THE DOCTOR IS IN _______________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Hooray! Hats off to the state of Ohio, its lawmakers and Governor Kasich's move to get a handle on the over-the-top salary and benefits that the public employee unions are ripping off of the Ohio taxpayer. It's about time.
The law should apply to each and every public employee in the state. No one should be exempt. The cutbacks, salary decreases, loss of benefits and loss of obscene pensions should affect police, firemen, teachers, and every public employee on the states payroll.
It appears the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police are squealing and saying the bill is" fundamentally flawed," Wow! What do you think they're going to say. They don't want to lose any benefits.
These Ohio public employees, like their counterparts in other states have been living large for years enjoying "guaranteed" step increases in their wages, annual cost-of living increases, merit pay, bonus pay, free or near free health care for themselves and their families as well as many other benefits that someone working in the private work force will never ever see.. They don't want to give all of that up but thanks to politicians in Ohio, who have backbone, it looks like these public employees are finally going to live like the rest of the states citizens.
The average worker in Ohio and other states that do not work in the public sector goes to a job knowing what the salary will be for the year, with no expectations of a raise or a guaranteed cost-of-living increase. The private sector workers have no expectation of having a job when they show up for work each day. The private sector worker is not guaranteed free or near free health care. If they do have health care at all they have to pay for all of their and their families care out of the wages they are making on their job. Bottom line-the Mr. , Ms, or Mrs. working day to day (not as a public employee) does not have "GUARANTEES." They can be laid off or even fired. They may not see any vacation after working for years - - -so, where do these greedy public employees get the idea that they can write up contracts with lawmakers and demand all of the freebies and benefits they currently enjoy.
Governor Kasich and all politicians in Ohio - -eliminate all public employee annual cost-of-living increases, take away and eliminate all the current pension structure for public employees and start from scratch and mandate that they, like private sector workers have to depend on a 401(k) retirement plan. Eliminate all free health care for public employees. Make them pay for their own health care like everyone in the private sector does. If they are making a decent salary they can afford to pay for their own health care like the rest of Ohio citizens. Eliminate all merit pay, bonuses and automatic step increases. There is NO ONE in the private sector that is guaranteed that they will receive automatic increases in their salary.
If these public employees are so unhappy and threaten to walk off the job, let them do it. Fire them. Better yet, the state can file for bankruptcy to void any current public employee contracts. Then they can hire new people. If that were the case, I predict that when Ohio ran ads for new employees "without" all of the current freebies there would be thousands of people standing in line for those jobs.
Keep up the good work Governor Kasich and Ohio lawmakers. Don't back down. -And, that's my opinion. Make your own judgment and decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Senior Citizens Should Receive COLA's Like Lawmakers & Public Employees
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_______________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Social Security cost-of-living (COLA) increases have not been seen by the senior citizen for two years now. In fact, 2010 and 2011 - - - zilch. Maybe, just maybe, next year the senior citizens may see one.
The government says that the cost-of-living (COLA's) adjustments are based on Labor Department calculations. When consumer prices go up, payments go up. If they stay stagnant seniors see no increase. The sad part of these small increases such as 1.2 percent is that as soon as it is put into the persons social security check it is immediately taken away by a medicare cost. The 2009 premium levels for medicare costs were: $96.40 a month, it will go to $110.50 a month and then to $115. 40. What a rip off. If the senior citizen gets an increase next year they can expect to see an actual increase in their check that amounts to only $6,$ 8, and $10.00 per month.
Keep in m mind folks that public employees such as policemen, firemen, teachers and lawmakers all over this country have guarantee's written into their contracts wherein they will receive annual cost-of-living raises of three (3%), four(4%), six (6%) and many times up to eight(8%) percent a year no matter how the economy is doing.
Fact is, the Congress people have been receiving up to six(6%) annual cost of living increases each and every year for decades. How do they receive that COLA? Here's how- back in the 1980's they made a secret pact and put it into law which states that Congress will receive these (COLA's) automatically "UNLESS" they themselves vote to decline the COLA for the year. Can you believe it? How would you, Joe and Jane Doe, on Main Street, USA , like to receive an automatic pay raise each year (unless you vote) not to take it. It would be nice, right? Don't hold your breath because it'll never happen for you people- so, for get about it.
These elite lawmakers, public employee members and their unions, who think they are an entitled group of people will continue to pig out at the trough of taxpayer monies through recessions and/or a depression and (like clock work) take their cost-of-living increases come hell or high water. Unwarranted? You bet. Keep in mind these same lawmakers and public employees also receive bonuses and merit pay as well as free or near free health care for themselves and their family for the rest of their life - - all on our dime.
