THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Everybody is blaming the child obesity problem on snacks, soft drinks and fast foods. I guess that would be the political correct thing to do. But the parents should be aware that a number of the anti-psychotic medications that are shoveled into the child each and every day actually causes rapid weigh gain.
A child can very quickly pack on 20 pounds or more within about 10 to 12 weeks after beginning a regimen of some of these medications. Fact is, many doctors can see the child balloon up between treatments.If your child is being treated with anti-psychotic drugs for such things as: attention deficit disorder(s); schizophrenia; a bipolar disorder; autism and /or other behavioral disorders they are a candidate for this obesity side-effect.
The study, one of the largest in children is reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association and it involved 205 New York City-area children. Their ages ranged from 4 to 19 years old. The average age of the child was 14 years old. The children gained an average of between 10 and 20 pounds in an amazing eleven weeks. Between 10 and 36 percent of the children became obese.This study also said that there were increases in blood fats including cholesterol, which is also seen in adults.
Many scientists and doctors worry that this obesity will cause heart problems with the child later in their adult life.The drugs in question, so far, is: Abilify, Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa . The drug makers acknowledge the side effects but they maintain that the drugs are safe.
From last count it appears that there are approximately 2 million children using these anti-psychotic drugs annually. I leave the decision up to you and your doctor to determine if these particular medications are your drug of choice for your child.
My thought? Don't blame child obesity just on a soft drink, a cookie, a piece of candy, etc.--Do your homework.It seems political correctness has been popular this past decade and that's a shame.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Saturday, October 31, 2009
MENTAL PATIENTS- MISDIAGNOSED?
THE DOCTOR IS IN:
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Seniors and children take the biggest brunt of being misdiagnosed with a mental problem while being treated in an emergency room.
Everyday across this country hospitals generally dump patients that arrive in emergency rooms. The hospitals don't want to be bothered with what they think is a mental case. Many hospitals with a busy emergency room resent the fact that they have to do work-ups on patients when the patient walks in. Many feel as though a complete evaluation is a waste of time and often neglect problems relating to the patient.
If hospital personnel would do a timely and accurate work-up they could rule out a number of probable medical problems concerning the patient who presents with mental and psychiatric issues.
The haste in which some of these hospitals choose to dump the patient into a mental health and/or psychiatric facility causes that facility to handle a multitude of actual medical problems that the mental care unit is ill equipped to handle both with proper expertise and proper equipment for the medical problem.
For example, a senior citizen may be sent to the mental health or psychiatric unit with the diagnosis of a psychosis but once the proper intake and a full, complete work-up is done it is discovered that the patient has been experiencing diarrhea or constipation and in many female patients they may be experiencing an infection of the urinary tract . This is not uncommon, especially with the elderly and children. For many patients that are diagnosed as manic, or schizophrenic they were found to be on medications such as amphetamines and really required IV fluids.
I believe there should be a more detailed and complete assessment of patients that are treated in the hospital emergency rooms.- And, that's my opinion.
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's the world treating you?
Seniors and children take the biggest brunt of being misdiagnosed with a mental problem while being treated in an emergency room.
Everyday across this country hospitals generally dump patients that arrive in emergency rooms. The hospitals don't want to be bothered with what they think is a mental case. Many hospitals with a busy emergency room resent the fact that they have to do work-ups on patients when the patient walks in. Many feel as though a complete evaluation is a waste of time and often neglect problems relating to the patient.
If hospital personnel would do a timely and accurate work-up they could rule out a number of probable medical problems concerning the patient who presents with mental and psychiatric issues.
The haste in which some of these hospitals choose to dump the patient into a mental health and/or psychiatric facility causes that facility to handle a multitude of actual medical problems that the mental care unit is ill equipped to handle both with proper expertise and proper equipment for the medical problem.
For example, a senior citizen may be sent to the mental health or psychiatric unit with the diagnosis of a psychosis but once the proper intake and a full, complete work-up is done it is discovered that the patient has been experiencing diarrhea or constipation and in many female patients they may be experiencing an infection of the urinary tract . This is not uncommon, especially with the elderly and children. For many patients that are diagnosed as manic, or schizophrenic they were found to be on medications such as amphetamines and really required IV fluids.
