really need serving in the office of President of the United States is a person with conviction, someone who is consistent on issues and policies, and clearly a person of principle. Does Hillary possess these qualities? Personally, I don't think she does. Her past actions speak for themselves. Things like past scandals (not counting the current email or the 2012 Benghazi scandal), questionable stock deals, contributions from foreign donors and her flip-flops on issues and policies are just the tip of the iceberg as to why I could not support Clinton's campaign.- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Friday, October 16, 2015
CORRUPT CHICAGO SCHOOL CHIEF ROBS KIDS AND GETS A SLAP ON WRIST
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Chicago Mayor, Rahm Emanuel hand picked a school chief. He also basically hand picked the board to work under the female school chief. He gave her and the board rave accolades. The lady made a whopping salary of $250.000 a year. It didn't take long for this school chief to tap into the corruption famous in Chicago. She rigged a contract worth 23 MILLION dollars. The contract was to (believe it or not) "TEACH TEACHERS. Isn't that what college is for folks. Hell, that's why the teacher's went to school in the first place - -TO STUDY and LEARN how to be a teacher. They did that. They were licensed teachers. But this yahoo school chief wanted to spend 23 million dollars to teach teachers how to teach. Where's the priorities in Chicago? I guess the only priority in the city is "lets steal." "How much can we steal."
This sleaze school chief arranged to have the company KICK BACK ten (10%) percent of the 23 million dollars to her. She stole this money from the kids. The money she stole could have been used for the continued education of Chicago children but she had a total disregard for all of Chicago's children. Instead, she only though of herself --- AND-- I suspect her friends and possible lawmakers in the city. The only concern of this Rahm Emanuel pick was how to enrich herself and friends.
When this school chief was caught and brought up on charges she said: "I'm sorry: Folks, the only thing she's sorry about is: "getting caught." I guess her large, lucrative salary of $250,000. wasn't enough for her to exist on.
Here's a kicker, people. Out of 20 charges/counts the authorities DROPPED 19 out of 20 counts. And instead of the TWENTY (20) YEAR sentence her time was cut to about, get this -- SEVEN (7) YEARS. God! What a deal. One would have to suspect if the fix was in in Chicago.
It's a known fact that Chicago has always had the reputation of being mucked in corruption. This sentence of this corrupt school chief certainly tends to enforce that perception, right?
Oh, by the way, The news media asked for most, if not all of the documents involved in this case, According to the media they wanted to see documents regarding mayor Rahm Emanual's connection with this thief and the entire board. They requested documents but only got back heavily redacted, blacked out pages that the reporters said could not even give the slightest glimmer of what was on the pages. My question: What does Chicago lawmakers have to hide? Why should they redact any information to the point that it cannot be decifered for proper reporting? It appears politics in Chicago never changes, does it? - 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
.
NO SOCIAL SECURITY "COST OF LIVING" IN 2016. THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO PAY.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Senior citizens lose out again. "CBS Money Watch" just reported that social security recipients will not receive a cost of living (COLA) increase for 2016. The feds say it is because of the "low gas prices." WOW! If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. People, SEVENTY(70) MILLION individuals who depend on the paltry annual increase to survive is again ripped off and snookered by the government.
The federal employees and all public sector employee's across the nation will receive an annual COLA between two (2%) and eight(8%) percent in their paychecks in 2016. This because of their powerful public employees and federal union representation. It should be noted the fed employees and many other public employees make an average $119,000 per year versus an average worker in the private sector who DOESN'T work for a government entity earning only $67,000.00 per year. It has been reported that public sector and federal employees make about seventy-eight (78%) percent more that those working in the private sector for the same job.
