Elections Fetterman in the hospital for 3 days now at least

People get admitted for shingles all the time and often have a myriad of comorbidities that keep them in. It's odd that you're citing SNF experience to justify why she shouldn't be admitted to a hospital when an ER physician called a hospitalist physician and they both agreed she met the criteria for admission both medically and for billing purposes.

- ER / ICU RN since 2011

but you are er/icu. Would shingles warrant an ICU stay? No.

In terms of ER, goal would be to discharge to subacute care like a SNF. Or even being admitted, goal would be to DC to subacute care ASAP, as per protocol

she should not be having extended hospital stays for shingles
 
People get admitted for shingles all the time and often have a myriad of comorbidities that keep them in. It's odd that you're citing SNF experience to justify why she shouldn't be admitted to a hospital when an ER physician called a hospitalist physician and they both agreed she met the criteria for admission both medically and for billing purposes.

- ER / ICU RN since 2011


By the way, as you can see, only a very small % of people who actually get shingles are actually hospitalized. And those that do have severe complication, usually due to significant underlying comorbidities. And this is the CDC, not your anecdotal input.

https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/surveillance.html


Hospitalizations and Deaths
Approximately 1 to 4% of people who get shingles are hospitalized for complications. Older adults and people with weakened or suppressed immune system are more likely to be hospitalized. About 30% of people hospitalized for shingles have a weakened or suppressed immune system. Shingles causes fewer than 100 deaths annually. Almost all shingles deaths are in elderly or people with compromised immune system.


edit: and that is still not taking into account she has a bunch of money and an elite and would certainly have her and her family want her home or any where other than a dirty hospital if it were “just shingles”
 
Last edited:
Yes, but not everybody votes.

Republicans land slightly higher on retirement benefits after paying in for a lifetime, while democrats get the huge majority of welfare, food stamps, long term unemployment, felons, deadbeats, and in addition to those, they also have more public sector bureaucrats receiving salaries from tax dollars with no expectation for results.


Pew Research Center finds that a majority of Americans (55%) have received government benefits from at least one of the six best-known federal entitlement programs.

What percentage of your Federal Income tax dollars go to social programs?

You scoff at what amounts to about $50 of your annual tax liability, yet the $5000 you pay annually for a bloated defense budget and socializing costs for big business never hits your radar. Hmm. Kind of sounds like you just stumbled in to the emergency room bleeding profusely from a gunshot wound to the head, and instead is simply bitching about a stubbed toe.

So ya, both Democrats and Republicans have politicians who take advantage of the system, and are bought and paid for by big money. I think you would agree with that.

Yet, your answer to that is to elect Republicans, who have virtually no public policy platform for the common person, so they can make sure the status quo is not fucked with. Last I checked, legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions, and attempts to regulate big money in politics ONLY comes from the left. Full stop. Maybe not a lot of Democrats, but it's sure better than voting for a party that is absolutely guaranteed to strike down or veto any mention of regulating campaign contributions or the corporate lobby.

Oh ya. And it makes perfect sense to have your entire party revolve around tax cuts for the rich. Well guess what, when there are only 2 paying groups in to the nation's tax liability, and you LOWER the contributions of one group, guess where the slack gets picked up? And don't give me this shit about how the rich pay the most - they do, they also command most of the wealth - therefore if you and I sit down to eat dinner and you order 70% of the food for yourself, you better expect you should be paying 70% of the bill. The rich do not pay a commensurate amount of tax in relation to the amount of wealth they control.

Now go back to your bitching and whining about having to fund $50 annually for food stamps so some kids can eat properly, while simultaneously having absolutely no problem with shit like the Pentagon routinely "not being able to account for" trillions and trillions of dollars. They get away with it precisely because of people like you, who wraps yourself in stupid culture way shit of the middle class vs the poor. Lemme guess. You are one of these types who is pro-life, and insists that no fetus should be murdered, yet spend all your days on Sherdog forums bitching about poor people and what an inconvenience they are to you.
 
What percentage of your Federal Income tax dollars go to social programs?

You scoff at what amounts to about $50 of your annual tax liability, yet the $5000 you pay annually for a bloated defense budget and socializing costs for big business never hits your radar. Hmm. Kind of sounds like you just stumbled in to the emergency room bleeding profusely from a gunshot wound to the head, and instead is simply bitching about a stubbed toe.

So ya, both Democrats and Republicans have politicians who take advantage of the system, and are bought and paid for by big money. I think you would agree with that.

Yet, your answer to that is to elect Republicans, who have virtually no public policy platform for the common person, so they can make sure the status quo is not fucked with. Last I checked, legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions, and attempts to regulate big money in politics ONLY comes from the left. Full stop. Maybe not a lot of Democrats, but it's sure better than voting for a party that is absolutely guaranteed to strike down or veto any mention of regulating campaign contributions or the corporate lobby.

Oh ya. And it makes perfect sense to have your entire party revolve around tax cuts for the rich. Well guess what, when there are only 2 paying groups in to the nation's tax liability, and you LOWER the contributions of one group, guess where the slack gets picked up? And don't give me this shit about how the rich pay the most - they do, they also command most of the wealth - therefore if you and I sit down to eat dinner and you order 70% of the food for yourself, you better expect you should be paying 70% of the bill. The rich do not pay a commensurate amount of tax in relation to the amount of wealth they control.

Now go back to your bitching and whining about having to fund $50 annually for food stamps so some kids can eat properly, while simultaneously having absolutely no problem with shit like the Pentagon routinely "not being able to account for" trillions and trillions of dollars. They get away with it precisely because of people like you, who wraps yourself in stupid culture way shit of the middle class vs the poor. Lemme guess. You are one of these types who is pro-life, and insists that no fetus should be murdered, yet spend all your days on Sherdog forums bitching about poor people and what an inconvenience they are to you.
<WhatIsThis>

You think defense is 100x the cost of social programs? Defense is 13% of the budget and "economic security programs" that don't even include medical assistance or SS is 11%, or well over half if you do include those.

Reducing taxes and spending IS the benefit to the common person, and just interest on the debt without even digging into the principle is more than half the entire defense budget. I don't want to spend a shitload on defense either, and would have preferred the only president to not start any new wars in several decades, while you voted for the one who now has WW3 looming. If you'd like to pay more in taxes, feel free, I would prefer to send less of my money into the money hole.

4-14-08tax_rev7-28-22_f1.png
 
Last edited:
Damn, Did Steven hawks wheelchair read this for him?



It's hard not to feel bad for him. If it is true that his thinking is fine, it must be terrifying to struggle at something we learn at age 6. Towards the end, he sounds like he is in pain.
 
<WhatIsThis>

You think defense is 100x the cost of social programs? Defense is 13% of the budget and "economic security programs" that don't even include medical assistance or SS is 11%, or well over half if you do include those.

Reducing taxes and spending IS the benefit to the common person, and just interest on the debt without even digging into the principle is more than half the entire defense budget. I don't want to spend a shitload on defense either, and would have preferred the only president to not start any new wars in several decades, while you voted for the one who now has WW3 looming. If you'd like to pay more in taxes, feel free, I would prefer to send less of my money into the money hole.

4-14-08tax_rev7-28-22_f1.png

3% for Education
<bball1>
 
I don't see the big deal. Even if he had a full on stroke, he wouldn't be worse then Trump or Biden.
 
Back
Top