I suggest that all these greedy public employees be mandated by law to enroll and belong in the Social Security program (like the rest of us common folk) and be stripped of all the guaranteed cost-of-living (COLA's), bonuses, merit pay, free or near free health care and obscene pensions that us regular people cannot receive. Nobody gives us free or near free health care for our families for the rest of our lives. If senior citizens cost-of-living is calculated on Labor Department statistics, the same should apply to every other citizen in the United States. Basically, if we seniors get an increase then everyone else will get an increase, if we don't, then no one else can get a COLA either. Parity and equity is the name of the game.
I predict that if "everyone " including Congress and public employees had to depend on Social Security and 401(k) plans for retirement then everyone would be treated equally and senior citizens would in all likelihood see regular annual COLA's. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own judgment and 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?
Social Security cost-of-living (COLA) increases have not been seen by the senior citizen for two years now. In fact, 2010 and 2011 - - - zilch. Maybe, just maybe, next year the senior citizens may see one.
The government says that the cost-of-living (COLA's) adjustments are based on Labor Department calculations. When consumer prices go up, payments go up. If they stay stagnant seniors see no increase. The sad part of these small increases such as 1.2 percent is that as soon as it is put into the persons social security check it is immediately taken away by a medicare cost. The 2009 premium levels for medicare costs were: $96.40 a month, it will go to $110.50 a month and then to $115. 40. What a rip off. If the senior citizen gets an increase next year they can expect to see an actual increase in their check that amounts to only $6,$ 8, and $10.00 per month.
Keep in m mind folks that public employees such as policemen, firemen, teachers and lawmakers all over this country have guarantee's written into their contracts wherein they will receive annual cost-of-living raises of three (3%), four(4%), six (6%) and many times up to eight(8%) percent a year no matter how the economy is doing.
Fact is, the Congress people have been receiving up to six(6%) annual cost of living increases each and every year for decades. How do they receive that COLA? Here's how- back in the 1980's they made a secret pact and put it into law which states that Congress will receive these (COLA's) automatically "UNLESS" they themselves vote to decline the COLA for the year. Can you believe it? How would you, Joe and Jane Doe, on Main Street, USA , like to receive an automatic pay raise each year (unless you vote) not to take it. It would be nice, right? Don't hold your breath because it'll never happen for you people- so, for get about it.
These elite lawmakers, public employee members and their unions, who think they are an entitled group of people will continue to pig out at the trough of taxpayer monies through recessions and/or a depression and (like clock work) take their cost-of-living increases come hell or high water. Unwarranted? You bet. Keep in mind these same lawmakers and public employees also receive bonuses and merit pay as well as free or near free health care for themselves and their family for the rest of their life - - all on our dime.
I suggest that all these greedy public employees be mandated by law to enroll and belong in the Social Security program (like the rest of us common folk) and be stripped of all the guaranteed cost-of-living (COLA's), bonuses, merit pay, free or near free health care and obscene pensions that us regular people cannot receive. Nobody gives us free or near free health care for our families for the rest of our lives. If senior citizens cost-of-living is calculated on Labor Department statistics, the same should apply to every other citizen in the United States. Basically, if we seniors get an increase then everyone else will get an increase, if we don't, then no one else can get a COLA either. Parity and equity is the name of the game.
I predict that if "everyone " including Congress and public employees had to depend on Social Security and 401(k) plans for retirement then everyone would be treated equally and senior citizens would in all likelihood see regular annual COLA's. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own judgment and decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Take the Award and Cap Limits Off of Medical Malpractice
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_______________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
A Judge in Los Angeles issued a temporary ruling allowing visitation of a disabled patient with her 4-year-old triplets. Hooray! Now 34 year-old Abbie Dorn will be granted visits with her children. This woman was so badly brain damaged by "medical errors" during childbirth that she can no longer walk, talk, or eat.
Can you imagine a woman going to doctors and a hospital for delivery of a child and then wind up paralyzed and unable to walk, talk or eat all because of incompetent care. Currently there are 100,000 medical errors made by doctors, hospitals and health care personnel each and every year. And, that figure is climbing even after a decade of health care professionals aware of the problem.
Yet, the doctors, hospitals, nurses and health providers continue to make the same mistakes over and over all the while saying they want limits and caps put on malpractice awards.
What price a person, a body? There are some states that have caps of only $250,000 or $350,000. Those caps were put in place by the medical community scaring people by saying they can't afford to pay for malpractice insurance. They argue that if there were not limits as to how much they could be sued for they would leave the state.
