It’s an undeniable reality—those within vegetarian and macrobiotic circles generally view milk as an incredibly unhealthy staple. There is a whole litany of arguments used to back up that specific stance.
From my perspective, it seems we are finally seeing a slow retreat from the old dogma that milk is some kind of perfect, indispensable food group, especially when it comes to infant nutrition. For instance, you see cow's milk being actively discouraged for babies under a year old, and even among breastfeeding mothers, any sign of colic in a child immediately triggers suspicion of a milk allergy. It feels like more and more people, even those who aren't strictly vegetarian, are moving away from the notion that milk is the ultimate source of calcium.
The actual bioavailability of calcium from milk is precisely what fascinates me, yet I can never seem to find a straight answer to the question. There was once a rather heated, intense debate about this on a forum, but I still find myself unable to grasp what the actual truth is regarding how much of that calcium is actually utilized by the body.
The wait times for mammograms are endless, and getting the actual results takes even longer. Honestly, you might be better off just paying for a private appointment; it isn't nearly as expensive as people make it out to be (I believe my mother went through a private screening at $67)
I’m not sure how old you are, but I’d argue that a mammogram isn't even the most effective tool for younger women; an ultrasound is generally a much better option.
Maybe you could try setting this up with Dr. Miller or whoever is covering his shifts—they keep all the files over at the university clinic, so you wouldn't have to deal with hauling everything down to the hospital lab myself.
From what I’ve gathered, Dr. Miller isn't actually out on medical leave anymore🙂—unless, of course, he’s decided to go back on leave once again.
Vaginal discharge, specifically clamydia, per $83, HPV $133
If paying out-of-pocket for these tests feels like too much of a financial hit, you might want to see if you can secure a referral from a public gynecologist. You could then pick up the necessary testing swabs at the local health department over on Rockefeller, head to Dr. Harni to have the actual samples taken (which will run you about $33), and finally return the supplies to the health department yourself.
Ronald Castillo5 said:Hold on, so you're saying customers should be outraged that employees are working Sundays and pulling overtime without seeing an extra dime?
It isn't about the customers; it's about the citizens, the general public—I don't really view myself as just a customer. My question is whether the public in this country would actually be willing to react to labor rights violations by, say, boycotting the companies that ignore them. Everyone in these threads seems to agree that we shouldn't ban Sunday work, but rather ensure that workers' rights are respected. Yet, I find myself wondering what we are actually prepared to do when those rights aren't upheld—which, according to reports from the Labor Union, they clearly aren't.
Joshua Chavez said:A strike? What’s the point of a Labor Union then? As individuals, they’re powerless, but as a collective, they could bring a giant like General Motors to its knees in three days flat. Yet, for most workers, actually joining a union and coughing up that 1% membership fee feels like too much work. Everyone wants someone else to fix their problems while they just sit there playing passive bystanders.
But what happens when an employer actively prevents them from organizing, or if people are simply too terrified of losing their jobs to walk out? Or consider the small local shops where there are only one or two employees to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that people ought to fight harder for their rights, but what if they are genuinely afraid or just lack the capacity to do so? Shouldn't their rights be protected by law regardless, and shouldn't the government be the entity responsible for ensuring those laws are actually enforced?
The real question I'm posing is this—is anyone among us actually prepared to show solidarity with workers whose rights are being trampled, even if it's just by boycotting the employer who is violating them? To be perfectly honest, after reading the threads on this forum regarding the MTA strike and the doctors' strike, I have my doubts.
Ronald Castillo5 said:My wife ends up working almost every Sunday because she actually prefers having just one weekday off, along with Saturday.
And everything you wrote applies to all other employees too. You don't see everyone at the big shopping malls working every single Sunday, nor would they want to. And of course, the pay should be better.
These kinds of issues need proper regulation rather than just blanket bans on everything.
I agree that we shouldn't just ban everything outright; however, based on what the Labor Union claims—and what several people here have shared from their own experiences—retail workers in shopping malls and stores throughout America are pulling massive amounts of overtime. They either aren't getting paid for those extra hours at all, or the compensation is pathetic, all while being forced to work nearly every holiday and Sunday.
To reiterate—I realize that banning Sunday work isn't the magic fix, since employers would likely find ways to exploit workers regardless—but I find myself wondering what the actual solution is. It seems quite obvious that the government simply refuses to step in when these labor rights are being violated.
So, I’m curious if anyone posting here who supports Sunday shifts would actually be willing to boycott a specific shopping mall if it turned out the employer there was systematically violating worker protections?
So, how many Sundays a month does your wife actually pull shifts in the medical field?
My cousin works in healthcare too, and naturally, she picks up shifts on holidays and Sundays, but it’s by no means a weekly occurrence, let alone every single Sunday or every federal holiday. On top of that, those shifts come with premium pay—we're talking significant overtime—so thanks to those extra duties, her take-home pay ends up being quite respectable.
My husband also finds himself working on Sundays from time to time, which is just standard practice in his line of work; however, again, he isn't working every single Sunday, and he gets compensated specifically for that time, much like how every single minute of overtime is tracked and paid out separately.
