Greatest Problem, mmmmm......I have to say the INCREASING scope of practice of some mid. levels - PAs, NPs, CRNAs..............
GOD HELP ANESTHESIOLOGY!!!!!!!! 😡 😡 😡
GOD HELP ANESTHESIOLOGY!!!!!!!! 😡 😡 😡
Biggest problem facing medicine
- Thread starter aingeal
- Start date
- Joined
- May 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 6
distribution of healthcare/resources, tort reform, turf wars, constant influx of stupid premeds, dehumanization and abstraction from normalcy leading to psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies of medical students
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 181
- Reaction score
- 2
merlin said:
Hey Merlin--Until you can get my medical education subsidized by the government, just like you want healthcare to be--shut the hell up.
I am a liberal and believe in providing affordable healthcare to everyone, but your opinions of "republican" medical students is a bunch of BS. Doctors reimbursements have fallen steadily over the past 20 years, but healthcare costs continue to rise. Stop spreading the idiotic self entitlement myth, you aren't fooling anyone.
Sorry for being so curt, but I am tired of hearing this crap from people who obviously don't understand the US healthcare system.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,501
- Reaction score
- 9
Saw it on a news program a few weeks ago but can't remember which one. My Dad mentioned something about it as well..... I think from TIME magazine. Sorry I don't have a web link for it.Tristero said:
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2001
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 1
hey Tristero,
since I can see you're just starting med school i'll refrain from sinking down to your obviously immature level and just say that i probably know a lot more about the healthcare system than you think...so in the meantime while you gain a little experience about the healthcare system (maybe you do have some) try not to come on this board and start throwing around insults...and my experience has been that the majority of "conservative" med students do entirely reinforce my initial comments...just look at the majority of comments from most conservatives on this board and you'll see that one of the single most important things for up and coming doctors seems to be how much money they are going to make and how they are going to prevent themselves from getting sued. later.
since I can see you're just starting med school i'll refrain from sinking down to your obviously immature level and just say that i probably know a lot more about the healthcare system than you think...so in the meantime while you gain a little experience about the healthcare system (maybe you do have some) try not to come on this board and start throwing around insults...and my experience has been that the majority of "conservative" med students do entirely reinforce my initial comments...just look at the majority of comments from most conservatives on this board and you'll see that one of the single most important things for up and coming doctors seems to be how much money they are going to make and how they are going to prevent themselves from getting sued. later.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 2
merlin: your post was still out of line. To criticize Christians because they reverence a book from "2,000 years ago" is a great foolishness. First of all, a vast amount of Biblical ethics is both older and newer than the Bible itself, in that it is reflected in normal human nature (an opinion, but nevertheless an important point).
Second of all, is something bad or useless just because it is old? That sounds like a very immature attitude. I have tremendous respect for the Bible even though it's quite old. The scientific method is hundreds of years old (just assuming for argument's sake it was developed by Bacon). How many more years till we ridicule that just for its age?
Also, I'm a conservative med student, and if I was after money, I would not have been so stupid as to go into medicine. In fact the school I go to has a larger than normal percentage of conservatives (I believe from talking to my fellow students), but also has a larger percentage of people who go into primary care (not so much money, way more important for society).
Second of all, is something bad or useless just because it is old? That sounds like a very immature attitude. I have tremendous respect for the Bible even though it's quite old. The scientific method is hundreds of years old (just assuming for argument's sake it was developed by Bacon). How many more years till we ridicule that just for its age?
Also, I'm a conservative med student, and if I was after money, I would not have been so stupid as to go into medicine. In fact the school I go to has a larger than normal percentage of conservatives (I believe from talking to my fellow students), but also has a larger percentage of people who go into primary care (not so much money, way more important for society).
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,805
- Reaction score
- 3,655
This is a great post.. that being said I would be surprised if the trial lawyers (I know previously they mentioned "Law Firms") gave more money to the republicans than to Edwards. Point is lawyers are a necessary evil whereas trial lawyers are unnecessary human beings.
I also am wondering what people think of this.. I dont know what level of school you are in but I am curious what 3rd & 4th yr medical students and residents think of this..... Why should we take great care of patients who dont take care of themselves, specific examples are smokers, uncontrolled Diabetics, uncontrolled HTN and oh lets say obesity. I am specifically thinking about people who knowingly dont care for themselves. I have been on the wards and I have started wondering about this. Just curious as to what the thoughts on this are?
