正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

🧠💥 Satou Sabally WNBA FINALS MEDICAL COMMENTARY: SIDELINE CARE MATTERS 🚑 During today’s WNBA Finals, forward Satou Sabally sustained a serious injury to her head and neck that was rotational and compressive in nature coupled with a direct hit to one of the most vulnerable areas of the skull,...

106,530 次观看 • 10 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos attempted to trip up Secretary of State Marco Rubio by asking the same question about Venezuela three different times. “What is the legal authority for the United States to be running Venezuela?” And three times, Rubio shut him down. RUBIO: “I explained to you what our goals are and how we’re going to use the leverage to make it happen.” “As far as our legal authority on the quarantine, simple. We have court orders. These are sanctioned boats, and we get orders from courts to go after and seize these sanctions. Is a court not a legal authority?” STEPHANOPOULOS: “Is the United States running Venezuela right now?” RUBIO: “Well, I’ve explained once again, I’ll do it one more time.” “What we are running is the direction this is going to move moving forward, and that is we have leverage.” “This leverage we are using and we intend to use. We started using already. You can see where they are running out of storage capacity. In a few weeks, they’re going to have to start pumping oil, unless they make changes.” “That leverage that we have with the armada of boats that are currently positioned, allow us to seize any sanctioned boats coming into or out of Venezuela loaded with oil or on its way in to pick up oil.” “We can pick and choose which ones we go after. We have court orders for each one.” “That will continue to be in place until the people who have control over the levers of power in that country make changes that are not just in the interest of the people of Venezuela but are in the interest of the United States and the things that we care about.” “The legal authority is the court orders that we have.”

Overton

213,086 次观看 • 7 个月前

In many parts of Nigeria, a painful narrative continues to unfold, one often unheard, unacknowledged, or dismissed. Fulani pastoralists, moving with their cattle in search of grazing fields, frequently find themselves at the centre of conflict, attacked blamed for insecurity, criminality, and clashes they say they did not start. What is commonly echoed in affected communities is that being a Fulani herder is synonymous to criminality or terrorism. Across certain regions in the North Central and Southern states, reports from community leaders and pastoralist associations indicate that herders have fallen victim to attacks, targeted killings, and destruction of livestock. For many of them, their only possessions, cattle are seized or slaughtered. Victims often allege that when these incidents occur, there is little public outrage, sympathy or any form of government response to seek justice for the victims. “We are profiled before we are heard,”When a herder is attacked, it doesn’t trend or matter to anyone. But if a retaliation happens somewhere else, suddenly we become the villains.” For these pastoralists, cattle are not just livestock they are life savings, dowries, school fees, and social identity. Losing them is equivalent to losing everything. The pattern of silent victimization and delayed justice fuels resentment and increases the risk of reprisal. The national narrative tends to simplify a complex situation: the line between criminals and innocent herders becomes blurred, and the entire ethnic group is often judged by the actions of a few. The Fulani community deserves protection like any other Nigerian Justice must be fair and must be seen to be fair, otherwise grievances deepen. both security agencies and policymakers must resist profiling, identify perpetrators based on evidence, and protect innocent citizens on all sides of the conflict. For many Fulani families on the move, peace remains their only demand and grazing with their cattle should not amount to a crime.

Zagazola

56,441 次观看 • 9 个月前

American Surgeon shows the actual letter from UnitedHealthcare DENYING a patient in emergency condition from receiving care “This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms” “I think we all knew this would happen. I had another patient come in and share with me that UnitedHealthcare denied her inpatient's day. So this is a patient who had shortness of breath and some chest pain, and she just knew that something wasn't right in her body. She had a family history of blood clots and she'd had a deep flap surgery a couple of weeks ago. She went to the hospital and they saw her and they found that she had a life threatening condition known as pulmonary embolisms. So she was admitted to the hospital and taken care of really well by the doctors there. And they ordered all the right things. After a couple of days, she was discharged. She got a letter from UnitedHealthcare explaining that they didn't agree with the level of her care and that they would not cover it. So I'm gonna share some of the language of that letter with you, and I want you to know that my patient that we talked about previously who had her surgery denied had almost exactly the same letter shared. So there's some troubling things in this letter. I think this term is really interesting. United is saying they reviewed the request for inpatient admission. So let's all just pause and consider that. This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms, and the doctor wasn't really requesting anything. They were saying this patient needs to be in the hospital. But an insurance company sees this as a request, and that's part of this prior auth environment that we're living in. So I think it's important as patients and as physicians to just acknowledge that this is our reality now. Someone can think that there's a good medical decision for you and can write orders and wanna do the right thing for you, but your insurance company is seeing that as a request and deciding whether or not they wanna do it. One of the criteria that this insurance company used to decide whether or not to accept or deny this request was whether it's medically necessary. And it's so interesting that we're letting insurance companies and the doctors who work for insurance companies determine what's medically necessary and not just the doctor in front of the patient in the emergency room. So this is a really bold statement from UnitedHealthcare for my patient. They say you did not have to be admitted as an inpatient to the hospital for this care. I think we all need to just reflect on that. An insurance company is telling a patient and her doctor that they disagree with the plan of care to keep that patient safe. I know that this is boiling down to whether it's an inpatient admission or an observation admission, and that's really about money. But what I wanna point out to you is they're making medical decisions. This insurance company is actually weighing in and disagreeing with a doctor who made a medical decision to admit this patient for her safety. So this specific sentence, when a doctor or facility treats a patient above the recommended level of care, we cannot cover it. What the heck? That's what we do. We go above and beyond as physicians. It's clear that insurance companies don't, and they're actually saying it here.”

Wall Street Apes

115,712 次观看 • 1 年前

This woman is a Board Certified Emergency Medicine Physician in America She says she’s seeing more and more doctors leave practicing medicine because what US Health Insurance companies are doing to healthcare She explains why, this is important information: “I believe what we are seeing with healthcare professionals is not just burnout, it's something far more insidious and painful. This is moral injury. — Moral injury. The pain of knowing what the right thing is for the patient, but being unable to do that because of systemic barriers. And over time, this wears you down. I have seen so many people leave the profession because it has eroded their sense of purpose, their love for the job. And we take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. But in a system that doesn't place human health at the center, that becomes harder and harder to uphold. And that disconnect from what we are trained to do, from what we can actually do, creates a very painful wound. And when the healers themselves are wounded, when their hands are tied, when their clinical judgment is overruled, they don't just feel that defeat themselves, they that trickles down to the patient. — So when we see our providers juggling insurance company protocols, productivity metrics, hospital bureaucracy, the relentless pull of the electronic medical record, all of these things take the doctor away, the patient. If we really want to understand why the United States spends more on health care than any other nation, while delivering some of the worst outcomes, we need to start being honest. The system just isn't inefficient. It is deeply misaligned with care and having it be patient first” US Health Insurance companies are absolutely destroying American Healthcare and we all must keep sharing these important stories because something has to change

Wall Street Apes

223,295 次观看 • 1 年前