Aa
A
A
Close
Avatar universal
Who in the election will fight for our cause?
I didn't know how to title this post...  

Without getting into a big political debate, can someone tell me, which candidates, on each side, will best be helping the Hep C research funding?    It doesn't matter to me, whether you are saying Democrat/Republican/Indep., or whatever, I'm just curious if anybody knows from past history, researching this, or anything like that???   I'm not saying which party I'm affliated with, that doesn't matter in the general election anyway because you can vote across party lines in that election if you so choose.    Anyway, I'm really curious about this.  I'm also wondering if there's some website that might tell me where the various candidates stand in their past support of HIV, since I figure that if they have a good history with supporting HIV/AIDS research that they might care about HCV.  Anyway, any info would be appreciated.  I hope that this will not end up being a debate because that's not what I'm looking for.

Happy Holidays everyone.

Susan
Cancel
340 Answers
Page 17 of 17
151263 tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
151263 tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
151263 tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
151263 tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
151263 tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
My source for the info about the recession the other day came out of the mouth of GW Bush.  
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
10 consecutive posts make this thread seem even more obsessive, if that's possible.  : )

I'm glad that I wasn't the only person having trouble getting on.

Willy
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
Yep,  kinda makes your day, huh?  I couldn't get on for about an hour. Haven't read all the posts, obviously mremeet had a problem, or MH had a problem. Do you think this is the longest thread ever?
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
I think this thread should be retitled "War and Peace".  ; )

Ever time I open this "page" my computer acts like I've kicked it in the cajones.  It takes a while to open.  I'm pretty sure that the MedHelp power outage was caused by the server overload when members simutaneously tried to open this thread monday morning.  Mre posting 10 times didn't help none.  ; )

just teasin...... carry on....carrying on.  ; )

willy
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
"Heard today we are headed for a recession due to the loss of jobs and the not creating new ones"

"My source for the info about the recession the other day came out of the mouth of GW Bush."  

Please show me any quote by President Bush that says we are heading for a recession. You have once again mispresented the facts. President Bush is pushing for an economic stimulus package to keep the economy from GOING into recession. Those quotes I can show you galore. You will see them as you search in vain for a quote from Pres. Bush that we ARE going into a recession.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
Just to clarify, your statement was we were headed FOR a recession which implies it is a foregone conclusion. Knowledge of the definition of recession is important in this discussion. There are some variances but generally it requires 3 quarters of flat or negative growth. So far we have not had one. Could it happen. Sure. In that sense I can agree that if action isn't taken we will not only head for, but may see a prolonged economic slowdown, or perhaps recession. I said as much above. My point is that President Bush has not stated that recession is a foregone conclusion as you characterized it.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
86075 tn?1238118691
hey ah, so what do you think about those darn Chargers huh? finally looks like they might take the playoffs....?
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
96938 tn?1189803458
You beat me to it this time
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
SORRY, but the chargers season comes to a end next sunday.

The colts CAN-DO and will:)
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
96938 tn?1189803458
Next weekend's games are what larger screen HD's were made for.  Best weekend of the too-long season.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
86075 tn?1238118691
I dunno Canny...Tomlinson was looking p r e t t y good.....what kind of a spread will you give me??? he he he....
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
what kind of a spread will you give me???

hmmm, lets just keep our mind on the 'Football game' ok???:)

Lets see colts win, you have to eat my special diet TWICE next week. A big mac and greasy fries.

colts huh lose, you tell me your special diet and i will eat it twice next week.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
Football it is.  I am angry that the damn niners are so weak!   Okay, canman, if I can eat at all I will try that big mac....maybe..lol.  

BTW;  Mr L  I watched CNN when I heard this, so no cites, sorry.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
86075 tn?1238118691
okay, you got it...but I get to take that thing out in the middle...that brownish-grey textured thing in the middle of the bun....I'll eat the pickle and the quasi-lettuce, with that stuff that passes for mayonnaise...and the fries too...

but get your knife and fork ready...you'll be eating my diet, Manning looks off his game...he he he...