The Ectopic One!! Busy doing Medicine at Cook County Hospital!
I also am wondering what people think of this.. I dont know what level of school you are in but I am curious what 3rd & 4th yr medical students and residents think of this..... Why should we take great care of patients who dont take care of themselves, specific examples are smokers, uncontrolled Diabetics, uncontrolled HTN and oh lets say obesity. I am specifically thinking about people who knowingly dont care for themselves. I have been on the wards and I have started wondering about this. Just curious as to what the thoughts on this are?
The Ectopic One!! Busy doing Medicine at Cook County Hospital!
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Messages
- 1,528
- Reaction score
- 3
I am a third year- but I haven't hit the wards yet since I'm still studying for step one.
I find the attitude of 'certain people are more deserving of my care' to be abhorrent. Medicine is about helping people, not picking and choosing who you deem to be more deserving of your care. Besides that, people who take care of themselves, on average, are healthier to begin with so they most likely won't be spending as much time in their physician?s office. Obviously, people who don't take care of themselves as much will be spending more time in their physician?s office.
A medical education affords one the knowledge to help treat human disease, as well as help prevent disease. A physician's job is to impart that knowledge to their patients. A patient is an autonomous human being (for the most part), so let them figure out how they want to use their physician's advice.
Lastly, although I am merely a third year med student, I am not oblivious to the human condition. There are a myriad of reasons as to why people are non-compliant with their meds, why some abuse drugs, etc.... I haven't walked in the 'shoes' of that non-compliant patient, so I don't feel that I have any business judging them based on their non-compliant behavior. My medical education will afford me the ability to help people- and that is all I can do. If a patient does not follow my advice, than so be it.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 181
- Reaction score
- 2
merlin said:
You can have all the experience you want, but that still doesn't mean you understand the healthcare system. My comments were justified...your blatantly partisan comments about the Bible (and before you ask, I'm not Christian or religious in any way) and "conservatives" are far more indicative of your lack of maturity. I know how the malpractice situation has affected doctors firsthand (PM if you want to know more), and for you to make uninformed generalizations based on your experiences with "conservatives" is irresponsible. Try to show some respect for other people's beliefs, and I'll show some respect for yours.
Just to clarify, the vast majority of lawyers are not trial lawyers. In fact, most lawyers don't ever file a lawsuit or appear in court.
Nearly all the lawyers I know handle transactions (ie, you want to establish your medical practice -- a lawyer will help you get financing by dealing with the bank, help you acquire real estate for your clinic, and help you draft employment agreements for your staff, etc.). Most physicians are not trained to do these kind of things and even if they were, most would prefer to spend their time treating patients. I would say that lawyers are more than a "necessary evil." Rarely do you hear that accountants or architects are a necessary evil. Law is a job like anything else. It just so happens that in the US the "lawyers" that sue and the "lawyers" that don't go by the same name. It is not that way in most other countries. And, who does the public see more--the ones on the back of the phone book and on those offensive TV commercials.
Also, I am the very last person that you will ever hear defend a med mal lawyer. I think most are out solely for the money and never think about the patient (or society as a whole). But, for every case they win, they typically have at least one MD testifying on the behalf of their client.
I have experience in both medicine and law, and would like to stop the finger pointing on each side in an effort to better the healthcare system for everybody--particularly the patients.
The biggest problem with medicine is greed. Greed on behalf of the insurance companies, med mal lawyers, and doctors. Not enough people really care about the patients.
I have not figured out exactly how to combat the insurance companies without more governmental oversight (which usually does not work--at least at first), but as for the trial lawyers, there should be caps. This will not eliminate the problem, but will help. Physicians are going to have to organize their efforts through the AMA and other lobbying groups and allow more students into med school in order to increase the supply of docs. Of course, this will result in lower pay individually, but if we could reduce the power of the insurance companies, and lower malpractice insurance (by caping malpractice awards), in the end I bet docs would not see their net compensation reduced a great deal. In fact, in many cases we as docs could make more (and maybe have better hours to boot).
Just my two cents...
Nearly all the lawyers I know handle transactions (ie, you want to establish your medical practice -- a lawyer will help you get financing by dealing with the bank, help you acquire real estate for your clinic, and help you draft employment agreements for your staff, etc.). Most physicians are not trained to do these kind of things and even if they were, most would prefer to spend their time treating patients. I would say that lawyers are more than a "necessary evil." Rarely do you hear that accountants or architects are a necessary evil. Law is a job like anything else. It just so happens that in the US the "lawyers" that sue and the "lawyers" that don't go by the same name. It is not that way in most other countries. And, who does the public see more--the ones on the back of the phone book and on those offensive TV commercials.
