Medical Summary Free: Fill & Download for Free

Hey,I could relate to you.Here is my pic when I was a teenager:I am one on the right. Notice my arms. I guess same as yours:)No matter what your genetics are you CAN gain muscle and weight.You need time on your side.It took me more than a decade to be where I am. Here is my current physique:SO far I have gained 40 lbs and the way I have done it clearly step by step explained in my book.You can also download my 3 free ebooks that can get you started on your weight gain journey.I have written many posts on how to gain weight and muscle:1)33 Effective Ways to Gain Weight in a healthy way2) Ultimate Guide On How To Gain Weight- The Right WaySummary:Get yourself checked with a doctor. If you are medically ok, there is nothing in this whole wide world that can stop you from building a physique that you desire expect you!Let me also say this, most iron men, who pick up weight lifting were skinny dudes. The desire to fill themselves up with brawn and gain confidence is what got them started in the first place.Weight training is the best way to gain muscle fast. Know the benefits, there are many.Make sure you include these muscle building foods in your diet.Take ample rest and sleep at least 7 to 8 hours everyday.And most of all, have faith and a firm believe in yourself that it can be done.Let me know if I can be of any help:) Good luck!

Let’s talk about this from a different perspective than usual. Apologies in advance for the long posting…I’ll start by dividing “America’s healthcare problem” into two distinct parts: the cost of services, and then how we pay for it.Sadly, almost all of our healthcare debate is a politically-charged argument about who pays what, and truth is, no matter what side of the argument you’re on, it’s just a financial shell game.Last year (2019), Americans spent about $3.65 trillion on healthcare - that’s almost $12,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Now, we can argue about whether that $12,000 should be paid by the individual, business, taxpayers, putting it on the national debt and so forth - but at the end of the day, it’s still got to come from somewhere. Whether you believe in Medicare for All, Obamacare or private insurance and the free market, the simple fact is that we still need to pay $12,000 per person every year to cover the nation’s medical expenses.Historically, we’ve tried many different ways to allocate healthcare costs. If you go back about a century, healthcare generally operated under the free market…if you got sick, you paid directly for your healthcare, and you only got the degree of care that you could afford.The Great Depression and the rise of progressivism in America helped spawn our early health insurance system. These programs were all about smoothing out risk over one’s lifespan, making cost more predictable and reducing the chance that a sudden disease could wipe you out. In the 1960’s, we added another government-controlled dimension to the mix with Medicare and Medicaid, establishing the idea that managing healthcare cost was important enough to be worthy of funding by taxpayers.Still, in the pre-Obamacare approach, some people couldn’t afford insurance, either because they were high risk or because they were poor, and this left about 5-15% of Americans without insurance depending on whether you count people that could afford, but intentionally chose not to have insurance.Obamacare turned the rules upside down, creating a massive redistribution of wealth program that has low-risk Americans, businesses and taxpayers subsidizing those that would otherwise not afford insurance. Of course, Obamacare skyrocketed insurance cost for certain groups (notably the self-employed), and as a result, about 27 million Americans remain uninsured.The failure of Obamacare to achieve universal insurance coverage leads progressive Americans to think about further nationalizing the system under something like the “Medicare for All” program Bernie Sanders and his ilk propose. In essence, this would replace the notion of private insurance altogether, making the government the source of all healthcare payments. Coverage would be 100%, and cost would be carried by the taxpayers.Okay…lots of information - what’s the point?Point is, whether you’re a diehard conservative or a dyed in the wool Marxist, the various programs are just different ways to allocate the costs. The healthcare “machine” doesn’t care whether it gets paid from you directly, from your employer, insurance provider, or from the US taxpayer…it wants it’s $12,000 a year per person, and the name of the check isn’t really that important.What our typical healthcare debates tend to completely miss is that the problem isn’t who pays what - the problem is the underlying cost itself.Indeed, the other, more significant healthcare issue is that not only are costs extremely high, they’re increasing faster than the rate of inflation, and faster than the growth of our economy. In other words, we can only play the shell game of shuffling expenses from one pile to another for a short period of time until no matter how the costs are managed, the system collapses.No service can rise in cost faster than the rate of GDP growth or inflation indefinitely. No matter what the reason, sooner or later you hit a tipping point where the price just isn’t sustainable anymore.Plus, most of the proposals we hear today just amount to rounding errors in the big picture. Elizabeth Warren wanted to eliminate ever cent of profits from the insurance industry. Sounds great, except for one thing…if you sum up all the profits of every US company in the health insurance space, you get to a number of $23.4 billion. If you were to eliminate this entirely, you’d save 0.6% of our overall healthcare spend - that’s $77 out of the $12,000 per capita America spends.Of course, it’s worse still than that. What Ms. Warren and her ilk don’t tell us is that most of the functions insurance companies perform still need to be done. Doctors and hospitals still need to send their bills to someone for processing and payment and so on…and as we all know, when you replace an efficient private sector service with a government program, you tend to spend MORE not less. In other words, experience tells us