Hi Everyone:
Lately there have been a lot of tea parties around the country. Tea parties are so named due to the reference to the 1773 Boston tea party, where Bostonians dumped English tea into the Boston harbor to protest the high taxes England put on the tea. But are today's tea parties about taxes or an increase in US debt? I believe it is about both. Are today's tea parties really representative of the American people or a select few? Granted nobody likes an increase in taxes in any shape or form or an increase in the national debt. But why are there tea parties now and not in the recent past?
Let's review the recent past:
-When Ronald Reagan was president, our national debt went from $85 billion to $225 billion and there were no tea parties.
-When George H.W. Bush campaigned for president, he was asked about tax increases and he famously said, read my lips, no new taxes. He didn't live up to his promise and did indeed increase taxes and there were no tea parties. Why? Oh and don't forget that the national deficit in his last year in office went up to $399 billion and again, there were no tea parties.
-By the end of Bill Clinton's eight years as president, he turned the national deficit of into a $231 billion SURPLUS! This was the largest surplus in US history.
-When George W. Bush became president, he turned the largest surplus into the largest deficit in our history. When you read about the deficit under his watch you will see 2 numbers: $1 trillion and $10 trillion dollars. Well which one is correct? The correct number is $10 trillion. Why? Bush kept the war spending of the 2 current wars off the books. Don't forget that the greatest recession since the great depression began during his watch due to his economic policies. It was Bush who originally wanted to bailout AIG and other big banks and investment firms with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. Again, there was not one tea party during his eight years in office. Why not?
Now when Obama took office, according to the so-called "Tea-Bag Revolution," it's all his fault that the country is going bankrupt. What? Obama inherited the great recession and all the problems associated with it. Now there are tea parties across this country. Why now and not before? The truth about these tea parties is on the conservative web site AmericanMajority.org. There it states that they are pushing for lower corporate taxes. If you lower corporate taxes during this recession who makes up that loss in revenue? There is nothing about people's incomes taxes or payroll taxes or small business tax breaks in their web site. Small businesses are the backbone of this country.
As a side note, during the recent Governors race in New Jersey, part of Republican Chris Christie's platform was to reduce property and school taxes. Apparently the majority of voters believed him and Christie won, beating incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine. About a week later, Christie viewed New Jersey's budget and he stated that he would probably not be able to lower the taxes after all. There have been no tea parties, why not?
Obviously the tea parties were formed by the Republican/Conservative parties to voice their disapproval of anything Obama does to try to help this country out of the financial mess he inherited. This makes no sense since they never said boo about the deficits of Reagan, Bush and Bush. Why not? It seems that it was alright for their party leaders to have deficits but when the other party has a deficit it is an all out war against it. Someone speaks with a forked tongue. There is no common sense to the tea parties when it is always one sided.
I believe that everyone on both sides of the aisle should work together to solve our financial problems and get off their high horses!!!!! Both sides have worked together previously and they should work together again.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
NYS Lacks Common Sense re: Pension Reform
Hi Everyone:
Lately I have been reading in the newspaper about retired New York State employees, that has me very po'd. Currently NYS is in dire financial straits. The problems with Wall Street are only part of the problem. The NYS legislature has always been a major part of why this state is so poorly run. It seems that being a NYS employee has more perks after you retire then when one was working for the state.
More and more state employees retire with their full pension and benefits and then are rehired as a NYS employee again. Some retired employees are rehired as police or fire commissioners or elected as a politician or a judge. This double dipping has got to stop ASAP. Somehow this double dipping is legit. I am not sure how that can be? It is great for the retired/rehired employee since they will make more money in a year with their full pension and new salary combined, then they ever did previously. This added cost of paying a pension to a working again NYS employee, is devastating to the state's pension fund. Since the fall of Wall Street, the NYS pension fund has lost billions and billions of dollars. Having double dippers just adds salt to the wound and increases the money necessary to fund the pension fund.
Someone in the NYS legislative branch must see this and hopefully, he/she or they, should write a bill asap. Then the bill should be enacted as law to stop this insanity. When you retire you can always work somewhere else other then for the state, if you are in need of extra income. The law should state that when you retire you are ineligible to work for the state while collecting the pension and benefits. The law should also have some kind of allowance for those retired employees who wish to return to work for the state or are elected to a political position or are requested to return to the state's employment. In that scenario, the retired/rehired employee should have their pensions stopped as well as the benefits that come with it. The new retired/rehired employee can then receive their new salary and the benefits that come with the position.