Some states fell for their antics but people like Abbie Dorn are the one's who suffer. What price would you put on your spouse, your mother, your father, even your children? Would $350,000 be sufficient for the damage caused by an incompetent doctor or hospital? Well, it's happening right now in many states and because a person can only sue for such a small amount attorneys are reluctant to take on a medical malpractice case.
My view, if the doctors cannot afford malpractice insurance to cover serious or fatal injuries that they caused to a patient, they shouldn't be practicing. It's my opinion that there should be no cap limit on the amount of monies a person can sue a medical doctor, hospital or health care provider for if they are are proven to have injured the patient. I submit that if the medical profession would police their own and alert the public to their bad colleagues and rid it's ranks of those bad doctors and personnel they would not get sued as often.
As a side note: There is a doctor practicing here in Nevada that had, count them,--(NINE) malpractice cases that occurred in different states and some of the malpractice resulted in the death of the patient. Did other doctors know this guy was a bad apple? Probably. Did they do anything about his quality of care? No. When this man was caught putting his patients in danger here in Nevada the medical board only "suspended" his medical license.
In conclusion-do not buy into the argument that medical doctors cannot afford insurance or that the doctors will flee the state if the people of the state does not vote to put limits of medical malpractice awards. Think of your family before you cast that vote.- 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?
A Judge in Los Angeles issued a temporary ruling allowing visitation of a disabled patient with her 4-year-old triplets. Hooray! Now 34 year-old Abbie Dorn will be granted visits with her children. This woman was so badly brain damaged by "medical errors" during childbirth that she can no longer walk, talk, or eat.
Can you imagine a woman going to doctors and a hospital for delivery of a child and then wind up paralyzed and unable to walk, talk or eat all because of incompetent care. Currently there are 100,000 medical errors made by doctors, hospitals and health care personnel each and every year. And, that figure is climbing even after a decade of health care professionals aware of the problem.
Yet, the doctors, hospitals, nurses and health providers continue to make the same mistakes over and over all the while saying they want limits and caps put on malpractice awards.
What price a person, a body? There are some states that have caps of only $250,000 or $350,000. Those caps were put in place by the medical community scaring people by saying they can't afford to pay for malpractice insurance. They argue that if there were not limits as to how much they could be sued for they would leave the state.
Some states fell for their antics but people like Abbie Dorn are the one's who suffer. What price would you put on your spouse, your mother, your father, even your children? Would $350,000 be sufficient for the damage caused by an incompetent doctor or hospital? Well, it's happening right now in many states and because a person can only sue for such a small amount attorneys are reluctant to take on a medical malpractice case.
My view, if the doctors cannot afford malpractice insurance to cover serious or fatal injuries that they caused to a patient, they shouldn't be practicing. It's my opinion that there should be no cap limit on the amount of monies a person can sue a medical doctor, hospital or health care provider for if they are are proven to have injured the patient. I submit that if the medical profession would police their own and alert the public to their bad colleagues and rid it's ranks of those bad doctors and personnel they would not get sued as often.
As a side note: There is a doctor practicing here in Nevada that had, count them,--(NINE) malpractice cases that occurred in different states and some of the malpractice resulted in the death of the patient. Did other doctors know this guy was a bad apple? Probably. Did they do anything about his quality of care? No. When this man was caught putting his patients in danger here in Nevada the medical board only "suspended" his medical license.
In conclusion-do not buy into the argument that medical doctors cannot afford insurance or that the doctors will flee the state if the people of the state does not vote to put limits of medical malpractice awards. Think of your family before you cast that vote.- 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
War in Lybia Escalates Above and Beyond: More rationalization By USA
THE DOCTOR IS IN _______________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
It is now 03/26/2011 and the United States is still taking the lead in attacks on Libya even after president Obama said he was going to stand down. So much for his word. In addition, it is reported that the U.S. and the so-called coalition is planning to funnel arms to the Libyan rebels.
First, the reasoning for the Libyan attack was to only enforce a no-fly zone. That was ridiculous because Libya only has a very small amount of planes in their military asset inventory. It took almost nothing to have warplanes from a number of nations wipe out Libya's air force in a matter of hours. It was like using snow plow to kill a bug. Now the escalation is to arm the rebels and send in military personnel to train the rebels on how to use the weapons. Can you see how a government(s) can rationalize their views on what they want to accomplish?
Remember we, the United States supported Gadhafi for decades just like we did with Saddam in Iraq. We even supplied Saddam with weapons to use against his people but when the relationship sours the U.S. finds a way to rationalize regime change and then destroy the offending country by mass bombings and missle attacks . You can bet the United States is still playing a very active role in this war on Libya even though the the administration says it is stepping aside.
