Urinary infections are very popular. As a matter of fact they probably outrank visiting the physician for cholesterol or blood pressure levels. These urinary infections have by far avoided the urology office visit because they are so "primary" common. But the problem becomes how does one differentiate a visit from either the nephrologist or the urologist because of a symptom? Well, of course you could do the "primary" thing and talk to your internist who would suggest a urine sample as this is done to diagnose a urinary tract infection or presence of one and then off to medville you go as you go to your pharmacy to try medications to rid you of the problem. But, then the patient needs more meds or a stronger dose to be completely rid of the infection, so they do another urine sample so that they are not being prescribed too much medication. Urologists probably don't like to treat common bladder or urinary problems. They supposedly only handle what are known as train wrecks(people with actual problems and not people who like being annoying-so they just wait until it occurs) and nephrologists usually want you to do things over and over so they can avoid the situation entirely and then once something becomes apparent or chronic then hey, now we have something here! Meanwhile, that bronze plan you purchased for health insurance may not be enough to cover dialysis. Nephrologists are not known to sweat the small stuff. Now, in the "primary" instance of urinary infections one has to discern if it is urinary or urology or renal or nephrology. As a base for testing with urinary or urology presence of leukocytes or blood in the urine can indicate an infection ect; and protein in the urine can become a concern for renal or nephrology types of issues. What if both are found meaning blood and protein? Special education is what things can be termed, after years of neglect and eventual problem, these people become your life-support or you are theirs as symptomatic becomes chronic and chronic becomes well, just that. Insurance companies should pay for over the counter testing of urinary testing products that not only include testing for leukocytes but it should include protein testing as well so that, such test can be done at home and repeated in the same manner as to provide patient care for the "primary" symptom or complaint and then if symptoms persist a patient may need to see the uh, specialist. As patients do when they visit a physician they seem to want to star gaze with or of course a physician who ain't Cary Grant, they either do not listen or seem to not understand what was discussed during the office visit(if discussed) or they are ready to bolt out the door if they become disappointed by the lack of a Cary Grant in the room, so the patient will come up with any reason to not return for a follow-up. Now, that, front office staff who for some strange reason is supposed to be that "fly on the wall" for patients who want their medical work-up explained to them over and over; what kind of American abuse you do want to create? We are not people you just use to go and swat around because you have some lack of responsibility towards your own health. What is the "primary" reason for all of this? The front office staff has a lot to do and the redundant way of patients would seem as though the physician is lackluster in their duty or that the patient oddly enough is needy in more ways than I care about. Or is it both? Urinary infections, treat the "primary" round over the counter or by meds; if there seems to be a reluctant visit to a specialist- what is the point of all this education? People can be moral and physical burdens-just saying!
Two of the most common viruses of this nature are the measles and the mumps. These are considered childhood diseases that can be prevented for the most part through vaccination. After a person has had the mumps, their bodies develop immunity so that it does not occur again. Or at least another outbreak of it is extremely rare. Although, one may get the mumps as a result of not being vaccinated, we need to question the following: As the body develops an immunity or as it creates antibodies, do these antibodies actually prevent other life threatening diseases from occurring also? A vaccine that is supposedly a life long preventative will cause the body to create antibodies against a virus, as to prevent a particular disease or illness. So the vaccine does what it is intended to do and is not a bad thing, if it does just that. However, if a vaccine is not given and someone as a child or teen develops the mumps, were the antibodies that developed to eliminate and remove the virus from the body(without being given a vaccine) in fact the reason for an improved and strong immune system due to the development of CD8 T-Cells, which are also called memory cells because they are in the body as antigens in effect to "recognize" a disease or pathogen to eliminate it from the body? If the body is unable to "recognize" a disease or distinguish it from other illnesses it becomes impaired in defense to rid the body of it by the immune system. Afterwards of a mumps infection, the body develops an antigen to "recognize" diseases or illnesses that affect the lymph glands, or inflammation due to meningitis. This may be because the CD8 memory T-Cells are able to prevent another type of disease due to their response to the infection because the T-Cells begin to remove the virus from the body. If this were a possibility then it could mean that those childhood diseases of infection, that went without vaccination thus created immunity by way of CD8 memory T-Cells that are able to remove the onset of other diseases and or viruses due to the T-Cells "recognizing" a pathogen as a disease and then being able to effectively remove if from the body. Paramyxoviridae Viruses- the golden antigen!