overall spending goes up, not down as you add more government.Now, humor me for a moment.I think we can agree that if, say, the cost to treat cancer or a heart attack suddenly became $100, America would have no healthcare crisis. Instead of government programs sucking trillions out of the nation’s economy, healthcare would be like buying groceries or your Internet service. Attacking the cost side of the equation is therefore the most attractive and perhaps only sustainable way to solve America’s healthcare crisis. But the question is how to cut cost in a significant way?Well, first it helps to understand what’s responsible for our current cost issues. For example, almost $4000 of our $12,000 per-capita spend are administrative costs, typically the result of government regulatory overreach. Things like malpractice claims, product liability lawsuits, “defensive medicine” and so on account for another $1000–1500, according to most analysis. We know also that programs like Medicare and Medicate generate significant waste, fraud and abuse - by some estimates, tens of billions a year.To say it bluntly, almost half our current spend is the result of self-inflicted wounds…our government and legal system, supposedly acting in the best interests of “we the people” drives cost through the roof. That’s what happens when decisions are made for political reasons rather than for market reasons.Some progressives talk about another dimension: directly or indirectly using government intervention to limit what providers can charge. Today, US doctors (for example) tend to earn much more than their European counterparts. While it doesn’t seem politically acceptable to simply transform doctors and nurses into civil servants directly, a single-payer nationalized system achieves a similar effect by dictating prices. We don’t say, “Mr. Surgeon, you can only make $X”…we back into it: “Mr. Surgeon, you can only charge $X per procedure”…takes you to the same conclusion, but politicians talk about controlling pricing rather than wages.Free market advocates will point out that when government intrudes into supply and demand to fix pricing, bad things tend to happen - typically, supply drops and demand increases, creating shortages and waiting lists for services. Indeed, this has been the experience outside the US, and there’s no reason to think the US would be exempt from the laws of economics.But all that aside, the best way we’ve solved similar insurmountable problems has been through free markets, innovation and competition.A simple example I’ve used before is the automobile.In the early 1900s, the average automobile cost about three times the average American worker’s annual wages, so it was a luxury item available to few. A hundred years of innovation and fierce competition got us to the point where the average automobile costs less than half the average American worker’s annual wages. The wonders of the free market gave us a vastly more capable product that’s also 600% more affordable. I can cite similar examples in transportation, telecommunications, farming, information technology - indeed, in just about every market you can think of, the free market drives down prices, improves products and transforms things from luxury items for the few, to commodities for the masses.Except for healthcare, that is…In 1900, the average American spent less than 3% of his wages on healthcare. Today, despite 120 years of breakthrough medical advances, he spends over 12%. Indeed, when you think about today’s $12,000 per capita number and the fact that it grows 2–3 times the rate of inflation, a new baby born in 2020 and living an 80 year lifespan would spend almost $4 million on healthcare over his life if these trends continue unchanged.Why is it that with virtually every other good or service, the free market gives us steady advances in capabilities at lower and lower costs, except for healthcare? The answer is simple: government intrusion into the free market.Just consider a few simple observations…In 1990, administrative costs were about 5% of US healthcare spending. In the 30 years since, most businesses have deployed extensive IT systems and automation to reduce administrative cost substantially as worker productivity improved. Yet, in healthcare, we went from 5% administrative cost in 1990 to about 30% today. Why? Government regulatory overreach…between Obamacare, HIPAA etc etc etc, healthcare providers operate under thousands of expensive and burdensome regulations today…the politicians tell us this makes the system “fair”, but they don’t tell us the cost. We traded fairness for an unaffordable system…in any free market, there would be a feeding frenzy as our inefficient system gets devoured by more efficient competitors, but government stands in the way.Also, consider the focus of innovation in medicine. Yes, there are serious researchers finding all sorts of wonderful cures - yet, US life expectancy is actually slightly declining, and we don’t see the more “consumer-oriented” advancements we see in other industries.Think of it this way. From my iPhone, I can administer a large business, order pizza, manage my investments, communicate with anyone on the planet, replace all my credit cards, meet a new boyfriend, adopt a dog, buy anything I can imagine, and find my way around the planet.But in the US, I can’t fire up a medical app on my phone and ask a doctor about that little rash on my inner thigh and get a prescription to clear it up. Instead, I need to schedule time with a doctor, wait, drive, wait some more, see the doctor, pay some money, get a prescription, wait some more, pay some more money, interact with an insurance company, and drive home. If the cure doesn’t work as expected, I might even repeat this cycle a few times.So why doesn’t some genius develop that app? Well, lots of reasons, from regulatory compliance, to time to market concerns, to investment risk.For example, would a California resident be allowed to consult with a doctor in Wyoming? Could the doctor in Wyoming write a prescription for his California patient, and would the insurance company pay for it? Get really crazy - what happens if we pair US patients with doctors in England, Australia or Germany? [A funny observation: I once discussed this type of app