Fit testing time again, and again, and again...

Ah, fit testing season is upon us once again—the annual ritual where we confirm that the mask we’ve been wearing all year still fits. Because, of course, logic demands it. Nothing says "efficiency" like repeating a test for something you already know the answer to. Bureaucracy at its finest!

This tradition is brought to you by none other than OSHA—the overlords of occupational safety—and their local enforcers, MIOSHA. These fine folks ensure that anyone donning an N95 mask to fend off airborne germs is officially deemed fit to do so. And not just once, mind you. No, we must endure this spectacle every single year. Why? Because... well, because.

Seriously, didn’t we just do this? Oh wait, that was last year. And now it’s time again, because seven people sitting in ridiculously expensive leather chairs needed to justify their existence. So, they came up with a rule: Annual fit testing! That way, when they visit our hospital, they have something to check off their clipboard.

But let’s not forget the hidden genius of this policy: It doubles as a convenient way for the hospital to deal with "that guy." You know the one—the person nobody likes but HR hasn’t found a good excuse to fire. Skip your fit test this year? Boom. You’re fired. Thanks for playing.

Now, let’s talk about logic. The only time fit testing should be necessary is when something significant changes—like if you’ve gained or lost a lot of weight or decided to embrace your inner lumberjack and grow a full beard. But apparently, common sense isn’t part of the rulebook. Instead, we’re stuck in a cycle of pointless repetition, because doing things the logical way would be far too convenient.

So here we are, dutifully squeezing into masks we’ve already proven fit us perfectly, all for the sake of compliance. Not like we have enough to do already... right?

More education won't always make you smarter

Why should I have to go to school for six more years so I can do what I'm already good at? That's what I don't like about our current healthcare system.

You have people with a talent. They should be able to  use it. What difference does it make if they have a degree?

Who wants degrees? Who is going to try to convince you you need more degrees? It's the colleges and universities. They make money off you going to their colleges. So, they are going to try to convince the powers that be that you need more degrees.

But do you? Do respiratory therapists need 2 more years of college to be good respiratory therapists. If that were the case, then none of us with associate's degrees would be any good at what we do. And we all know that certainly is not true.

So what if an RT wants to teach about asthma in a doctor's office? What if we want to help a physician help an asthmatic patient. We can do it in the hospital setting. But, we can't in the doctor's office. We can't unless we go to school for six more years to become a physician's assistant. And being an RT certainly would set one up nicely to getting into a PA school.

Sure, more education can make you smarter. But it can also corrupt you. This is because many of our schools have a left-leaning agenda. So, of course they want you to go there. They want to corrupt you. But, they also want your money.

And you have a lot of people who never went to college who know more than people with six year degrees. Look at Rush Limbaugh as an example. He has no degree. But, he also knows more about economics than many of the most well educated politicians do.

And you have people with associate's degrees who know more about asthma than people with doctorate's degrees do. They are called respiratory therapists.

Congress once tried to end science

Throughout the years there have been many people who put animals and things before human beings.  Obviously we want to make sure animals are treated humanely, although scientists also must be able to use animals to test new drugs that one day may be used to the many diseases that plague the human race.

Perhaps one of the first attempts to put animals before humans was in 1899 when U.S. Senator Gallinger proposed a bill before Congress that caused an outcry among the medical profession.  In January of 1900 Dr. W.W. Keen wrote the following letter to address member physicians around the U.S. of this "menace" to "scientific progress": (1, page 38)

The cause of humanity and of scientific progress is seriously menaced. Senator Gallinger has again introduced into Congress the bill for the "Further Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the District of Columbia," which he has so strenuously and misguidedly advocated in the last two Congresses. It is Senate Bill No. 34. Twice the Committee on the District of Columbia has, also unfortunately and misguidedly, reported the bill with a favorable consideration. It is speciously drawn to seem as if it were intended only in the interest of prevention of cruelty to animals, but the real object is twofold: 1, to prohibit vivisection, and, 2, to aid the passage of similar bills in all the state legislatures.

