jokes...Funny or Not?
President George W. Bush decides it is time to do some public relations at a local Washington DC nursing home. The President begins his "tour" down the main hallway and passes by a little old man who doesn't seem to notice him. Sensing this, President Bush backtracks to the resident and asks, "Do you know who I am?" The little old man looks up from his walker and says, "No, but if you go to the front desk, they will tell you your name." A boy from France comes to America. He wants to learn some new words so he goes to the airport and learns "take off." Then he learnes "zebra" from the zoo and "baby" from the hospital. Then he goes home and says, ''Mommy, I learned new words today.'' She says, "Great, honey what did you learn?" He says, ''Takeoffzebrababy!''
Jokes & Riddles - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the first one is funny in a cute way. but funny! the second one is also funny, but really corny overall, they are both jokes that would be good ones to tell
2 :
That Joke was very funny. I give you a 10/10. Great joke.
3 :
I dont really like them if you have ever seen the show "Yo Momma" I think you would get booed I have heard better
4 :
GOOD JOKE THanks for the laugh
5 :
lol the 2nd one is hilarious!
6 :
The first one is really funny LOL. But i dont really like the 2nd one as much.
7 :
Weird!
8 :
both funny
Read more discussion :
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
can i study to be a nurse
can i study to be a nurse?
now the question is can i study to become anurse or at least take the necesary clases in another country then finish in the u.s???fo example to become a nurse i need to take humanity clases.can i take that class (example)France then come and finish in the us???now another thing is that i do ot now french so....is there a way for me to study there in english but still be in france???
Studying Abroad - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No.You would have to take the prerequisite classes in the same country.
Read more discussion :
now the question is can i study to become anurse or at least take the necesary clases in another country then finish in the u.s???fo example to become a nurse i need to take humanity clases.can i take that class (example)France then come and finish in the us???now another thing is that i do ot now french so....is there a way for me to study there in english but still be in france???
Studying Abroad - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No.You would have to take the prerequisite classes in the same country.
Read more discussion :
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Why are some political parties and their followers like this
Why are some political parties and their followers like this?
Okay, I am not going to name the political party since they are known for reporting people who disagree with them. Anywho. I am a 30 year old man with two bachelors degrees, one in Nursing and the other in Health Administration and Policy, and a Masters degree in Anesthiology (sorry I still cant spell that word). I started college when I was 17 years old and was completely finished with everything by the time I was 25. I am now an Anaesthiologist working with one of the best cosmetic surgeons in the Washington DC area. I make $250,000 a year. I am also a married man since I was 24 and the proud father of 2 sets of twins. My wife is a private teacher for Autistic children and makes $75 an hour. We are both living the life of our dreams. Our childrens college is already pre-paid, our house will be paid off next year. We just feel so blessed. This summer my wife and I took our kids on a Disney world tour. We went to Disney in Florida, California, China, and France. We were both able to take a month off of work to make sure our kids have the time of their lives and to bring our family closer together. Now my problem is is that thereare certain people running for president and his followers who want to take that away from me and my family. They feel that even though I work hard for my money and where I am that I shouldn't have it. They feel I should be happy with $80000 a year and the rest should be given to the poor. They see vacations like the one my family and I took and say we should be happy with just going to Six Flags. Why do these people feel this way? Why do they feel that the wealthy should suffer for the poor? Why do they feel that I should give up most of my income in federal taxes so less educated people can live better lives? Can anyone explain this logic? please.
Other - Politics & Government - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the candidate you are referring to just wants to lower tax cuts for the upper class not put more taxes on... he just feels that all classes should receive tax breaks relative to their income.... a rich person gets less tax breaks because it takes a smaller portion of his income to buy food.. gas...etc a lower class person must use a higher percentage of their income to pay for these every day items .... this is the principal behind a progressive tax system
2 :
Its just jealousy, plain and simple. People are too lazy to pursue an education or work at a career, and would rather have the govt. take care of them.
