Do Senior Citizens Need to Exercise?

Many people ask the question, "Do senior citizens need to exercise?" One of the greatest causes of atrophy to the muscles of seniors is insufficient activity needed to stimulate adequate blood flow to vital organs.

Reasons for an Exercise Program:

Left to the reticence of a senior lifestyle can result in disease, lack of muscle tone, and promote a depressing, non productive lifestyle. I speak from experience as I watched my mother refuse to do her required exercises after her knee replacement surgery. She chose instead to sit in her chair and watch TV the greater part of the day and evening. Because of her inactivity I watched as she became a prisoner in her own body. This had a great effect on not only her physical activity but also her mental condition.

Recommendations:

A sensible, regular exercise program that is planned around a person's capacity and needs will help them feel better, live longer and gain independence.

A senior is not someone who is going to engage in a marathon. In planning a healthy, stimulating program start by planning a routine that will provide enough exercise that will generate adequate blood flow to all of the vital organs. You will want to maintain the hard-earned muscles employing cardiovascular exercises, weight training and stretching routines. Consider using resistance bands.

The primary goal is to reach a balance of activity providing just enough exercise to accomplish the goals of maintaining muscle mass, adequate blood flow and a feeling of well-being. If the regimen is extremely strenuous it can cause an adverse effect to the overall condition of a senior. It is imperative that you check a senior's physical and verbal response. Pay special close attention for adverse signs such as excessive sweating, difficulty in breathing, imbalance, droopy eyelids and evidence of mild to severe pain. It these elements occur the activity should be stopped immediately.

A senior citizen's exercise program should be based on their individual needs. If a group regime is put into action there could be the risk of over training. In addition it will be easier to follow the progress of a person if they are following a specific set of exercises that have been developed with only their needs in mind. One person may be able to do more repetitions and a more vigorous exercise than another person. For this reason a program that has been commenced with a senior citizen should be fully documented and a log book maintained noting the details of every workout.

As a senior develops more strength and flexibility their exercise program can be changed. The program should be flexible, keeping in mind that the routines and movements can be increased or decreased on a weekly basis depending on the physical condition of the person.

Execution Procedures:

If you are a family member, or friend caring for the senior citizen, it is recommended that you seek the opinion of a professional to help you develop the exercise plan. They will be able to assist you in selecting a program with the proper intensity and type of exercises that will be beneficial to the patient. In addition to an exercise plan, it is also suggested you engage the services of a dietitians, physical therapist, and a nutritionist. These trained professionals will be able to monitor whether the program is too strenuous or acceptable.

When you commence a program it is suggested that you ask a professional to be present and assist in demonstrating the various moves. An exercise that is executed improperly can cause severe injury to a patient. To achieve the required results you want to be certain that exercises are performed properly. Professionals should also be scheduled to check in various times during the program to evaluate the senior's response to the treatment.

Research Recommendations:

It is important for the person who is going to be initiating the exercise program do their due diligence and research what is available to help them make the right decisions in achieving the goals for physical help to the senior citizen. Below are a few suggestions for developing the best program possible:

· Check on the availability of exercise DVD's that cater specifically to senior citizens

· Watch exercise videos online

· Check forums online for the expertise of others regarding this subject

· Visit a senior citizen center to view their typical routine

· Be open to listen to and learn from instructors and experts

In Conclusion:

As you and the patient continue in the exercise program you will develop the ability to understand what exercises and amount of intensity works best to achieve the desired results. It is also important to remember that in addition to the proper exercise regimen, your senior needs the right amount of rest and diet program to create a total healthy lifestyle.

Democratic Policing - Human Rights and Ethics

The protection and preservation of life must be the highest priority of the police. Now this may sound like the obvious, and it is to those police in democratic societies that practice democratic policing. However, it is not obvious to many police from many different countries. They prioritize things like maintaining order or protecting the government far above that of preservation of life. That is why you have police from countries that routinely indiscriminately fire guns into crowds and cause widespread death and injury. Iran is one of the obvious recent examples but this has also recently happened in India, Nepal, Kenya, and Zimbabwe to name a few. The populace rarely will put up with this for long before uprisings or even insurgencies appear.