This is a 113 year old example (113 years to the day) of how Congress never seems to stop trying to make laws regarding things they do not duly understand.  And I understand that lawmakers propose such bills with a heavy heart, and a love for animals.  Although I do not think they understand the unintended consequences of such action.

Could you imagine if such a law were passed in the year 2000.  Many of the medicines that save lives, including epinephrine and Ventolin, would never have been tested on animals first to see their effects.  They would have had to go immediately to tests on humans.  Does this mean that some people value animals more so than human beings?  So it seems.

We see similar such actions today, as this past Thanksgiving Paul McCartney recommended to Americans not to eat a Turkey.  Yet does Paul understand that if it were not for the eating of animals that he wouldn't exist today.

Dr. Keen continues: (1, page 38)

It hardly needs to be pointed out that this would seriously interfere with or even absolutely stop the experimental work of the Bureau of Animal Industry and the three medical departments of the Government, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine-Hospital Service. The animals themselves might well cry out to be saved from their friends. No more humane work can be done than to discover the means of the prevention of diseases which have ravaged our flocks and herds. All those who raise or own animals, such as horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc., are vitally interested in the preservation of their health and the prevention of disease.

I'm not on a mission by this post to make a statement, I just thought this was an interesting battle.  It was a time when the medical profession was making rapid gains.  It was a time when medicines like epinephrine, theophylline and cortisone were discovered, and perhaps if this law was passed these discoveries may not have been made.

Keen mentions this:   (1, page 38)

The inestimable value of these scientific researches as to the prevention and care of disease among human beings it is superfluous to point out. Modern surgery and the antitoxin treatment of diphtheria alone would justify all the vivisection ever done.

And he undoubtedly was right.  Yet this was the beginning of the progressive era of government, where many poorly managed industries were forced to clean up or shut of by law.  Much of this change was needed.  To prevent the medical profession, and the scientific community, from performing research by use of animals was not a good idea, as you can see by the letter from Dr. Keen.

References:

1. Brown, John E., et al, Editorial, The Columbus Medical Journal, A magazine of medicine and surgery, Issued by the Columbus Medical Publishing Company, Vol. XXIV, No. 1, January 5, 1900, 

It's a democracy, so why are they taking away our asthma choices

Warning!!!! There are people who want to decide for you what is good for you.  They will say that you have a choice.  Yet what they will not tell you is it will be a choice between fewer options.  It will be a sort of control over you, yet you won't even see it, or feel it, or even know it's coming.

These people, many of whom already exist all over the world -- including right here in the good old United States of America -- think most people are not capable of making the right decision for themselves. They believe the American Experiment has failed.

So what is this American Experiment anyway?  Well, allow me to define it:

American Experiment:  Can man rule himself?

The American Dream:  Everyone has a chance to succeed no matter color, creed or station in life.  We are all smart enough to make our own decisions.  We are all smart enough to weigh the rewards against the risks.  We all have an equal opportunity to improve our lot in life.

Then there are two different types of people in this country:

1.  Equal justice:  These are those who believe in the American Dream, and believe the answer to the American experiment is YES.  They believe you are smart enough to rule yourself.  That you, asthmatics, are smart enough to make the right choices no matter how tough.  You are equally smart.  You are intelligent.

2.  Social Justice:  These are those who believe in the American Dream, yet believe the answer to the American Experiment is NO.  They believe you are not smart enough to rule yourself, and therefore not smart enough to make the right choices.  Their experts, therefore, must nudge you in the right direction.  One of the ways to do this is to limit your choices.  You are stupid.

They both call their system of government a democracy (they say this even though we are a republic, not a democracy).  The main difference is in equal justice you are allowed to weigh all your asthma medicines and decide what ones work best for you, and in social justice your choices are limited so you don't make the wrong one.

For the first 160 years of this Nation we were a democracy (republic actually)  run under equal justice, yet ever since about 1895 there have been people by insidious means who have been working hard to change this.  They believe that the Industrial Revolution brought about change in society that would require change in the way society was run.