SFbaygirl: stick to football! "The pause that refreshes!" (just kiddin) but youre right, you guys don't have the strongest team this season...we don't even have a team...boo hooo.....should be a good game though...we can all go watch it at Fldude's place...heard he's got a big screen...he can buy the grub too....!
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
Forsee, Tomlinson and the rest of the chargers better keep both eyes on Bob Sanders. And if Harrison decides to play a Manning and Harrison duo will be hard to beat. Are you having a big mac attack yet girl?

sfbay, a big mac and fries cures all.

Flguy, I AGREE

canny getting ready to see forsee heading to the can sick on big macs.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
163305 tn?1333672171
Dow Jones Index Suffers Worst Start to New Year Since 1904
In economic news, more signs are emerging indicating the country might be heading toward a recession. The reported unemployment rate hit 5 percent in December – it was the biggest jump in unemployment since a month after the Sept. 11 attacks. The price of oil briefly topped one hundred dollars a barrel for the first time ever last week. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average suffered its worst start to a new year since 1904. The Nasdaq composite index dropped over five percent last week–its worst start to a new year ever. And the Times of London reports the living standards in Britain are set to rise above those in the United States for the first time since the 19th century. Ethan Harris, the chief economist at Lehman Brothers, predicted 2008 would be a difficult year for the U.S. economy.
Ethan Harris: "We are going into a very uncertain period for the economy with lots of downside risks. The fact that the stock market started the year on a down note is a reminder that there are significant risks out there, so that’s the message. It’s just confirming what we knew, which is it’s going to be a difficult year. The stock market could be up in the year if the economy can skirt recession, but it’s going to be a choppy ride this year. "


Published on Friday, February 23, 2007 by McClatchy Newspapers
US Economy Leaving Record Numbers in Severe Poverty
by Tony Pugh

The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.
The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.
The plight of the severely poor is a distressing sidebar to an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.
These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty - the highest rate since at least 1975.
The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades. But since 2000, the number of severely poor has grown "more than any other segment of the population," according to a recent study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, who co-authored the study. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."
The growth spurt, which leveled off in 2005, in part reflects how hard it is for low-skilled workers to earn their way out of poverty in an unstable job market that favors skilled and educated workers. It also suggests that social programs aren't as effective as they once were at catching those who fall into economic despair.
About one in three severely poor people are under age 17, and nearly two out of three are female. Female-headed families with children account for a large share of the severely poor
Nearly two out of three people (10.3 million) in severe poverty are white, but blacks (4.3 million) and Hispanics of any race (3.7 million) make up disproportionate shares. Blacks are nearly three times as likely as non-Hispanic whites to be in deep poverty, while Hispanics are roughly twice as likely.


Published on Sunday, July 17, 2005 by the San Francisco Chronicle
Casualty of War: US Economy
by James Sterngold

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost taxpayers $314 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects additional expenses of perhaps $450 billion over the next 10 years.
That could make the combined campaigns, especially the war in Iraq, the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years, causing even some conservative experts to criticize the open-ended commitment to an elusive goal. The concern is that the soaring costs, given little weight before now, could play a growing role in U.S. strategic decisions because of the fiscal impact.
"Osama (bin Laden) doesn't have to win; he will just bleed us to death," said Michael Scheuer, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA who led the pursuit of bin Laden and recently retired after writing two books critical of the Clinton and Bush administrations. "He's well on his way to doing it."
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, has estimated that the Korean War cost about $430 billion and the Vietnam War cost about $600 billion, in current dollars. According to the latest estimates, the cost of the war in Iraq could exceed $700 billion.
Put simply, critics say, the war is not making the United States safer and is harming U.S. taxpayers by saddling them with an enormous debt burden, since the war is being financed with deficit spending.
One of the most vocal Republican critics has been Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who said the costs of the war -- many multiples greater than what the White House had estimated in 2003 -- are throwing U.S. fiscal priorities out of balance.
"It's dangerously irresponsible," Hagel said in February of the war spending.
He later told U.S. News & World Report, "The White House is completely disconnected from reality." He added that the apparent lack of solid plans for defeating the insurgency and providing stability in Iraq made it seem "like they're just making it up as they go along."
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
Good cites!  It is really sad to hear of women and their children on the streets, homeless.  The shelters are too full. I heard this on one of the campaign speeches.  The cities and locals are supposed to pick up the tab for these folks and also the mental health. How are they supposed to do that? They are strapped here by Javis/Gann tax cuts on property.  yes, I get a tax break from that, but what about these huge property owners who have found ways to sell, but have loopholes to advantage them.  Little people with houses aren't the problem.  We have no libraries, our schools are in shambles, so are parks and recreation etc, etc.  