Dogma is an absolute masterpiece 👍 I could honestly sit through it a hundred times without getting bored
If I had to rank Kevin Smith's filmography, I’d probably go with Chasing Amy, Trader, Dogma, Mallrats, then Jay and Silent Bob 👎 though that last one is just pure, unadulterated nonsense.
placidjackal97 said:Yeah, I actually know one mother who went through it without an epidural—it was specifically because the baby wouldn't turn or descend after her due date had already passed. This was her second child, since her first delivery had been perfectly routine, and she described those induced labors as being nothing short of pure hell.
That’s exactly why I’m bringing up the combination of induction and an epidural.
Anyway, this really doesn't have much to do with the actual topic at hand 😛
It isn’t some established medical protocol, nor is it something people discuss with any regularity—it's more like my own personal observation. Typically, an induction is only triggered if the membranes rupture prematurely or if a woman hits her 41st week without going into labor. But if you can just schedule a C-section on demand, then I suppose you could theoretically order an induction the same way.
placidjackal97, there isn't actually a legal way to go about this—what I mean is, there’s no mechanism for a decision to be made if the medical necessity isn't there. I can't just walk into a hospital and demand a C-section if there isn't a legitimate medical indication for it.
Maybe some people are getting them scheduled under the table (though, honestly, I can't wrap my head around why anyone would even want a C-section, but whatever)—but if they are, it follows that they're paying for it. If it's being done outside the standard protocols, it's essentially off the books, so it's hardly surprising that money changes hands.
If fear of labor is really the driving force behind opting for a C-section, then it honestly seems more logical to just schedule an induced vaginal birth with an epidural—that’s my take on it.
placidjackal97 said:Exactly, there isn't actually a legal provision for requesting one.
I honestly can't wrap my head around why anyone would specifically demand a C-section.
Out there, it’s mostly celebrities and influencers who push for it, always claiming they just want everything over with quickly.
One significant factor might simply be overwhelming fear. Early on in my pregnancy, I was absolutely convinced that I needed to schedule a C-section.
My OB-GYN eventually referred me to a psychologist specializing in childbirth anxiety, where I realized just how many women struggle with these exact same terrors; that experience gave me the mental tools to ultimately opt for a natural birth. I'm not defending elective C-sections, but these could be some of the underlying motivations for those who insist on them.
I truly find this impossible to understand. These days, you can have an induced labor with an epidural, so if I were going to spend money on anything, I'd pay for that instead. A C-section is by no means painless, and the recovery takes incomparably longer. Since I'll most likely end up needing a C-section myself, I really don't see the logic in anyone choosing it voluntarily.
You hit the nail on the head, Hannah Scott69. 👍 People tend to be hypersensitive when dealing with doctors because we’re talking about health, illness, and the very thin line between life and death.
Beyond that, there's this bizarre duality in American society where people seem to oscillate between deep reverence and pure resentment toward physicians. I remember a thread on this forum regarding a doctors' strike a while back, and the sheer amount of bile people spewed at medical professionals was almost hard to wrap my head around. Honestly, I think doctors ought to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why they elicit such a reaction.
Personally, what bothers me far more than bribery or corruption within the healthcare system is the frequent rudeness and indifference displayed by doctors and nurses. There is often a total lack of empathy, and quite frankly, when someone is sick and vulnerable, the last thing they need is a professional looking down their nose at them.
Of course, it would be unfair to paint everyone with the same brush—I’ve personally had some excellent experiences in our American hospitals. But it only takes one bad encounter, one instance of being treated poorly, to leave you with a lasting, bitter taste in your mouth.
Clea said:Yeah, they just go after extra fees for C-sections too, even when it isn't the patient's choice but a medical necessity... which is honestly pretty disgusting.👎
In America, "elective" C-sections aren't really a thing you can just request on demand.
As for emergency C-sections—I haven’t heard of anyone being charged extra for those, though I have heard stories about doctors claiming a delivery had to be surgical, only to suggest they might try a vaginal birth instead, just so they could eventually circle back to a C-section once the payment was processed.
That said, I tend to be pretty skeptical of these anecdotes I hear through the grapevine or from third-hand sources, mostly because I've realized how much people love to gossip about bribing doctors. I'm certainly not saying that corruption doesn't exist, but I suspect the reality where doctors demand cash and refuse service unless they're paid under the table is far less common than the rumors would lead you to believe.
It isn’t really about seeking some kind of reimbursement for the delivery itself; rather, it’s about physicians offering—or patients requesting—to have a specific doctor present during labor, and they charge a premium for that privilege. Essentially, it means you have the ability to call the exact doctor you’ve coordinated with at any hour of the day or night, and they will show up for the birth, regardless of whether they are actually on call or not.
Personally, my own experiences with Medicare haven't been nearly as grim—I’ve never personally encountered a situation where a doctor demanded a bribe, though I’ve certainly heard the stories floating around.
I am aware of instances where money was handed to doctors, but that was usually out of gratitude rather than some shady demand for payment in exchange for care.
That said, both of my parents have had significant health struggles; my mother has undergone four surgeries, my father has had three, and I’ve gone under the knife twice myself. My father is quite ill at the moment and is currently receiving treatment at the Mayo Clinic, handled entirely by the book and without any shady side deals.