I believe there should be a more detailed and complete assessment of patients that are treated in the hospital emergency rooms.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, October 29, 2009
WE NEED A PUBLIC HEALTH OPTION
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
We're currently spending 2.5 Trillion dollars for United States health care but we are ranked 50th, in the world for quality health care. What a shame. We squander our dollars on other countries needs and projects but fail to address our own health system.
At this point in time our Congress is fighting for a public option in American health care but a few Blue Dog Democrats are refusing to agree with the majority of the Democrats and at least one Independent, Senator Joe Lieberman (I) flatly said that he will vote against the public option.
This is the guy that said he would support the Democratic agenda when he was reelected and President Obama stuck up for him and told the Congress not to demote him or remove him from a powerful seat. Well, pay back is a bitch! However, Lieberman's beholden to the Insurance companies and is taking mounds of money from this industry in return for his opposition to the public option plan.
Then, there is Senator Evan Bayh (D) Indiana, whose wife is associated and aligned with the pharma and/or insurance industry and has received millions of dollars from these companies. The Bayh's own stock in these same industries worth millions of dollars and when the stock prices of the insurance and health care companies surged a few days ago it added kazillions of dollars to their financial accounts.
It seems to me that there is political corruption running throughout this entire health plan. Even though approximately 67% of the people in the United States want and demand a public option politicians like Lieberman and Bayh and all the other group of wanna be Democrats insist on ignoring the will of the people and their own constituents so as to improve their own personal gain.
The Democratic members of Congress should remove Senator Lieberman from his powerful seat and let him know that actions like his are not appreciated and they should also seriously counsel Bayh and point out the glaring conflict and money grab he is enjoying for his own benefit.
It amazes me how these politicians look the voter in the eye and flat out lie. We voters should make these politicians put their commitments in writing prior to electing them to office. At least then, we would have something in writing to hold their feet to the fire with.
The Democrats crying and whining prior to the election said that if we put them into office their majority would be powerful enough to get those changes made and they would vote together as one to realize President Obama's agenda. The only change being seen is the change of dollars from the pharma and insurance companies right into certain Democrats pockets. So much for the will of the people, right? We tired of the bad shake we got from the Republicans over eight years and now the Democrats reneged on their promises.
My feeling is that President Obama should stand up and take a strong stand and insist that he wants a robust public option. He has been sitting back and his milk toast approach is really disappointing. I can see now why in the Illinois Senate he voted "present" often rather than vote "yes or no" on a number of legislative matters. It appears he doesn't like to take a firm stand on issues. During his campaign he sounded great and he gave the impression that would take a strong and firm stand on issues but that didn't turn out to be the case.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley 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?
We're currently spending 2.5 Trillion dollars for United States health care but we are ranked 50th, in the world for quality health care. What a shame. We squander our dollars on other countries needs and projects but fail to address our own health system.
At this point in time our Congress is fighting for a public option in American health care but a few Blue Dog Democrats are refusing to agree with the majority of the Democrats and at least one Independent, Senator Joe Lieberman (I) flatly said that he will vote against the public option.
This is the guy that said he would support the Democratic agenda when he was reelected and President Obama stuck up for him and told the Congress not to demote him or remove him from a powerful seat. Well, pay back is a bitch! However, Lieberman's beholden to the Insurance companies and is taking mounds of money from this industry in return for his opposition to the public option plan.
Then, there is Senator Evan Bayh (D) Indiana, whose wife is associated and aligned with the pharma and/or insurance industry and has received millions of dollars from these companies. The Bayh's own stock in these same industries worth millions of dollars and when the stock prices of the insurance and health care companies surged a few days ago it added kazillions of dollars to their financial accounts.
It seems to me that there is political corruption running throughout this entire health plan. Even though approximately 67% of the people in the United States want and demand a public option politicians like Lieberman and Bayh and all the other group of wanna be Democrats insist on ignoring the will of the people and their own constituents so as to improve their own personal gain.
The Democratic members of Congress should remove Senator Lieberman from his powerful seat and let him know that actions like his are not appreciated and they should also seriously counsel Bayh and point out the glaring conflict and money grab he is enjoying for his own benefit.