Also, I am the very last person that you will ever hear defend a med mal lawyer. I think most are out solely for the money and never think about the patient (or society as a whole). But, for every case they win, they typically have at least one MD testifying on the behalf of their client.
I have experience in both medicine and law, and would like to stop the finger pointing on each side in an effort to better the healthcare system for everybody--particularly the patients.
The biggest problem with medicine is greed. Greed on behalf of the insurance companies, med mal lawyers, and doctors. Not enough people really care about the patients.
I have not figured out exactly how to combat the insurance companies without more governmental oversight (which usually does not work--at least at first), but as for the trial lawyers, there should be caps. This will not eliminate the problem, but will help. Physicians are going to have to organize their efforts through the AMA and other lobbying groups and allow more students into med school in order to increase the supply of docs. Of course, this will result in lower pay individually, but if we could reduce the power of the insurance companies, and lower malpractice insurance (by caping malpractice awards), in the end I bet docs would not see their net compensation reduced a great deal. In fact, in many cases we as docs could make more (and maybe have better hours to boot).
Just my two cents...
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2001
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 1
Hey Tristero,
first of all, if you go back to my original post, you will see that I passed no judgements on the bible and have in no way attempted to offend those who look upon the bible as a guide....but my personal view is that the bible must be looked upon as a timepiece and interpreted according to modern times, with liberal interpretations at certain times. Just as the Pope has done with the evidence that supports evolution.
BUT that said, without trying to throw this thread off topic, I believe that many of Bush's faith based actions are wrong to the modern world and the advancement of a society inclusive of many many religions and viewpoints, as we hold the US to be. My statement clearly harkens to the term that Bush himself uses, which implies straighforewardly where his decisions are based from; which is the "Faith-based" initiatives. Using the bible as a guiding force that dictates his policy, he has cut funding for any type of sex education other than abstinence education, he is clearly anti-abortion (which by the way, if you read most modern theological scholars, they all have agreed that there is no basis in the bible for being anti-abortion), and he is clearly against gay marraige.
Now with that said, and reading my statement which you have so clearly called out as insulting, I feel my statement is justified because I truly believe, as many others in this country do (which means I am not just some uninformed liberal) that sex education that does not include talk about condoms, birth control, and safe sex is just negligent. And I believe in a womans right to safe abortions, and I believe personally in anyone's right to wed be it two men or two women, so long as they are consenting adults.
Finally, again, I personally don't really care if you are liberal or conservative. but you keep making these comments such as my "uninformed generalizations" which if this is a generalization, you are clearly in the same boat because it seems that you must know one case where a doctor got the bad end of the malpractice deal and now you are an informed expert. Let's be up front. Neither of us have all that much experience in the health care field. And that is justified even if every member of your entire family is a doctor/nurse/NP...because it's the same as a child who claims to be democrat/republican. it's uniformed until you have personally experienced something yourself.
And I still stand by the statement I made. The platform of the republican party has always been one of making it easier for the rich to amass more wealth and has never really supported social programs that support the lower socioeconomic classes, so why can't I make a statement such as a problem with medicine being money grubbing med students. It's true, there is a body of literature that shows that the care one receives is clearly related to where the source of a patients funding for that care is coming from. So clearly, if the pocketbook didn't matter as much, you should expect the same quality of care given to all. And you got me, I do support socialized medicine. Clearly I must be mistakenly uninformed eh? How could anyone support that? Right, isn't that where your comments come from? Either way, like I said, try to keep this thread on track. cheers.
first of all, if you go back to my original post, you will see that I passed no judgements on the bible and have in no way attempted to offend those who look upon the bible as a guide....but my personal view is that the bible must be looked upon as a timepiece and interpreted according to modern times, with liberal interpretations at certain times. Just as the Pope has done with the evidence that supports evolution.