Tens of millions of dollars are being poured in this fiasco with Obama using the excuse that we are protecting the Libyan people. If that were the case why isn't Obama and his cohorts bombing and using military force against Syria? The government of Syria is presently slaughtering more people there on an every day basis that Gadahfi has done to date. Will Obama use military against the other Arab countries in the region that are now killing their people in the streets?
My view of this inappropriate, unwarranted war in Libya is: [ politics, oil, and to keep the American peoples mind off of all of the domestic problems ] that Obama and the administration fail to address. War is always a good excuse to divert one's attention from other matters. President George Bush did it and now Obama is playing the same ol' song. Anyone for a one term president? - 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?
It is now 03/26/2011 and the United States is still taking the lead in attacks on Libya even after president Obama said he was going to stand down. So much for his word. In addition, it is reported that the U.S. and the so-called coalition is planning to funnel arms to the Libyan rebels.
First, the reasoning for the Libyan attack was to only enforce a no-fly zone. That was ridiculous because Libya only has a very small amount of planes in their military asset inventory. It took almost nothing to have warplanes from a number of nations wipe out Libya's air force in a matter of hours. It was like using snow plow to kill a bug. Now the escalation is to arm the rebels and send in military personnel to train the rebels on how to use the weapons. Can you see how a government(s) can rationalize their views on what they want to accomplish?
Remember we, the United States supported Gadhafi for decades just like we did with Saddam in Iraq. We even supplied Saddam with weapons to use against his people but when the relationship sours the U.S. finds a way to rationalize regime change and then destroy the offending country by mass bombings and missle attacks . You can bet the United States is still playing a very active role in this war on Libya even though the the administration says it is stepping aside.
Tens of millions of dollars are being poured in this fiasco with Obama using the excuse that we are protecting the Libyan people. If that were the case why isn't Obama and his cohorts bombing and using military force against Syria? The government of Syria is presently slaughtering more people there on an every day basis that Gadahfi has done to date. Will Obama use military against the other Arab countries in the region that are now killing their people in the streets?
My view of this inappropriate, unwarranted war in Libya is: [ politics, oil, and to keep the American peoples mind off of all of the domestic problems ] that Obama and the administration fail to address. War is always a good excuse to divert one's attention from other matters. President George Bush did it and now Obama is playing the same ol' song. Anyone for a one term president? - 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, March 25, 2011
New Jersey Casinos Are Losing Because of the Punitive Smoking Laws
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_______________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is trying to formulate a plan to revitalize and revive gambling in Atlantic City. Even with Ravel opening in 2012, the casino revenues are down 30 percent. I should also say that outside competition is only going to increase. However, Atlantic City had the advantage of 30 years of gaming and they squandered the advantage by being a nanny-state with losing rules and regulations forcing people to change their behavior.
Here is a message, suggestion and advice to Governor Christie and all the rest of the governors in states like Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York. If you really want to compete you have to allow people to express their legal social choices as they see fit without the state stomping on their legal social pleasures.
First and foremost governors, the first move that you should undertake is repeal any and all smoking laws in your casinos. It is nice to be political correct and pass laws that sound like your state is going to take care of a person from the cradle to the grave and that the lawmakers ares going to take care of all of a person's health problems and keep them from dying but when it comes to what a person eats, drinks, and what they ingest into their own body (legal items) is that persons business
People with an agenda want to say second hand smoke will kill everyone around it. Come on! Use your common sense. All of the politicians and people over the age of 50 were brought up in smoke filled rooms. Smoking was prevalent in doctors offices, hotels, bars, and most every business and home in every city in the nation. All of those lawmakers and everyone else conducted business with smokers on an everyday basis and lo' and behold--- all of those lawmakers and lawyers, doctors, business people all raised intelligent children in that smoking atmosphere and it did not harm them. And, all of them are living and conducting business as usual.
Millions of tourists from all over the world want to come to the United States and drink, eat smoke and gamble without the strong arm of government regulations telling the what they can or cannot do.
If you really want to prove the point here's what you governors can do: Have one casino on one corner offer gambling, food, alcohol, and smoking. On the corner across the street have another casino off gaming, food, alcohol and have a total nonsmoking environment. I predict that the casino that offers smoking along with their other social pleasures will do more business than the casino that "does not" allow patrons to smoke.
Governors, let people make their own choices as to where they want to socialize. In fact, that is the real reason these groups that have an agenda want a law to umbrella all business rather than let the "free market" dictate profit. These groups are actually afraid that the business that offers smoking along with their attractions and offerings will do much more business than the nonsmoking establishment.
Governors, all there has to be is a sign stating whether the casino, bar, restaurant, etc., is a smoker friendly establishment or a totally nonsmoking business. In that way the patron can make their own decisions and choose what casino or business they prefer to socialize in.