Police should always work with integrity and professionalism. This simply means that the police should do the right thing in an acceptable and transparent manner even if they "know" no one is watching. If they continue to operate this way they should have no problems.

It should be clear what the police should (can) and should not (cannot) do. Clear cut policies and guidelines, particularly concerning use of force and when you can and cannot search are so important in policing. See the "Maintaining the Rule of Law" section for a further description of this topic.

All police at times can temporarily detain citizens. It should be noted that all police have the authority to temporarily detain citizens. In most counties some type of reasonable suspicion is needed to temporary detention of movement. However, this may simply be a suspicious person in a suspicious place under suspicious circumstances. Once again - the policies and rules and laws should be clear to the police and citizens when this can take place.

On occasions police can limit other rights of citizens; such as traffic movement where people can and cannot go. Often there are times when police make need to cordon areas off where the public cannot go, but normally they can go. This can be because of natural disasters, traffic accidents or jams, criminal activity in the area, perhaps for security of special events or even public events like rallies or sporting events. Once again - the policies and rules should be clear when they can and cannot do this.

Police have authority to use deadly force in specific circumstances. Police have the authority to use deadly force in certain circumstances. As a matter of fact, police are expected to use deadly force in some situations. Each country has its own definition of deadly or lethal force. Usually it is considered deadly force when the force used can cause loss of life or limb to another. Police are often expected to used deadly force to protect the lives of innocent civilians. The most common justification is when a police officer feels that his or her own life, or the life of another is threatened. There are other possible justifications, but once again this should be clear in the law of the land and the policies of the police department.

Police must perform their duties within accepted standards of human rights and democratically acceptable civil rights. Basically we are talking about no unreasonable detentions whether it be in deplorable conditions or for an unreasonable length of time. Also, detainees must be treated with decency and humanely and not be tortured or mistreated. Detainees that are in need of medical attention should receive medical attention.

Without working within human rights and ethics, the police may not have any support from the citizens they serve. It is rare when a police force can maintain order whenever the citizens give them no support.

Freedom and Liberty, Rights and Privileges

As a longtime public servant, I've found it personally and ethically important to steer well clear of partisan politics when declaiming from the public soapbox that the Times Union has graciously offered me here. When I have written on political matters in recent months, I've sought to straddle a middle ground, by encouraging civil discourse between those of differing views, or asking that both the left and the right be able to justify their "research", or imploring people to not use intentionally provocative words like "Socialist" or "Nazi" or "Tea-bagger" in such tense civic times as these.

Such central positions tend to come naturally to me, I think, because I'm a native Southerner, well and happily raised in an Evangelical Christian, Marine Corps household, a proud military veteran myself, and with a household income that puts me in one of the most-heavily taxed brackets (all of these traits commonly viewed as defining "tags" of the contemporary conservative), but yet I've also spent most of the past quarter-century north of the Mason-Dixon line, much of it working for nonprofit organizations associated with either the social services or arts or educational sectors, all viewed as bastions of extreme liberalism. I move easily in both worlds. And I respect those who work for common good, locally, at a State level, or nationally, from either side of the political spectrum, if that work is done in good faith, without bias or prejudice.

Unfortunately, as you move further from the center in either direction, it seems increasingly rare to find work being done for the common good without such bias or prejudice. I, frankly, find it appalling to ponder how many citizens of this Nation want to see our President and other elected officials fail miserably. And I found that sort of sentiment equally appalling during the last administration as well. As a political centrist, I yearn for nothing less than the greatest successes from the men and women who are duly elected under the rule of law to lead us, whether I agree with them politically or not.

I love the concept of the loyal opposition, but I fear it is dying out in our Nation, which is terrifying to me. In the same way that strident left-wingers licked their chops and rubbed their hands with ill-concealed glee as President Bush struggled with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, so today do strident right-wingers relish the struggles of President Obama in dealing with the despoiling of the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon accident.

