Archive for the ‘Morgellons’ Category

Running Conscience

Mr. C has faded into history and is no more, but suffice it to say he survived and is a survivor.  He no longer chooses to live here and is moving onto new horizons, feel free to join him or not, he can be found by clicking HERE.

Magnum Opus Coming Soon

The Mundane Approach and me seem to be one and the same, there just is no replacement.

I’ve been thinking about this and have wanted to do this for a few years now. I am going to pull all of the best material from the articles I have written (most from the “All Articles” page) into one cohesive document with some new material in there as well. Including things I left unsaid for a whole host of reasons but will now say in this final post. It seems to me that new cases of Morgellons are not near as common as they were around 2005, 2006 and so on. To me, Morgellons appears to be fading, and that is a good thing.

For posterity and those who come after us the final post on this blog will be a massive compendium of material available on this site, in book format, and in a logical order. When I make that post I will disable all comments and feedback on this site, it will stand forever as a resource for those who come after. It will essentially be static.

I do plan to start a new blog for any that are interested. I’m thinking the title will be “The Forsaken Christian”. That title can go off in many ways, but suffice it to say that will not be anti-Christian, but rather confront an even more formidable and dangerous foe. The title is subject to change before the new blog is created.

Anyway, watch for the Magnum Opus, it will be an incredibly long post, with a few revelations that I dare not say earlier in this nightmare but am ready to talk about now.

Everyone have a Merry Christmas and I hope you are all well.

Obamacare and your sex life

‘Are you sexually active? If so, with one partner, multiple partners or same-sex partners?”

Be ready to answer those questions and more the next time you go to the doctor, whether it’s the dermatologist or the cardiologist and no matter if the questions are unrelated to why you’re seeking medical help. And you can thank the Obama health law.

“This is nasty business,” says New York cardiologist Dr. Adam Budzikowski. He called the sex questions “insensitive, stupid and very intrusive.” He couldn’t think of an occasion when a cardiologist would need such information — but he knows he’ll be pushed to ask for it.

The president’s “reforms” aim to turn doctors into government agents, pressuring them financially to ask questions they consider inappropriate and unnecessary, and to violate their Hippocratic Oath to keep patients’ records confidential.

Embarrassing though it may be, you confide things to a doctor you wouldn’t tell anyone else. But this is entirely different.

Doctors and hospitals who don’t comply with the federal government’s electronic-health-records requirements forgo incentive payments now; starting in 2015, they’ll face financial penalties from Medicare and Medicaid. The Department of Health and Human Services has already paid out over $12.7 billion for these incentives.

Dr. Richard Amerling, a nephrologist and associate professor at Albert Einstein Medical College, explains that your medical record should be “a story created by you and your doctor solely for your treatment and benefit.” But the new requirements are turning it “into an interrogation, and the data will not be confidential.”

Lack of confidentiality is what concerned the New York Civil Liberties Union in a 2012 report. Electronic medical records have enormous benefits, but with one click of a mouse, every piece of information in a patient’s record, including the social history, is transmitted, disclosing too much.

The social-history questions also include whether you’ve ever used drugs, including IV drugs. As the NYCLU cautioned, revealing a patient’s past drug problem, even if it was a decade ago, risks stigma.

On the other end of the political spectrum is the Goldwater Institute, a free-market think tank. It argues that by requiring everyone to have health insurance and then imposing penalties on insurers, doctors and hospitals who don’t use the one-click electronic system, the law is violating Americans’ medical privacy.

The administration is ignoring these protests from privacy advocates. On Jan. 17, HHS announced patients who want to keep something out of their electronic record should pay cash. That’s impractical for most people.

There’s one question they can’t ask: Thanks to the NRA, Section 2716 of the ObamaCare law bars the federal government from compelling doctors and hospitals to ask you if you own a firearm.

But that’s the only question they can’t be told to ask you.

Where are the women’s rights groups that went to the barricades in the 1980s and 1990s to prevent the federal government from accessing a woman’s health records? Hypocritically, they are silent now.

Patients need to defend their own privacy by refusing to answer the intrusive social-history questions. If you need to confide something pertaining to your treatment, ask your doctor about keeping two sets of books so that your secret stays in the office. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath seriously and won’t be offended.