To me, a bill like that just makes common sense. Double dipping has got to stop!
Common sense rules and double dipping drools.
Til next week.
Lately I have been reading in the newspaper about retired New York State employees, that has me very po'd. Currently NYS is in dire financial straits. The problems with Wall Street are only part of the problem. The NYS legislature has always been a major part of why this state is so poorly run. It seems that being a NYS employee has more perks after you retire then when one was working for the state.
More and more state employees retire with their full pension and benefits and then are rehired as a NYS employee again. Some retired employees are rehired as police or fire commissioners or elected as a politician or a judge. This double dipping has got to stop ASAP. Somehow this double dipping is legit. I am not sure how that can be? It is great for the retired/rehired employee since they will make more money in a year with their full pension and new salary combined, then they ever did previously. This added cost of paying a pension to a working again NYS employee, is devastating to the state's pension fund. Since the fall of Wall Street, the NYS pension fund has lost billions and billions of dollars. Having double dippers just adds salt to the wound and increases the money necessary to fund the pension fund.
Someone in the NYS legislative branch must see this and hopefully, he/she or they, should write a bill asap. Then the bill should be enacted as law to stop this insanity. When you retire you can always work somewhere else other then for the state, if you are in need of extra income. The law should state that when you retire you are ineligible to work for the state while collecting the pension and benefits. The law should also have some kind of allowance for those retired employees who wish to return to work for the state or are elected to a political position or are requested to return to the state's employment. In that scenario, the retired/rehired employee should have their pensions stopped as well as the benefits that come with it. The new retired/rehired employee can then receive their new salary and the benefits that come with the position.
To me, a bill like that just makes common sense. Double dipping has got to stop!
Common sense rules and double dipping drools.
Til next week.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Delware School Board Uses Common Sense
Hi Everyone:
By now I'm pretty sure you have all heard about the Delaware first grader who brought his favorite camping utensil to school; to eat his lunch with. The utensil contained a folding knife, fork and spoon. To make a long story short, he got into a whole lot of trouble. He faced 45 days of suspension from his regular school and to instead attend 45 days in an alternative school for troublemakers as punishment.
The Christina School District has 17,000 students, which includes parts of the city of Wilmington and its suburbs. Due to what has previously happened in schools, it was no wonder that a zero-tolerance took hold and that there was no deviation allowed from the punishments handed out. Last year, a fifth grader in the Christina School District, was ordered expelled after she brought a birthday cake and a serrated knife to cut it with.
Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and the expulsion was overturned and that led to a new state law that gave school districts more flexibility on punishments. Unfortunately, the new law only applied to expulsions and not to suspensions. So the same school board now faced a vote on whether to instead suspend the first grader.
The seven member Christina School Board, using some good old common sense, voted unanimously to reduce the punishment for kindergartners and first graders who take weapons to school to a suspension ranging from three to five days. The first grader would be allowed back in school asap.
I really hope for just three things:
1) That each case is individually looked at and not just rubber stamped with "the" punishment.
2) That common sense is part of the equation.
3) That more school districts adopt a similar policy.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
By now I'm pretty sure you have all heard about the Delaware first grader who brought his favorite camping utensil to school; to eat his lunch with. The utensil contained a folding knife, fork and spoon. To make a long story short, he got into a whole lot of trouble. He faced 45 days of suspension from his regular school and to instead attend 45 days in an alternative school for troublemakers as punishment.
The Christina School District has 17,000 students, which includes parts of the city of Wilmington and its suburbs. Due to what has previously happened in schools, it was no wonder that a zero-tolerance took hold and that there was no deviation allowed from the punishments handed out. Last year, a fifth grader in the Christina School District, was ordered expelled after she brought a birthday cake and a serrated knife to cut it with.
Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and the expulsion was overturned and that led to a new state law that gave school districts more flexibility on punishments. Unfortunately, the new law only applied to expulsions and not to suspensions. So the same school board now faced a vote on whether to instead suspend the first grader.
The seven member Christina School Board, using some good old common sense, voted unanimously to reduce the punishment for kindergartners and first graders who take weapons to school to a suspension ranging from three to five days. The first grader would be allowed back in school asap.
I really hope for just three things:
1) That each case is individually looked at and not just rubber stamped with "the" punishment.
2) That common sense is part of the equation.