Yep, I just saw on CNN about the recession coming. Hopefully not!  But even Bush was in on the conversation about it.  These wars are costing us a bundle. How can we justify spending all this money on war, while people are starving in the US?  40% have no health care?  What makes us the policemen of the world?  Now that we are there,  how do we get out?  Kinda like Vietnam, a quagmire.  Didn't we just leave?  Nixon did that,  pulled us out and now we really need to leave this mess we have created in Iraq.

Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
The author above in the piece on poverty left out some very obvious facts. When this happens credibility for that person is diminished in my mind and I find it harder to believe anything else they have to say.

Of course this is the most people living in poverty since 1973.That should be a no-brainer. Since 1973, we have added 16 million illegal immigrants. This affects the number living in poverty substantially Then lets take population growth---from 1970-present we have added 89 million legal citizens. With the largest US population you would expect to see the larger numbers in all economic classes.
It is no coincidence that some of the states that have the fastest increasing poverty rate are the border states.

As for Hagel--He has been a closet liberal for 10 years. No one on either side of the aisle cares what he says or does.

"That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years."

This of course mean nothing unless we know just how far has it fallen ? Looking at median incomes for a family of four after inflation the growth line is rather static. This author does not address the tax refunds that an average family of four realize now under Bush's tax cuts either. Tax refunds are not counted as earned income so to get a true number reflecting the median household income the tax rates would have to be consulted and income adjusted. The middle class got the highest percentage reduction resulting in about $6000 in avg tax savings for a family of 4 . After adjusted for inflation, the median income actually rose, not declined when tax savings are counted.
Citing a book is not a very good source but it is an improvement. The problem with books is you can find one to support every view. Too many authors have open, or even worse , hidden agendas. When going for financial numbers its just as easy to find the published data and link to it.

Here are yearly inflation numbers.
http://www.housingbubblebust.com/Misc/Inflation.html

The median family income figures by year are available at census.gov.

You can then see for yourself with exactness as to how bad we've done during these 50 months of continued economic growth.

The cost of previous wars should have no bearing on the war we are fighting. What is the price you would put on the continued existence of the United States of America as we know it? I'm not being melodramatic. The stakes for the war we are in are incredibly high. Some folks have no problem with our surrendering to the enemy and leaving. I'm sure that wouldn't embolden them one bit. They just kicked the Great Satan's ***!. I'm sure that wouldn't help their recruitment (Join the group that kicked America's *** !) And I'm certain that if we just leave them alone they will play nice and just leave us alone. uh-huh.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
the thread count is Amazing!-if only all  our bed-sheets were so luxuriously over-stuffed..even in homeless shelters..
and the football predictions are sucha welcome relief...but really,can-man-do you expect forsee to actually chow down a bigmac?..maybe a whopper....(now we can really polarize this discussion!! ).....
WRATH-as in Blake's tigers and Steinbecks grapes...we have been sowing sour seeds and IMHO are gonna reap fruit that ain't fit to drink...A bitter Harvest......we need to realize our own shortcomings;we should admit to  failures and embrace alternatives-we are all on the same page,quite literally!...the times they are a changing...and it's past time to get our own house in order.....how's that for a compendium of platitudes?FLguy?
Please : Super-size the compassion&solidarity that makes us the community we all belong to...and add a dish of ice-cream.....CHEERS,tommy
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
"President Bush has consistently referred to the Iraq war as "the central front in the War on Terror", and has argued that if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, "terrorists will follow us here."[270][271][272] While other proponents of the war have regularly echoed this assertion, as the conflict has dragged on, members of the U.S. Congress, the American public, and even U.S. troops have begun to question the connection between Iraq and the fight against terrorism. In particular, a consensus has developed among intelligence experts that the Iraq war has increased terrorism. Counterterrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna frequently refers to the invasion of Iraq as a "fatal mistake."[273] London's conservative International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded in 2004 that the occupation of Iraq had become "a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and that the invasion "galvanised" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there.[274] The U.S. National Intelligence Council concluded in a January 2005 report that the war in Iraq had become a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists; David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, indicated that the report concluded that the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." The Council's Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, "At the moment, Iraq is a magnet for international terrorist activity."[275] And the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, which outlined the considered judgment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, held that "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."[276]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Mike
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
250084 tn?1303311035
.......but I get to take that thing out in the middle...that brownish-grey textured thing in the middle of the bun....