How tragic and shameful this is, when political operatives seek to gain advantage from the suffering of their fellow citizens! How poorly media charlatans and hucksters like Michael Moore, Glenn Beck, Anne Coulter, Janeane Garofalo and Rush Limbaugh serve the public good with their cheap shots from the fringes, while never actually doing anything themselves to improve anything except their own bank balances. While I don't much care for Al Franken, either, he earns my respect for having put his money where his mouth was by running for office, and actually seeking to work within the system to effect the changes he believes in. Good for him.

One of the things that bothers me the most in today's political discourse is the never-ending series of claims from both extremes of the political spectrum that our "freedoms" and "liberties" are methodically and intentionally being taken from us. For what it's worth, I don't use those words as plural nouns myself, but prefer to think of specific rights and privileges (plural) that engender the more ephemeral concepts of Liberty (singular) and Freedom (singular). Pluralizing and de-capitalizing "freedoms" and "liberties" creates what I consider to be a false sense that they are just long laundry lists of specific items, so that any time any item is removed from the list, Liberty (singular) and Freedom (singular) are compromised. I think that's a self-referential and dangerous postulate, and I am sick and tired of the glib "we are all frogs in a pot, slowly boiling to death" analogy that defenders of this viewpoint trot out ad nauseum when this topic comes up. I'm not that stupid. Please don't say that to me again. Or the Kool-Aid thing. Thank you.

I'm also a political scientist by training, so I tend to take long, macro views, and when I look at the rights and privileges available today to every citizen of the Nation, compared to the rights and privileges available at the time of the Constitution's adoption, I see a long, steady enhancement and expansion of Constitutional protections granted either by amendment or by legislation or by rulings from the Supreme Court. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if I take the shortest and most narrow political view, meaning how I live my own life, I also have no sense that the rights and privileges I experience as a citizen have been diminished in any meaningful way during my lifetime.

I've asked many Tea Party activists to tell me, personally, what "freedoms" and "liberties" have been denied to them by either the Bush or Obama or other recent administrations, and the answers tend to come in one of two forms: (a) scary things that could, hypothetically, happen, but haven't actually happened to the people writing about them, or (b) piddly-to-churlish things like "I have to wear a seat belt when I drive," or "I have to take my shoes off at the airport" or "I can't smoke in my office anymore." Me? I don't mind ceding such rights and privileges to the greater good and safety of my fellow citizens.

And I think that's the fundamental rub I have with all of the "freedoms" and "liberties" talk: much of it comes across as selfish whining from people who just want to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, regardless of how it might or might not impact their fellow citizens. And that doesn't feel, to me, like living under the rule of law, or being party to a social contract, or anything else beyond a petulant, foot-stomping, childish, "me me ME" view of the world around us. And that, in turn, makes me feel like we have become a Nation of Whiners, unwilling to work selflessly for the common good, concerned only about ourselves, and routinely electing politicians who are pathologically terrified of asking us to sacrifice. Few of us want to be inconvenienced. Few of us want to be told "no." Few of us want to work hard to improve our Nation, if doing so involves something more than gathering occasionally to wave signs and shout platitudes at each other.

I think one of the worst examples of this in recent years was the Bush administration's recommendation after September 11th that we should all continue shopping and going about business as usual, because if we didn't, then the terrorists would have won. The attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center were the most grievous assaults on our Nation since Pearl Harbor. After the original day of infamy, the Nation joined together to ration, sacrifice, enlist, enroll, volunteer, home-garden, black-out and otherwise do what needed to be done to win the war against fascism in Asia and Europe. But after September 11th? Nothing. Just keep shopping, running up debt, and trying to flip your house for fun and profit. Whee! Fast forward nine years, with the economy in shambles in large part due to the debt crisis and housing bubble having popped, and consider how well that social strategy worked out for us all.

