Zoom Wedding

[yogi]

It's interesting that you are more comfortable talking to the physician's assistant (PA) than you are with the doctor himself. My wife told me the exact same thing about her doctor. I can tell you a story about my experience with my oncologist's PA but for the moment I'll expand on my brush with death from prostate cancer.

A few years prior to the prostate surgery I was hospitalized by a blood clot that moved from my foot to my lungs. The next move would be to the heart and onto the brain. That too was a near miss by death's dart but my wife and a well trained ER doctor saved me from something really bad. In fact it was very simple once they knew why I could not breath and my pulse was in excess of 200 bpm. An injection into my belly dissolved the clot in the lung, but they were not about to let me out of there for five days. I was perfectly healthy otherwise and had this IV attached to me, but that was it. I could do what I want and eat what I wanted and they just gave me maintenance care until the standard five day wait timed out. I guess they do that wait because while the main embolism is dissolving it is possible that a fragment could migrate up to the brain and cause a stroke. Fortunately none of that happened with me. As usual, my primary care physician came to visit so that he could collect the insurance money. He might have genuinely been interested in me, but toward the end of my stay I don't think he even reviewed the medical record before saying hi. Anyway, one of those five days my wife was there while the doctor came to visit. She was concerned that at my age they never did a PSA screening. So, just for grins, the doctor ordered one since I had nothing else to do for a few days. It came back high. 5 is the danger threshold and this reading was about 3. He concluded we can wait and see if it gets worse. It took a couple more years for it to nearly kill me, and if it wasn't for that angel of a nurse I would in fact be dead right now.

They say if you are going to have cancer, prostate cancer is the one to have because it is so treatable and fairly easy to deal with. I was comforted by that fact. Prior to surgery I had a consultation with a urologist. There are several approaches to dealing with prostate cancer and the appropriate treatment depends on the stage. Since I was at the end point there was no option other than to completely remove the gland. The consultant was an old conservative type guy who said he would need to come in through some space he cut between my intestinal tract. It was slightly risky because you don't want any bowels leaking into the target area and recovery could go up to a year. Hmm. His partner was younger and a bit more advanced in the technical aspects of this. I found out he did robotic surgery where the entry is from a different angle and less likely to puncture the bowels. Also, the robot is really a small tube with fiber optics and a camera so that the collateral damage would be less. Recovery from this would be six months or less. However, the big concern was recurrence. They know what the numbers are with conventional surgery, but back then they did not have ten years of data for the robotic surgery. The implication was that it had a slightly higher recurrence rate but there was no hard care evidence to prove it back then.

I went with the robot. The surgeon used probes instead of his fingers to remove the cancer. He had a 3D stereoscopic view and some very precise knives to work with. Some nerve bundles had to be cut but not all of them as with conventional surgery. This meant possible erectile dysfunction. Well yeah, and he did offer those little purple pills to help out in that regard. Being what it is, the surgery also messes with the pelvic floor and weakens the muscles. Incontinence is the result of that problem. Not much in my case, but still. Even a little is too much. The biopsy showed my cancer was worse than they thought. There were some microscopic porous openings in the gland, but they could not determine if any cancer cells escaped. It was likely all contained, but still a small chance was possible. If nothing happened the first five years after surgery, then there is a 97% chance prostate cancer is gone forever.

The surgery demanded that I see this urologist every 6 months. In addition to the blood tests and urine samples he also did a rectal exam to be certain the space where the gland used to be was free of lumps. At the last visit after five years, the PSA test showed some measurable antigens. This was incredible after such a long period of nothing. So, instead of dismissing me and seeing me once a year, he suggested I come back in six months. Well that reading went up to a point, still safe, and then leveled off. Cancer doesn't usually do that. The doctor was without an explanation for the phenomena but wanted to begin treatment if the numbers reached a certain level. I moved down here and found a new urologist. After two meetings with him he could not find even those minuscule traces of antigens. It has me concerned to be sure. But, now, after 12 years, I'm pretty sure the sudden appearance of measurable antigens was due to whatever the hell they were doing in the lab. It wasn't me.