Ditto ! Ewww!

Amazed on the post count here! This may be turned into a book??

Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
mike-thanks for the analysis...commonsense has become an apparently endangered species round washington..we have performed so incredibly bad on foreign policy fronts and at such incredible cost...ciu bono-who benefits from this calamity? dare i suggest a glance at naomi kleins latest  book on the CHAOS ?
lady laura.....thats meat in the middle-isn't it?how's about some froglegs?.......a book with 15 title pages justa cite authors...how ya doing ??
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
163305 tn?1333672171
"  The author above in the piece on poverty left out some very obvious facts. When this happens credibility for that person is diminished in my mind and I find it harder to believe anything else they have to say."

Yes indeed. It is hard to trust people who leave out pertinent information. The reason why I don't beleive ANYTHING said by the Bush administration.

Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
144210 tn?1273092382
Economics 101 and well said. I have convinced the old timers I work with that a JFK democrat is fairly equivalant to a common day republican. That is not why they changed there vote though, they claim they can not support socialism, which is what the democratic party has become.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4c, i lived in california in the 70's/80's and yes I remember well when the "loons" hit the street.  but, if that is the worst you can come up with about Reagan.....  One of most disturbing things to me is liberal judges who let pedophiles out on the street. And the ACLU that defends these scum free of charge.  Why does the left villify O'Rielly? Because he exposes these judges and goes after them.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
People, people, people,,,,,geesh.....    I went away for a few days and came back and signed on here and there was over 300+ messages on this thread.  I could hardly believe it!  What in the world have I started here?  I've created a monster.  I never intended for WWIII to begin.  

Susan
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
Yes, great analysis.  Goes to the point that if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place those jihadists wouldn't have gone there.  Yes, there is are lots of resentment for US involvement in Iraq. If we had just stayed in Afghanistan and gone after the Taliban and al queda we wouldn't have this problem we have now. We had world support whether open or implicit support going into Afghanistan.  Even Iran was providing information for us on Al Queda.  Why we went into Iraq is beyond me!  

OH; yep,  good post,  I agree.  

LL;  Yep,  except that brown stuff in the middle will leave that juice on the bun! Don't think you would like that!  

Beam;  Gonna check out the book and that ice cream. Who can leave out ice cream on tx?  Now I have higher cholesterol!  
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
I wondered what you would think! lol  Hey, we're just having fun, at least some of the time.  lol
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
179856 tn?1333550962
..... I could hardly believe it!  What in the world have I started here?  I've created a monster.  I never intended for WWIII to begin.  
---------------------------------------------------

and I'm purposefully not even piping up (as hard as that is for me!!!!!!!)    ;)
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
250084 tn?1303311035
  LOL! Don't do frog legs! Would consider ONCE tho :}

Doing very good compare to many, pretty bad compare to some :} Not too bad, thank you. I've just given in to tx! I've found it hurt's me more emotionally to fight it, feel inadequate, feel like a wimp, can't get things done, etc. than to just give in to it!! (just learning this 16 weeks in, LOL!)

Your right....too many pages for the credits on a book!

And that is NOT 'meat'....put that thing in the back of a car and it'll take a year to mold! If at all!  And I haven't even seen the movie 'sicko' yet! Rarely eat meat...if so it's 'organic':}...not a strict veggie person but that ain't meat! :}

BTW..... I am learning a LOT in these threads, so even the hostile debates can be .....ok ??
Hope your doing good :}                                           LL
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
I know what you mean about it being too much, but for me liking politics and discussions (not f'ing contests) it at least makes my brain think about things other than my illnesses.  It is good for the brain to think about things and weigh in on different subjects. God knows we have gone through the gamet here.  I think it is healthy, as long as we don't take things too personally about the politics.

