Do anesthesiologists want it both ways?

[GoodmanBrown]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but recently I was pondering some of the politically oriented threads on the anesthesiology forum, and it crossed my mind that a lot of the folks here seem to want it both ways concerning government.

On the one hand, I see a lot of people saying "Donate to your PAC, become a member of the ASA, and alert your representatives that CRNAs are pushing to extend their rights too far!" Intrinsically, it's saying that laws need to be passed or be kept from passing that will limit what CRNAs can do.

On the other hand, many of the same folks are saying that any government intervention in health care (specifically heath insurance) will result in terrible inefficiencies and will destroy the system. They say that reimbursements will fall, and no one will be helped by any interference. They want government to butt out and not change anything.

Aren't these two opinions opposites? Either the free market will solve both CRNAs and health insurance, or the government should step in and regulate both. What differentiates the two issues such that government needs to be involved in one and not the other? Any justifications? Now I'm not saying this isn't completely sensible, but to me, it seems like these folks want laws passed that will help them, but are forcefully against any laws that might threaten their earning potential.

 

[jetproppilot]

I'm straight, Dude.

 

[Bertelman]

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but recently I was pondering some of the politically oriented threads on the anesthesiology forum, and it crossed my mind that a lot of the folks here seem to want it both ways concerning government.

On the one hand, I see a lot of people saying "Donate to your PAC, become a member of the ASA, and alert your representatives that CRNAs are pushing to extend their rights too far!" Intrinsically, it's saying that laws need to be passed or be kept from passing that will limit what CRNAs can do.

On the other hand, many of the same folks are saying that any government intervention in health care (specifically heath insurance) will result in terrible inefficiencies and will destroy the system. They say that reimbursements will fall, and no one will be helped by any interference. They want government to butt out and not change anything.

Aren't these two opinions opposites? Either the free market will solve both CRNAs and health insurance, or the government should step in and regulate both. What differentiates the two issues such that government needs to be involved in one and not the other? Any justifications? Now I'm not saying this isn't completely sensible, but to me, it seems like these folks want laws passed that will help them, but are forcefully against any laws that might threaten their earning potential.

It's pretty simple. We want to maintain our current livelihoods. Nurses want to climb the ladder. We don't want to give up our gig to nurses. We don't want to limit what CRNAs will do, per se, we just don;t want them gaining any aidditional rights that we believe is beyond their scope of practice and expertise. Bottom line, CRNAs have done well with the training they have received directly under MD supervision. Now they think they can do our job. We disagree.

You're OK with the gov't telling you how to drive, right? You follow the laws. How would you feel if they told you WHAT to drive? Everyone could select from 4 different cars. How do you resolve that conflict? You're OK with the gov't dictating the laws of the road, because all abide by them, making your driving more safe. In other situations, you prefer less gov't intervention.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about supporting laws which benefit you, and opposing those that don't.

 

[InductionAgent]

I'm not stating a particular opinion on the issues, but there is a big difference between (a) having medical practice laws to regulate what is defined as the practice of medicine and who is allowed to do it and (b) dictating how the services would be paid.

Put more simply, just because the government does not permit barbers to perform surgery doesn't mean that it should dictate exactly how surgeons are reimbursed.

Unfortunately, the issues are not quite as simple with CRNA practice and the current state of healthcare economics.

 

[Planktonmd]

I think you got it backward:
If the government stays out of it and not make changes to the currently available laws that prevent nurses from practicing medicine there will be no problem.
The problem is that the government is changing the laws to create a new mutant class of providers that costs less money, and that's where this whole thing becomes a disaster. It's similar to the government sending troops to "fix" the situation in Iraq or in other places where not fixing things would have been in every one's best interest.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but recently I was pondering some of the politically oriented threads on the anesthesiology forum, and it crossed my mind that a lot of the folks here seem to want it both ways concerning government.

On the one hand, I see a lot of people saying "Donate to your PAC, become a member of the ASA, and alert your representatives that CRNAs are pushing to extend their rights too far!" Intrinsically, it's saying that laws need to be passed or be kept from passing that will limit what CRNAs can do.

On the other hand, many of the same folks are saying that any government intervention in health care (specifically heath insurance) will result in terrible inefficiencies and will destroy the system. They say that reimbursements will fall, and no one will be helped by any interference. They want government to butt out and not change anything.

Aren't these two opinions opposites? Either the free market will solve both CRNAs and health insurance, or the government should step in and regulate both. What differentiates the two issues such that government needs to be involved in one and not the other? Any justifications? Now I'm not saying this isn't completely sensible, but to me, it seems like these folks want laws passed that will help them, but are forcefully against any laws that might threaten their earning potential.

 

[Planktonmd]

I think you got it backward:
If the government stays out of it and not make changes to the currently available laws that prevent nurses from practicing medicine there will be no problem.
The problem is that the government is changing the laws to create a new mutant class of providers that costs less money, and that's where this whole thing becomes a disaster. It's similar to the government sending troops to "fix" the situation in Iraq or in other places where not fixing things would have been in every one's best interest.