Also remember that even Congress has an automatic built in "cost of living adjustment" (COLA) which they receive each and every year. Hell, Congress met and passed that law years ago, in the dead of night in a secret meeting, away from public scrutiny. I suspect they did that to cover their butts so the American public would not know who voted themselves a raise. My gripe is these Washington lawmakers already make about $172,000 a year and the large salary and annual increases are paid to them even though they work only two to three months out of the entire year. They also set up for themselves a cushy, lucrative, obscene retirement and pension plan which they can tap for the rest of their lives after serving a few years in Washington (courtesy of us taxpayers) while all of the rest of us working outside the government have to toil, sweat and strain on a job for TWENTY years or more and then hope we saved enough to live out the rest of our years, in old age. These lawmakers also set themselves up with a health plan which no one in the private sector could even begin to touch. SIDE NOTE: About the health care plan - -remember when Obama ran for president. He said he would give ALL Americans the EXACT health care plan that HE and all lawmakers in Washington and Congress enjoy. That promise was a BIG! BIG! lie, wasn't it?
My point is that the Feds, including Congress and lawmakers on the hill look out for all public employees across the country but ignore the Americans that worked all their lives to build this country.
Folks, this is the THIRD time in these many years that social security recipients were DENIED a "cost of living adjustment" (COLA) while people working for the government in public employ continued to receive "cost of living" increases. Where is the equity? Where is the parity? There is none for us social security recipients, is there?
President Obama, congress people and even candidates running for president are always telling us "we are all in this together." Another lie, folks. If in fact, we (all Americans) "were in this together" the result would be : When socials security recipients are DENIED a cost of living" increase ALL public employees and federal and government workers across the nation would be DENIED a "cost of living" increase also. I submit; "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."Why is it they want senior citizens and disabled workers to FEEL the PAIN, while the feds and public employees feed at the trough filled with taxpayer money like a bunch of rabid hogs?
Personally, I have a few theories of why social security cost of living (COLA's) are being denied. Come on! Three times in the near past and the denials of the COLA's are becoming more frequent.
I suspect that it IS NOT because "GAS PRICES are so low, as reported in the media. Instead,one of my theories is that there may be a manipulation of the social security system possibly brought about by a group(s) and/or a few politicos in Washington who believe that not paying SEVENTY(70) MILLION people their social security increase will somehow begin to make the social security fund appear stable and in turn will help delay future failure of the entire social security system. Just imagine the BILLIONS of dollars the government is saving with just ONE instance of not paying out the "cost of living? Folks, in the recent past they've already denied the "cost of living payout THREE times.
Final thought: I submit that if each and every person in America had to pay into the social security system (that includes, federal employees, all city, county, and state public employees and Congress) everyone would be receiving a "cost of living" increase in 2016. Why should all of these government employees across the country be EXEMPT? If these people, who feel entitled, had to depend on social security as a retirement vehicle you can bet that the system would be protected. This "Us against them" mentality and the government public sector employees versus everybody else has got to STOP. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. Make up you own mind.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Senior citizens lose out again. "CBS Money Watch" just reported that social security recipients will not receive a cost of living (COLA) increase for 2016. The feds say it is because of the "low gas prices." WOW! If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. People, SEVENTY(70) MILLION individuals who depend on the paltry annual increase to survive is again ripped off and snookered by the government.
The federal employees and all public sector employee's across the nation will receive an annual COLA between two (2%) and eight(8%) percent in their paychecks in 2016. This because of their powerful public employees and federal union representation. It should be noted the fed employees and many other public employees make an average $119,000 per year versus an average worker in the private sector who DOESN'T work for a government entity earning only $67,000.00 per year. It has been reported that public sector and federal employees make about seventy-eight (78%) percent more that those working in the private sector for the same job.
Also remember that even Congress has an automatic built in "cost of living adjustment" (COLA) which they receive each and every year. Hell, Congress met and passed that law years ago, in the dead of night in a secret meeting, away from public scrutiny. I suspect they did that to cover their butts so the American public would not know who voted themselves a raise. My gripe is these Washington lawmakers already make about $172,000 a year and the large salary and annual increases are paid to them even though they work only two to three months out of the entire year. They also set up for themselves a cushy, lucrative, obscene retirement and pension plan which they can tap for the rest of their lives after serving a few years in Washington (courtesy of us taxpayers) while all of the rest of us working outside the government have to toil, sweat and strain on a job for TWENTY years or more and then hope we saved enough to live out the rest of our years, in old age. These lawmakers also set themselves up with a health plan which no one in the private sector could even begin to touch. SIDE NOTE: About the health care plan - -remember when Obama ran for president. He said he would give ALL Americans the EXACT health care plan that HE and all lawmakers in Washington and Congress enjoy. That promise was a BIG! BIG! lie, wasn't it?
