Hasta La Gadget!

American missile defense systems haven’t always worked out according to plan, but it’s chalking up a major success right now. The Department of Defense reports that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense portion of its anti-ballistic missile system has…

We just had another Memorial Day weekend and it led me to ponder this holiday. Memorial Day has evolved with me over the years. I remember going on picnics back home in Michigan on Memorial Day weekend. With winter weather only a few weeks behind on that weekend, it was a real celebration of being outside. But even then, as a child, I found it odd we remembered the loss of so many with a picnic. In fact, it was only after several years of celebrating the holiday that I realized there was a connection between these picnics and a national tragedy.

The situation has further deteriorated as department store sales seem to take precedence over stories of heroism. Furthermore, to make things worse, it seems that we do not just honor those who sacrificed, but the wars themselves. I know, it may be hard to separate the two, but I think it is important for us to do just that. All of the wars the US fought were costly — both in dollars and lives. For many, we have little to show for them.

The best way to honor the fallen, is to make sure there are fewer that fall in the future.

I believe the United States is, largely, a nation of reactors. In the 1960s, when brave soldiers came back after the Vietnam War, they were often accused of being “baby killers” and were treated as criminals. It was unconscionable. It is even more horrific when one considers the fact that over 30 percent of these soldiers — over 17,000 — were conscripted to serve. They did not volunteer. They were victims of involuntary servitude. For many in this group, the objective was simply to survive. Treating them as criminals was simply bizarre. Meanwhile, those who volunteered, did not all sign up for any particular war.

By the 1980s, military service became widely respected again. The pendulum had swung in the opposite direction. Politicians in general began to create linkage between the worthiness of the soldier and the wars they fought. Since these were good people, who gave so much, it was only logical that it was for “worthy causes.” Over time, being critical of conflicts was seen as being hostile towards those who fought it, as patriotism took precedence over human lives. This is, of course, exactly what the politicians want. Forget about wrapping these wars in the American flag, politicians wrap them up in the sacrifice of those who fought them. This was a brilliant strategy, which has cost so many lives. The opposite is true. We should be extremely vigilant in making sure these wars are, in fact, worth US dollars and (more importantly) lives.

The best way to honor the fallen, is to make sure there are fewer that fall in the future. The way to pursue that is simple. Going forward, the US should only be allowed to take offensive military actions with countries (or entities, such as ISIS) that it has declared war against. The War Powers Act, which was designed to protect the country from immediate danger and the Constitution from a president who would go too far without Congress, has been ignored. It has become so weak, Trump disregarded it entirely in his unconstitutional war against Syria. It is amazing the President would inform the ally of the country he was striking, but not inform a single member of Congress. Meanwhile, he has done so without consequence. One can simply dismiss the War Powers Act as a remnant of the past.

It is time for the US to develop a mechanism to protect the Constitution, US lives, and those that would be sent to fight wars. A president should have the leverage to profoundly defend US interests in an attack, but never be allowed to be continually involved in global conflicts, like in Syria, without declaring war.

It is clear, the United States should only be in offense, when both houses of Congress has voted for such. That is, in fact, how wars are won. When members of Congress are forced to vote in favor of war, they get to deal with their constituents. They should have to explain to voters how the lost of their children was justified. With the current approach, members of Congress get to hide behind a president who either acted unilaterally or as part of an international coalition. Either way, US lives are continuously put on the line without clear objectives or a resolve to win. The only way you get that type of “buy in” from the American people, is to have members of Congress vote for every war. Approaching wars like this could prevent future soldiers from being harmed or killed. That is a great way to celebrate future Memorial Days.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

After going through a divorce, it can be strange and unsettling to re-enter the dating scene. Chances are it is very different from when you were in it the last time. You’ve probably never heard of “Netflix and Chill” or navigated through dating apps such as Tinder or Bumble.

You are most certainly wondering how the dating rules have changed in this day and age and how you can navigate these new waters. So here are four tips for getting back into the dating game after going through a divorce.

1. Make sure you are good with yourself

Divorce can leave a lot of pain and hurt in your life. It’s important that you have gone through some kind of divorce counseling so that you have had help to process through the divorce and repair the wounds it leaves behind. You don’t want to enter the dating scene with built up frustration or resentment toward the opposite sex. Without learning from your marriage you are very likely to repeat the same mistakes again.

It’s also a good idea to reconnect with yourself. It will take you some time to figure out whom you are as a single person, compared to who you were in a marriage relationship. The challenges, wounds and growth you have experienced from your divorce will also contribute to the type of person you are now. Be okay with who you are. You must love yourself before anyone else can love you.

2. Put yourself out there

Once you are ready to start dating, you have to put yourself out there. Mr. or Mrs. Right #2 is not going to magically appear at your doorstep one day. Get friends together and go out to places where you can strike up a conversation with other singles. Join an online dating site or app and start meeting people. Begin a new hobby, find a Meetup group, or try out a new church.