By the way, as most people here know, I am not at all a conservative and I do have some very liberal views that many people here don't like.
But I am just telling you what the real problem is in a non partisan way 🙂

 

[coprolalia]

Now I'm not saying this isn't completely sensible, but to me, it seems like these folks want laws passed that will help them, but are forcefully against any laws that might threaten their earning potential.

Adding to Plankton's post...

It's not just about "earning potential", and it's not specifically about "laws". It's equally about patient access, patient safety, and the difference our specialty makes to the field.

Congress and the President, and State legislatures under an activist Governor, can with one or two careless pen strokes Institutionalize changes. Once these changes are made, it becomes very hard to "unchange" them.

-copro

 

[GoodmanBrown]

I'm straight, Dude.

Too bad. We could have had something beautiful together, Jet. 😉

 

[GoodmanBrown]

On a more serious note, I guess I partially agree with you all. In the same way the government doesn't let barbers do appendectomies, we should also limit the CRNAs from working outside what they know how to do.

However, doesn't the market regulate what doctors can do? In my state (and I think all), a doctor is licensed by the state to perform medicine and surgery. So, technically, the primary care doctor I shadowed could be replacing hearts for all the state cares. The limiting factor is the hospital and the insurance companies. No hospital would let him try in their building and no insurance company would reimburse him because he's not BC/BE.

So wouldn't insurance companies and hospitals self-regulate themselves if CRNAs were allowed to do whatever they pleased?

 

[coprolalia]

So wouldn't insurance companies and hospitals self-regulate themselves if CRNAs were allowed to do whatever they pleased?

The tempation of cost savings and control would dictate "no" as an answer to that question.

-copro

 

[maceo]

the reason why a majority of the anesthesiologists oppose crna independent practice is because they are not trained to do it. Physicians are trained to make independent medical decisions. nursing school does not train you for that type of endeavor. IT just DOesnt. we have many allo and osteopathic medical schools that train you to just that. How does the nursing philosophy all of a sudden claim they can do the same thing? They dont even have a basic chemistry class with a lab for gods sake to me that is the most insulting fact. We have to expand the role of physician assistants and Anesthesiology assistants to assist us. They think more like physicians, they have all the pre reqs to become physicians and they are trained by us.

 

[Planktonmd]

On a more serious note, I guess I partially agree with you all. In the same way the government doesn't let barbers do appendectomies, we should also limit the CRNAs from working outside what they know how to do.

However, doesn't the market regulate what doctors can do? In my state (and I think all), a doctor is licensed by the state to perform medicine and surgery. So, technically, the primary care doctor I shadowed could be replacing hearts for all the state cares. The limiting factor is the hospital and the insurance companies. No hospital would let him try in their building and no insurance company would reimburse him because he's not BC/BE.

So wouldn't insurance companies and hospitals self-regulate themselves if CRNAs were allowed to do whatever they pleased?

Correct,
The primary physician you met is licensed to practice medicine and surgery by the state but he wouldn't claim that he can do open heart surgery because he knows better.
CRNA's who get licensed to practice the medical specialty of Anesthesiology independently by some state law immediately claim that they are capable of practicing the full spectrum of Anesthesiology and preoperative medicine including chronic pain management and this is where the the government is creating the problem.

 

[ChrisA]

Just to keep this firmly planted in reality...

They dont even have a basic chemistry class with a lab for gods sake to me that is the most insulting fact.

Well besides the fact that chem will make absolutely zero impact on how "good" a physician, APN or anyone else is, I did take biochem 1&2 and Chem 1&2 with labs in my RN program.

We have to expand the role of physician assistants and Anesthesiology assistants to assist us. They think more like physicians, they have all the pre reqs to become physicians and they are trained by us.

This myth keeps coming up which just shows how little you know about PAs and AAs. PAs dont require all the prereqs to med school. In fact, they dont require most of them. Most AA programs also do NOT require all the pre med classes and some of the schools do not require the MCATs. This keeps coming up but it is incorrect.

 

[maceo]

Just to keep this firmly planted in reality...

Well besides the fact that chem will make absolutely zero impact on how "good" a physician, APN or anyone else is, I did take biochem 1&2 and Chem 1&2 with labs in my RN program.

This myth keeps coming up which just shows how little you know about PAs and AAs. PAs dont require all the prereqs to med school. In fact, they dont require most of them. Most AA programs also do NOT require all the pre med classes and some of the schools do not require the MCATs. This keeps coming up but it is incorrect.

hey nite cap thanks for your return 3 years later. You just couldnt stay away from the anesthesiologist forum. First of all there is no such thing as biochem 1 and 2. There is biochem. and typically there is no lab for that class J.O.. and I doubt you took chem with labs for your RN program. And the fact you have no respect for science just says a lot about what kind of person and healthcare worker you are and will be.