3) That more school districts adopt a similar policy.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Paying Bonuses Without Using Common Sense
Hi Everyone:
Before I begin with today's topic I have to correct a statement I made last week. After posting last week's blog, I found out that Bank of America (BOA) will be paying out bonuses that are in the tens of millions of dollars. I sincerely apologize for the mistake. I do try to be a accurate as possible. But what really gets my blood boiling is that BOA will be paying out those bonuses even though they lost approximately one billion dollars in total as a company and also have not fully repaid the bailout money that they received from all of us taxpayers.
That brings me to today's topic. Ask yourself this question, does it make any sense for a company to pay out bonuses when that company (as a whole), lost a lot of money, i.e.: one billion dollars? If you have any common sense, your answer should be a definitive NO!
My business experience has included working for a couple of very large Fortune 100 companies, with tens of thousands of employees world wide. My business experience also includes working for some small and start up ventures with as few as 130 employees. Most of the companies did have something in common which was: bonuses were part of the compensation package. Another commonality of most of the companies that I worked for was that no bonuses were paid out if the company as a whole lost any money. That meant that bonuses were only paid out when the company as a whole turned a profit for the year. In my multiple location companies, the next step was that the regional area (as a whole) also had to be profitable. Then and only then would a bonus be paid out. Now in a regional area that was composed of multiple locations, there were some individual locations that fell short of their profitability goals and even though the company as a whole was profitable and their region as a whole was profitable, if their individual location lost money, that location(s) was/were ineligible for any bonuses, period. That formula made sense to everyone involved in the bonus plan. The formula also made good business sense.
So why does Bank of America think it is okay to pay out almost $30 million dollars? Let's recap:
1) The BOA company as a whole lost almost 1 billion dollars, so no bonuses should be paid out!
2) BOA has not fully repaid the bailout money it so desperately needed and received, so no bonuses should be paid out!
3) In essence, BOA is paying out the bonuses with some part (who knows how much) of the bailout money, so no bonuses should be paid out!
It is painfully obvious that BOA does not use any common sense. Again, as I said last week, we should all be mad as hell and tell them we are not going to take it anymore.
Good common sense makes good business sense and which makes more cents.
Til next week
Before I begin with today's topic I have to correct a statement I made last week. After posting last week's blog, I found out that Bank of America (BOA) will be paying out bonuses that are in the tens of millions of dollars. I sincerely apologize for the mistake. I do try to be a accurate as possible. But what really gets my blood boiling is that BOA will be paying out those bonuses even though they lost approximately one billion dollars in total as a company and also have not fully repaid the bailout money that they received from all of us taxpayers.
That brings me to today's topic. Ask yourself this question, does it make any sense for a company to pay out bonuses when that company (as a whole), lost a lot of money, i.e.: one billion dollars? If you have any common sense, your answer should be a definitive NO!
My business experience has included working for a couple of very large Fortune 100 companies, with tens of thousands of employees world wide. My business experience also includes working for some small and start up ventures with as few as 130 employees. Most of the companies did have something in common which was: bonuses were part of the compensation package. Another commonality of most of the companies that I worked for was that no bonuses were paid out if the company as a whole lost any money. That meant that bonuses were only paid out when the company as a whole turned a profit for the year. In my multiple location companies, the next step was that the regional area (as a whole) also had to be profitable. Then and only then would a bonus be paid out. Now in a regional area that was composed of multiple locations, there were some individual locations that fell short of their profitability goals and even though the company as a whole was profitable and their region as a whole was profitable, if their individual location lost money, that location(s) was/were ineligible for any bonuses, period. That formula made sense to everyone involved in the bonus plan. The formula also made good business sense.
So why does Bank of America think it is okay to pay out almost $30 million dollars? Let's recap:
1) The BOA company as a whole lost almost 1 billion dollars, so no bonuses should be paid out!
2) BOA has not fully repaid the bailout money it so desperately needed and received, so no bonuses should be paid out!
3) In essence, BOA is paying out the bonuses with some part (who knows how much) of the bailout money, so no bonuses should be paid out!
It is painfully obvious that BOA does not use any common sense. Again, as I said last week, we should all be mad as hell and tell them we are not going to take it anymore.
Good common sense makes good business sense and which makes more cents.
Til next week
Sunday, October 18, 2009
They Are At It Again!