Are such precautions paranoid? Hardly. WikiLeaker Bradley Manning showed how incompetent the government is at keeping its own secrets; incidents where various agencies accidentally disclose personal data like Social Security numbers are legion. And that’s not to mention the ways in which commercial databases are prone to hacking and/or exploitation.

Be careful about sharing your medical secrets with Uncle Sam.

http://nypost.com/2013/09/15/obamacare-will-question-your-sex-life/

Link

UPS to drop 15,000 spouses, cites ObamaCare

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

The decision comes as many analysts are downplaying the Affordable Care Act’s effect on companies such as UPS, noting that the move reflects a long-term trend of shrinking corporate medical benefits, Kaiser Health News reports. But UPS repeatedly cites Obamacare to explain the decision, adding fuel to the debate over whether it erodes traditional employer coverage, Kaiser says.

Rising medical costs, “combined with the costs associated with the Affordable Care Act, have made it increasingly difficult to continue providing the same level of health care benefits to our employees at an affordable cost,” UPS said in a memo to employees.

According to Kaiser, UPS (NYSE: UPS) told white-collar workers two months ago that 15,000 working spouses eligible for coverage by their own employers would be excluded from the UPS plan in 2014.

UPS expects the move, which applies to non-union U.S. workers only, to save about $60 million a year, company spokesman Andy McGowan said.

The health law requires large employers to cover employees and dependent children, but not spouses or domestic partners, Kaiser adds.

Kaiser said the Obama administration would not respond directly to UPS’ statements, but said that employer coverage increased when Massachusetts implemented its own version of the health overhaul.

“The health care law will make health insurance more affordable, strengthen small businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers,” said Joanne Peters, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Earlier this week, Forever 21 Inc. became the latest national company to cut employee hours to counter the impact of Obamacare, according to Policymic.com.

Atlanta-based AAA Parking, a parking garage operator that employs more than 1,600 companywide, moved about half of its 500 full-time hourly employees to part-time status on April 15, in response to the law.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/n5kq4wq

Prop 37 GMO Labeling – Truth vs Monsanto

Prop 37 GMO LABELING – Get The Facts

Ain’t No Grave

Mr. Giffords Hypocracy

The new caretaker will soon take over this blog. We will have the hand off ready to go very soon. But I can’t let this slip by …

Now, first, let me explain that what happened to U.S. Representative Gabrielle Gifford was absolutely horrible. I would never wish such a thing on anyone, not even an enemy. You may be recall she was shot in Arizona in the head and survived.

The liberal media immediately Googled the shooter’s name and found that he had a Facebook account and that he had mentioned that he attended a tea party rally. The press ran with it as the lead story for hours and thought they had killed the evil racist Tea Party. Turns out it was just a guy with the same name as the shooter and they knew it. He didn’t even look remotely like the shooter.

When the facts came out that it was actually a left wing democrat with mental issues who did the shooting, of course, it was mentioned on page 345 in the newspaper in the lower left hand corner in 2pt font.

Well, just this month Gabrielle’s husband tried to purchase an AR-15 but was denied by the store owner because Gabrielle’s husband was bragging that he was going to purchase the gun and give it to somebody else. The gun store owner got wind of this and denied him the purchase. Problem is he lied on the application for gun ownership and this is a felony. The man should be facing charges.

Now, just yesterday (I belive) Mr. Gifford was walking his mix-breed bull dog on a beach when it attacked and killed a baby seal. Dogs can be dangerous weapons, I know this first hand.

Seems to me Mr. Gifford is walking around with something as potentially dangerous as gun, if that had been a small child that child would be dead. Again, because they are lefties no charges are to be filed even though I read it was an endangered species.

It is estimated that two percent of the US population, 4.7 million people, are bitten each year by dogs. Fatalities from dog attacks are on the rise each and every year. Seem to me registration and waiting periods should apply, and certain breeds should be banned because they are so dangerous. And no, this is not a pun.

I am in no way making a comparison to this baby seal pup and those precious children recently killed in the gun attack, many if not most fatalities from dog attacks are also children. Chances are though if your dog kills a child you’ll serve no time whatsoever … Why is that?