At bottom line, the only people in the Nation who have been truly, deeply, personally impacted by September 11th and its aftermath were those who lost loved ones and livelihoods to those acts of terrorism, and those whose fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and brothers and sisters have spent much of the past decade fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we continue shopping and whining. My admiration for those people and their families is boundless. We are all so fortunate to benefit from their sacrifice, and it does them no justice for us to stay at home and carp about seat belts, regulations against salt in food, soda taxes, and shoe screening while they fight, and suffer, and die to defend our freedom to throw ugly words and ill-formed sentiments and half-facts at each other.

What is a Citizen Petition?

A citizen petition is a way of asking for changes on an issue that concerns you. Under the First Amendment of the Constitution, citizens have this right to make their views known and to request that government agencies or departments as well as private businesses and enterprises take a second look at laws and regulations that affect them in a detrimental way. Citizens can also make a petition to request that changes not be made, such as to the environment, when changes are proposed for the use of land.

It is possible for citizens to have laws enacted in some of the states of the United States by means of a citizen petition. Although it is the job of the legislature to enact laws for the citizens of a state, when a group of citizens feels that their needs are being overlooked, they do have the right under the First Amendment to initiate a petition asking that a law be enacted.

If they can collect enough signatures for the petition, when they present it to the state government it has to be voted on by all citizens of the state. If a majority of citizens are in favor of this law, then it is put in place. A citizen petition can also be initiated to ask that a law passed by the legislature be repealed. Those initiating this petition must go through the same process and have a certain number of signatures.

However, the following states do not allow for this procedure in a citizen petition at the state government level:

o Arkansas

o Connecticut

o Delaware

o Georgia

o Indiana

o Iowa

o Kansas

o Louisiana

o New Hampshire

o New Jersey

o New York

o North Carolina

o Rhode Island

o South Carolina

o Vermont

o West Virginia

o Wisconsin

Citizens who are concerned about issues affecting the general population, such as preservation of wetlands, can petition specific government agencies. One example of this is a petition letter against cruelty to animals used in testing centers for businesses that develop cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Such petitions have collected record numbers of signatures from people who do not approve of some of the unethical practices and the petitions have resulted in stricter regulations being put in place for these industries.

Even if you think that you as a person cannot do very much in the way of making changes to the government or big business, everything you do can make a difference when you have enough people that support your cause.

If you do a search on the background of some of the laws of your state, you will find that although the government was ultimately the body that passed the law but it was written by an ordinary citizen like yourself who saw a need for change.

Nothing is written in stone and there can be changes made to all rules and regulations so that they benefit all concerned. Instead of thinking that your opinion doesn't matter, if you feel strongly enough about an issue, you can incite action by starting the petition process of a citizen petition.

Then even if nothing happens, at least you know in your heart that you tried and that you did at least bring the issue to the attention of those in authority. It is possible that years down the road someone else may take up the cause and the changes will take place.

An American Citizen's Right to Bear Arms and to Live Free

Yet, there is an even better reason why citizens should also be gun owners, and that is the right of citizens to protect themselves against their government. In fact, the drafting of the 2nd Amendment by the founding fathers was not to combat crime, but to guard against an oppressive and unscrupulous federal government. The founding fathers literally feared the United States Congress.

George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, among others, were afraid that their new creation would someday try to use the new continental army against them in order to reestablish a ruling elite to oppress the people. This fear was driven by the fact that the first thing the British attempted to do against them was to take away their guns to stop the march toward independence from Great Britain. The debate over gun rights was the most hotly argued topic at the Continental Congress meetings, leading to ratification of the United States Constitution. Following a seemingly endless number of rewrites, private gun ownership rights were finalized in 1791 by the State of Virginia. The argument has never abated even to today, with the courts hearing arguments on controversial cases that eventually lead to yet another refinement in 2nd Amendment law.

The Patriot Act

In 2003, the government passed The Patriot Act as a means of fighting the so called war on terror. Passed just 34 days after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centers, this law quietly repealed several constitutional freedoms previously enjoyed by American citizens. The new law also gave the Bush Administration a host of new weapons with which to spy on and oppress Americans without them realizing it.