Today, those who believe in social justice have gained much power not just in America but around the rest of the world.  Hitler ruled by the extreme measures of social justice, and so did Stalin and Mussolini.  Yet what few people know is that the term was coined right her in America during the term of President Woodrow Wilson. 

It has been a slow process.  After early failures they decided it was best to take baby steps.  They slowly worked to change the minds of Americans and those of the rest of the world.  After Wilson, FDR was their next great leader.  While Wilson planted the seeds, FDR created the regulations that allowed those seeds to grow into full, flourishing trees. 

They are trying to create a healthcare system that limits your choices, yet they will tell you otherwise.  They will trick you into believing that you have many choices, yet they know the choices are limited.  You will have fewer doctors to choose from, and fewer health insurance companies.  And you might even have fewer options of how you die and when you die.  Yet you won't know it until it's too late.  They'll just kind of slip by unnoticed.

They have already limited our asthma medicinal choices.  Remember when I wrote this:  Seven Classic Asthma Medicines To Be Discontinued.  The medicines you no longer get to choose from are:  Tilade, Intal, Alupent, Azmacort, Aerobid, Combivent, and Maxair.  You did not decide, they did for you.

These are all your CFC inhalers.  CFC destroys the ozone they say.  The ozone is more important than human life.  You aren't smart enough make and purchase medicines that don't destroy the ozone, so they had to "nudge" you in that direction. The market did not make this choice.  You did not make this choice.

I know you didn't because I read your cries that HFA inhalers don't work as well, or that you want to continue taking Intal and Combivent, medicines that have worked so well to control your asthma, or your COPD, or your cystic fibrosis for years.  You want control.  You want to decide what medicines you take.  Or you want your doctor to decide.

Yet in the new America, the new world, the one where social justice supersedes equal justice, and where you are "nudged" to make the "right" decision, you no longer get to decide.  It doesn't matter what works best for your disease, because the planet is more important than you. 

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with theories that say man is causing global warming and destroying the ozone.  I'm in no way saying I don't respect these theories.  What I'm saying here is the government shouldn't be deciding what's best for you, YOU should be deciding what's best for you.  You are SMART.  Yet they think you are not smart enough to make the right decision.

A few years ago they tried to take away Serevent.   They even tried to take away -- or thought about it -- Advair and Symbicort.  They were scared about these drugs based on the belief that Serevent and Foracort were believed to make asthma worse, or kill asthmatics.

Yet even the FDA says Advair and Symbicort are safe for use, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.  Basically what this means is that your risk of dying of an asthma attack are far greater if you do nothing than if you take Advair and Singulair.  Yet YOU decide.

While I think Primitine Mist is a bad asthma choice, it has been available over the counter for years.  Many ashtmatics live by it.  It's their choice.  Yet recently the FDA banned all CFC over the counter asthma medicines, and any chance these will ever be available OTC again. 

I say they will never be OTC again because Primitine Mist has been on the market so long it was grandfathered in as an OTC medicine.  Yet any new HFA Primitine Mist will have to be prescribed, something no doctor will do.  Therefore it's not worth the investment to make an HFA Primitine Mist.

The market didn't decide this -- they decided it for us.  They had to because they believe we aren't smart enough to make the right decision.  They nudged you so now you have to see your doctor to get the best care.  You SHOULD in my opinion see your doctor and have a Ventolin in my opinion and the opinion of most asthma experts -- yet in a world of equal justice I wouldn't get to decide what's right for you.

More recently some wanted the FDA to ban Singulair  (also check these links).  It didn't matter what you thought.  They decided if you took it you were at an increased risk of suicide.  It didnt' matter there were no scientific studies to show this. 

The FDA did an extensive study on the Sinulair suicide risk, and decided there was no evidence.  They even reported this: FDA concludes there is no Singulair suicide risk.  Yet those who believe in social justice didn't care about the evidence, and there is a big black box warning on Singulair to scare people away from it, and perhaps from getting their asthma under control.

That's what black box warning do, you know, they scare people away from getting their asthma under control. 