Read more discussion :
Okay, I am not going to name the political party since they are known for reporting people who disagree with them. Anywho. I am a 30 year old man with two bachelors degrees, one in Nursing and the other in Health Administration and Policy, and a Masters degree in Anesthiology (sorry I still cant spell that word). I started college when I was 17 years old and was completely finished with everything by the time I was 25. I am now an Anaesthiologist working with one of the best cosmetic surgeons in the Washington DC area. I make $250,000 a year. I am also a married man since I was 24 and the proud father of 2 sets of twins. My wife is a private teacher for Autistic children and makes $75 an hour. We are both living the life of our dreams. Our childrens college is already pre-paid, our house will be paid off next year. We just feel so blessed. This summer my wife and I took our kids on a Disney world tour. We went to Disney in Florida, California, China, and France. We were both able to take a month off of work to make sure our kids have the time of their lives and to bring our family closer together. Now my problem is is that thereare certain people running for president and his followers who want to take that away from me and my family. They feel that even though I work hard for my money and where I am that I shouldn't have it. They feel I should be happy with $80000 a year and the rest should be given to the poor. They see vacations like the one my family and I took and say we should be happy with just going to Six Flags. Why do these people feel this way? Why do they feel that the wealthy should suffer for the poor? Why do they feel that I should give up most of my income in federal taxes so less educated people can live better lives? Can anyone explain this logic? please.
Other - Politics & Government - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the candidate you are referring to just wants to lower tax cuts for the upper class not put more taxes on... he just feels that all classes should receive tax breaks relative to their income.... a rich person gets less tax breaks because it takes a smaller portion of his income to buy food.. gas...etc a lower class person must use a higher percentage of their income to pay for these every day items .... this is the principal behind a progressive tax system
2 :
Its just jealousy, plain and simple. People are too lazy to pursue an education or work at a career, and would rather have the govt. take care of them.
Read more discussion :
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
History - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It sounds good, but the trouble is, when has the government ever done anything "for the common good"? These political parasites take care of themselves (as per congressional pensions and free heath care for congressmen) to the exclusion of everyone else.
2 :
Sorry, but I gave up half way through this question. Britain and Northern Ireland have a National Health Service which does work the majority of the time - although those that it has unfortunately failed - think differently. Our National Health Service is not free, we pay individually, a set amount to the Government depending upon what is earned. Neither the hospitals nor doctors/nursing staff within the NHS make profit because they are paid - by the hours they work they are underpaid. The doctors/nursing staff that have opted out of the NHS do make a profit charging what they like for any service they give. The group(s) of people that make the very large profits are the pharmaceutical companies that charge the NHS an extortionate sum for the medication that they supply. The people in the UK are largely more healthier than they ever were because of the NHS. Before it was inaugurated in 1947/1948 only the well to do could afford the doctors fees and because of poverty that abounded at that time, very many doctors treated their patients without charge. May I suggest you look up the facts on Wiki for the National Health Service and you will be able to judge for yourself whether it was the right was to go. The only people
Read more discussion :
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
History - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It sounds good, but the trouble is, when has the government ever done anything "for the common good"? These political parasites take care of themselves (as per congressional pensions and free heath care for congressmen) to the exclusion of everyone else.
2 :
Sorry, but I gave up half way through this question. Britain and Northern Ireland have a National Health Service which does work the majority of the time - although those that it has unfortunately failed - think differently. Our National Health Service is not free, we pay individually, a set amount to the Government depending upon what is earned. Neither the hospitals nor doctors/nursing staff within the NHS make profit because they are paid - by the hours they work they are underpaid. The doctors/nursing staff that have opted out of the NHS do make a profit charging what they like for any service they give. The group(s) of people that make the very large profits are the pharmaceutical companies that charge the NHS an extortionate sum for the medication that they supply. The people in the UK are largely more healthier than they ever were because of the NHS. Before it was inaugurated in 1947/1948 only the well to do could afford the doctors fees and because of poverty that abounded at that time, very many doctors treated their patients without charge. May I suggest you look up the facts on Wiki for the National Health Service and you will be able to judge for yourself whether it was the right was to go. The only people
Read more discussion :
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)