Hi Everyone:
Something is about to happen that should make all of us yell out our windows that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore! What I am talking about is that the big banks are about to dole out 140 billion dollars in bonuses. WHAT!!!!!! Yes! JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo are about to do just that. Bank of America will not be joining that group due to the fact that they lost a billion dollars. But the other 3 have just made the most money in their history and therefore feel it necessary to pay out huge bonuses.
Let's look at their recent history. Last year these same big 3 banks paid out 130 billion dollars in bonuses. Lest we forget that it was these same banks that thought it was a good idea to sell sub-prime mortgages which broke the camels back and pushed us into the "Great Recession". The same employees that pushed and sold the sub-prime mortgages were the ones who were rewarded with huge bonuses because they made an obscene amount of money for their employers. But wait, then the mortgagees then started to default on their loans and these banks didn't have enough reserves to cover the defaults. Then what happened? They asked for and received bailout money that was in the billions and billions of dollars. Where did all of that bailout money come from? The U.S. government of course, which we all know is made up of all of the hard working tax payers in this country.
Everyone in this country should be extremely outraged. Why? Well it seems that these banks have not fully paid back their bailout loans yet. They do not seem to care about reimbursing us, the tax payers first. What these banks seem to care about is to pay these outrageous bonuses to keep their so-called top performing employees. Top performing employees? These are the same employees who created the idea and then sold the sub-prime mortgages which led to the, (had to be anticipated) loan defaults, which led to our "Great Recession" which then ultimately led to them receiving the bailout money. These are their best employees? You have got to be kidding to me!
These banks have no right, what so ever, to pay out bonuses with our money without paying us back first. How dare they!!!!!!! The very sad and unfortunate part of this continuing saga is that these banks didn't make their most recent obscene profits from doing what banks used to do best and that was making loans. These banks, even with all of the bailout money they received, didn't make credit more available. They did the complete opposite, by making credit less available. First they used the bailout money to shore up their bottom lines and then they made all of these profits by doing anything but giving out more loans. They invested in risking ventures that happened to turn profitable. Good for them, bad for us. PAY US BACK OUR MONEY FIRST YOU SHYSTERS!
Now since they have no intentions of paying back the bailout money first, I have an idea that we should all consider..................... There are thousands of small town banks and who knows how many small investment firms in this country that did not sell sub-prime mortgages and are consequently in great financial shape. Why don't we all take our money out of the big banks and invest it in the small town banks and financially solvent investment firms? This would send a message to the big banks that they will understand and also tell them that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore.
Common sense rules and greedy banks don't make any sense.
Til next week.
Something is about to happen that should make all of us yell out our windows that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore! What I am talking about is that the big banks are about to dole out 140 billion dollars in bonuses. WHAT!!!!!! Yes! JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo are about to do just that. Bank of America will not be joining that group due to the fact that they lost a billion dollars. But the other 3 have just made the most money in their history and therefore feel it necessary to pay out huge bonuses.
Let's look at their recent history. Last year these same big 3 banks paid out 130 billion dollars in bonuses. Lest we forget that it was these same banks that thought it was a good idea to sell sub-prime mortgages which broke the camels back and pushed us into the "Great Recession". The same employees that pushed and sold the sub-prime mortgages were the ones who were rewarded with huge bonuses because they made an obscene amount of money for their employers. But wait, then the mortgagees then started to default on their loans and these banks didn't have enough reserves to cover the defaults. Then what happened? They asked for and received bailout money that was in the billions and billions of dollars. Where did all of that bailout money come from? The U.S. government of course, which we all know is made up of all of the hard working tax payers in this country.
Everyone in this country should be extremely outraged. Why? Well it seems that these banks have not fully paid back their bailout loans yet. They do not seem to care about reimbursing us, the tax payers first. What these banks seem to care about is to pay these outrageous bonuses to keep their so-called top performing employees. Top performing employees? These are the same employees who created the idea and then sold the sub-prime mortgages which led to the, (had to be anticipated) loan defaults, which led to our "Great Recession" which then ultimately led to them receiving the bailout money. These are their best employees? You have got to be kidding to me!
These banks have no right, what so ever, to pay out bonuses with our money without paying us back first. How dare they!!!!!!! The very sad and unfortunate part of this continuing saga is that these banks didn't make their most recent obscene profits from doing what banks used to do best and that was making loans. These banks, even with all of the bailout money they received, didn't make credit more available. They did the complete opposite, by making credit less available. First they used the bailout money to shore up their bottom lines and then they made all of these profits by doing anything but giving out more loans. They invested in risking ventures that happened to turn profitable. Good for them, bad for us. PAY US BACK OUR MONEY FIRST YOU SHYSTERS!
Now since they have no intentions of paying back the bailout money first, I have an idea that we should all consider..................... There are thousands of small town banks and who knows how many small investment firms in this country that did not sell sub-prime mortgages and are consequently in great financial shape. Why don't we all take our money out of the big banks and invest it in the small town banks and financially solvent investment firms? This would send a message to the big banks that they will understand and also tell them that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore.
Common sense rules and greedy banks don't make any sense.
Til next week.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Motorcycle Riding In CT.
Hi Everyone:
I was in Connecticut last week and I was amazed at what still goes on in this state. As I was traveling on a major highway, Route 84, numerous motorcyclists passed me. What was disconcerting to me is that one can still ride a motorcycle in Connecticut without wearing a helmet. None of the motorcyclists that passed me were wearing a helmet. The funny thing is that a few of them did have a helmet strapped down on the seat behind them. Since New York state requires wearing a helmet, they were prepared to cross the state line.
The lack of a law requiring the wearing of a helmet just doesn't make any common sense to me. A bad accident on a motorcycle is almost always worse for the driver then if they were driving a car. There is obviously no protective barrier in the front, back or sides. There are also no front or side airbags to help protect the driver. There are no seat belts. Though I'm not sure that would even be an option. So what is left to protect the driver? Besides wearing body armor, which no one would wear; wearing a helmet is about the only really protection a driver can wear.
Besides the obvious fact of a fatality due to a catastrophic head injury, non-lethal but severe head injuries can be devastating not only to the driver but also to their families and friends. Coma's are not an unusual result of severe head injuries. Even if the driver does not go into a coma, it is also not unusual for the driver to have to live the rest of their lives with: memory problems, speech problems, eyesight problems, or the loss of the use of a limb or two or all. Even after undergoing intense physical therapy and most likely occupational therapy (to relearn the regular activities of daily living), that can last for weeks and months, there are no guarantees that the person will ever be their normal self again. All of that because they chose not to wear a helmet because there was no law requiring it.
There are a lot of insurance policies that have caps as to how much the insurance will cover over a lifetime. The insurance companies call it the lifetime max. It doesn't take long to max out an insurance policy with severe head and body injuries. When that insurance runs out and they are still in need of medical care, maybe even lifetime care, they will then be covered by medicare which we all pay for via deductions from our paychecks. Then insurance costs increase and is passed on to each and every one of us.
Wearing a helmet doesn't guarantee that the wearer will escape a severe head injury, but it may minimize it. In my point of view, whether or not there is a law requiring the wearing of a helmet, it just makes common sense to wear one! The old saying goes that it is better to be safe than sorry. I'm not sure feeling the wind in your hair is worth the possible lifetime problems that can and do occur in a motorcycle accident.
Common sense rules and hair blowing in the wind looses.
Til next week.
I was in Connecticut last week and I was amazed at what still goes on in this state. As I was traveling on a major highway, Route 84, numerous motorcyclists passed me. What was disconcerting to me is that one can still ride a motorcycle in Connecticut without wearing a helmet. None of the motorcyclists that passed me were wearing a helmet. The funny thing is that a few of them did have a helmet strapped down on the seat behind them. Since New York state requires wearing a helmet, they were prepared to cross the state line.
The lack of a law requiring the wearing of a helmet just doesn't make any common sense to me. A bad accident on a motorcycle is almost always worse for the driver then if they were driving a car. There is obviously no protective barrier in the front, back or sides. There are also no front or side airbags to help protect the driver. There are no seat belts. Though I'm not sure that would even be an option. So what is left to protect the driver? Besides wearing body armor, which no one would wear; wearing a helmet is about the only really protection a driver can wear.
Besides the obvious fact of a fatality due to a catastrophic head injury, non-lethal but severe head injuries can be devastating not only to the driver but also to their families and friends. Coma's are not an unusual result of severe head injuries. Even if the driver does not go into a coma, it is also not unusual for the driver to have to live the rest of their lives with: memory problems, speech problems, eyesight problems, or the loss of the use of a limb or two or all. Even after undergoing intense physical therapy and most likely occupational therapy (to relearn the regular activities of daily living), that can last for weeks and months, there are no guarantees that the person will ever be their normal self again. All of that because they chose not to wear a helmet because there was no law requiring it.