with a US government official - his immediate reaction: “…but who would you sue for malpractice if something goes wrong?”]It might take a year to develop such an app, but maybe five to ten years to have it win FDA approval and enter distribution.Private patient data is involved, so the pimply-faced computer science kids behind the app need to know all about HIPAA and privacy protections, and that can involve expensive testing and validation, as well as compliance with a variety of technically complex IT and security standards. Their data needs to meet Obamacare mandates that it be friendly to Electronic Medical Record systems and meet US government regulations. While their friends doing mobile apps for banks and retailers and get by with Amazon servers for ten cents an hour, these folks need hosting that’s HIPAA- and HITECH-compliant, and if they get it wrong, they can be facing jail time or massive fines.If the app survives all that and makes it to market, the developer might be exposed to whole new types of liability claims that wouldn’t exist for any other mobile app. They have to figure out how to get CMS and Medicare approvals to have the cost of their service paid by the insurers the way any other doctor visit is, and perhaps negotiate with other government agencies, healthcare systems and so forth before their app can be widely deployed. Looking at all that cost and risk, few investors would want to fund this sort of project…now our poor innovators have to be self-funded.Any clear-thinking entrepreneur thinking through this sort of project turns and runs long before a solution is produced.As this simple anecdote reveals, the current climate is innovation-hostile in most of healthcare.A seldom-discussed side effect of the notion of “healthcare is a right” is that it subtly influences the direction research and new treatments take. For example, if you’re an automaker, you might realize you could put superconducting magnets on your favorite electric car and make vehicles that go 0–60 in 0.2 seconds at a cost of twenty million per car. You don’t build such things because the market rejects them, yet healthcare is often the opposite, especially when government is seen as the ultimate payer.On the other side of the coin, it’s not all that bad - at least while we can keep government out of the picture. Take LASIK eye surgery, for example. When this procedure was first developed, it was considered elective surgery that government and insurers didn’t pay for. Yes, government took 35 years (no kidding) to approve LASIK for widespread use, but the market moved quickly after that point thanks to the wonders of the free market. When LASIK was first approved for widespread use in 1995, it cost several thousand dollars per eye…today, competition and innovation has brought the cost down to just a few hundred dollars - ten-to-one or better price improvement, thanks to the free market, and similar performance is possible in many medical areas. So there IS hope…Okay, I’ve said a lot…probably too much. I’m sure plenty of you are wanting to reply with the dreaded “TL;DR” comment, and I guess I don’t blame you. But here’s the summary:We have a cost problem, not a payment problem. Use whatever cost allocation scheme you like from pure free markets to pure socialized medicine…that doesn’t solve the problem.The current system is unsustainable, but there are short-term solutions that can cut half or more from our current expenses. Most of these involve getting government out of healthcare, or at least eliminating regulations that cost more than they save.The only path to long-term improvement is encouragement of innovation and competition. We need the Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates of healthcare, and that means creating an innovation-friendly climate for our best minds.That’s all, folks…

Funny you should ask! In 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a 37-page report, pegging the average family’s total child-raising costs at $233,610. Big number!Children tend to need their own bedrooms, not to mention play space within your living quarters. That almost always means buying or renting a larger home than you had in your pre-child-raising days. By the USDA’s calculations, that’s the biggest extra expense, totaling 29% of your overall costs.Children tend to eat, too. They start out with tiny but very frequent appetites. As they get bigger, the daily feeding-cycle count goes down, but the amount of food needed to satisfy them goes up. Figure on 3 meals/day for 18 years, and we’re talking about roughly 18,000 meals. There goes another 18% of your child-raising budget.You’ll need to get the dear ones educated, too, and even if you send them to nominally free public schools (as we did!) you’ll find that they need textbooks, art supplies, perhaps some music lessons along the way. Throw in babysitters, child-care, etc., and you’re looking at another 16% of the overall expense. This doesn’t even include savings for college.Surprisingly, clothing is only 6% of the average family’s costs. Shop at Nordstrom’s if you must, but your dollars will stretch farther at Target, Wal-Mart, etc. That’s especially true given how quickly children outgrow everything. Message me if you’d like a boy’s blue blazer (hardly worn) in sizes 12, 14, 16 and more. We’ve still got them, even though the lads have moved on.Transportation and health/medical costs are 15% and 9%, respectively. You can find a short summary of all these findings via this link to a CNN/Money article: The Cost of Raising a Child Jumps to $233,610. Or, if you want the full analysis, the report itself is here: https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/expenditures_on_children_by_families/crc2015.pdfThe USDA also calculates spending patterns for families at different income levels and discovers — surprise! — that rich people spend more. The exact nature of that extra spending is documented, and you might find it interesting. (Think titanium baseball bats. Or two hours with a hair stylist. Food spending doesn’t vary nearly as much. Both poor and rich kids eat cake, after all.)By the way, I have no idea why the USDA thought the picture above was an appropriate way of illustrating their report, but it is the picture they chose.