If you truly believe that a whiff of tobacco smoke from one room that is separated by a closed door can kill a person in another room I'll sell you that bridge in Brooklyn. Lawmakers, all the senior citizens living today is a poster child for living in a smoking environment. Common sense people. That's the key. It's no secret that many of these scientific studies and clinical trials are skewed, and journal articles are fabricated for many reasons such as collecting grant monies, payoffs by chemical and pharmaceutical companies and even promote the authors recognition.
Don't blame all the ills of the world on smoking a cigarette or cigar. Just the pollution in our everyday air on any street in the USA carries more of a danger than someone exposed to a whiff of smoke. Medically, it would take a person standing a few inches apart in front of another person blowing smoke directly into their face continually for not days, not weeks and not months but years to have that person even have the chance of contracting a disease such as cancer.
It's similar to the scientists that pump cancer causing ingredients, food, drink, smoke and products into lab rats and mice. The scientists give the mice extraordinary doses of chemicals, sometimes a thousand times more than what an average person could ever ingest in their lifetime and then these same scientists proclaim that they a certain food, drink, chemical, etc., is bad for a human being.
Don't believe all of the self-serving studies that are put out there and look to the past and present as to how something may affect someone or something. What is good for one person may nor be good for everyone. People die of cancer and other devastating diseases everyday and it's not all because someone sittiing next to them smoked a cigarette . On the other hand you have people around the world that have smoked cigarettes and cigars, drank alcohol , gorged themselves on all of the fried foods, sweets, gravies, soft drinks, etc., and live to be in their 80's 90's and even more. You can see this played out every day around the world.
So, bottom line. Do not treat every person in the nation in a cookie cutter mold. Give the people choices and let them make their own decisions as to how they want to handle their health issues.
Let people smoke. Try my suggestion of smoking or nonsmoking businessesand see the proof will be in the pudding. The smoking establishment with out pace the nonsmoking business with more profits and customer count. What are you afraid of?
_______________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is trying to formulate a plan to revitalize and revive gambling in Atlantic City. Even with Ravel opening in 2012, the casino revenues are down 30 percent. I should also say that outside competition is only going to increase. However, Atlantic City had the advantage of 30 years of gaming and they squandered the advantage by being a nanny-state with losing rules and regulations forcing people to change their behavior.
Here is a message, suggestion and advice to Governor Christie and all the rest of the governors in states like Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York. If you really want to compete you have to allow people to express their legal social choices as they see fit without the state stomping on their legal social pleasures.
First and foremost governors, the first move that you should undertake is repeal any and all smoking laws in your casinos. It is nice to be political correct and pass laws that sound like your state is going to take care of a person from the cradle to the grave and that the lawmakers ares going to take care of all of a person's health problems and keep them from dying but when it comes to what a person eats, drinks, and what they ingest into their own body (legal items) is that persons business
People with an agenda want to say second hand smoke will kill everyone around it. Come on! Use your common sense. All of the politicians and people over the age of 50 were brought up in smoke filled rooms. Smoking was prevalent in doctors offices, hotels, bars, and most every business and home in every city in the nation. All of those lawmakers and everyone else conducted business with smokers on an everyday basis and lo' and behold--- all of those lawmakers and lawyers, doctors, business people all raised intelligent children in that smoking atmosphere and it did not harm them. And, all of them are living and conducting business as usual.
Millions of tourists from all over the world want to come to the United States and drink, eat smoke and gamble without the strong arm of government regulations telling the what they can or cannot do.
If you really want to prove the point here's what you governors can do: Have one casino on one corner offer gambling, food, alcohol, and smoking. On the corner across the street have another casino off gaming, food, alcohol and have a total nonsmoking environment. I predict that the casino that offers smoking along with their other social pleasures will do more business than the casino that "does not" allow patrons to smoke.
Governors, let people make their own choices as to where they want to socialize. In fact, that is the real reason these groups that have an agenda want a law to umbrella all business rather than let the "free market" dictate profit. These groups are actually afraid that the business that offers smoking along with their attractions and offerings will do much more business than the nonsmoking establishment.
Governors, all there has to be is a sign stating whether the casino, bar, restaurant, etc., is a smoker friendly establishment or a totally nonsmoking business. In that way the patron can make their own decisions and choose what casino or business they prefer to socialize in.
If you truly believe that a whiff of tobacco smoke from one room that is separated by a closed door can kill a person in another room I'll sell you that bridge in Brooklyn. Lawmakers, all the senior citizens living today is a poster child for living in a smoking environment. Common sense people. That's the key. It's no secret that many of these scientific studies and clinical trials are skewed, and journal articles are fabricated for many reasons such as collecting grant monies, payoffs by chemical and pharmaceutical companies and even promote the authors recognition.