Another example is more recent.  As of March 2, 2011 the FDA is ordering companies to stop making and shipping over 500 allergy and cold medicines.  Obviously since these are on the market they were being purchased by people like you, and I never heard one drop of a cry that these medicines were linked to any problems.  So why all of a sudden limit our choices?   Fishy, hey?  At least I think so.

In fact,  according to Web MD, Doctor Harold Nelson of National Jewish Health had this to say about this recent effort by the FDA:

"These are well-recognized drugs that have been used for decades and there is no reason to suspect that there is a risk involved. If there were risks such as hypertension or stroke with oral decongestants, it would be more appropriately addressed by eliminating the ingredient from all products whether those that are grandfathered in, available OTC, or FDA-approved.  These drugs haven’t cleared certain safety hurdles yet, but that doesn’t mean they are unsafe."

New medicines are studied intensely.  The FDA has such a rigorous screening process for approving new medicines that the chance of an unsafe medicine being approved is near zero.  I'm not implying mistakes can't be made.  That doesn't matter to those who believe in social justice:  YOU MUST BE NUDGED.

I'm not implying we shouldn't be careful when taking new medicines -- or old medicines for that matter.  Yet what I am implying is we need to make smart decisions, do our own research, and weigh the advantages with the disadvantages on our own, and not be pushed, bullied or forced into making a "choice" that is not truly democratic.

Yet that seems to be the direction we are going in.  It's scary to me.  I see it.  I hope other asthmatics do too, asthmatics with good, strong voices and pens that are willing to stand up and fight.
 
Facebook
Twitter

Signs that assume we are all stupid and lazy

Signs.  Notes.  You see them everywhere, especially at your work or office.  Most of them are written by choleric people who love rules and must have everything done their way.  And, yes, there is usually at least one choleric in every office.

They put signs up like the following:

• We do not have a maid service, clean up after yourself.
• Please shut off coffee pot when not in use
• This is a garbage, not a recycling bin
• This is for cans only, this is not a garbage!
• This room for employees and patients only! 
• This room is in use/ not in use
• Meeting this month is mandatory
• Label and date all food containers in refrigerator
• All unlabeled food will be tossed every Monday
• No drinking by computers
• No food in office

You get the drift.  These are signs written by people who have to have control.  Yet they don't realize that we are all people, and we all have different personalities, and we get busy.  These are signs written by people who think most people are stupid and lazy.

Some of us are lazy for sure, but the majority of us have more important things to think about than whether or not we leave a cup of water lying next to the computer, or have a container that's been in the fridge for two weeks.  Some people are clean and organized (the cholerics and melancholy) and some people aren't (sanguine and phlegmatic). 

I think a few signs or a few rules are good, but when you start to get a collection of them they become too hard to follow and too hard to enforce.  It's better just to have one really important sign, like this:

• Work hard
• Do your best
• We respect your hard work
• We know who the hard workers are, and we appreciate you

Yet communication in this positive way is rare and far in between, and usually comes just prior to communication that relays something you did that was wrong, such as a charting error that has nothing to do with the patient/ customer.

Signs are dumb.  I'd like to rip them down, and sometimes I do. Likewise, few of these prodigal signs say please and thanks.  I'd like to put my own sign up (just one) to put an end to such frivolity:

• Quit putting up stupid signs!  And Thanks

None of these signs are necessary.  If you're anal retentive and want to clean the fridge, clean it.  You'll be more respected that way anyway. 

Facebook Twitter

Yet another example of what's wrong with healthcare

It was kind of a culmination of all I've written about on my blog the past year was when our hospital Quality Analyzer came into the office and said, "I need to speak with Rick."

I spun around my chair and said, "Hi, Gerri, what can I do for you?"

"I was just wondering if you gave any breathing treatments to the kid in 310 today?"

"Um," so what was the right answer? The truth perhaps?  The kid in 310 was admitted with croup yesterday and was ordered to get racemic epinepherine breathing treatments prn. After an awkward moment of silence I settled on the truth.  "I didn't give one."