It amazes me how these politicians look the voter in the eye and flat out lie. We voters should make these politicians put their commitments in writing prior to electing them to office. At least then, we would have something in writing to hold their feet to the fire with.
The Democrats crying and whining prior to the election said that if we put them into office their majority would be powerful enough to get those changes made and they would vote together as one to realize President Obama's agenda. The only change being seen is the change of dollars from the pharma and insurance companies right into certain Democrats pockets. So much for the will of the people, right? We tired of the bad shake we got from the Republicans over eight years and now the Democrats reneged on their promises.
My feeling is that President Obama should stand up and take a strong stand and insist that he wants a robust public option. He has been sitting back and his milk toast approach is really disappointing. I can see now why in the Illinois Senate he voted "present" often rather than vote "yes or no" on a number of legislative matters. It appears he doesn't like to take a firm stand on issues. During his campaign he sounded great and he gave the impression that would take a strong and firm stand on issues but that didn't turn out to be the case.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
SMOKING BANS & SECONDHAND SMOKE SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
A recent report from the Institute of Medicine claims secondhand smoke is an immediate threat to your life. It states that where smoking bans are in effect the heart attack rate fell. and that smoking bans do not affect loss of business in restaurants, taverns, casinos, etc.,further the report states there is no safe level for secondhand smoke.
I totally disagree with both premises. There have been studies pro and con regarding secondhand smoke. The subject is still very controversial. As to loss of business because of smoking bans the report fails to mention that such bans has caused business profits to drop as much as fifty percent and in many instances fifty percent of the employees had to be laid off while other businesses had to actually close and shut down operations. The point being that some of these alleged scientific reports only put their own spin on the materials they expound on.
Right now in Las Vegas casino profits are down as much as twenty percent. I admit it is not only because of the smoking ban but it has been reported that since many of the tourists and locals cannot eat, drink gamble and smoke at the places of their choice it is a very large part and one of the reasons these losses are being sustained by restaurants, taverns, bars, and casinos. For a state that supposedly caters to adults and is known as sin city the nanny attitude of the legislators and politicians and their failure to allow freedom of choice will continue to hurt the state.
Now! Lets look at what may prevent heart attacks other than secondhand smoke. If a person over indulges in eating pies, cakes, burgers, drinking alcohol breathing in the daily polluted everyday air from traffic and in their home, stress from a job, a persons lifestyle and yes, taking many of the current medications on the market today can cause heart attacks "and" strokes and that is just a fraction of things that can cause heart attacks.
Carrying the simplistic logic of this self serving study to a conclusion - -if, the government also bans fat foods and desserts, bans driving automobiles from the road, and prohibits alcohol consumption that too will cut down on heart attack risk. And, that is true. Removing all of these items from a persons life will also reduce the heart attack rate. But, do we really want that?
How far will this silly political correct thinking take us. People, most anything a person does to improve their diet, nutrition, lifestyle by using common sense can help them avoid a heart attack. It appears some of these organizations choose to write up political correct, self serving studies to either get published or funded by the government and private institutions. They tend to choose a subject that is controversial and then spin it to fit their agenda.
Anyone born before the 1980's were brought up in a smoking society. People smoked in their homes, businesses, doctor and lawyers offices, restaurants and most anywhere they chose and believe it or not these same people who are Congress persons, doctors lawyers and people from all walks of life and professions are currently living a happy, full, life who raised their children in the smoked filled homes and businesses and those children today are living and contributing to society in occupations of their choice. Smoking did not affect their minds like some scientists write about nor did smoking make these people idiots or dumb them down. The country continued to move forward with new inventions and innovations in science and technology, small business and education. And, the world didn't stop! Fact is, it thrived.
The first study by our Surgeon General a few years ago relating to secondhand smoke was flawed in many areas and now these groups that want to push their own agenda come up with a lackluster report saying smoking bans reduce heart attacks.
I submit that most every American knows smoking is not a good thing but to reach out and blame all of the health ills on smoking is outrageous.
The next step by these scientists will be to ban all of the above items mentioned in this article. In fact, it's already started. There is a proposal and movement by some politicians and special interest groups to tax soft drinks and fruit juices and placing a fat tax on such things as burgers and pies and other foods that they think a person shouldn't eat.
These nanny groups are using the excuse that our kids are obese and some of these same people and groups prohibit kids from eating cookies on school grounds. Yet, these same politicians, who by the way, many are fat themselves fail to look at the facts that prove that people are living longer than ever and that any child born this year 2009, will in all likelihood live to be 100 years old.
As a side note it should be mentioned that many of the drugs and medications that are administered to our children right now actually cause them to become obese. Some of the drugs that are being given to the children cause a weight gain up to 30 pounds within a couple of weeks after starting the drug regimen. So, I say it's not cookies and a bottle of soda we have to worry about or smoke from a cigarette in a room separated by another room in which the smoke is not in direct contact with another persons face. We have to worry about these individuals and groups that have a personal agenda and do not disclose all of the information regarding obesity and secondhand smoke and other pet projects on their agenda.
This secondhand smoke issue is just one way for organizations to fuel debate and raise fears in people. I believe that smoking is freedom of choice and optional. The government is saying everyone should have a choice regarding a health plan. I say everyone should have a choice and option as to if they want to indulge in smoking and have the choice as to what they want to eat and drink and do with their own body. People know the risks and consequences of their actions. They can see and read the warning labels on most everything available to them.
I would challenge some of these states that push smoking bans to do an experiment such as: allow the individual business make the choice as to whether to offer smoker friendly services or to operate smoke free establishment. Further they could set up a restaurant, bar, casino or any public business that offers food, drink, gaming or any service and then a block or two away have an exact similar business that offers the same fare but offers a totally smoke free environment and see which one does the best business. I would dare to say that the business that offers all of the same services and/or food and drink plus the choice of smoking would do a much better business.
But that is why the states refuse to let the business and marketplace set the policy and allow people to have a choice of where to eat, drink and patronize. These special interest groups are truly afraid of competition and it would burst their bubble if they saw any business that gave people the choice to either smoke or not to smoke really doing well. That is why they push for state laws to mandate prohibitions.
These "I want to look out after your health", "I know what's good for you " people even ignore the fact that there is and has been air filters on the market for decades that can filter out the air by 99.9% and these filters are being used all over the world today. Yet, these individuals and groups would rather push the fact that such filters cannot filter rooms or buildings. What a joke!
I submit that a person in one room or building smoking a cigarette cannot actually harm another person in the same building that is not in that room while the smoking is occurring. That act has been proven over decades by the smoking public worldwide.
Folks, many of these so-called scientific studies floating around have been skewed and some have been reported to be falsified. I would urge the readers to check the web and see how the scientific community over the past few decades has made up information or put out misinformation in studies either for their own personal gain or to push a specific agenda. Like numbers, reports "do" lie.
If you do want the nanny government and states to control your actions as to what you eat, where you can eat and drink, and what you do with your own body then go along with the current flow. If not, demand freedom of choice and options.
With a choice, no one will be forcing anyone. If a person wants to eat or drink where smoking is allowed they would have that choice and a nonsmoker can make the choice not to enter a smoker friendly business but instead go down the street and select a nonsmoking establishment. And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
You can reach Dr. Kuhns by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
A recent report from the Institute of Medicine claims secondhand smoke is an immediate threat to your life. It states that where smoking bans are in effect the heart attack rate fell. and that smoking bans do not affect loss of business in restaurants, taverns, casinos, etc.,further the report states there is no safe level for secondhand smoke.
I totally disagree with both premises. There have been studies pro and con regarding secondhand smoke. The subject is still very controversial. As to loss of business because of smoking bans the report fails to mention that such bans has caused business profits to drop as much as fifty percent and in many instances fifty percent of the employees had to be laid off while other businesses had to actually close and shut down operations. The point being that some of these alleged scientific reports only put their own spin on the materials they expound on.