Don't blame all the ills of the world on smoking a cigarette or cigar. Just the pollution in our everyday air on any street in the USA carries more of a danger than someone exposed to a whiff of smoke. Medically, it would take a person standing a few inches apart in front of another person blowing smoke directly into their face continually for not days, not weeks and not months but years to have that person even have the chance of contracting a disease such as cancer.
It's similar to the scientists that pump cancer causing ingredients, food, drink, smoke and products into lab rats and mice. The scientists give the mice extraordinary doses of chemicals, sometimes a thousand times more than what an average person could ever ingest in their lifetime and then these same scientists proclaim that they a certain food, drink, chemical, etc., is bad for a human being.
Don't believe all of the self-serving studies that are put out there and look to the past and present as to how something may affect someone or something. What is good for one person may nor be good for everyone. People die of cancer and other devastating diseases everyday and it's not all because someone sittiing next to them smoked a cigarette . On the other hand you have people around the world that have smoked cigarettes and cigars, drank alcohol , gorged themselves on all of the fried foods, sweets, gravies, soft drinks, etc., and live to be in their 80's 90's and even more. You can see this played out every day around the world.
So, bottom line. Do not treat every person in the nation in a cookie cutter mold. Give the people choices and let them make their own decisions as to how they want to handle their health issues.
Let people smoke. Try my suggestion of smoking or nonsmoking businessesand see the proof will be in the pudding. The smoking establishment with out pace the nonsmoking business with more profits and customer count. What are you afraid of?
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Gadhafi Gone? One Of Libya's Own Could Do It
THE DOCTOR IS IN _______________
Obama's wars- Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Libya. For an anti-war president it appears Obama loves to play war.
This attack on Libya should never have involved the United States. If other countries in Europe wanted to invade Libya that is their decision. Can't anyone fight a war without United States intelligence, equipment and manpower?
I applaud the Soviet Union, China and Germany for not going along with an attack on another nation without provocation or in response to an attack on their country. The only reason Obama led this unwarranted attack is because he doesn't like Gadhafi and says "Gadhafi has got to go." A second excuse is Gadhafi is killing his people. Obama, many countries in the Middle East is currently killing their people to stop revolutions. What makes Libya different?
President Obama and the administration could have saved us taxpayers billions of dollars in costs of fighting this useless mini-war on Libya while at the same time ridding Libya of Gadhafi for about $2.00 . Let me pose a hypothetical situation:
The CIA and other intelligence agencies from around the world that want this guy gone could pony up a few thousand dollars each from their countries coffers. For discussion sake let's settle on (one million dollars) and these countries could use the one million dollars to buy off one of Gadhafi's close confidants in his inner circle or even a person in his military. Add an additional $2.00 for the cost of a bullet and Gadhafi could be gone in a second. As an incentive, offer the shooter asylum in a neighboring Muslim country. Result:-Gadhafi gone by one of his own.
A United States citizen didn't take him out nor did a citizen from another allied country. It would read in papers around the world as: " Ridding Libya from Gadhafi was done by a Libyan freedom fighter" who in my opinion would probably be hailed as a hero by the Libyan people.
If Gadhafi was taken out by one of his own there would at least be a plan for some sort of regime change. The new leader could possibly be a high ranking Libyan military person and the transition would be a fairly smooth operation which it clearly isn't now..
Right now Obama and his so called coalition doesn't have any sort of plan once Gadhafi is gone. All this attack force is doing is destroying Libya infrastructure, killing civilians and ruining the country, similar to what was done in Iraq and which Obama says we, the United States taxpayer, has to rebuild for the Libyan people.
This hypothetical scenario could be compared to other real instances where the leader and/or high ranking official of another country was targeted. I'm not condoning an assassination squad like the one that was covertly dispatched to Italy a few years ago to kill an official in a hotel or the CIA's attempt to eliminate Castro decades ago or the Bulgarian that was killed by poison on the tip of an umbrella or the writer that was poisoned by radiation. Those were real instances. I'm talking hypothetical.
However, if it did happen by a Libyan for the cost of a bullet we in the United States and other allied countries could save billions of dollars that are now being spent on this stupid attack of Libya. Once again, my view is: let the Libyan people handle their own problems but if one Libyan wanted to be paid for their efforts and endeavors it would clearly make things a lot easier. - 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
Obama's wars- Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Libya. For an anti-war president it appears Obama loves to play war.
This attack on Libya should never have involved the United States. If other countries in Europe wanted to invade Libya that is their decision. Can't anyone fight a war without United States intelligence, equipment and manpower?