During those early consultations both doctors said that prostate cancer is inevitable for all men. It grows very slowly and most men die from something else before their prostate cancer gets to them. Well, in theory I don't have a prostate gland. The only possibility of that cancer recurring would be due to a few cells escaping through those microscopic pores and hiding somewhere in my body for a dozen years now. Maybe ... but Nahhhh

[Kellemora]

So far I've been very lucky as far as cancer goes. I did have small cell lung cancer that was supposed to kill me in under six months. And a doctor who said they would do everything they could to save my life, then dropped the ball on me.
I hear about a treatment with over and 85% success rate, trouble was, it was not allowed in the U.S.
However, there are a few loopholes in the laws, and the key one for me was a foreign doctor is allowed to visit and treat an existing patient while they are in the U.S.
I went through all the steps necessary to make that happen, and I'm glad I did.
They were able to totally eradicate my cancer without surgery, without chemo, and without radiation.
The process was non-invasive, other than an IV set-up as used when you get dialysis.
There were a few times when I didn't think I would live long enough to get the treatments.
And I had one scare after it as well as my system readjusted back to normal.
I also had to change doctors here to one I had never been to before to avoid getting tons of questions that might get me and others in trouble.
Went like 17 years before I started having new health issues, like with my heart and COPD.

I'm glad they were able to fix you up and you have had so many years without a recurrence.
I know I'm getting close because my prostate is slightly enlarged right now.
Doc said nothing to worry about yet.

[yogi]

An enlarged prostate is OK if it's not cancer causing the problem. That's where the PSA test comes in handy. I don't know what they'd do in your case given all the other problems you have, but treating a problem early is fairly simple. Well, simple on paper. LOL Cancer can be a cruel disease. I've met many people who have survived an attack, but I've also known some young'ns that didn't do so well. You are very fortunate and did the right thing. I'm guessing you will outwit all the diseases old people get and exit this life as a result of some random and unpredictable event. You know, like being struck by lightning on a clear day.

[Kellemora]

Unfortunately, I think my Lungs will give out first. With any exertion at all, like walking from my house to my office causes my O2 to drop below 89, sometimes 88, so I have oxygen tanks in my office, portable tanks, and an Oxygen Concentrator at the house which I'm on all night. When I'm sleeping my O2 drops below 83 which can cause problems with my internal organs. So I'm on the downhill slide right now! I just hope I don't suffer like my late wife did for so long.
Plus I don't want to become a burden to anyone!

[yogi]

Being a "burden" to the family or friends is a constant concern I hear about frequently. I think about it myself. Eldercare is a big issue in some families and others just ignore it. There are no assurances, but from what I gather about your family stories you won't be neglected in your hours of need. Having been there you know it certainly is a burden, but you chose to be that caregiver in spite of the complications it brought into your life. Anybody taking care of you would be doing exactly the same thing. I think it's called doing something out of love.

[Kellemora]

Yeah but, I don't know a single soul, other than my son, who would possibly take care of me, and he lives back in Missouri. I'm sure he would have me move in with him should the need arise, but he would be the worst caregiver in the world, hi hi.
Even so, I'm not going to worry about it.

[yogi]

I feel your pain.

I have two daughters, neither of which is closer than 320 miles from me. The are both married and their own kids are out of the house on their own. In theory girls tend to take care of their parents more so than the boys, and I do believe they both care about and love their dad. I doubt any of us would be comfortable caring for my final needs. If I could convince one of them to move in with ME, then it might be different. But what are the odds of that happening? nil.

My mom's youngest brother and I used to call each other and write letters for a few years before he died. He never had any children and he moved to Florida with his wife. Thus he was like yourself being isolated and without the prospects of any caregiving family. The issue was complicated a bit by his wife's illness. It was something like dementia and depression combined and she could be a handful for a healthy young man not to mention an old uncle. His concern was over her and how she would be taken care of if he predeceased her. To make a long story less long, he did die before her but made some arrangements for her to live in an assisted living/nursing home type of church sponsored community. He got a neighbor involved to look after her from time to time, and I can't think of any reason why a stranger would do such a thing. But he did because I also wrote to her when my uncle died and she complained about him all the time. LOL

The moral of this story is that a way was found. I can't say it was a happy ending, but my aunt must have wondered who would be caring for her too. She was not turned over to the state for maintenance, but I have a feeling all her assets had to be transferred to that church organization. It's just as well given that she could not manage any of it on her own anyway. I often wondered if the neighbor was compensated in some way. I have a feeling he was just being the kind individual my uncle thought he was.