Right now in Las Vegas casino profits are down as much as twenty percent. I admit it is not only because of the smoking ban but it has been reported that since many of the tourists and locals cannot eat, drink gamble and smoke at the places of their choice it is a very large part and one of the reasons these losses are being sustained by restaurants, taverns, bars, and casinos. For a state that supposedly caters to adults and is known as sin city the nanny attitude of the legislators and politicians and their failure to allow freedom of choice will continue to hurt the state.
Now! Lets look at what may prevent heart attacks other than secondhand smoke. If a person over indulges in eating pies, cakes, burgers, drinking alcohol breathing in the daily polluted everyday air from traffic and in their home, stress from a job, a persons lifestyle and yes, taking many of the current medications on the market today can cause heart attacks "and" strokes and that is just a fraction of things that can cause heart attacks.
Carrying the simplistic logic of this self serving study to a conclusion - -if, the government also bans fat foods and desserts, bans driving automobiles from the road, and prohibits alcohol consumption that too will cut down on heart attack risk. And, that is true. Removing all of these items from a persons life will also reduce the heart attack rate. But, do we really want that?
How far will this silly political correct thinking take us. People, most anything a person does to improve their diet, nutrition, lifestyle by using common sense can help them avoid a heart attack. It appears some of these organizations choose to write up political correct, self serving studies to either get published or funded by the government and private institutions. They tend to choose a subject that is controversial and then spin it to fit their agenda.
Anyone born before the 1980's were brought up in a smoking society. People smoked in their homes, businesses, doctor and lawyers offices, restaurants and most anywhere they chose and believe it or not these same people who are Congress persons, doctors lawyers and people from all walks of life and professions are currently living a happy, full, life who raised their children in the smoked filled homes and businesses and those children today are living and contributing to society in occupations of their choice. Smoking did not affect their minds like some scientists write about nor did smoking make these people idiots or dumb them down. The country continued to move forward with new inventions and innovations in science and technology, small business and education. And, the world didn't stop! Fact is, it thrived.
The first study by our Surgeon General a few years ago relating to secondhand smoke was flawed in many areas and now these groups that want to push their own agenda come up with a lackluster report saying smoking bans reduce heart attacks.
I submit that most every American knows smoking is not a good thing but to reach out and blame all of the health ills on smoking is outrageous.
The next step by these scientists will be to ban all of the above items mentioned in this article. In fact, it's already started. There is a proposal and movement by some politicians and special interest groups to tax soft drinks and fruit juices and placing a fat tax on such things as burgers and pies and other foods that they think a person shouldn't eat.
These nanny groups are using the excuse that our kids are obese and some of these same people and groups prohibit kids from eating cookies on school grounds. Yet, these same politicians, who by the way, many are fat themselves fail to look at the facts that prove that people are living longer than ever and that any child born this year 2009, will in all likelihood live to be 100 years old.
As a side note it should be mentioned that many of the drugs and medications that are administered to our children right now actually cause them to become obese. Some of the drugs that are being given to the children cause a weight gain up to 30 pounds within a couple of weeks after starting the drug regimen. So, I say it's not cookies and a bottle of soda we have to worry about or smoke from a cigarette in a room separated by another room in which the smoke is not in direct contact with another persons face. We have to worry about these individuals and groups that have a personal agenda and do not disclose all of the information regarding obesity and secondhand smoke and other pet projects on their agenda.
This secondhand smoke issue is just one way for organizations to fuel debate and raise fears in people. I believe that smoking is freedom of choice and optional. The government is saying everyone should have a choice regarding a health plan. I say everyone should have a choice and option as to if they want to indulge in smoking and have the choice as to what they want to eat and drink and do with their own body. People know the risks and consequences of their actions. They can see and read the warning labels on most everything available to them.
I would challenge some of these states that push smoking bans to do an experiment such as: allow the individual business make the choice as to whether to offer smoker friendly services or to operate smoke free establishment. Further they could set up a restaurant, bar, casino or any public business that offers food, drink, gaming or any service and then a block or two away have an exact similar business that offers the same fare but offers a totally smoke free environment and see which one does the best business. I would dare to say that the business that offers all of the same services and/or food and drink plus the choice of smoking would do a much better business.