FISA Revision

Gun rights advocates really got antsy after the government changed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The revisions allowed for no knock searches and seizure warrants to be issued without prior approval from a judge. This law redefined every American citizen as a possible terrorist against the government. Making all people suspect automatically gives police the right to invade your home, when you least expect it, and whenever they choose to do so.

Military Commissions Act of 2006

The Bush Administration also created the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Obama Administration has chosen to let it stand. This law suppresses habeas corpus, or the right of citizens to be told why they are being arrested as well as what exactly are the charges. Secret prisons were built under Bush, but have since been dismantled under Obama after whistle blowers started talking. However, probably the most damaging clause in the Military Commissions Act gives the President of the United States the right to declare martial law, if he feels its necessary. Couple this with suppression of Posse Comitatus and American citizens have a real problem.

Posse Comitatus dates all the way back to 1878. It was a law the prevented the President and Congress from using American troops against American citizens. The Military Commissions Act calls for 3 battle tested battalions to be stationed on American soil under NorthCom and the Department of Homeland Security. They were activated last October.

The Obama Administration, just like the Bush Administration say the troops are not to be used against American citizens, but stranger things have happened. But no one can say what will happen if and when martial law is ever declared in America. No one knows, if the fears of the founding fathers will ever be born out, but gun advocates believe it is better to be safe and armed, rather than sorry and defenseless.

The Right of Universal Healthcare

One of the primary distinctions between America and most every other country in the world is our belief in human rights. We hold a distinct position in our belief that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights that were endowed to all men upon their birth.

So what is the meaning of "unalienable right" as used in the Declaration of Independence? Unalienable means something that cannot be transferred or assigned (given to another). In this case we are considered "endowed" as being part of us that cannot be separated. These rights are also known as natural rights. Rights derived from nature and not granted by any government.

It is also understood that rights come with responsibilities. We know that the right of freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to use that right without infringing upon others. We have all heard the saying that freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Although this saying is partly correct the truth is you absolutely DO have the right to say it, but you also bear the responsibility for HOW you use it.

An expansion of the rights and responsibility position is that the responsibility is placed upon the person enjoying the right. In the above scenario Jack could not be held accountable for Tom yelling fire in the theater. Every right is predicated upon the duty of the individual to use that right unless and until it infringes on the right of another.

Each and every right has a direct bearing upon the operator of that right. The person bears the cost of enjoying that right as well as the benefit that it entails. For instance; we have the right to freedom of press. We can write and/or read anything we may wish to but we must purchase, burrow, or otherwise legally obtain that item. We have the right to freely move about the country any time we want but we do so by our own means.

Should we as a citizenry, because we have the right to freedom of the press, demand that the government purchase our books for us? We have the right to keep and bear arms; should the government provide them to us? We have the right to travel freely about the country. Should the government also provide us a "free" means of transportation?

The answer in each and every one of these is a resounding NO. First of all our rights do not come from the government, the government is only supposed to protect our rights from being unjustly taken from us. Anything the government provides the government can take away and therefore it is not a right.

There are those who say that "universal health care" is a right, but how can that be? I would agree that each and every person in this nation should have equal access to health services. And just as I cannot afford a million dollar mansion, I purchase what I can afford. Because I cannot afford to eat steak and lobster every day I make due with hamburger and lunch meat. I do not begrudge the person who has earned a living and can afford more, good for them.

And because I cannot afford to fly to the Mayo clinic to receive the best possible health care I go to my local doctor and get what I can afford. Most people forget that a mere fifty years ago, (less time in many places), there was no health insurance. We bought and paid for health care from what we earned and we paid as best we could. And we went only when we absolutely had to.

Of course health care costs were much lower back then before the government got involved with regulating every aspect of our "care." There is not one government agency in existence today that runs efficiently in spite of the trillions of dollars the government takes from us each year. Do we really want the same government that has bankrupt the nation to also add another layer of costs to an already out of control industry?