[Kellemora]

I had one uncle who lost his wife, but he had just enough funds to hire a yard maintenance guy who he kept adding more and more things to do. Whether or not it was just dumb luck or not, his yard man lost his apartment and needed a place to stay. My uncle took him in and gave him the run of the house, and apparently told him he would put him in his will to keep the house after he dies as long as he stayed there and kept the place up while he was still living.
The guy became like a son to him after a few years, and they got along together just great too.
My uncle lived a whole lot longer than even he though he would, but never became bed-riden, although he did need some care near the end, it wasn't much. He had a major stroke which sent him to the hospital where he only lasted about two weeks is all. The maintenance guy stayed in his house until he died, but I don't know anything about him after Unc died, and of course living south now.

I wish I could afford to pay someone to just trim my bushes from time to time.

[yogi]

I have mentioned a few times how odd the neighbors here are compared to what I've experienced up North. Last week, by the way, marked four years of being a Missouri resident. It's hard to believe it all passed so quickly. Anyway, the neighbors are a friendly bunch but remain distant and aloof. I suppose I could do things personally to altar that situation, but I don't. Thus, when the pandemic arose and I got several calls and visits regarding my well being, I was astonished. Even before the great pandemic of 2020, there has been a time or two when the neighbors saw me shoveling snow and came over to give me a hand. On a couple occasions one of the neighbor's kids came over to shovel without even notifying us he was doing it. I just happen to see him leave one time.

Being the skeptical curmudgeon that I am, I have wondered out loud in these forums about the motives of all these good people. Really now. If they care so much about my well being in a pandemic, and if they don't mind coming by unasked to do some heavy snow shoveling, why aren't we dong more socially? Why aren't we doing ANYthing socially? It's really strange. My speculation is that these people are truly Christian loving souls. They are reaching out for moral and ethical reasons. Or, possibly, it's just the way things are done outside of Illinois and to the south. I know Knoxville is not O'Fallon, but hey. Kids all over the world love cookies. Maybe you can get your wife to bake some as a lure to get your hedges trimmed. Just a thought.

[Kellemora]

When I lived in apartments, I started a courtyard gathering for all the apartment dwellers. Although we had a fairly good turnout the first year, we had more than double the amount of people the second through fifth year.
I figured it would end when I moved out, but surprise surprise they carried it on for over 20 years.
I stopped in one year when I was driving past and saw the crowd. Got accolades from everyone there!
Then about four years later, someone called me to tell me to stop by. They were holding the last party, as the complex was changing hands. The wife and I received several gifts from the folks there, even though most of them didn't know us at all. We had a wonderful time, but sad to see it ending.

After I moved to Creve Coeur, we didn't want to have anything to do with the extended subdivisions going on. Bad blood between the original addition and the newer add-on addition who got the pool and clubhouse which we refused to pay for since they dominated it.
About 6 or 7 of us got together and decided to hold a big block party in the common ground area for members of our subdivision. It was truly amazing how many people showed up, much more than we planned on.
Unfortunately we couldn't pull it off again, because the subdivision sold the common ground where the bank was built.

I don't know but a couple of my neighbors, and although they might help in an emergency, for the most part we don't do anything for each other. Definitely not like the old days.

No kids around us other than a new family with young kids.

I do have an older guy who comes around about once every 3 months to lend a hand with some things, but it costs me 60 bucks each time he shows up. And he never seems to get done what I expected him to do.

[yogi]

When my oldest daughter lived up in Kenosha, Wisconsin, she did something similar to what you did. After a year or two of residency she knew a few of the neighbors and they all plotted to have a block party. I don't know what they were expecting but they got permission and assistance from the police to close down the street on which the party was to be held. Like your experience, it was a tremendous success that was repeated until she moved out of Kenosha. People from the entire subdivision came by, not just those who lived on the street. The idea was for everyone to contribute something to the party, and there was a tent set up for all those goodies.

I have a gut feeling the people on my block might get into something like a block party, but maybe not. They do have a Meet and Greet at the community pool once a year, but I deliberately avoid that because I object to having to pay for pool services that I don't use. It's a condition of living in the community; kind of like paying taxes for schools your kids don't use because they are married and have kids of their own.

Good thing I don't need social interaction to survive. I used to be good at it when I worked for a living. But what did I get for that? Kicked out ten years before I intended to leave. They can't kick me out of here unless I break some laws, and I'm not sure they can do it even then.

[Kellemora]

Because I had businesses going I attended tons of functions when I was in my middle years.
But now, I don't leave the house unless it is absolutely necessary. And then I don't talk to anyone if possible.