But that is why the states refuse to let the business and marketplace set the policy and allow people to have a choice of where to eat, drink and patronize. These special interest groups are truly afraid of competition and it would burst their bubble if they saw any business that gave people the choice to either smoke or not to smoke really doing well. That is why they push for state laws to mandate prohibitions.
These "I want to look out after your health", "I know what's good for you " people even ignore the fact that there is and has been air filters on the market for decades that can filter out the air by 99.9% and these filters are being used all over the world today. Yet, these individuals and groups would rather push the fact that such filters cannot filter rooms or buildings. What a joke!
I submit that a person in one room or building smoking a cigarette cannot actually harm another person in the same building that is not in that room while the smoking is occurring. That act has been proven over decades by the smoking public worldwide.
Folks, many of these so-called scientific studies floating around have been skewed and some have been reported to be falsified. I would urge the readers to check the web and see how the scientific community over the past few decades has made up information or put out misinformation in studies either for their own personal gain or to push a specific agenda. Like numbers, reports "do" lie.
If you do want the nanny government and states to control your actions as to what you eat, where you can eat and drink, and what you do with your own body then go along with the current flow. If not, demand freedom of choice and options.
With a choice, no one will be forcing anyone. If a person wants to eat or drink where smoking is allowed they would have that choice and a nonsmoker can make the choice not to enter a smoker friendly business but instead go down the street and select a nonsmoking establishment. And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
You can reach Dr. Kuhns by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, October 26, 2009
AIR PASSENGERS NEED TO FEEL SAFE
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Northwest airline pilots on flight 188 Richard and Timothy B. Cheney missed their destination by 150 miles and put the 144 passengers in harms way. These two pilots have been changing their stories as to what occurred in that cockpit over and over. Originally, they contend they had a argument, then changed that to working on computers checking schedules. I have a bridge in New York to sell you if you believe that.
Ten years ago the NTSB did recommend that all airplanes and helicopters which seat more than ten people have a cockpit recorder that records for two hours. However, this airplane had an out dated recorder that only records thirty minutes. It's obvious the airline industry continue to fall down on the job.
I suggest that all airplane that carry more than ten people should have video recorders inside the cockpit. That would solve many of the problems. The FAA could mandate cockpit video recorders. But so far the pilots oppose video recording in the cockpit. The NTSB and the FAA shouldn't suggest ideas but instead "mandate" the changes.
What are these and all pilots afraid of having video recorders in the cockpit? Taxis, school buses, law enforcement vehicles and many transportation modes have video camera protection.
Since this fiasco many pilots and representatives from the NTSB and FAA have said that it is not uncommon for pilots to fall asleep due to fatigue. If that is the case the pilots should take nap breaks on a rotation basis, one at a time.
I suspect that the pilots opposition to video in the cockpit is only because they want to cover their butts. Since 9-11 the door to the cockpit is basically sealed and even the attendants have no access other than through an intercom system. Proper agencies need more oversight on what is actually occurring the the cockpit.
So,can and does hanky panky go in the cockpit? What could pilots want to hide? Sleeping, drinking,card games,sex? What? If the pilots are professional and are doing their job following all rules and regulations there is no real reason to oppose video cameras operating in the cockpit. With that said, there are lives at stake. In this particular case 144 lives and the FAA and NTSB should take steps to make video cockpit recorders mandatory.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Northwest airline pilots on flight 188 Richard and Timothy B. Cheney missed their destination by 150 miles and put the 144 passengers in harms way. These two pilots have been changing their stories as to what occurred in that cockpit over and over. Originally, they contend they had a argument, then changed that to working on computers checking schedules. I have a bridge in New York to sell you if you believe that.
Ten years ago the NTSB did recommend that all airplanes and helicopters which seat more than ten people have a cockpit recorder that records for two hours. However, this airplane had an out dated recorder that only records thirty minutes. It's obvious the airline industry continue to fall down on the job.
I suggest that all airplane that carry more than ten people should have video recorders inside the cockpit. That would solve many of the problems. The FAA could mandate cockpit video recorders. But so far the pilots oppose video recording in the cockpit. The NTSB and the FAA shouldn't suggest ideas but instead "mandate" the changes.