My point is that the Feds, including Congress and lawmakers on the hill look out for all public employees across the country but ignore the Americans that worked all their lives to build this country.
Folks, this is the THIRD time in these many years that social security recipients were DENIED a "cost of living adjustment" (COLA) while people working for the government in public employ continued to receive "cost of living" increases. Where is the equity? Where is the parity? There is none for us social security recipients, is there?
President Obama, congress people and even candidates running for president are always telling us "we are all in this together." Another lie, folks. If in fact, we (all Americans) "were in this together" the result would be : When socials security recipients are DENIED a cost of living" increase ALL public employees and federal and government workers across the nation would be DENIED a "cost of living" increase also. I submit; "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."Why is it they want senior citizens and disabled workers to FEEL the PAIN, while the feds and public employees feed at the trough filled with taxpayer money like a bunch of rabid hogs?
Personally, I have a few theories of why social security cost of living (COLA's) are being denied. Come on! Three times in the near past and the denials of the COLA's are becoming more frequent.
I suspect that it IS NOT because "GAS PRICES are so low, as reported in the media. Instead,one of my theories is that there may be a manipulation of the social security system possibly brought about by a group(s) and/or a few politicos in Washington who believe that not paying SEVENTY(70) MILLION people their social security increase will somehow begin to make the social security fund appear stable and in turn will help delay future failure of the entire social security system. Just imagine the BILLIONS of dollars the government is saving with just ONE instance of not paying out the "cost of living? Folks, in the recent past they've already denied the "cost of living payout THREE times.
Final thought: I submit that if each and every person in America had to pay into the social security system (that includes, federal employees, all city, county, and state public employees and Congress) everyone would be receiving a "cost of living" increase in 2016. Why should all of these government employees across the country be EXEMPT? If these people, who feel entitled, had to depend on social security as a retirement vehicle you can bet that the system would be protected. This "Us against them" mentality and the government public sector employees versus everybody else has got to STOP. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. Make up you own mind.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, October 12, 2015
MORE DOUBTS ABOUT CARLY FIORINA AS PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
I'm still not impressed with presidential candidate Carly Fiorina. Why? Because of some concerning reports I have been reading about.
Lets look at some of the reports that are circulating around the country. First, she is continually trying to bad mouth or discredit anyone that brings up her bad performance at Hewlett-Packard and any mention of her bad business dealing with other companies. Then there is the way she treat facts. She's very loose with accuracy and sometimes it appears she's making things up. The Washington Post published an account of her reluctance to pay her bills from her 2010 campaign. The Post said she stiffed the widow of pollster Joe Shumate. He dropped dead of a heart attack among numerous "polling data" information for Fiorina, near Election Day 2010. She then failed (for years)to reimburse at least $30,000.00 she owed him. According to the Post piece, Martin Wilson, who managed the campaign said he constantly implored her to pay up. "She just wouldn't," he said.
Apparently, Fiorina leaves "no love" lost with people she deals with. Reuters interviewed 30 or more people who worked with Fiorina in 2010. At least 12 of those people said; "Never again." One campaign aide said: "I'd rather go to Iraq,"
It appears she is very venomous about other peoples shortcomings, but very casual about her own shortcomings. For example, in 2010 she told a columnist for the New York Times "It was a mistake"that she failed to vote in elections in New Jersey, where she'd once lived for 10 years. She also failed to vote in at least more than half the 18 elections in California in which she clearly could have participated. What? Here's a woman that wants to be president and fails to vote in elections. Wow! What does those actions tell a person?
Eve though Fiorina claims to be an outsider, she's NOT. Remember she acted a a surrogate for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election : (See my blog-Doubts about Carly Fiorina, 09/30/2015.) In fact, she was knocked to the side after she said: " Neither Senator McCain or running mate, Sarah Palin could run or operate a big corporation." Can you imagine, she was denying them the opportunity to do exactly what she has done even thought many in the corporate world thought she herself was VERY inept, incompetent and administrating her corporate tasks and duties POORLY, resulting in many corporate titans and players saying she ran the businesses she fronted into the ground.