Each person at our block party had to provide their own food and drink.
Even back then we didn't trust pot luck like one organization I belonged to did for their picnics, where everyone brought a dish. Although there were a few exceptions when someone would bring a whole lot of something for everyone. Like cakes or cookies. We had a butcher at one of the block parties who brought a trailer BBQ grill, huge thing, and enough pork steaks to feed an army. He told us it was all overstock from a deal that got cancelled, but we didn't think so.

Yeppers, we had to pay the fees for the stuff they put in the other subdivision, plus school taxes.
Back when they started BUSING it raised a major uproar because we vote for what we wanted our schools to have and paid the higher taxes in order to have them. So they had no right shipping our kids down to inner city schools and bringing those kids out here.

[yogi]

I recall those days of school busing. I think in theory the idea was good, but in practice it was a disaster. The concept of supporting public education with tax money has always been a difficult one to swallow. I suppose it's no different than making a quality education available to everybody because there are winners and losers in both cases. When it comes to private schools, the people paying for that should have a lot of say about what goes on. With public education, however, it's a community wide service. The poor neighborhoods could not compete with the wealthy suburbs as far as schools were concerned, and the quality of education was measurably different. It seems reasonable to allow kids from the poor neighborhoods to attend the more affluent schools, but transportation should be a private matter and not publicly funded. I'm also of the opinion that since not all people are equally talented, there should be minimum qualifications for attending even public schools. If you meet the standard, then it also should not matter where the kid lives. But, that's all Utopia. It doesn't play out that way and probably never will. It's not about racism either. It's all about money.

[Kellemora]

I don't know how it is now, it might be the same, might be different.
But every school in the state of Missouri go the same pittance from the federal government, and from state government from the 1 cent state sales tax for education.
This put all schools on the same equal footing.

However, then each school in a county also got a pittance from the county, but it was slightly different for each county. In Missouri the amounts between counties never varied by more than 3%. So they were still on fairly equal footing.

At this point, none of the above had anything to do with School Districts.
Only local School Districts can impose a tax levy to property owners, and a few other sources like sales taxes, etc.
But the property tax is the big income generator for the schools in that district, and is procured through votes for specific items for the schools. Most of these extras actually have nothing to do with education and mostly with extra curricular activities. There are many schools in a particular school district, from elementary, to middle grade, and high school. And as is customary, the main perks go to high schools, such as a gym or possibly even a swimming pool.

In a nutshell, the school buildings themselves are paid mostly by federal and some state funds.
The equipment in the schools, such as desks, blackboards, are paid for by the state.
Teachers are paid by both the county and partially by the state, and in some cases by school district taxes.
But all the rest of the school district taxes are usually for extras in their school district added by voting.

How much a school gets from any of the possible sources is based on student attendance, and in a small part by their grades. Naturally a school with a 250 student attendance would not get as much as a school with 2,100 student attendance.
So the only thing that makes one school poor and another rich is what extras the property owners in their school district voted and paid for as increases to their taxes. The school district itself isn't poor, they are all equal, but the schools themselves have amenities paid for by the parents of the students going there, or anyone living in that school district whether they have kids or not.

Teacher pay is yet another topic that often comes up in discussions. Why are the teachers at school A only paid 12 dollars and hour and teachers at school B paid 16 dollars per hour?
Let's look a little closer. At school A there are only 15 to 18 students in the class, while at school B there are over 20 students in the class, often as many as 25 to 30. In essence, this means the teacher is doing more than double the amount of work for only 4 dollars more per hour. The real question should be, why are they not paid DOUBLE at 24 dollars per hour, since they are doing double the work, and the school itself is paid by head count, plus a bonus for higher scoring students.

[yogi]

I'm not familiar at all with the Missouri school system. My guess is that all public schools roughly follow along the same lines, but with varying details. Federal, state, and county taxes are provided, but the bulk of the budget is covered by the school district which is a taxing body. The teacher's salary is more or less a local matter, and some school districts have more means than others. The schools in the ghettos of Chicago were not of the same quality as were the schools in the affluent suburbs, which happen to be in a different school district by the way. That discrepancy was not entirely due to optional amenities. Only the most dedicated of teachers would venture into the ghetto schools to teach and would have to take whatever salary the local citizenship could garner. It so happens that the wealthy white people could and did pay higher school taxes than the poor black people on the south side of Chicago. Those suburban schools paid their teachers more on average than did the inner city schools pay their teachers. This is indeed a paradox given that the population density in the city was around twice that of the suburbs. So, as you can imagine, most teachers did not want to teach in the city. The bottom line, however, was not driven by how much the citizens paid in taxes to the school district. Referendums were a joke and only technically necessary. Teachers unions determined what the salaries were, and still do to this day. As I said, I don't know how it comes down here in Missouri, but that's basically how schools are run up north.