What are these and all pilots afraid of having video recorders in the cockpit? Taxis, school buses, law enforcement vehicles and many transportation modes have video camera protection.
Since this fiasco many pilots and representatives from the NTSB and FAA have said that it is not uncommon for pilots to fall asleep due to fatigue. If that is the case the pilots should take nap breaks on a rotation basis, one at a time.
I suspect that the pilots opposition to video in the cockpit is only because they want to cover their butts. Since 9-11 the door to the cockpit is basically sealed and even the attendants have no access other than through an intercom system. Proper agencies need more oversight on what is actually occurring the the cockpit.
So,can and does hanky panky go in the cockpit? What could pilots want to hide? Sleeping, drinking,card games,sex? What? If the pilots are professional and are doing their job following all rules and regulations there is no real reason to oppose video cameras operating in the cockpit. With that said, there are lives at stake. In this particular case 144 lives and the FAA and NTSB should take steps to make video cockpit recorders mandatory.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Saturday, October 24, 2009
C.E.O. EXECUTIVE PAY SHOULD BE CUT
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
The Obama administration has decided to cut executive compensation for those companies that were bailed out at taxpayer expense. The companies cried and moaned and said they were on life support and need the money.
Now that they received billions of dollars from us, the taxpayer, these companies continued to pay their employees billions of dollars in in bonuses. They are irate that the Obama administration dare to cut their executive pay at least by 50 percent.
These 175 top executives targeted by the government are threatening to leave the companies and go elsewhere. They say they are the most talented and productive people in the financial world. Really? These are the same idiots that raided wall street, made bad investments and brought the country to the brink of another great depression.
These so called "smarties" say they are the only ones that can fix our financial problems. What arrogance! Why should we retain them? It's the fox watching the hen house.
I have no doubt these so called financial brains will look for loopholes so they can raid the piggy bank again. The wall street supporters say there will be a "brain drain" and these executives will seek employment elsewhere. My thoughts? Let them leave. There are many talented young people graduating from our elite universities and financial think tanks that can do the same job --for much less.
-And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr.Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
The Obama administration has decided to cut executive compensation for those companies that were bailed out at taxpayer expense. The companies cried and moaned and said they were on life support and need the money.
Now that they received billions of dollars from us, the taxpayer, these companies continued to pay their employees billions of dollars in in bonuses. They are irate that the Obama administration dare to cut their executive pay at least by 50 percent.
These 175 top executives targeted by the government are threatening to leave the companies and go elsewhere. They say they are the most talented and productive people in the financial world. Really? These are the same idiots that raided wall street, made bad investments and brought the country to the brink of another great depression.
These so called "smarties" say they are the only ones that can fix our financial problems. What arrogance! Why should we retain them? It's the fox watching the hen house.
I have no doubt these so called financial brains will look for loopholes so they can raid the piggy bank again. The wall street supporters say there will be a "brain drain" and these executives will seek employment elsewhere. My thoughts? Let them leave. There are many talented young people graduating from our elite universities and financial think tanks that can do the same job --for much less.
-And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr.Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, October 18, 2009
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE A GOVERNMENT HEALTH PLAN
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
The Democratic party told us of all the outstanding things they were going to do for the country if we, the voters, would only give them a chance. They insisted that they have to have a majority. We voters gave them a majority in the House, we gave them a Senate majority, filibuster free, and we gave them a Democratic White House. But now they squandered it. Their promise turned out to be a bag of hot air. The only thing they have done so far is pass their inaction onto the Republican Party.
We don't have healthcare even though Obama promised us the same health plan that he and the members of Congress has available to them. This Democratic Party is fighting among themselves mainly because many of those Democrats are beholden to the corrupt obscene lobbyists monies given them by the insurance lobby. Instead of melting into one exceptional voting block Obama and his party choose to splinter and crash.
Theodore Roosevelt attempted to get universal healthcare back in 1912, Richard Nixon wanted National health care in 1974, But even now the Democrats are balking even when 73 percent of the country want a healthcare plan like the one those same politicians enjoy.
