That’s why, no matter how tired you are or how little free time you seem to have, you must make time do a written budget every month. This is essential, and it really doesn’t take long. When you sit down and commit a plan to paper, giving every dollar a name before the month begins, you’re taking control of your money instead of allowing a lack of it to control you.
Start with the income you know is predictable. If this isn’t possible, look back at the last several months and find the minimum amount you brought home during a month during that period of time. This will be the basis for your budget. Once you’ve established a baseline income, you can prioritize expenses. But remember, restaurants are not a priority!
When you start telling your money what to do ahead of time, you’ll have more ability to do what’s needed with what you’ve earned. It’s empowering and energizing, and it gives you the chance to make your Total Money Makeover a reality!
Keeping your checkbook balanced and things like that are an important part of what I teach. However, behavior plays an even bigger role for several reasons. You can add, subtract, multiply and divide all day. That stuff is easy. But until you learn to control your behavior, stick to a budget and spend less than you make, you’re always going to have problems with money.
I’ve worked in a hospital as a nurse for 10 years. I make good money working long hours. The problem is it seems to disappear, and I’m left trying to stretch those last few dollars to the end of the month. I know I eat out a lot. I grab quick meals between shifts, and on the way home because I’m too tired to cook. I think I spend more than I should on other things, too. Do you have any tips for someone who wants to get control of their money, but has very little free time? – Amy
Curated from The best medicine – Victoria Advocate – Victoria, TX
There was no difference in the rate of death, worsening heart failure during the initial hospitalization, rehospitalization for heart failure, or enlargement of the left ventricle at 1 year between the cyclosporine patients (n=395) and those in the control group (n=396), said Michel Ovize, MD, PhD, of the Clinical Investigator Center of Lyon, France.
Ovize reported the results of the CIRCUS (Does Cyclosporine Improve Clinical Outcome in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients) trial at a Hot Line Session at the European Society of Cardiology meeting here. The findings were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Cyclosporine was considered a good candidate to prevent reperfusion injury because it inhibits the opening of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore or PTP, which is believed to mediate reperfusion injury. In animal models, cyclosporine did achieve that result, but Jerry B. Michel, MD, a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Scott & White Healthcare in Temple, Texas told MedPage Today that animal models have not be useful in studying MI.
”Unfortunately, this is an example of yet another ‘death’ at the altar of myocardial reperfusion strategies. There have been a long list of treatments that have failed despite having shown promising results in small Phase II studies,”Sanjay Rajagopalan, MBBS, division head cardiovascular medicine University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore told MedPage Today. “There may need to be a real paradigm shift in our thinking about the role of cytoprotective therapies as adjuncts to prevent myocardial reperfusion injury.”
LONDON — Administering a bolus of cyclosporine to patients with acute anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) before stenting did not reduce death or slow progression of heart failure.
The 38% of patients who could have been discharged based on levels under 6 ng/L initially and at 1 hour were no more likely to have non-ST-segment MI (NSTEMI) missed than were patients discharged based on the conventional 3-hour algorithm in accordance with European Society of Cardiology guidelines.
The negative predictive value was 99.0% compared with 99.5% for the 3-hour algorithm, with sensitivities of 97.6% versus 98.8%, respectively. Neither difference was statistically significant.
Ruling-in NSTEMI based on levels over 6 ng/L that rose at least 12 ng/L by 1 hour also had a specificity and positive predictive value as good as that based on assessment over 3 hours, without significant differences.
“There’s no need to wait for 3 hours,” Dirk Westermann, MD, PhD, of the University Heart Centre Hamburg and the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research in Hamburg, Germany, said at a press conference where he presented the Hot Line trial results here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting.
LONDON — High sensitivity-troponin I allowed discharge or diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (MI) in 1 hour without greater risk than the standard 3-hour assay, the BACC trial showed.