I applaud the Soviet Union, China and Germany for not going along with an attack on another nation without provocation or in response to an attack on their country. The only reason Obama led this unwarranted attack is because he doesn't like Gadhafi and says "Gadhafi has got to go." A second excuse is Gadhafi is killing his people. Obama, many countries in the Middle East is currently killing their people to stop revolutions. What makes Libya different?
President Obama and the administration could have saved us taxpayers billions of dollars in costs of fighting this useless mini-war on Libya while at the same time ridding Libya of Gadhafi for about $2.00 . Let me pose a hypothetical situation:
The CIA and other intelligence agencies from around the world that want this guy gone could pony up a few thousand dollars each from their countries coffers. For discussion sake let's settle on (one million dollars) and these countries could use the one million dollars to buy off one of Gadhafi's close confidants in his inner circle or even a person in his military. Add an additional $2.00 for the cost of a bullet and Gadhafi could be gone in a second. As an incentive, offer the shooter asylum in a neighboring Muslim country. Result:-Gadhafi gone by one of his own.
A United States citizen didn't take him out nor did a citizen from another allied country. It would read in papers around the world as: " Ridding Libya from Gadhafi was done by a Libyan freedom fighter" who in my opinion would probably be hailed as a hero by the Libyan people.
If Gadhafi was taken out by one of his own there would at least be a plan for some sort of regime change. The new leader could possibly be a high ranking Libyan military person and the transition would be a fairly smooth operation which it clearly isn't now..
Right now Obama and his so called coalition doesn't have any sort of plan once Gadhafi is gone. All this attack force is doing is destroying Libya infrastructure, killing civilians and ruining the country, similar to what was done in Iraq and which Obama says we, the United States taxpayer, has to rebuild for the Libyan people.
This hypothetical scenario could be compared to other real instances where the leader and/or high ranking official of another country was targeted. I'm not condoning an assassination squad like the one that was covertly dispatched to Italy a few years ago to kill an official in a hotel or the CIA's attempt to eliminate Castro decades ago or the Bulgarian that was killed by poison on the tip of an umbrella or the writer that was poisoned by radiation. Those were real instances. I'm talking hypothetical.
However, if it did happen by a Libyan for the cost of a bullet we in the United States and other allied countries could save billions of dollars that are now being spent on this stupid attack of Libya. Once again, my view is: let the Libyan people handle their own problems but if one Libyan wanted to be paid for their efforts and endeavors it would clearly make things a lot easier. - 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 U.S. Led the Attack of Libya-Don't Fool Yourself.
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_______________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
More civilians die in Libya because of the United States led attack on that sovereign country. This African country did not bomb America and they did not send Libyan soldiers to the United States to attack our people or infrastructure. The nation of Libya dd not invade the United States in any way, shape or form. All the Libyan government did was attempt to put down an uprising within their borders, a revolution, for lack of a better word. Yet, Obama, the supposed anti-war president and his lackeys put together a rag-tag coalition in name only too preempt a military action against Libya (just because) Obama says: " Col. Gadahafi has got to go!" Wow! for a man that has no stomach for war he is certainly initiating a number of them. In fact, he is still fighting the Afghan war, and the Iraq war, (that's two) and that is what Obama and the administration claims but I say we now have "FOUR" wars that we are engaged in. Here are the two others wars:
1. Pakistan: a silent, covert war that we have been fighting for a few years now and using drones and American military men and women as well as United States military mercenary contractors without disclosing the full extent of the Pakistan war to the American people.
2. Libya: A United States led assault on that country. So, add them up people- - - FOUR WARS.
It is no secret that people in the Middle East are in a revolutionary mode fighting for some freedoms they demand. It started with Egypt and the fury has spread throughout the region. But I say that unless these people in these different countries fight for their freedoms on their own they will not have any freedoms. It is their fight with with their leaders and their governments. Further, I say it is not our fight, it is the peoples of those countries fight, to win or lose on their own merits.
Is Obama going to bomb Yemen, Bahrain, the Sudan, Indonesia? Where does it stop? If this anti-war president wants to protect the people of Libya from government troops, is he going to take the same military action against the governments just mentioned? Government troops in these countries are firing on their citizens to put down the peoples revolution.
In the past few days the United States just spent billions of dollars of our taxpayer monies to interfere with another countries internal problems. If Obama was really serious about this Libyan conflict he wouldn't have been down in Latin America kicking around a soccer ball with school kids or going out on the town with his family. I maintain that if this Libyan attack was serious he would have been in this country, in the White House, from the get-go and would have went on television and explained his reasoning why America had to initiate an attack on another nation without cause (other than the lame excuse) "Gadhafi's got to go."