3. Be open minded

The people you date now might look a lot different than your ex spouse. If someone asks you out who isn’t necessarily your type, consider going out with them anyway. By dating different types of people, you can determine which traits you most desire in a partner. Your morals and values may have changed the second time around, and you may come to appreciate certain personality traits that you didn’t before. Going on dates will increase your confidence too. You may not meet ‘the one’ by saying yes to a date you’re unsure of, but it can boost your ego and teach you something about yourself that you didn’t know.

4. Avoid talking about your ex

At least for the first one—or several dates—avoid mentioning your ex. Try to get to know each other as individuals to see if there are things in common between you, instead of explaining the role you each played in your last relationship. You will have to go there eventually and divulge the details, but it’s better not to right up front. When you do, don’t bash your ex or complain about the relationship. Talk about the experiences you had, what you learned and how it changed you as a person.

Be patient when you start dating after a divorce. It can take time to meet people and find the right person to build a relationship. Make sure you don’t compare the new people you are dating to your ex in any way. Each person will likely bring their own strengths and weaknesses to the relationship.

Dating can be a fun way to meet others and learn more about yourself. In time, you’ll find another partner you want to settle down with if that is your wish and when you do you’ll be glad you got back out there.

You can read more advice from Dr. Kurt at Guy Stuff Counseling, Facebook, Google+, or Twitter.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Next year, about 14 million more Americans could be uninsured if the House-passed version of health care becomes law, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis, a more pressing issue than the estimated 23 million expected to be affected by 2026. 

In addition to the individual burdens of accessing health care without insurance, injecting millions of uninsured people into the health care system would have a sweeping effect on both the system and on public health outcomes, doctors and health experts say.

The revenue cuts “are like cutting off some of the body’s oxygen supply — partial strangulation,” Alan Sager, professor of health law, policy and management at the Boston University School of Public Health, told HuffPost. “They don’t make health care more efficient; rather, they mean that many people get less care.”

Should the law go into effect, lack of coverage will mean fewer people will have the resources to prevent conditions, effectively treat diseases or manage chronic illnesses before a crisis develops. Here are just a few ways that experts see reduced coverage affecting patients next year:

Patients delay care and develop progressive diseases  

When patients don’t have health insurance, they tend to delay care or testing until diseases are more advanced, which could lead to complications, necessitate more serious treatments and result in worse health outcomes.  

“More uninsured people would lead to people using emergency room care more since they may not seek out primary care. This means that people would only get care when they are really sick, which would mean their health could be permanently affected by something that could have been caught earlier. In my case, that means I’ll be doing a lot less pap smears and diagnosing more cancer.”

―Dr. Kristyn Brandi, obstetrician and gynecologist at Boston Medical Center

“Increasing the number of uninsured Americans could affect physicians’ ability to provide quality preventive care to patients.”

―Dr. Catherine Hough-Telford, Pediatric Health Care Alliance

“Diabetes may go unnoticed in its early stages but can lead to a host of problems that people don’t think about, including blindness and neuropathy. When more people are uninsured, they are less able to obtain access to both primary and specialty care, meaning that when we finally do see them in the ER, some complications that could have been preventable are unfortunately now permanent. All things being equal, the patients we see in the ER will be sicker from not having had insurance than if they had.” 

―Dr. Renee Hsia, professor of emergency medicine and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco

Life will be harder for people with chronic diseases

About half of all American adults, or about 117 million people, had at least one chronic health condition as of 2012, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And for many of those people, such as individuals with diabetes, going without medication is not an option, regardless of insurance coverage.

People with chronic diseases will likely to pay more for insurance and are under pressure not to let that coverage lapse, lest they risk being charged by insurers based on their health. And should those chronically ill people lose coverage altogether, the burden of that loss means more people getting sicker before they pay to get medical care. In the case of an uninsured individual with diabetes, for example, lack of health insurance could lead to an amputation rather than a managed disease.

“I am deeply concerned for people with chronic diseases, especially for those with liver diseases and catastrophic conditions requiring organ transplants that might lose the coverage they need.”

―Bill Remak, chairman of the California Hepatitis C Task Force

Hospitals and doctors will be under increasing financial strain

About one-third of rural hospitals operate at a loss, according to Stat, and although rural and urban hospitals have been closing at a similar rate, with about 100 hospitals closing since 2010, those closures take a bigger toll on rural areas. One aspect of the Affordable Care Act that has helped rural hospitals stay afloat is payments through the expansion of Medicaid, something that would slowly diminish under the Republican health care plan. And hospitals in states that have not expanded Medicaid have fought for those lifesaving federal funds.

When a hospital in a rural area closes, residents often have to travel much farther to the next available hospital. And given the link between increased hospital travel time and mortality, closing a rural hospital could at times mean the difference between life and death.

“Hospitals and doctors serving people who are older, sicker, and poorer—and rural and urban places where those people live—will be even more stressed financially. Some will close up shop and others will relocate.  Travel time for care will grow. This will mean less care for fewer people at greater cost.”