Did you know that smoking actually lowers the temperature in your body? This means that if you smoke you reduce the blood flow going through your body, especially to your hands and feet. The body may feel colder or a person may feel cold because of the reduced body temperature due to smoking. Smoking does not help the body stay warm in cold or winter like temperatures although holding something lit by fire can feel warm or even burn, but who wants to go through that? Smoking as a result of all of this can cause tremors or for the hands to shake(not as in a good job offer or the passing of an driving test), but just a tremor that may make a person unable to coordinate regular body function or movement. Think of it this way: as you smoke you reduce the blood flow through your body, as you do this your hands, legs and feet are affected as they stiffen or do the frozen(no not yogurt or the movie and no -not cute when your grown) thing. As your fingers stiffen and struggle to move along with the rest of your body-how do you expect to do much else with it? Smoking was an acceptable means of commerce since people used tobacco regularly and before it was seen as unhealthy. They smoked and bragged in the movies, on television, during commercials and over the years people have gotten carried away and lit up in all things while in bed, including themselves! In a way you can see the rationale for this: Person Cig is always cold and can't understand why, probably anemia. Person Cig lives in a rent controlled building and does not have a thermostat in the apartment whereby person Cig can regulate the temperature to compensate for the lack of body heat person Cig has. Person Rett has the same problem, always cold and hated to bundle up with Cig who lives in the same apartment as they exist as a couple because Cig was cold and it felt like being next to a block of ice. Cig and Rett therefore smoked to keep warm on most winter nights and why, heck even in real warm temperatures because their body temperatures were not affected by the extreme heat in warmer climates such as Florida or even Texas. So they just continued on. Cig and Rett did not want to see tobacco people out of work and they saw smoking as a stress reducer as civil rights got sticky, although some of the people they worked for saw smoking as a stress reducer as a result of civil rights or it being implemented. Anyways, a friend of the family suggested C-Salt E-cigs. What in the world is that asked Cig and Rett? The family friend said that C-Salt E-cigs are a combination of vitamin C and mineral salts together. By using this mixture in an E-cig inhaler, this reduces the urge to smoke and replenishes the body with minerals it is losing due to smoking and it can help the body with problems as a result of smoking. Cig and Rett looked at each other and realized that the family friend was just trying to assist. They decided to try the C-Salt E-cigs instead of smelling like a bon fire on wheels-so others could at least try to be happy ever after. Now C-Salt E-cig's may not help with civil rights or expatriate issues in the motherland, but it will certainly reduce that urge to smoke. C-Salt E-cigs, to stop smoking because what goes up eventually comes down!
I am somewhat perturbed at the fact that for 2017, the individual rate or increase for health insurance was higher than the group rate for health insurance under the state health exchange plans. It's really quite disturbing to expect an individual who does not make a lot of money to pay more for health insurance than they would if it were offered in a group plan, that is if it were purchased under their states health insurance. This of course means that, the increase in cost that it takes to treat people with chronic illness, pre-existing conditions has been added to the cost of individual type purchases of health insurance. Why should any department of insurance or finance approve increases of absurd amounts for one type of insurance for individuals and then not increase it as much for group types of insurance? Then low and behold, or to make it more "across the board" health insurance rates in a state for some health insurance companies cost the same. This means that in an area where you have low income people, they are paying the same rate or health insurance premium as those in high or higher income areas. For example: Tusshie Privil lives in Nassau County and well what can she say, she makes a decent income to afford to live without assistance from the government or family. She works for a company called Nonegatives. They have group insurance purchased through their states exchange program. The rates were low because of the fact that they are part of a group and their county of Nassau does not affect them by paying more money because of their higher earnings for health insurance-which means people who need less from the government because of their higher financial status actually get more. Leroy Johnsonboy an educated and quite bright man who lives in Westchester and might as well raise chickens out of a tiny one room rental he lives in to supplement his income, because that is the only way he is going to be able to afford a decent meal. Mr. Johnsonboy makes very little money and the company he works for does not provide him with health insurance, and he was informed that it was up to him and of course, the state penalty for not having coverage was put into effect regarding this nonsense. Ms. Privil and Mr. Johnsonboy both have health insurance from their states health insurance exchanges, but because Ms. Privil is part of a group and although in a more affluent part of the state her insurance premiums are lower than Mr. Johnsonboy's who seems to be footing the bills all everywhere, especially with health insurance. In comparison with both people why is it that those with lower incomes seem to pay more than those with higher incomes? And why is the state allowing those counties with higher incomes to pay the same amount for health insurance as those with lower incomes? Is this an apples to apples thing? Or...."Justified because those people without group coverage and lower income counties seem to use health insurance more than those with group health insurance and who live in more affluent counties." Tusshie Privil gets her exams in routine and contacts her physician almost every time she sneezes. She is known for her constant medical workups. Mr. Johnsonboy, well, not so much- as winter approaches sleeping outdoors is not an option, if he goes to the doctor-it will be a reality. So Mr. Johnsonboy declines use of the health insurance. The problem here is that, the cost of health insurance seems to increase even for those who don't use it very much-but the cost of healthcare to those who use it quite frequently seems to be added to those who make less and live in less affluent towns despite the fact that some of these people may not use the health insurance often. Where is the apples to apples comparison or justification rate adjustment? If being homeless is the result or reality due to the lack of safe and affordable choices or options- then who is responsible for the failure?
Blogs are written by