HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NurseJackie » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:14 PM
Number of posts: 42,862

Journal Archives

His regular geriatrician would know these things, but a "walk in" clinic...

His regular geriatrician would know these things, but a "walk in" clinic is only aware of what they're told. If they know a patient's full and honest history, then they'll respond appropriately. If the walk-in clinic is given incomplete information and if the patient refuses the recommended follow up (xrays, scans, etc) then there's very little they can do to force the issue.

Look, I don't blame him. I'd do the same thing too. I'd want to be in-and-out as quickly as possible. I'd want the bare minimum (stitches and a bandage) just to have it over and done with. Especially if I didn't feel like sharing my medical history.

This is not a story.
Actually, yes it is. There's another important element to this as well. Something that's bigger than whether one person is a little embarrassed and doesn't want to cause a fuss... it's bigger than the concerns about HIPAA standards and privacy issues.

People just want to make it out to be one because it's Bernie Sanders.
No, because it's someone who's running to become the President of the United States. Voters deserve to know if the person they're voting for is healthy and whether he (or she) has the physical stamina and whether he (or she) is mentally up to the arduous schedule.

I certainly hope I'm wrong, but the changing story and inconsistent explanations...

I certainly hope I'm wrong, but the changing story and inconsistent explanations coming out about this lead me to believe that there's more to the story than meets the eye.

I think it's perfectly natural for ordinary people to be dismissive and to cover up their embarrassment by saying things like "oh, it's nothing" and "just a little bump" and "I'll be fine" and "don't worry". (Nobody like to make-a-fuss... and people generally don't like being "fussed-over".)

But when it's someone who's seeking to be the Leader of the Free World, I believe that the American people deserve to hear the truth and to have all the information presented in an honest and forthcoming way. No more of the dismissive "nothing to see here, move along" responses. That's the type of attitude that suggests things are worse than they're letting on... and that they just hope it will blow-over and be quickly forgotten.

I just know that the way it's being described... how it unfolded... the changes in the story... the claimed treatment... the claims that there was no x-ray or scan performed, well, it just doesn't add up to me. I feel like there are inconsistencies and omitted information which leads me to believe something else is going on. I think there's a possibility that there could be an underlying condition.

All I'm saying is, when people aren't completely forthcoming, they only make things worse. It's true when it comes to a candidate's tax returns, and it's true when it comes to a candidate's health.

We deserve better. I don't see her as being "brave" at all.

I'm looking for someone who makes correct choices and thoughtful choices and INFORMED choices and FAIR choices. When any candidate boasts that they view themselves as "bold" or "brave", it reminds me of Bush II's propensity to make impulsive decisions and choices "based on a gut-feeling" rather than based on the FACTS ON THE GROUND... and not based on WHAT'S RIGHT and JUST.

All I'm saying is... we can do better, and I don't trust anyone to be the "Leader of the Free World" who thinks that "brave" and "bold" can be used to justify BAD DECISIONS and UNINFORMED POLICY.


No it's not. Nobody is saying that. This isn't about senility.

This is kneecapping. "Bernie is a senile old coot" is the Big Lie it feeds.
No it's not. Nobody is saying that. This isn't about senility.

Instead, this episode does raise legitimate health-related questions in the minds of many... and the way it was handled only adds to the mystery.

All I'm saying is that as voters, people deserve to know what's going on and to have a forthcoming accounting and assessment of a candidate's health, and to know what his (or her) risk factors are. We deserve to know whether the candidate we vote for has a good chance of actually being able to serve their full term. There's nothing wrong with wanting to know these things. There's nothing wrong with asking questions and talking about these things.

Heart disease and high blood pressure are known as "silent killers" for a reason. That's not a big-lie.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the candidates running for national office should not be "silent" about their health, and whatever ongoing issues there may be, or their medications. Voters deserve to know the truth about ALL candidates.

Here's more info about CARDIAC SYNCOPE and ARRHYTHMIA

http://tinyurl.com/y44ktoxx (short URL goes to heart.org)

What is cardiac syncope?

Cardiac or cardiovascular syncope is caused by various heart conditions, such as bradycardia, tachycardia or certain types of hypotension. It can increase the risk of sudden cardiac death.

People suspected of having cardiac syncope but who don't have serious medical conditions may be managed as outpatients. Further inpatient evaluation is needed if serious medical conditions are present. Conditions that may warrant hospital evaluation and treatment include various cardiac arrhythmic conditions, cardiac ischemia, severe aortic stenosis and pulmonary embolism. If evaluation suggests cardiac vascular abnormalities, an ambulatory external or implantable cardiac monitor may be required.

Heart failure, atrial fibrillation and other serious cardiac conditions can cause recurrent syncope in older adults, with a sharp increase after age 70.

What are the risk factors?

Syncope is common, but adults over age 80 are at greater risk of hospitalization and death.

Younger people without cardiac disease but who've experienced syncope while standing or have specific stress or situational triggers aren't as likely to experience cardiac syncope.