―Alan Sager, professor of health law, policy and management at the Boston University School of Public Health   

Unplanned pregnancy will rise 

Although nearly half of pregnancies are unintended, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the United States has made massive gains in reducing teenage pregnancy in recent years, hitting a record low of 22 births per 1,000 teens ages 15 to 19 in 2015, according to the CDC. 

Although public health experts can’t completely explain the decline, evidence suggests teens abstaining from sexual activity and using birth control when they do have sex have driven down the teen birth rate. Without reliable access to affordable or even free birth control, many women will no longer be able to effectively prevent pregnancy.

The House bill would allow states to roll back the Obamacare provision for free birth control. It would also prevent Medicaid funds from being used at Planned Parenthood clinics, even for contraceptive services.  

“More women may come to me with an unplanned pregnancy because they can no longer afford their birth control without insurance.”

―Dr. Kristyn Brandi, OB/GYN at Boston Medical Center

The opioid epidemic will worsen

Of the 14 million Americans poised to lose insurance, about 420,000 will have diagnosable problems with opioid use. Losing health insurance would mean not being able to afford medication-assisted treatments for opioid addiction, such as buprenorphine, Dr. Peter Friedmann, associate dean for research at the University of Massachusetts Medical School and chief research officer at the nonprofit Baystate Health, noted in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March.

Unaffordable opioid treatments would hit rural areas the hardest, since, as Friedmann points out, the 15 counties with the highest opioid overdose mortality in 2015 were predominantly rural areas in Kentucky and West Virginia.

And since both states opted to expand Medicaid, reversing that insurance expansion could strip tens of thousands of rural Americans of medication-assisted treatment coverage.

“This loss of coverage for addiction treatment, an essential health benefit (EHB) under the ACA, as well as reductions in addiction treatment coverage in states that receive EHB waivers, will have devastating consequences for people, families and communities ravaged by the opioid epidemic.”

―Dr. Peter Friedmann, chief research officer at Baystate Health

We’ll lose the progress we’ve made against sepsis 

Sepsis, a severe reaction to infection that can lead to tissue damage, organ failure and death, kills about 258,000 Americans per year, making it the ninth leading cause of disease-related death, according to the CDC.

This will mean less care for fewer people at greater cost.
Alan Sager, professor of health law, policy and management, Boston University School of Public Health

It’s also a disease that disproportionately affects adults older than 65 and the uninsured, who have a higher rate of sepsis-related mortality than insured Americans, according to a 2011 study published in the journal Critical Care.  

Timely treatment is critical when it comes to saving lives and reducing injury from sepsis, so having access to insurance and, therefore, health care resources, can be the difference between life and death. We’d unfortunately expect to see an increase in sepsis injuries, such as amputation, and death if more people were without health insurance or had no access to health care resources. This would be tragic, as sepsis is a treatable condition when caught early and people receive appropriate treatment.

―Thomas Heymann, executive director of Sepsis Alliance

The rise of unpredictable pre-existing conditions 

When new epidemics break out, such as the rise of the Zika virus, it can suddenly change the public health care picture in ways that couldn’t be predicted.

Since the Zika virus wasn’t an issue when the Affordable Care Act was signed in 2010, mothers of children with Zika-related health problems, such as microcephaly, could end up paying more for their kids’ health insurance or even be priced out of coverage altogether under the new plan, Mother Jones reports. 

The CDC estimates that having a child with microcephaly (a Zika-related birth defect that can cause babies to have neurological damage and smaller-than-average heads) could translate to up to $10 million in medical care over the course of a child’s lifetime.

Those expensive medical bills could incentivize insurance companies to charge the parents of children with mircrocephaly more for premiums and to penalize them financially should their insurance coverage lapse. For now, the number of families affected by Zika in the U.S. is small. According to the CDC, there were 64 babies born with Zika-related birth defects in the United States as of May 9. 

“You’d have to be very careful as the parent of a child to never have a break in coverage.”

―Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told Mother Jones 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Acer has come out with a new 35-inch UWQHD curved LCD monitor namely the Predator Z35P. Utilizing the NVIDIA G-SYNC technology for seamless visuals and smooth gameplay, and the NVIDIA ULMB technology for reducing the image blurring, this new 35-inch VA LED-backlight monitor (1800R Curvature) supports a native resolution of 3440 x 1440 pixels and provides 21:9 aspect ratio, 2500:1 contrast ratio, 300 cd/m2 brightness, 4ms response time and 178/178 degree viewing angles.

Equipped with built-in high-quality stereo speakers (9Wx2), the Predator Z35P provides 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 and 4-port USB 3.0 hub. The Acer Predator Z35P will begin shipping by the end of this month for $1,099.99. [Product Page]

The post Acer Predator Z35P 35-Inch UWQHD LCD Monitor With NVIDIA G-SYNC Technology appeared first on TechFresh, Consumer Electronics Guide.