"Oh, I was hoping you did one and forgot to chart." She smiled. "The patient was discharged and now his insurance is refusing to pay for today because we didn't do anything today. If you did a treatment..."

"Do you want to to go in and chart a treatment I didn't do so we can get paid."  A provided her with an eerie smile.

She gave me the thumbs up.

Of course she was joking and so was I. Yet this is a perfect example of what is wrong with the healthcare industry. A patient needs to be admitted for observation, and yet because we didn't do anything the patient's insurance won't pay.

"Well," I said, "I guess for now on we'll be giving Q4 breathing treatments on all of Dr. Kipper's patients."

"Sure thing," she said, giving me the thumbs up signs again.

Dr. Kipper was new. The other pediatricians had already learned to order Q4 ventolin and racepic epi prn. That order makes no sense medically, and is a complete waste of time and money and results in RT apathy.

Yet that person sitting in a chair in Washington who makes all the laws was smiling somewhere in a leather chair in Washington as she unwrapped her paycheck.

Facebook
Twitter

Doctors should treat patients, not insurance company

The doctor wanted to have the patient admitted for observation, yet the patient didn't meet criteria according to the insurance company. Still, the doctor didnt' feel comfortable sending the patient home.

So, what he did was write on the chart, "Recommended patient be kept for observation for best interest of patient."

That way, he said to me, the insurance company is liable if something happens to that patient and now the doctor. He also wrote on the chart, "Patient was sent home against my better judgement."

This is a perfect example of how cook book medicine does not work, and how doctors and nurses should be able to do what's best for the patient, and money should not be a factor.

Facebook
Twitter

Breathing treatments make no money for hospital

When it comes to your RT department boss being happy by the breathing treatment count, he is not happy because a breathing treatment means higher profits for the RT department and the hospital. That's not the case at all.

The truth is, he's happy because of the procedure count. Procedure count is important because the more procedures a department does, the more money is allocated to your department. Likewise, the procedure count has to be high enough to justify the allocation of a staff position.

That's right. In order for you to keep your job you have to do so much work. So the next time you or your co-worker complain about needless work, just think of it from this perspective. I like protocols, yet if we discontinue all needless procedures, we RTs will be our of work.

And trust me, I too am one to complain about needless work. For one thing it makes me feel like an assembly line worker: it diminishes self esteem, dignity and mercy. However, a job is a job. It pays the bills.

As far as reimbursement is concerned for a specific patient, it is a fact that it doesn't matter if you give 1 treatment or 100 to a patient on Medicare or Medicaid, because the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) reimburses a flat fee for each diagnosis related group (DRG).

This is what happens when we allow the government to make the rules. This is what happens when the government is flipping the bill. So while your department charge for a breathing treatment might be $100, the only person paying that $100 is the person who has no health insurance.

Actually, the best health care reform would be to make it so that people without health insurance paid the same as those who do. This might help lower the cost of medicine as far as the customer is concerned, and it might just allow people visiting hospitals a better opportunity to pay the bill. It might prevent some health related bankruptcies.

On a related issue, Anthony L. DeWitt (AARC Times, December 2010), Whisteblowing 101, wrote that a hospital can bill for the 10 treatments that were ordered while the patient was admitted, and this will not be considered as fraud even if the treatments were not given.

The same principle applies: CMS reimburses a flat fee for a specific DRG (diagnosis). DeWitt writes that:

"In essence, the hospital is banking on being able to treat the patient efficiently and get them out of the hospital quickly. So whether the patient gets one treatment or 10 treatments, the cost to Medicare is the same because it's calculated on the basis of the diagnosis. Internally, the hospital can bill for 40 treatments never done, and it won't have any effect on the final bill to Medicare."

Poppycock? Why sure it is. Yet such is how it is when the government is in charge of flipping the bill. However, as goofy as this sounds, useless and un-indicated breathing treatments that burn you and me out might be what's keeping us on the job.


Something to think about anyway.


Facebook
Twitter

Smoking cessation good, but not if you don't smoke

At my hospital smoking cessation education is something we take very seriously. In fact, the order to do smoking cessation comes up on any patient admitted with CHF, COPD, MI, pneumonia, asthma and just about any other diagnosis under the sun.