I have heard from many liberal organizations that they want the government out of the bedroom and their laws off their bodies. They state that people should be free to do with their bodies what they will and they do not want to have government interfere in what they see as their "right."

I would have to say for the most part I agree with that logic. And using that logic I can also say that even though I do not agree with a person's lifestyle or choices I believe they have the right to do as they will as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another. That being said; a right also has its responsibilities. If a person wishes to engage in behavior that puts them at risk for contracting a deadly virus, dealing with pregnancy, overdosing, or any of the myriad of dangers that await us in life, they also must bear the cost. As Andrew Wilkow, Sirius Radio talk show host says quite often, "Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you." It is the individual who is responsible for the decisions they make and the rest of society is not and should not be responsible for their care.

Remember, health care is not "free" someone has to pay for it. That someone is me, my neighbor, Joe the plumber and every other hard working American. The money we earn is our property and property ownership is a right. Why should I and the rest of us have to pay for others reckless behavior? This is an infringement on OUR rights.

The question then arises; if a person has a right to universal health care then whose responsibility is it to pay for it? Remember, rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. And by establishing those that have a responsibility to pay for another's right you establish a class system which further divides our country.

We actually have a version of universal health care in existence today; it's called the Veteran's Association (VA) Medical System. This system takes care of the medical needs of the military veterans of our nation. I have used this system personally and have found that, for the most part, a person can get adequate medical care. Of course you have long lead times, some times a month out, before you can get in to see someone and most often it will not be a doctor but a physician's assistant. They are always crowded with waiting times to pick up prescriptions of sometimes more than hour and some visits as long as four hours total.

The VA, as with every other government agency today, is mired in red tape. Each and every action of the staff has a specified procedure that must be followed to ensure everything is done a certain way. There is no deviation from the prescribed list. When I was first seen at a VA hospital for injuries to my back I received in Afghanistan the "list" required that I be seen by the Physical Therapy unit. I was given pain drugs and muscle relaxers. Next on the list was spinal injections and then the referral to the neurologists.

Then in the middle of my treatment my job required that I move. I checked in to my new VA medical center to continue my care. The new doctor saw my chart but could not send me directly to the neurologist, oh no, I had to first be seen by the physical therapists, more pain pills, spinal injections, etc. This is what the list says must be done, even though I had already gone through the list at the last hospital; it had to be done by "their" staff.

A year later I moved again to another VA hospital thousands of miles away. I checked in and through the modern miracle of computers my file was transferred and all was wonderful. Well, after another round of physical therapy, more drugs, spinals, etc. I was then able to see the neurologist who looked at my cat scans and pronounced that I had indeed ruptured two discs in my back and one in my neck. However, because the inter-spatial distance between the discs hdd not reduced to a specified dimension they were not allowed to operate to fix the problem. He could tell I was in pain and asked if I wanted more drugs? I asked if the operation would make it so I was no longer in pain and he assured me that in the majority of cases the procedure would remove or greatly diminish the pain I was feeling but he was not allowed to operate because of the procedures the government places on them. It is their position that pain can be mitigated by the use of drugs until such time as the patient's condition meets the requirements and that pain was not a factor as that could be controlled by drugs.

This same mentality will be entrenched with any universal healthcare system our government would create. It is the nature of governments to document every minutia of what transpires and the cost to implement and maintain such a system will be astronomical.

Currently in our society many people do not go to their doctor for common colds and sniffles. We go to the pharmacy and get our cold medicines, get plenty of rest, chicken soup, etc. However, if health care is "free" then why would you spend your own money on cold drugs? Just go to the universal health care clinic and get if for free. Heck every time someone stubs their toe they will be at the clinic for their free health care, just get in line. But we won't mind waiting because it's free and the staff won't care how they treat you, after all your not paying for it.

And those who do the right things, exercise, eat healthy, and take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who abuse themselves and the system. Where is the right of these people to not be unjustly burdened with paying for someone else's abuse? Will the government then have to limit caloric intake of obese people? Well they have the police monitoring people to ensure they are not engaging in unsafe sexual acts or sharing needles that spread HIV? What rights do those paying for the "free" healthcare have to ensure their money is not being wasted?