BUT that said, without trying to throw this thread off topic, I believe that many of Bush's faith based actions are wrong to the modern world and the advancement of a society inclusive of many many religions and viewpoints, as we hold the US to be. My statement clearly harkens to the term that Bush himself uses, which implies straighforewardly where his decisions are based from; which is the "Faith-based" initiatives. Using the bible as a guiding force that dictates his policy, he has cut funding for any type of sex education other than abstinence education, he is clearly anti-abortion (which by the way, if you read most modern theological scholars, they all have agreed that there is no basis in the bible for being anti-abortion), and he is clearly against gay marraige.
Now with that said, and reading my statement which you have so clearly called out as insulting, I feel my statement is justified because I truly believe, as many others in this country do (which means I am not just some uninformed liberal) that sex education that does not include talk about condoms, birth control, and safe sex is just negligent. And I believe in a womans right to safe abortions, and I believe personally in anyone's right to wed be it two men or two women, so long as they are consenting adults.
Finally, again, I personally don't really care if you are liberal or conservative. but you keep making these comments such as my "uninformed generalizations" which if this is a generalization, you are clearly in the same boat because it seems that you must know one case where a doctor got the bad end of the malpractice deal and now you are an informed expert. Let's be up front. Neither of us have all that much experience in the health care field. And that is justified even if every member of your entire family is a doctor/nurse/NP...because it's the same as a child who claims to be democrat/republican. it's uniformed until you have personally experienced something yourself.
And I still stand by the statement I made. The platform of the republican party has always been one of making it easier for the rich to amass more wealth and has never really supported social programs that support the lower socioeconomic classes, so why can't I make a statement such as a problem with medicine being money grubbing med students. It's true, there is a body of literature that shows that the care one receives is clearly related to where the source of a patients funding for that care is coming from. So clearly, if the pocketbook didn't matter as much, you should expect the same quality of care given to all. And you got me, I do support socialized medicine. Clearly I must be mistakenly uninformed eh? How could anyone support that? Right, isn't that where your comments come from? Either way, like I said, try to keep this thread on track. cheers.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2001
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 1
That's debatable (not the wording of the 6th comandment) but I'll refrain from steering this thread off topic in respsect to the OP...
Either way, stay on topic...You anti-abortion people are so predictable. Everytime the A-word gets muttered, even in passing as it was in my above post about Bush's policy, you feel the need to start a moral debate on the topic and totally trash any thread going. Just leave it as some people support it and some don't...this has been debated hundreds of times on this board...end of story.
Stay on topic.
Either way, stay on topic...You anti-abortion people are so predictable. Everytime the A-word gets muttered, even in passing as it was in my above post about Bush's policy, you feel the need to start a moral debate on the topic and totally trash any thread going. Just leave it as some people support it and some don't...this has been debated hundreds of times on this board...end of story.
Stay on topic.
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,805
- Reaction score
- 3,655
Sorry just one quick thing about the "6th commandment" Since many conservatives also believe in the death penalty.. and since in the bible they killed people what are we to think? PM me if you wish..... anyhow.. lawyers suck and let me say my wife is one.... she defends MDs and does a lot of the transaction stuff. Also, to the poster who said lawyers help MDs get financing or real estate thats not true.. But they do help file necessary papers with the state, employment agreements and setting up your business like filing for an LLP, LLC or whatever other type of company you hope to have. Also they can be used to set up HIPAA compliance and other compliance issues, look over contracts between you and the HMO, PPO etc.
OK. I am a lawyer and will soon be a physician. I have done all the things that I claimed lawyers do.
Most small town lawyers don't really specialize. Typically if lawyers do both transactional and litigation work they work for a smaller general practice. Also, a majority (not all) of these lawyers went to lower ranked law schools and did not have the big firm options upon graduation.
Comparing med mal or personal injury lawyers to big firm transactional lawyers (or even small firm transactional lawyers) is like comparing chiropracters to MD surgeons. It is a totally different practice, but to the uninformed lay person both are "doctors" or "lawyers."
Anyway, there is really no reason to argue. If your mind is made up, it is made up.
Best of luck to you.
Most small town lawyers don't really specialize. Typically if lawyers do both transactional and litigation work they work for a smaller general practice. Also, a majority (not all) of these lawyers went to lower ranked law schools and did not have the big firm options upon graduation.
Comparing med mal or personal injury lawyers to big firm transactional lawyers (or even small firm transactional lawyers) is like comparing chiropracters to MD surgeons. It is a totally different practice, but to the uninformed lay person both are "doctors" or "lawyers."
Anyway, there is really no reason to argue. If your mind is made up, it is made up.
Best of luck to you.