Back to the orginal question;  Who do you think is the best candidate to help our cause."  At this point I really don't know. did anyone see Hillary emotionally say that she is for this country. That got to me.  So does Obama and Edwards speeches about healhcare.  There are so many obstacles in the way of providing good healthcare for all ie; the Iraq war, the economy, the earmarks, the deficits....how do we get back to a place where we can even think about healthcare?  At this point, I don't think we can....Perhaps in the election and a candidate that is smart enough to deal with all the problems facing us, especially the war the the deficit we will do it.  Who Is that person?????
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
In New Hamshire;  Hillary and McCain won the primaries.  Given the issues that americans are closest to...Which candidate do you thiink will get us out of this war and bring diplomacy?  Which candidate will help our economy and why?
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
148987 tn?1287809526
I have reported this thread as spam....LOL !!!
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
Ya mean the kind in the can?  Do you think Forsee or LL would eat that stuff?  lol
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
Opinion based----

When I'm hunting I can't think of a better scenario than my prey coming to my blind and congregating right where I am. Sure makes hunting easier. And as the next class in the madras (egg hatches) and finally graduates send them on over, too.

To think we are creating terrorists I believe is a naive view.  The Islamic extremists in the middle east were born, not created in a training camp somewhere. Their children from a very young age are taught that Israel does not have a right to the land, and are zionists that must be wiped off of the earth. The US is the Great Satan, a Collaborator with the Zionists, the root of all evil in the western world with a decadent society,and bent on destroying all Muslims.
If anything goes wrong in any mid-east country who is not an ally  for any reason at all,  the CIA will always be behind it. This is the way the children are brought up. Even their cartoons talk about jihad and America. The only reason we see more in concentrated numbers is twofold. Access from surrounding Muslim countries apparently is fairly easy, and for most going to America as a terrorist may or may not happen some day. besides, Why wait when they can fight personally against the Great Satan, just by hopping on a camel. How could an Islamo-fascist pass this opportunity by ? Secondly, there is strength in numbers.

All terrorists have a hatred in them for infidels. This hatred was planted long before we got there. And it will continue if we leave. I cannot imagine surrendering to a group of murderous thugs with no respect for life and cruel beyond measure, living just a couple of generations more advanced than stone agers. Can you imagine the boost in recruiting they will get when they show the rest of the Muslim world that it IS possible to kick the Great Satan's ***. It will boost their members worldwide, and greatly embolden them. Yes, I think Bush is right. They will follow us back home. I still can't get over the thought of losing and surrendering. Victory is the best option at this point.

The idea that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone so far has not worked out in our favor. Think WTC '94 and WTC 9-11, which happened before we occupied Arab land. They have a goal, and it matters not when it is completed. They have all the time in the world to fight this fight to wipe out all infidels, and install a theocratic regime globally. They will never leave us alone until their back has been broken permanently worldwide.

If the economy is only headed for a slowdown or a brief recession, a terrorist attack most certainly would turn it in a deep recession. Remember how long it was before people flew after 9-11 ? A dirty bomb could turn the world's biggest economy on its ear. It would have a very substantial global impact on the world's economic markets and the rersult could be worldwide recession.

I really believe it is better taking the fight to them there rather than fighting them over here. All the sob had to do was produce documents detaling the verifiable destruction of known ,tagged WMD.
I have a difficult time accepting the premise suggested by a couple of pundits that Saddam didn't think we would really do it. After '91 and '98 he HAD to know we would follow through on our word. besides there was no political risk, and only gain from the lightening of sanctions if he produced documents. It was a win-win for Saddam and he passed on it. This further suggested that he still had some.

There is alot at stake here---how this turns out will dictate how our kids and grandkids will live their lives. In constant fear of those who want us dead? Or a safer feeling that comes from security ?  Our economy, core beliefs and American values, all hang in the balance against the threat of global extremist jihadists. And they have all the time in the world. They are not going away on their own.

Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
If we are really worried about Islamist terrorists coming here, wouldn't securing our borders and ports be of paramount importance? The fact that this administration hasn't done that makes me wonder how concerned they really are. Or, are they just that stupid? I am not impressed with the democrats on that issue either, by the way. None of the democratic candidates even mentions border security.
We just see it differently. I think that a common enemy unites disparate groups and galvanizes them and we are the perfect common enemy. And the enormous capital we're expending could be much better spent in so many other areas such as rebuilding this country's decrepit infrastructure, as one obvious example. I could go on but we both have heard it many times. We just disagree and that's okay with me - as long as you don't become the commander in chief.
Be well, Mike

Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
179856 tn?1333550962
id anyone see Hillary emotionally say that she is for this country. That got to me.  
-----------------------

I was very surprised at how impressive she really was. Obama talks a lot of talk of nice words but I don't see him being able to change anything. Hillary's demeanor and speech gave me hope...but then again I am and always have been a supporter of the Clinton's (except they live in just about my hometown backyard and when they go on the highway they screw up the commute big time because you know they close the road exit to exit as they pass by).  ;)
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
Mike,

Very well said!
I have relatives in Eastern Europe --- they woke up one morning only to find 9 (nine!) policemen heads hanging on the trees in the center of the city (population of ~0.5 mil.)!!  I didn't see this news on the US news broadcast!!

The US Army should be increased at least to the size of the prior Clinton's reduction.  I don't want to have human heads hanging in any American city!!

I tried not to get involved in this subject.

But it occurred to me the most of American public is too nice and too naive even to comprehend the danger is out there!!

I didn't vote for Bush, but I think we should give him credit for keeping away further attacks on the US.  All politicians criticizing the US Army (like torture, etc.) doing disservice to the US and all peaceful nations.

Cheers!
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
BTW, prior to the US "invasion" of Iraq, when the US newspapers were covering news about "poor" Chechen population completely mistreated by Russians.  During this time one English and French reporters were be-headed by Chechens -- even though these reporters were there with the exceptional intend to help Chechen population.  I didn't see this news in the US newspapers either -- but I have a copy in German.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
Mike, I agree with you about borders. If there is such a threat what are we doing to control the borders?  I still agree with you about the insurgents coming into Iraq, where they hadn't been before. We know there are training camps on the Afgan and Pakistan border. Still don't get why we are not there in the numbers necessary to get them.  

Mr. Liver;  Wow,  Your tone is so much more tame.  It is easy to read your POV's and actually I could understand what you mean on some things.  I do agree with Mike though,  Please don't become Commander in Cheif! LOL
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
233616 tn?1312790796
WWIII & 4....
and now you know why I suggested Big Bird : ))))))))))
lol
burn me once....


what I don't understand is if Regan emptied all the mental institutions why am I still here?????????                             (jk)
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
131817 tn?1209532911
I agree with you about the news not getting here. I lived in Europe and visit there often.  The news is so different, we dont' hear half the stuff reported by European reporters! That must have been a nightmare seeing those heads....geez. And of course we didn't see it. The news is owned by a few people who control what we see.  

NY;  I love Clinton and would like Hillary to win. Not sure who I am for at this point. Did you watch the speeches yesterday at NH.  Hers was read off of notes, really cold. Obama's speech was electric and reminds me of the magic of when JFK spoke and campaigned. Actually if any of the three won, I would be happy!
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
148987 tn?1287809526
without any discussion of, or mention of......poop.

Well how is poop political, you may ask ? Well if you need to ask that, then you really don't know poop then do you ? Politics is a poopy business.It is filled with poopy people with poopy ideas who don't know poop about poop. But one thing is for sure. They all poop. Some of them have their poop together better than others. I imagine some have really runny lose poop, others poop diamonds or titanium.

Some think their poop doesn't stink but others disagree. No one really smells their own poop...wait...that's breath. No one ever smells their own breath but some peoples breath does smell like poop but they'd never know it which is kind of strange since their nose is right above their mouth.  

I think politicians should be required to talk about their poop. It shows that they are people just like us. Maybe Wolf Blitzer, when he takes a break from his sichyayshun room thing, could just blurt out in one of them debates, 'When was the last time you pooped, sir ?' Who knows, one of 'em might say, 'I need to poop right now...' I'd bet Dennis Kucinich has never pooped in his life. I don't think aliens poop. Or maybe he could ask one of them if they've ever had the poop scared out of them of if they have ever pooped their pants or how often they change their underwear or, like the Donald, they wear new underwear every day, which to me, is the surest sign of success but it's a little highbrow for me. I think if I were rich, I'd probably wear a pair of underwear twice, maybe even three times, before I gave them to good will.