If government takes over the health care industry what recourse do the citizen's have if something goes wrong? The government cannot be sued if it does not give its consent to be sued. Either we will end up with no recourse if they block law suits or the flood gates will open if law suits are allowed because the government would have nearly unlimited funds for the ambulance chasers to go after.

As far as rights go remember one thing the government does not grant rights it can only grant privileges and immunities. Universal Health care is a privilege; but as with Social Security, in time the public will accept it as a "right". Once it has Universal Health care has begun any politician would be committing political suicide to try and remove it once it has been instituted. This would result in a permanent entitlement, like Social Security, that will increase the national debt to record levels that will place future generations into debt servitude. As in the immortal words of President Ronald Reagan "a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

Not only is Universal Health care not a right, it is also something we cannot afford as a nation. Every nation where Universal Health care has been implemented it has been deemed a failure. Those that can afford to pay for private heath care do so or stream out of those nations to come to America to receive the health care they desperately need. The long waiting lists for certain life saving procedures literally has people dying while waiting for their turn. So they come to the only vestige of real health care left in the civilized world, America. Let's not screw it up.

Choosing The Right Accredited School

In today's marketplace, there is an almost bewildering array of choices in providers to meet your needs. From patients choosing health care services to homeowners hiring contractors, consumers seeking the most for their money must exercise caution when evaluating the alternatives. Making the wrong selection wastes time and money, and adds frustration to any transaction, whether the goal is an elective surgery, a remodeled kitchen or a business degree. Fortunately, there are some guidelines that can help you single out the best match for your requirements.

Ask the Experts-Choose the Best

For many services, one good indicator of a provider's reliability and quality is word-of-mouth from other customers. Social gatherings, consumer advocacy websites and testimonials can help you narrow down the long list of available professionals. Beyond that, affiliation with trade organizations and regulating bodies provides indispensable information about the standards to which providers hold themselves.

For would-be students seeking workable plans to enhance their job skills and employability, those affiliations are of particular importance. Get some feedback from students and Internet sites, certainly, but pay real attention to the kinds of accreditation educational institutions achieve and maintain.

Depending on the type of training or degree you seek, there will be a variety of organizations offering accreditation to your top choices for schooling. In broad terms, these groups provide students with some assurance as to the quality of the education they will experience. Like the Good Housekeeping Seal of learning, it is consumer protection for students of all subjects.

Because there is such a great assortment of post-secondary learning opportunities, be on the lookout as you review the websites and catalogs of those schools that interest you. From vocational schools and certificate programs to regionally accredited bachelor's and master's degrees, schools serious about serving their students will always work with accrediting bodies. Be wary of those programs that establish their own standards of excellence with little or no external review.

In vocational education, the accreditation bodies will often be very focused, oriented toward program evaluation of very specific training and certification. A great place to start when evaluating schools of this type is with potential employers and human resource managers who often hire successful former students of those programs. Whose students find the most success in achieving licensing or certification? Do employers value the kinds of learning and experience a particular school or program provides its graduates?

Students wanting to add the clout and knowledge of a bachelor's or master's degree to their resumes should consider carefully the high standards required of institutions maintaining regional accreditation. These bodies, spread geographically throughout the country, provide oversight and review by both the Department of Education and fellow schools within the states of that particular region.

For such schools, accreditation is an ongoing process involving periodic review of educational outcomes, classroom practices and institutional effectiveness. One enormous advantage in attending regionally accredited schools is your ability to transfer most credits among them, across state lines or across the country. This transferability is not always available to students attending trade schools and vocational programs, or those assessed by privately run accrediting organizations.

Whichever school you choose to expand your knowledge and enhance your standing in the job market, know what types of benchmarks are in place for evaluation. You wouldn't let a doctor without a license remove your tonsils to make sure you learn what you need to succeed, choose an institution that is able to withstand the rigors of the accreditation process.