Cardiac syncope is a higher risk in: people older than age 60; men; presence of known heart disease; brief palpitations or sudden loss of consciousness; fainting during exertion; fainting while supine; an abnormal cardiac exam; or family history of inheritable conditions. Other existing conditions and medications used are particularly important in older patients.

"He should withdraw for the good of the Democratic Party."

He should withdraw for the good of the Democratic Party.
Well, yes... I completely agree with you. However, he's made it clear what he actually thinks of the Democratic party, and how he holds great contempt for the Democratic party. Knowing what he's said before and understanding the "destroy-it-to-rebuild-it" philosophy, I can't imagine that anyone who feels that way would do anything selfless to actually benefit the party.

All I'm saying is that anyone who believes that the Democratic party is "corrupt" or "feeble" ... anyone who smears the party by saying that the Democrats are the "party of the elite" and the "party of the one-percent" ... anyone who denigrates the party by saying there's "no difference" between Democrats and the GOP, or that the Democratic party is "an absolute failure" ... well, it's very unlikely that anyone who says such things and who believes such things is otherwise capable of putting the party first.

I'm a Democrat, not a Socialist. Party and country first... I do not do or say things to intentionally diminish or tarnish our party. Things like that only divide us and weaken us. When we're suspicious of each other and distrust motives, then our party becomes less inviting to voters, volunteers, and donors. Things like that only serve to benefit the GOP, and Trump, and Russia.

People should not be doing or saying things that ultimately benefit Russia. I think we can agree on that.

So the boast that "BS-Votes-With-Democrats-99%" IS A MYTH... I figured as much.

I'm very happy to see how busy BO has been. Sponsoring TWICE and many bills as BS... cosponsoring over FOUR TIMES as many bills as BS.

But look at how often BS votes AGAINST the Democratic party. So the boast that "BS-Votes-With-Democrats-99%" IS A MYTH... I figured as much. It' easy to see that the number is NOT 99% and closer to 81%. Why would people lie about things that can be disproved?

I have to say that I'm not at all surprised about the number of times that BS has missed a vote.

Anyway, all I'm saying here is that I'm glad to have the ACTUAL numbers for comparison purposes. I think it's good when people can make decisions based on hard facts rather than exaggerated campaign boasts and political puffery.

Everyone deserves to know the truth.

I see no advantage to having a lame-duck presidency. I prefer someone with the stamina...

I see no advantage to having a lame-duck presidency. I prefer someone with the stamina to complete two full terms, rather than just being a "placeholder" or a "warm-up-act" for someone else.

Bernie is just one of several people who at this point I am considering
He gets a big fat zero from me. BS is not someone I'd ever consider. We can do better than someone who's been in Washington for nearly (over?) thirty years.

BS is never going to release his tax returns. If BS had any intention of releasing them...

BS is never going to release his tax returns. If BS had any intention of releasing them, it would have already been done.

It's not like they're "incomplete" or anything. It's not like they're "still working on them" or anything. After all... if they were complete enough to submit to the IRS, then those tax returns are complete enough to release to the American public.

No... something tells me that someone has made a deliberate decision to NOT release them. Someone on the campaign has weighed the pros-and-cons... calculated the pluses-and-minuses... and determined that the "fallout" from not releasing the tax returns is more acceptable than the "fallout" of going ahead and releasing them.

All I'm saying is that's certainly what it appears to be and it's a logical conclusion to make... there's simply no other reason that any "serious" candidate would do something that's tarnishing their campaign, reputation, and making people question things like integrity and honesty.

In the end, it simply makes no good sense for this strategy to continue. As voters, we deserve to know where a candidate's money comes from, where the spouse's money comes from, how it's being invested, where it's being saved (domestic or offshore), what charities (if any) or other contributions (if any) have been made, and whether the taxes have been properly paid... or whether there are other potential conflicts of interest that we voters should know about BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

Oh, he's absolutely rich. Definitely 1%. And that doesn't bother me AT ALL.

Oh, he's absolutely rich. Definitely 1%. And that doesn't bother me AT ALL.

What I'm most interested in, however, is where it comes from... where it's being invested... how it's being saved (offshore or domestically) and whether the taxes have been properly paid.

Based on what we do know... looking at the historical and publicly-available record... the reticence to release the jointly-filed tax returns may be in the interest of protecting his current wife, Jane. There are still lingering questions about her retirement and other financial arrangements with Burlington College as well as other associations with Old Towne Media. These have been ongoing questions that mainstream investigative reporters have been unable to get forthcoming and satisfactory responses about... and the full and complete tax returns would provide answers to many of those questions.

All I'm saying is... people who make flimsy excuses... or who delay-delay-delay... or who fail to deliver of promises of "soon"... well, they're only making things worse for themselves. It only causes heightened suspicions because that's just the way people (and the press) are. It's only natural.

But, in the end, it serves no good purpose to delay and it causes more personal harm to a candidates reputation. People are looking for a candidate with honor, honesty and integrity... no matter who he or she may be.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »