Michael

Ah so. I wonder how many watching know it's a throwback to long-ago AM radio commercials for some kind of regular Sunday racing match in Noo Joizy? Same voice, or a facsimile. Thank you mobey. I was expecting it to be a reminder to go to church.

The world is ending, and reporters and editors valiantly put out their final editions amidst the chaos. Here are their front page headlines:

The New York Times: "World ends; story and analysis on page B11."

The Wall Street Journal: "Market down 5,000 point on news that world is ending"

New York Post: "BOOM!"

The Washington Post: "World ends; women and minorities hardest hit."

find

http://www.emtcity.com/phpBB2/siterules.php

(The things we do for love!)

ROFL!

They don't do those stupid radio commercials in Canadia too, do they?

Welcome back, Dust! Please explain the reference to a hick here.

"Honey, I forgot to duck," said one.

"Then take a gander," said the other.

When one of those was heard saying to the other "Well, I'm down with that!" was he referring to the plane or his feathers?

:thumbright: But I thought no fowl play was suspected.

the role of Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie-Mae and Freddy-Mac and the momentum given to the situation by increasing government pressure to provide shaky mortgages. I also should have placed that in context with a climate of ever decreasing regulation of the market

Hmm... I'd a said that increasing government pressure = ever increasing regulation of the market.

an entirely unregulated free market best underpins western society provides the perspective from which so much of this was viewed.

Again, I'd say we get unnecessary problems when markets are "regulated" [= "suppressed"].

The economy is far from my strong suit, but I'm comfortable in saying that a whole bunch of people making way more money than any of us will in EMS, with little to no restriction on how they do things (whether in the private sector or government) are responsible for the mess we're in.

And again, I'd have restrictions come from the nature of the craft itself, whether it's patients or pork-bellies.

I have a social left bias and I'm comfortable with that and maybe it is that bias that's leading me here, but how can a profit-driven model ever by it's nature consistently work in the best interests of the patient and still maximize profits? I just don't see it.

And I see no other way. Oh well.

not sure what you re talking about

Exploding soup echoed exploding brains; just not a good way to sell food.

We all seem to agree here. So, just as an aside:

big business did such a bang-up job on the mortgage industry and deciding who can afford what house regardless of their income

My understanding is that the mortgage crisis resulted not from big business, but rather from government pressure on banks, answering to popular pressure on elected representatives, to lend housing money to [s:30f2b484d8]the underprivileged[/s:30f2b484d8] poor credit risks, coupled with fractional-reserve lending (the bank simultaneously [s:30f2b484d8]lending[/s:30f2b484d8] faking money that is not actually on deposit, to multiple creditors in the hope that they won't all try to withdraw their funds at once, coupled with "fiat money," which is the Federal Reserve simply printing up more and more money and tossing it into the market to stimulate [s:30f2b484d8]economic activity[/s:30f2b484d8] inflation.

I suspect there's an analogy here to the corruption of medicine described in the article.

[web:5484989001]http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/01/16/medco-ceo-wants-health-fed-to-set-treatment-rules-for-doctors/[/web:5484989001]

If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

= An offense repeatable through magazines.

Right. Guerrilla wordfare.

[web:fce3309771]http://www.amazon.com/review/R2X2TB3S4O5I60?ie=UTF8&ref_=cm_cr_rdp_perm[/web:fce3309771]

Well, since I am kind of a nutrition freak, maybe it doesn't bother me because there's likely nothing on the menu there for me anyway. (Where'd the guy go who's always talking about empathy, I wonder.)

This, however, really disturbs me.

Could've posted this in EMS discussion, I guess.

[web:66a4ac4e61]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090111/ap_on_re_us/salmonella_outbreak_recall[/web:66a4ac4e61]

what about writing a bill for the providers? would be much more amusing

Duck walks into a pharmacy, takes tube of lip-balm off the shelf and brings it to the counter.

Cashier: Do you want to pay for that right now?

Duck: No, just put it on my bill.

I don't care if I posted this before. I still think it's funny.

Right here.

And one almost as cute here.

Other objections:

If we covered this a while back, here it is again. And maybe if I thought about it, I wouldn't find it funny.

"You have the right to trust the judgment of your provider." 8)

Psychologically: On the one hand, the more a pt can do for herself/himself, the higher his or her morale might be, esp for peds and geris; it signifies that one is not helpless and will bounce back to normal life soon, as there's less psychic "distance" to bounce back from. So that supports the pt's walking if s/he safely can. On the other hand, having to go through the ritual of being-carried raises the bar for what constitutes an emergency. It's like having special "Sunday clothes"; one regards Sunday with more respect if it's really different in symbolic as well as practical ways. Dashing in and out of the ambulance on one's own power makes the trip more casual, so you might minimize your awareness of the trouble other people are taking on your behalf. So maybe it best depends on which direction the pt needs to go in - the greater formality for the cavalier abuser of services, the more independence for the person who needs independence reinforced. Though I recently had an epistaxic elderly lady dive for the cot as if for an old friend, clearly looking forward to the adventure of a night away from home, poor thing. Maybe walking would have taken some of the seductive thrill out of the trip. But Safe-T first, of course.

Be it resolved, for the Affirmative: You're a poopy-head.