Personally, I don't think Obama is presidential material. Did I vote for him? Yes I did. However, next time around--"no way". I'll give someone else a shot at making America better and hopefully someone who takes care of us here at home.
Obama has the tendency to say one thing and then does a 180" at the whim of his adviser's. It appears in his world that promises are made to be broken. I would not like to think that these old and new wars that are continuing at the pleasure of Obama is just a misdirection move to cover up his lack of ability to address our serious domestic problems here at home. But it looks more and more like a slight-of-hand game being played by this administration. It's the old shell game. The posture by lawmakers is "look, we are fighting wars " so" don't worry about what we need here in this country right now."
Those billions of dollars that Obama and the administration are throwing down a deep dark hole fighting his wars could be used to great advantage here at home. With the infusion of those war dollars into our economy our country would immediately show a significant turn-a round. Just think, all of that money currently being spent on ships, planes, equipment and personnel as well as all the taxpayer money being spent on improving infrastructure for other countries could be spent in the USA. It's a win situation for America if Obama would stop these sanitized (wars by video game where no one sees who is being killed) and bring our men and women home.
Oh, by the way - - Obama also said that we Americans are going to have to dump billions of dollars into Libya to help rebuild that country after our bombs destroyed it. How's that sit with you America? - 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?
More civilians die in Libya because of the United States led attack on that sovereign country. This African country did not bomb America and they did not send Libyan soldiers to the United States to attack our people or infrastructure. The nation of Libya dd not invade the United States in any way, shape or form. All the Libyan government did was attempt to put down an uprising within their borders, a revolution, for lack of a better word. Yet, Obama, the supposed anti-war president and his lackeys put together a rag-tag coalition in name only too preempt a military action against Libya (just because) Obama says: " Col. Gadahafi has got to go!" Wow! for a man that has no stomach for war he is certainly initiating a number of them. In fact, he is still fighting the Afghan war, and the Iraq war, (that's two) and that is what Obama and the administration claims but I say we now have "FOUR" wars that we are engaged in. Here are the two others wars:
1. Pakistan: a silent, covert war that we have been fighting for a few years now and using drones and American military men and women as well as United States military mercenary contractors without disclosing the full extent of the Pakistan war to the American people.
2. Libya: A United States led assault on that country. So, add them up people- - - FOUR WARS.
It is no secret that people in the Middle East are in a revolutionary mode fighting for some freedoms they demand. It started with Egypt and the fury has spread throughout the region. But I say that unless these people in these different countries fight for their freedoms on their own they will not have any freedoms. It is their fight with with their leaders and their governments. Further, I say it is not our fight, it is the peoples of those countries fight, to win or lose on their own merits.
Is Obama going to bomb Yemen, Bahrain, the Sudan, Indonesia? Where does it stop? If this anti-war president wants to protect the people of Libya from government troops, is he going to take the same military action against the governments just mentioned? Government troops in these countries are firing on their citizens to put down the peoples revolution.
In the past few days the United States just spent billions of dollars of our taxpayer monies to interfere with another countries internal problems. If Obama was really serious about this Libyan conflict he wouldn't have been down in Latin America kicking around a soccer ball with school kids or going out on the town with his family. I maintain that if this Libyan attack was serious he would have been in this country, in the White House, from the get-go and would have went on television and explained his reasoning why America had to initiate an attack on another nation without cause (other than the lame excuse) "Gadhafi's got to go."
Personally, I don't think Obama is presidential material. Did I vote for him? Yes I did. However, next time around--"no way". I'll give someone else a shot at making America better and hopefully someone who takes care of us here at home.
Obama has the tendency to say one thing and then does a 180" at the whim of his adviser's. It appears in his world that promises are made to be broken. I would not like to think that these old and new wars that are continuing at the pleasure of Obama is just a misdirection move to cover up his lack of ability to address our serious domestic problems here at home. But it looks more and more like a slight-of-hand game being played by this administration. It's the old shell game. The posture by lawmakers is "look, we are fighting wars " so" don't worry about what we need here in this country right now."
Those billions of dollars that Obama and the administration are throwing down a deep dark hole fighting his wars could be used to great advantage here at home. With the infusion of those war dollars into our economy our country would immediately show a significant turn-a round. Just think, all of that money currently being spent on ships, planes, equipment and personnel as well as all the taxpayer money being spent on improving infrastructure for other countries could be spent in the USA. It's a win situation for America if Obama would stop these sanitized (wars by video game where no one sees who is being killed) and bring our men and women home.
Oh, by the way - - Obama also said that we Americans are going to have to dump billions of dollars into Libya to help rebuild that country after our bombs destroyed it. How's that sit with you America? - 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)