Friday, March 28, 2008

What health issues will prevent immigration to the US

What health issues will prevent immigration to the US?
My girl friend had tuberculosis as a child in Mexico, as well as hepatitis, both presumably treated properly. Will the health exam during the visa application process reveal her past illness and stop us in our tracks?
Immigration - 2 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Probably not - they let in people with AIDS.
2 :
Unlikely since TB is not active and Hepatitis has resolved as well . They do check for TB they dont check for hepatitis.

Read more discussions :

Monday, March 24, 2008

Do you think Bush is doing right thing about the health insurance

Do you think Bush is doing right thing about the health insurance?
"WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance." This guy really don't think about the future and health of the next generation. If you want productive country, then you can't have with disabled nation and its citizens. LOL, yeah right. You guys are probably soo young that your parents still probably have you on their health insurance. Right?? You probably don't have any clue what health insurance cost. You will find out someday. Oh yeah. Oh yeah, maybe in 10 years or so, email me on that matter and tell me how are you doing with it. Hmmmm?
Politics - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yup, they wanted a confrontation, and now they have one. Once they waste a bunch of time and fail to get the override votes, and get all done using children as a wedge to try to make the President look bad, maybe they will fund the SCHIP program. - EDIT: LOL back atcha' - I pay 500 a month for COBRA, and I don't want to pay for anyone else. -
2 :
Excuse me!! bush and doing a "right thing"!!!
3 :
You're not going to have "a disabled nation and it's citizens" just because some people don't have to pay ALL of some other people's bills.... YES, Bush did the RIGHT THING. There are more parents who are taxpayers than there are parents who participate in this program. The money saved, we can spend on OUR children. So, he vetoed the bill "for the children." So there - PAY YOUR OWN STINKING BILLS! Please see my "about me" section, and see my questions about this issue and about why the government should provide me with free single malt scotch. Hey, I don't "have" any - and some people do "have" some - that's not "fair" - the government should provide me with a bottle of Oban - I demand it in the name of fairness! I have kids! A free Oban program would be "for the children!"
4 :
Yes I do. We really need to make sure the poor that the original bill was intended to help are taken care of before allowing children from upper middle class families to take part.........
5 :
Well why not provide a place to live , all the food to eat , cloths, and a car........ Like Hitler used to say , " You must be healthy for the good of the Reich"!!
6 :
Yes. He did exactly the right thing. The bill would have provided coverage for children in families making $80,000 a year. This is bad politically for Bush(because most people only hear "Bush doesn't like children") but it was absolutely the right thing to do. Once again, Bush stands on principle and what is right for the country NOT what sounds good.
7 :
For the hundredth time today; it was a terrible bill. Try reading up on it and then explain how a child whose family income is 80k is in any way impoverished, or how a 25 year old adult is a "child". Stop being so naive. It's that lack of education on your part (not understanding the nature of the legislation) that leads to Americans being over taxed and contributes to economic decline. Wake up and thank God you have a President who indeed cares about the future of the country.
8 :
I don't believe, some of these responses!! SHEEP RALLY, going on here!! usual bush lovers! And, no, i don't believe bush does any thing right!

Read more discussions :

Thursday, March 20, 2008

What is the most important to the children of America- Health, Financial Stability, or Education

What is the most important to the children of America- Health, Financial Stability, or Education ?

Economics - 1 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Based on how we have prospered while education has declined and health care becomes dear, I would say Financial Stability.

Read more discussions :

Sunday, March 16, 2008

How can we concretely help the World : clean water, food, Health/spread of HIV/AIDS, child protection