I surely don't know how to reconcile the inequalities between various school districts. It's a tough problem to solve. From a government support point of view all schools are treated equally, but that does not guarantee an equal education. When the inequalities become too stark, people take to the streets. It seems nothing meaningful gets done before that.

[Kellemora]

My aunt Florence taught in a parochial school down in the inner city for like ten years before she was invited to teach at a public school only a few blocks away from the parochial school. She taught both third and sixth grade at the parochial school at different times. After she moved over to the public school, she said the level of the seventh grade students was less than of fifth grade students, said many of the subjects she taught she had to fall back to third grade level, especially in reading and math. Her first year there she said in all good conscious she could not pass a single on of them to enter eighth grade, but her superiors made her pass all but two of the kids in her class.
She only stayed there one more year because every single kid in the school was disruptive, few turned in their homework, and fighting was a common daily event in every class. They were nothing at all like the kids she taught in the parochial school, not even close. She had never seen such unruly and un-disciplined kids in her life. And the thing was, they all lived in the same area together.
The parochial school kids often moved on to college or good jobs and even advanced in them.
While a good percentage of the public school kids got involved in drugs, gangs, and very few could hold down a job.
The family incomes of both groups of kids were about the same in that area to.

Even in the county where I went to school, I actually enjoyed our public school up to a point.
They were much more easy going than any parochial school I ever attended.
But even back then, they were running a year or two behind in the studies taught at parochial schools.
I do hear it is much worse now than it used to be when I went there.
Smoking was basically replace with Drugs, which the no smoking rules may have contributed to.
My Sophomore and Junior year we had a smoking lounge for students.
They cut this out in my Senior year, but a couple of us got permission to smoke in one indoor area of the theater hall.
Several of the teachers who smoked would join us down there, since their smoking room was always grossly overcrowded, hi hi.

[yogi]

The last time I attended a parochial school was in 1956. Word on the street then was pretty much what you describe above for public education; they simply were not up to par with the parochial schools. Looking back on it all from the year 2020, there was no reason why the two systems should have operated at parity. They had different rules and very different agendas, not to mention different methods of financing schooling. The students were from different social environments too. Yes, there were and are differences, but it's an apples and oranges comparison. The problems that arose were not rooted in the difference between public and private school systems. The problems were that things were not equal in the public school system. Everybody knew that you got what you paid for, even back in 1956.

[Kellemora]

My parents had to pay the highest enrollment rate for us kids all the years we were in parochial schools, and this is after my grandfather donated (well sold for 1 dollar) all the property the school and church sat on. My dad donated a lot of money to the churches too, so much so his name was listed with the priests themselves on the donor board. He didn't like it there, because it made him look more wealthy than the rest of the contributors.
I also went to Chaminade which was a very expensive school to go to. Only went two years to that school.
My uncle who had much more money than my dad did, got most of his kids in for half price or less, which also caused even more friction in our family, especially since we all worked together in the florist.

[yogi]

As you probably know there have been some incidents in the news regarding wealthy people and the schools their children were admitted to. If you have the means to make donations of a significant amount, then I see nothing wrong with supporting a school or other institution you might favor. A lot of people are truly philanthropic. But, the news stories are of people who expected something in return. You know, like when your kid gets kicked out of Fordham for poor academic performance. If you donate enough cash to, say, the Wharton School of Business, they might overlook your under-performing scion and admit him anyway. That kind of thing is enough to piss off the Pope, but apparently it's not uncommon. Those kind of stories stir up public interest, but when it happens in your own family I can see the potential for disaster. The thing is, if you are wealthy, why must you skimp on the bucks? Something isn't right with that line of thought.

[Kellemora]

The couple of years I went to Chaminade, there were two kids in my class who had professional tutors who would go over the days lessons with them after school. Even then they might still flunk a test or two. Both of them had the same problem, they just didn't pay attention, and/or were always goofing off.

The man who owned the pharmacy down the street from us sent both of his boys to MIT. I'm sure he had to pay dearly to get them in because they were both dumber than a box of rocks. Neither one of the boys got into the pharmacy business. One became a salesman for a leather goods company, mostly police gear. The other took over a small furniture company and it closed down after about four or five years. Never heard about them again after that though. I'm sure they didn't have to work after their dad died and left them millions of bucks each.