This might sound like overkill, and it is. Yet our medical director wants us to do smoking cessation even if a person doesn't smoke. Thus, if they don't smoke, we're supposed to encourage them not to start, and we're supposed to inform them of the danger of not smoking.

I don't think this is a bad thing, yet where is the time do do all of this? If we're going to do smoking cessation on every patient, it's going to get to the point where the therapist dumbs down his presentation just to get it done and over with. In the end, a poor job will be the result.

Likewise, even while smoking cessation is deemed so important, we RTs have received no formal training to make sure we are providing the best education. Most RTs in my department that I talk to don't even know why we are doing it. I know because I ask around.

In fact, while smoking cessation is deemed so important, the hospital won't even splurge on a good smoking cessation packet. All they give us to give to the patient is a single sheet of paper with some basics about quitting smoking.

It's frustrating to me. It's frustrating because most of the patients who are ordered to get smoking cessation education have never smoked, or quit smoking years ago. So it seems quite frivolous and a waste of our time to HAVE to educate these people.

One man said to me, "I quit 75 years ago."

One patient has been admitted 4 times in the past month, and every time the order comes up automatically. I finally got irritated and started charting, "Smoking cessation done last visit." Yet I still, by hospital policy, have to bill the patient.

Of course the real reason we are doing all this education is not to help the patient. That's what we say, and that's what's said to us. But I know for a fact the real reason is because CMS reimburses for it, and when a patient is given smoking cessation, that helps to qualify the patient for reimbursement.

You see, everything in the new healthcare system comes down to money. No, it's not about saving the hospital money, because they (CMS) already only pay one lump sum regardless of how many things are done to the patient. In fact, it actually costs the hospital more money.

Yet our hospital wants to make sure the patient meets criteria and that the hospital is reimbursed for the patient's visit, and by charting smoking cessation for every patient admitted this is a step in assuring reimbursement criteria is met for that patient.

This is another perfect example of stupidity that results when we put the government in charge of anything.

Look, smoking cessations are good. Yet doing smoking cessations on people who never smoked or have already quit more than 6 months ago is a waste of time. IMO! Smoking cessation is good, but not if you don't smoke.

How bosses and doctors deal with trouble

Bosses and doctors and probably even elected politicians go to the same class. To deal with problems they are taught to do one of the following:

1. ignore the problem
2. Piss off the person
3. Tell each person what they want to hear

Example of 1.

Jane has approached her boss several times about a new job posting. The boss sent an email, "I'll get back to you." Her boss never did get back to her. She doesn't want to fill the position, so she just ignores Jane.

Example of 2.

Let's take holter monitors in the ER as an example. I see no reason they need to be done in the emergency room. There is no reason I need to use up my valuable time to set one up. So, I approach my boss.

He says, "I will talk to Dr. Pepper to see if we can remedy this problem.

The nice thing about it is there were only 2 holter monitors in our department. So if none were available we could just say, "I'm sorry, but..." and be on your way..

When approached, Dr. Pepper says, "I think if a doctor wants to do a holter one should be available. So I think you should buy 10 more holter monitors.

So since we brought up the problem the RT bosses pissed us off and made it worse for us.

Another example of this is I approached Dr. Mark to let her know the patient had been on treatments for three weeks and I didn't think they were indicated anymore. She taught me a lesson and changed the order to Q2 and add IPPB plus added mucomyst and pulmicort every other treatment.

Of course we have one doctor who every nurse is afraid to call no matter how serious the problem. She's very rude and says things like, "Why'd you bother calling me with that?" Then the

The third method is basically politics as usual. You talk to your boss about a problem and your boss tells you what you want to hear. Then another person approaches the boss about the same issue, and the boss tells that person what that person wants to hear.

Sure there's some lying going on. Yet the peace is kept. No waves are made. That is until you and your coworker get together some day to learn you were both told a different thing.