How can we concretely help the World : clean water, food, Health/spread of HIV/AIDS, child protection...?
I think that everyone (especially developped countries) should have to go in a mission as an United Nations Volunteer (UNV) for 6 months min. So many people needs our knowledge and Help and inexorably money.Information, Education...And let's forget about any African debts...so ashamed of what we could do and that we don't so much...so much people careless and ignorant. Let's tell the World for once!
Other - Society & Culture - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
we need more people like you, now start working.....
2 :
by understanding the current 'wrong distribution of wealth'... lessen our greeds and focusing on humanity... Consider the global priorities in spending in 1998 *Global Priority*$U.S. Billions Cosmetics in the United States8 Ice cream in Europe11 Perfumes in Europe and the United States12 Pet foods in Europe and the United States17 Business entertainment in Japan35 Cigarettes in Europe50 Alcoholic drinks in Europe105 Narcotics drugs in the world400 Military spending in the world780 And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic social services in all developing countries: *Global Priority*$U.S. Billions Basic education for all6 Water and sanitation for all9 Reproductive health for all women12 Basic health and nutrition13
3 :
Sorry to say that even though I had the same feelings and volunteered for such a job in Kenya Africa.The NGO supported by UK funding wanted to pay stingy salary for such a job and I had no other option but to say QUITS
4 :
Developing nations do not lack volenteers. They lack stable governments free of coruption. Hugo Chavez for example is determined to run Venuzuala into oblivion. Saddam did a great job of destroying Iraq. Pinochet Argintinia, and so on. , The two party system is doing a great job of leading the US down the road to self destruction. In a similer question 5 major causes of poverty were established. 1. Corruption. 2 - domestic conflicts (i.e. coups, tribal wars that lasts for generations, domestic terrorism) 3 - lack of jobs and education 4 - natural disasters destroying infrastructures every year 5 - over population While any of the top 4 reasons persist no amount of money can help a nation. Nor can the entire worlds popluation descending on that nation to help give them signifcant lasting aid. #3 is a direct cause and effect of #1 in all nations except those completely lacking in natural resources. Still the Bahammass have managed to forge a strong economy despite a complete lack of resources. They did this by not having a corrupt Government. $5 can be overcome if the other 4 problems are solved. #5 will tend to solve itself anyway as education and affluence improve. Wealthy people are busy people and also are sometimes wealthy because they limit the number of children they have and start to have children later in life. Children are expensive and having children too early even in developed nations is often to bind yoruself into economic slavery. So a concrete method which will actually help the world is the foundation of groups who will promote Democracy and anti-corruption in the third world. That will circumvent media control in nations like Cuba for example to deliever the real news and aid to fight corrupt tyrannies like that found in such nations. Socialism itself is honey to corruption. The more power and influence a Gov has in peoples lives the more opportunity for coruption and the greater the effect corruption will have on people's everyday lives. It is a direct correlation. China has had to resort to the death penalty to attempt to fight corruption. It was corruption which brought the Soviet blcok down. A pervasive corruption that is weathering even a change to a free market economy. Democracy does not guarentee freedom. Only the vigilence of a nations people can guarentee it's own freedom. Once corruption is reduced and the Goverment is lifted off of the market. Then loans and volenteers can make a rapid and meaningfull contribution. You can give a person chained to a huge rock all the jogging gear, water, dietary suppliments and encouragement you want. You can give them books about running. You can teach them all about running but you cannot help them run while they are chained to the rock. Government is a rock. The bigger the Government the bigger the rock all the people in that nation are chained too. A small rock is an annoyance. A big rock is to block all progress and make the person dependent on the rock for it's dailly livelyhood. Government is not the only source of corruption. Culture too must be fought in some parts of the world. Concepts that link a man's machismo to the number of children they are able to sire is a cultural factor that directly contributes to world poverty. Birth control is taboo in some cultures as it defeats a man's ability to procreate, thus lowering that man's status in that culture. A strong work ethic is required to avoid poverty. People have to see real rewards for work or they will always do the bare minium to get by. If a culture creates a situation where hard work is not rewarded then hard work will not happen often. If a family that works hard to get ahead is held back by local Gov or extended family why would any family in that culture strive to succeed? So Corruption is more than a factor of Governent. It's also a factor of culture.

Read more discussions :

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

How does an adult child get power of attorney to care for a sick parent

How does an adult child get power of attorney to care for a sick parent?
Very recently my dad came to live with me and my family. Within this time he was diagnosed with having dementia, from observation he is getting worse as the days go by. To make it short; how do I go about getting power of attorney to handle his everyday affairs from health care, finance, and whatever else? (he is basically becoming a child again) I must add that I have his discharge papers from the hospital that states that he has this sickness. Also wanting to get advice on revoking his licenses ASAP. Any help would be welcomed.
Family - 3 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You would need to contact an attorney and your father would need to sign a Power of Attorney document. Do this fast, because if your father's condition is going down hill every day, the longer you wait the harder it will be to achieve. In order for your father to sign ANY legal document, the lawyer and notary will need to be able to determine that he is of "reasonably sound mind" - meaning that he knows what he is signing and the impact it will have. Ask the attorney about the license thing as well. PS - don't take legal advice from strangers on YA. Go to a legal professional yourself and get real answers.
2 :
It depends if you father has drawn up a power of attorney. If he has, you need to contact the lawyer (preferably who drew it up since he is familiar with your dad) and ask him to start the proceeding to enact the power of attorney. A power of attorney is drawn up in case your father becomes disabled. In it he names the person he wants to care for him. Normally this is discussed beforehand but he may not have done this. If he has not drawn up a power of attorney, see a lawyer and ask him to start the proceedings to have you named the executor of a power of attorney. This means that you will have the legal responsibility to see that your dad is cared for. The hospital papers you have will be helpful but they may not be enough. Nonetheless your dad may protest and in that case having him evaluated by a geriatric psychiatrist will be of help. If he has not been evaluated by a geriatric psychiatrist, start that now because they may be a waiting list. This doctor will provide you with all the medical documentation as to where your dad is in his dementia, where he is going and also follow-up on his increasing loss of abilities. Whatever you do, get a good solid support team to care for your dad that includes a social worker, a general doctor, a psychiatrist, a nurse, and if needed, a physiotherapist to evaluate your home and make it safe. Good luck.
3 :
DUH try using a bit of common sense It is called Power of Attorney for a reason...You have to seek a lawyer that specializes in family law. (I'm thinking that your father isn't the only one who suffers from dementia)

Read more discussions :

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Are there really women who choose late-term abortions because they simply don't want to have a child

Are there really women who choose late-term abortions because they simply don't want to have a child?
I ask this question in all honesty because I have heard that almost all late-term abortions are because of the health of the mother or child. Otherwise, why would anyone wait so long? I just wanted to know whether it ever happens because of an unwanted pregnancy. I guess I was asking more about the US.
Other - Pregnancy & Parenting - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
There is a certain time limit they are allowed to have an abortion in, it's different in different countries I think. So no I don't think women can have late abortions.
2 :
where I live abortion is only allowed in the first trimester unless the mothers life is in danger.
3 :
Women can have an abortion un to 26 weeks i think in the Uk... most will have the abortion before 12 weeks as you will have had two Months with no period, so even if you are living in denial, it would be pretty obvious you were! The later into the pregnancy the harder it comes i suppose... i cannot imagine the docs saying no but you will get asked why you left it so late etc. Some women (my friend was one) didn't actually know she was pregnant until she was 18 weeks, she is quite a big girl and her periods remained regular, it was only when she got ill that she went to the docs. She had an abortion because she is not ready to be a Mum. Other people may wait because they are in denial. maybe they expect the 'baby' to bring them closer to their partner and as the pregnancy goes on they realise they are wrong... they may be scared to tell anyone... they may have been raped.. they may simply have changed their mind all of a sudden?? there are a hundred and one different reasons why a women has an abortion, and so the simple answer is whenever it happens it happens. Everyone is different x
4 :
murdering whores
5 :
I doubt it.
6 :
Unfortunately yes...I used to have a friend who had an abortion at like 19weeks and told everyone she had a miscarriage. It was awful everyone felt sorry for her when she killed her baby. Its sickening to me that people don't see how awful that is.

Read more discussions :

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

At what age should a child start seeing a Pediatrician? I know a lady whose kid is 3 and never sees one.

At what age should a child start seeing a Pediatrician? I know a lady whose kid is 3 and never sees one.?
The child isn't neglected per say, but always seems to be sick. I just feel that the child would stay in much better health if the mother of the child would put forth the effort to get her child a regular Pediatrician that could help oversee the child's general health issues. Instead, the mother relies on the ER every time her child is sick. While the ER is good, they do not specialize in Pediatric care. Am I being paranoid or shouldn't a child at the age of 3 have a regular Pediatrician for their care and wellbeing?
Other - General Health Care - 4 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Your child should see a pediatrician from birth. Usually, they go for checkups pretty routinely, from 3 weeks old on. There's vaccinations that they should be given also. Going to the emergency room every time a child is sick is like shutting the barn door once the horse is out. Prevention for anything is best. She should get a pediatrician immediately.
2 :
A child is supposed to see a pediatrician the moment he/she is born. WHat about when the child was a baby? Did the child have all his/her shots? Sounds like neglect to me!
3 :
call child protective services, any mom should know that a child should be seen by a pediatrition at least one a year. Especially if the child is sick a lot.
4 :
Sure it is ideal for everyone to have a regular doc... but maybe she has financial/insurance issues which prevent her from being able to do so. If you're asking a message board, I suspect you don't know her whole situation. Do NOT call protective services like previous post suggested, they often do more harm than good. If anything, gently let her know you are concerned for the child and ask if there is something you can do to help. As for vaccinations there is much debate as to how effective they really are versus the risk of side effects. There are good arguments on both sides and you should never assume any government mandate is good or true until you do your own research. What some see as neglect, others see as an act of conscience.

Read more discussions :

Saturday, March 1, 2008

What is more just: rationing health care based upon bureaucratic decisions or ability to pay

What is more just: rationing health care based upon bureaucratic decisions or ability to pay?
Both socialzed and free market health care ration health care. In socialized health care, care is rationed based upon bureaucratic decisions. In "free market" health care, care is rationed based upon the ability of the person to pay. Which is more just? Which is more just for a child?
Politics - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Ability to pay especially since if push comes to shove and you get rushed to the ER you will get taken care of but the bureaucrat won't give a darn about it- you're just a number
2 :
Depends on the perspective. The "socialized" (please use in quotation marks) perspective is that users of health care are the community as a whole; thus, 'just' is defined as minimizing the losing individuals. "Free market's" views are that the users are individuals or groups of individuals; thus, 'just' is defined as maximizing the number of individuals 'satisfied.' From both common political and ethical perspective, a child is often unable to contribute to the discussion of 'individuals to be lost' in "socialized health care" or 'user satisfaction' in the "free market." Given the assumptions that pediatric care is satisfactory for most children, "socialized health care" is more just because the intrinsic cost-of-life-saved would then be higher even though some children would fall through the cracks. HOWEVER, given the assumption above and also that the income difference between the richest and poorest people is minimal, the "free market" is more just because parents can decide what is most 'satisfactory' without too much undue financial burden.

Read more discussions :