There are a lot of insurance policies that have caps as to how much the insurance will cover over a lifetime. The insurance companies call it the lifetime max. It doesn't take long to max out an insurance policy with severe head and body injuries. When that insurance runs out and they are still in need of medical care, maybe even lifetime care, they will then be covered by medicare which we all pay for via deductions from our paychecks. Then insurance costs increase and is passed on to each and every one of us.
Wearing a helmet doesn't guarantee that the wearer will escape a severe head injury, but it may minimize it. In my point of view, whether or not there is a law requiring the wearing of a helmet, it just makes common sense to wear one! The old saying goes that it is better to be safe than sorry. I'm not sure feeling the wind in your hair is worth the possible lifetime problems that can and do occur in a motorcycle accident.
Common sense rules and hair blowing in the wind looses.
Til next week.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
H1N1 Flu Vaccine vs Common Sense
Hi Everyone:
I learned this week that a while ago, New York State passed a law that mandates all health care professionals to get the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine. Sounds like a good idea right? Well not according to a minority of health care professionals here in New York State.
It seems that there are some health care professionals that are against receiving the vaccine. They say that it is wrong to mandate it because it is against their civil liberties. They plan NOT to get the vaccine and fight having to receive it every step of the way, including filing a lawsuit. Oh you've got to be kidding me. Can these health care professionals be serious? Health care professionals are part of the first responders that care for people who are sick.
The 1918 flu epidemic that swept across the world killed millions of people. Even though this years swine flu will not be that bad, scientists are concerned that this second round of swine flu may mutate and consequently sicken and most likely, more people will die from it then last year, especially if they have other health problems i.e.: any type of lung disease. Why then don't those Health Care Professionals want to get the vaccine? Not receiving the vaccine is extremely short sighted and they are the ones who should and do know better. The bigger picture is that if the vaccine works, then it is good for the larger population so that the flu is not spread by the professionals who treat them. To me that is absolutely the only common sense approach to help stem the spread of the flu by health care professionals to others who may not be infected, including their own families and friends.
Of course there are other ways that all of us can help to stop the spread. A few of those ways are: 1) Sneeze into the crux of your elbow.
2) If you sneeze into a tissue, throw the tissue out asap and don't put it in your pocket.
3) If you are sick, stay home.
4) Wash your hands thoroughly.
5) If you touch handrails, doorknobs, handles or any other surface that other people touch, do not touch your eyes, nose or mouth. Then wash your hands as soon as you are able.
6) Never press elevator buttons with the tip of your finger, use your knuckle instead.
7) Use common sense.
I learned this week that a while ago, New York State passed a law that mandates all health care professionals to get the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine. Sounds like a good idea right? Well not according to a minority of health care professionals here in New York State.
It seems that there are some health care professionals that are against receiving the vaccine. They say that it is wrong to mandate it because it is against their civil liberties. They plan NOT to get the vaccine and fight having to receive it every step of the way, including filing a lawsuit. Oh you've got to be kidding me. Can these health care professionals be serious? Health care professionals are part of the first responders that care for people who are sick.
The 1918 flu epidemic that swept across the world killed millions of people. Even though this years swine flu will not be that bad, scientists are concerned that this second round of swine flu may mutate and consequently sicken and most likely, more people will die from it then last year, especially if they have other health problems i.e.: any type of lung disease. Why then don't those Health Care Professionals want to get the vaccine? Not receiving the vaccine is extremely short sighted and they are the ones who should and do know better. The bigger picture is that if the vaccine works, then it is good for the larger population so that the flu is not spread by the professionals who treat them. To me that is absolutely the only common sense approach to help stem the spread of the flu by health care professionals to others who may not be infected, including their own families and friends.
Of course there are other ways that all of us can help to stop the spread. A few of those ways are: 1) Sneeze into the crux of your elbow.
2) If you sneeze into a tissue, throw the tissue out asap and don't put it in your pocket.
3) If you are sick, stay home.
4) Wash your hands thoroughly.
5) If you touch handrails, doorknobs, handles or any other surface that other people touch, do not touch your eyes, nose or mouth. Then wash your hands as soon as you are able.
6) Never press elevator buttons with the tip of your finger, use your knuckle instead.
7) Use common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)