Those elite group of people in Congress truly believe they are owed more than the John and Jane Doe working stiff. They have laws that specifically exempt them from crimes that the average citizen does not have and with their own "government health plan" the Congress has a choice of at least a dozen different health plans to choose from. They have that option for themselves. So far, we voters do not have that plan or any plan even with one option choice.
These easy riding politicians even have their own clinic facility on site for their personal use. In this facility they have access to the best treatment and medical specialists from around the United States and from around the world. The best part of this super facility is that these fat cats only have to pay approximately $500.00 a year for this added exceptional health care and even if the person didn't pay their $500.00 annual premium they can still avail themselves to that care because they are one of the club. People! We don't have anything like that. Not even anything close.
So, when you hear these politicians cry out against a government health plan for us little people and their screams that any government plan for us is bad I want you to ask yourself why these same people are sucking up their government health plan for themselves and their families on our dime.
All of those promises made then were made to be broken now. The White House and it's top staff went into this health plan from the get go writing off any universal health care. Senator Raum Emanuel was one of the biggest cheerleaders against universal care or any public option and has talked his home state friend President Obama out of insisting on a public option.
There have been reports that staffers in the White House are afraid to take on Emanuel because of his friendship with President Obama , his friendship with people like Rod Blagojevich, his temper and his sometimes vulgar language when trying to press a point. It seems that Emanuel's position is working because so far President Obama has not really come out strong nor has he taken any stand whatsoever on this important health care option other than saying Congress is working on it. That's a milk toast approach. I submit, the President has to become more aggressive and speak out using his pulpit and insist that any health plan "must" have a public option. Any government health plan that is good enough for them is good enough for us. No more, no less. - And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
The Democratic party told us of all the outstanding things they were going to do for the country if we, the voters, would only give them a chance. They insisted that they have to have a majority. We voters gave them a majority in the House, we gave them a Senate majority, filibuster free, and we gave them a Democratic White House. But now they squandered it. Their promise turned out to be a bag of hot air. The only thing they have done so far is pass their inaction onto the Republican Party.
We don't have healthcare even though Obama promised us the same health plan that he and the members of Congress has available to them. This Democratic Party is fighting among themselves mainly because many of those Democrats are beholden to the corrupt obscene lobbyists monies given them by the insurance lobby. Instead of melting into one exceptional voting block Obama and his party choose to splinter and crash.
Theodore Roosevelt attempted to get universal healthcare back in 1912, Richard Nixon wanted National health care in 1974, But even now the Democrats are balking even when 73 percent of the country want a healthcare plan like the one those same politicians enjoy.
Those elite group of people in Congress truly believe they are owed more than the John and Jane Doe working stiff. They have laws that specifically exempt them from crimes that the average citizen does not have and with their own "government health plan" the Congress has a choice of at least a dozen different health plans to choose from. They have that option for themselves. So far, we voters do not have that plan or any plan even with one option choice.
These easy riding politicians even have their own clinic facility on site for their personal use. In this facility they have access to the best treatment and medical specialists from around the United States and from around the world. The best part of this super facility is that these fat cats only have to pay approximately $500.00 a year for this added exceptional health care and even if the person didn't pay their $500.00 annual premium they can still avail themselves to that care because they are one of the club. People! We don't have anything like that. Not even anything close.
So, when you hear these politicians cry out against a government health plan for us little people and their screams that any government plan for us is bad I want you to ask yourself why these same people are sucking up their government health plan for themselves and their families on our dime.
All of those promises made then were made to be broken now. The White House and it's top staff went into this health plan from the get go writing off any universal health care. Senator Raum Emanuel was one of the biggest cheerleaders against universal care or any public option and has talked his home state friend President Obama out of insisting on a public option.
There have been reports that staffers in the White House are afraid to take on Emanuel because of his friendship with President Obama , his friendship with people like Rod Blagojevich, his temper and his sometimes vulgar language when trying to press a point. It seems that Emanuel's position is working because so far President Obama has not really come out strong nor has he taken any stand whatsoever on this important health care option other than saying Congress is working on it. That's a milk toast approach. I submit, the President has to become more aggressive and speak out using his pulpit and insist that any health plan "must" have a public option. Any government health plan that is good enough for them is good enough for us. No more, no less. - And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)