I don't know, maybe I'm alone in pondering these things...I've just always wondered why poop was never on the table or up for discussion among the candidates since it's the only thing we really share in common. I wouldn't mind seeing an interview or two from their bathrooms, maybe while they are in the act of pooping, just to see how they handle stress 'n stuff. You know, see how tidy they are. I just can't see myself voting for someone who doesn't properly clean or is constipated. For example, ask them; do you use a bidet, strictly paper and if so, what kind, or perhaps moist towelettes. Hell for all we know one of 'em keeps a poop rag in the sink, like myself.  That guy would get my vote. I think good poop etiquette would go hand in hand, so to speak, with a good foreign policy.Think of the cultural differences. In the ME, they just squat over a hole, which I find barbaric and completely unacceptable. Which reminds me...my peace plan for the ME involves sit down toilets and more air conditioning. I think that would go far to change the mood over there. I know if I was all hot and sweaty and had to squat over a hole to poop I'd want to blow up something myself. Maybe even cut a few heads off.  I could run on the cool poop platform. Form a party. Give it a cool name like the pooper party and anyone who didn't join would be...yeah that's right.... a party pooper.

I dunno..these are just things I ponder late at night and early in the morning. Call me crazy.

Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
163305 tn?1333672171
LOL,yes you are right. Everyone thinks someone else stinks.

But, I disagree with you about squat pooping or pooping over a hole. Its more natural, cleaner and helps if you are in some little place in Asia wondering why the toilet is just some porcelain oval  on the floor.

One more thing, tx left me pooped out.
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
01/10/08 Blood transfusion risk
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has identified that blood obtained from emergency donors in US military facilities (and potentially other coalition facilities) in Iraq and Afghanistan may not have been properly screened.

This means it is possible that some personnel who had a blood transfusion involving non-UK emergency donor panels may have been put at risk of some types of infection.

A special telephone service is available if you would like to speak to someone or get more information. The number is 0845 850 9850*. The service is available every day including weekends from 9am to 6pm.

Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Avatar universal
crazy!
Comment
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Comment
Post Comment
Your Answer
Avatar universal
Answer
Do you know how to answer? Tap here to leave your answer...
Answer
Answer
Post Answer
A
A
Answer a few simple questions about your Hep C treatment journey.

Those who qualify may receive up to $100 for their time.
Explore More In Our Hep C Learning Center
image description
What Is Hepatitis C?
Learn about this treatable virus.
image description
Diagnosing Hepatitis C
Getting tested for this viral infection.
image description
Just Diagnosed? Here’s What’s Next
3 key steps to getting on treatment.
image description
Understanding Hepatitis C Treatment
4 steps to getting on therapy.
image description
Your Guide to Hep C Treatments
What you need to know about Hep C drugs.
image description
Managing Side Effects of Treatment
How the drugs might affect you.
image description
Making Hep C Treatment a Success
These tips may up your chances of a cure.
Recent Activity
317787 tn?1473362051
Blank
Dee1956 commented on NA
Dec 10
317787 tn?1473362051
Blank
Dee1956 commented on KeeLolo's status
Dec 10
317787 tn?1473362051
Blank
Dee1956 commented on Belle313's status
Dec 09
Blank
Weight Tracker
Track your weight over time
Start Tracking Now
Top Hepatitis Answerers
Avatar universal
Blank
317787 tn?1473362051
Blank
DC
1747881 tn?1511918860
Blank
683231 tn?1467326617
Blank
Auburn, WA
7469840 tn?1409849436
Blank
San Diego, CA
475555 tn?1469307939
Blank
Woodhaven, NY
Hepatitis Social Community Resources
Top Hepatitis Answerers
Avatar universal
Blank
317787 tn?1473362051
Blank
DC
1747881 tn?1511918860
Blank
683231 tn?1467326617
Blank
Auburn, WA
7469840 tn?1409849436
Blank
San Diego, CA
475555 tn?1469307939
Blank
Woodhaven, NY