And nothing got done. No peace was really made. Yet so long as you and your coworkers don't communicate, the waves are calmed until the problem is forgoten about. At least that's the intent.

Of course there's also a fourth method.

A better way to run a business is by this method. Yet sometimes politics is the better part of valor.

---

Word of the day: Cacophonic: harsh discordance of sounds; a meaningless mixure of sounds

1. A cacophany of hoots, cackles and wails.
2. The cacophany of city traffic at rush hour.

A tax on blogs would signal end to the RT Cave

Mark Hemmingway of the Washington Examiner.com wrote an interesting article titled, "Philly requiring bloggers to pay $300 for a business license." He explains, "It looks like cash hungry local governments are getting awfully rapacious these days:

"Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50. To [Marilyn] Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut."

In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.

“The real kick in the pants is that I don’t even have a full-time job, so for the city to tell me to pony up $300 for a business privilege license, pay wage tax, business privilege tax, net profits tax on a handful of money is outrageous,” Bess says.

It would be one thing if Bess’ website were, well, an actual business, or if the amount of money the city wanted didn’t outpace her earnings six-fold. Sure, the city has its rules; and yes, cash-strapped cities can’t very well ignore potential sources of income. But at the same time, there must be some room for discretion and common sense.

When Bess pressed her case to officials with the city’s now-closed tax amnesty program, she says, “I was told to hire an accountant.”

She’s not alone. After dutifully reporting even the smallest profits on their tax filings this year, a number — though no one knows exactly what that number is — of Philadelphia bloggers were dispatched letters informing them that they owe $300 for a privilege license, plus taxes on any profits they made.

Even if, as with Sean Barry, that profit is $11 over two years.

Wow! If the town of Shoreline decided to make me pay $300 to get a business licence for this blog I would be forced to quit. This is a perfect example we need to pay attention and be careful who we elect to public office, and thus to the courts.

Parents should have choice NOT to vaccinate

I'm glad I don't live in New Jersey. The legislature in that state has passed a law requiring parents to have their kids immunized with the flu shot annually.

According to the law, parents will not be allowed to send their kids to preschool or day care without getting the flu shot. Moms who are adamantly against immunizations might be forced to move to another state.

I believe parents should have the option of whether or not to give vaccinations. Fortunately, in Michigan we do have that option.

Keep in mind here I am not against vaccinations here. Most of the vaccinations have been given to my kids. But there are a few of them that I don't think are needed - at least at such a young age.

There are those who say if we all don't get vaccinations against rubella, whooping cough, measles, etc that we will have another outbreak of these in the future.

On the other side of the coin, you have many links between vaccinations and autism, asthma, peanut anaphlaxis, etc. And others who say those links are not credible.

While scientists insist that the flu shot does not cause the flu, there are many people who claim their child (or themselves) have gotten the flu after shortly after getting the shot.

Take Chicken Pox for example. I refused to have my kid get this vaccination because scientists don't even know how long the vaccination will last. It's far safer to get the chicken Pox as a kid as opposed to, say, when he is a teenager or adult.

Every one of my siblings had the Chicken Pox as kids and we all did fine. So, by giving all kids this vaccine, scientists might be setting themselves up for a Chicken Pox epidemic in the future -- when it simply could have been prevented by allowing kids to get the disease and allowing their immune systems develop their own immunities.

And consider Hepatitis A and B. That's the new vaccine the doctor tried to give to my little girl. When is a little girl ever going to be someplace where she will be at risk of getting these diseases?
Needless to say, those vaccination were not given to my child while the doctor looked on with irritated eyes, as though she believed everything the FDA said about these "much needed" vaccinations.

So what about the flu vaccination?

This is one of those instances where the option should be with the parent, and not a government official sitting in a leather seat.

A parent should always have the option to opt out of vaccinations. For no other reason than we are placing chemicals into our children's bodies that not even scientists know with 100% certainty the future implications of.

Scientists may be right when they say that these vaccinations are safe. However, a parent should have a right to doubt them.

Again, we should remember this: Every time a new law is made, another freedom is taken away."

Natural news.com has an excellent article about this.