In her mind and twisted way of thinking she believed the corporate world qualified her to run for government office and govern but the government experience McCain and Palin had did not qualify them to run in corporation circles.WOW! Is she patting herself om the back, or what?It appears she likes blowing her own horn because she has this huge ego tripping attitude. Fiorina's way of thinking reflects the power of a thirst for building up her accomplishments (only IF in her own mind.) She is no rocket scientist even though she believes she is. I see one of her major problems as she is turned on by the sound of her own voice.
Finally, it looks like Fiorina has found a friend, a billionaire to help her push her sketchy agenda. Former chairman and CEO of Univision, media mogul Jerrold Perenchio, has coughed up $1.6 million dollars to pump up Fiorina's chances in the presidential race. But personally, I believe this CEO is betting on the wrong pony in the race. Not unlike Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton, Fiorina has a lot of old baggage that she brings to the table and I don't think the voters will buy her package no matter how much money rich billionaire donors dump into the game. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. Make up your own mind.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
I'm still not impressed with presidential candidate Carly Fiorina. Why? Because of some concerning reports I have been reading about.
Lets look at some of the reports that are circulating around the country. First, she is continually trying to bad mouth or discredit anyone that brings up her bad performance at Hewlett-Packard and any mention of her bad business dealing with other companies. Then there is the way she treat facts. She's very loose with accuracy and sometimes it appears she's making things up. The Washington Post published an account of her reluctance to pay her bills from her 2010 campaign. The Post said she stiffed the widow of pollster Joe Shumate. He dropped dead of a heart attack among numerous "polling data" information for Fiorina, near Election Day 2010. She then failed (for years)to reimburse at least $30,000.00 she owed him. According to the Post piece, Martin Wilson, who managed the campaign said he constantly implored her to pay up. "She just wouldn't," he said.
Apparently, Fiorina leaves "no love" lost with people she deals with. Reuters interviewed 30 or more people who worked with Fiorina in 2010. At least 12 of those people said; "Never again." One campaign aide said: "I'd rather go to Iraq,"
It appears she is very venomous about other peoples shortcomings, but very casual about her own shortcomings. For example, in 2010 she told a columnist for the New York Times "It was a mistake"that she failed to vote in elections in New Jersey, where she'd once lived for 10 years. She also failed to vote in at least more than half the 18 elections in California in which she clearly could have participated. What? Here's a woman that wants to be president and fails to vote in elections. Wow! What does those actions tell a person?
Eve though Fiorina claims to be an outsider, she's NOT. Remember she acted a a surrogate for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election : (See my blog-Doubts about Carly Fiorina, 09/30/2015.) In fact, she was knocked to the side after she said: " Neither Senator McCain or running mate, Sarah Palin could run or operate a big corporation." Can you imagine, she was denying them the opportunity to do exactly what she has done even thought many in the corporate world thought she herself was VERY inept, incompetent and administrating her corporate tasks and duties POORLY, resulting in many corporate titans and players saying she ran the businesses she fronted into the ground.
In her mind and twisted way of thinking she believed the corporate world qualified her to run for government office and govern but the government experience McCain and Palin had did not qualify them to run in corporation circles.WOW! Is she patting herself om the back, or what?It appears she likes blowing her own horn because she has this huge ego tripping attitude. Fiorina's way of thinking reflects the power of a thirst for building up her accomplishments (only IF in her own mind.) She is no rocket scientist even though she believes she is. I see one of her major problems as she is turned on by the sound of her own voice.
Finally, it looks like Fiorina has found a friend, a billionaire to help her push her sketchy agenda. Former chairman and CEO of Univision, media mogul Jerrold Perenchio, has coughed up $1.6 million dollars to pump up Fiorina's chances in the presidential race. But personally, I believe this CEO is betting on the wrong pony in the race. Not unlike Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton, Fiorina has a lot of old baggage that she brings to the table and I don't think the voters will buy her package no matter how much money rich billionaire donors dump into the game. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. Make up your own mind.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)