Go look at the prereqs for AA school and PA school and get back to me.

thanks for your time nitecap

 

[igottaquestion]

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about supporting laws which benefit you, and opposing those that don't.

i only view it as hard to understand from anyone who claims they are a "libertarian." a true libertarian wouldn't want the job market for anesthesiology to be regulated.

it's not hard to understand from anyone who claims they want to protect their income without feeling the need to justify it as a moral choice. i have more respect for that, and need to work on not judging this perspective too harshly until i finish residency myself.

 

[ZachNear]

I would like to correct some misinformation. I am currently a student training to be an AA. I can tell you that the requirements to enter the Master of Science in Anesthesia program (MSA) is the same as medical school; we do need the usual 2 semesters of bio, gen chem, org chem, physics, human A&P, biochem (all with labs), and of course we do need to take the MCAT. Many of our students have been accepted to medical schools but have chosen for various reasons to attend the MSA program.
I hope anesthesiologists in more states continue to see the usefulness of AAs and we can expand our practice to more states.
Zach

 

[ChrisA]

First, I have no idea who nitecap is.

Second, I have all the PA and AA pre reques in front of me. The vast majority of PA programs do NOT require all the pre med classes or the MCAT. Most of the AA programs also do NOT require all the pre med classes or the MCAT. I dont know why you cant seem to understand that, its in black and white.

Second, where I went to school (university), there was Ochem 1 & 2, Biochem 1 (basic) & 2 and Chem 1 & 2 with labs (all of them). The Biochem has 2 sections one was a general chem with a minor lab (very basic) and the other was a more indepth one without a lab (the pre med one) You did not have to take 1 to do 2, I took 1 as a paramedic.

My BSN program DID include Biochem and chem 1 & 2 with lab and we had med students and others in the class with us.

Clearly, I have insight into how useful (or not) these classes are since I took them all. No, just about none of them impact how good a clinical practitioner you will be (or are) when you are done whatever school you undertake. You can argue this all you want but we all know the truth of the matter (as many of my MD/DO friends have said many times about the pre med classes and the MCAT).

Maceo, your posts are nearly all across the board uninformed and I just want to keep this thread in the public forum based in reality.

Below are the pre reqs for one PA school and one AA school just to prove how wrong you are.

This is from the AAPA website:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Q. What are the prerequisites for applying to a PA program? .
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]A. PA programs look for students who have a desire to study, work hard, and to be of service to their community. Most physician assistant programs require applicants to have previous health care experience and some college education. The typical applicant already has a bachelor's degree and approximately four years of health care experience. Commonly nurses, EMTs, and paramedics apply to PA programs. Check with PA educational programs of interest to you for a list of their prerequisites

This is an example from UW Madison:

.UW-Madison students and undergraduate transfer students matriculating on any campus Summer 1996 or later, must complete the following General Education Requirements (GER):
1. Communication, 3 to 6 credits.
Part A: Literacy proficiency. 2 to 3 credits at first-year level dedicated to reading, listening, and discussion with emphasis on writing. Students may be exempt from Part A based on placement testing or AP credit. (Approved courses are designated in the timetable by a lower case a.)
Part B: Enhancing literacy proficiency. 2 to 3 credits of more advanced course work for students who have completed or been exempt from Part A. (Approved courses are designated in the timetable by a lower case b.)
2. Quantitative Reasoning, 3 to 6 credits.
Part A: 3 credits of mathematics, computer science, statistics, or formal logic. Students may be exempt from Part A based on placement testing or AP credit. (Approved courses are designated in the timetable by a lower case q.)
Part B: 3 additional credits in quantitative reasoning. (Approved courses are designated in the timetable by a lower case r.)
All students must complete the following prerequisites (NOTE: A grade of C minus or lower in a required prerequisite is unacceptable.):
3. Foreign Language: All students graduating from high school after December 1990 must have completed two years of the same foreign language in high school, or take two semesters of the same language at the university level.
4. Chemistry 103: (General Chemistry). I, II, SS; 4 cr. (P-E). Open to Fr. Only 4-5 credits from Chemistry 103, 108, and 109 will be accepted for degree credit. (Math 112 or equivalent is a prerequisite for Chemistry 103 on the UW-Madison campus.)
5. Chemistry 104: (General Chemistry). I, II, SS; 5 cr. (P-E). Open to Fr. P: Chemistry 103. Not for credit for those who have taken Chemistry 110.
6. Zoology 101: (Animal Biology lecture). I, II, SS; 3 cr. (B-E). Lecture. Open to Fr. Not for credit for those who have taken Zoology 151 or 152 or equivalent.
7. Zoology 102: (Animal Biology laboratory). I, II, SS; 2 cr. (B-E). P: Zoology 101 or con reg. Open to Fr. Students who take the sequence Zoology 151 or 152 equivalent must complete both courses in order to satisfy the Zoology 101 and 102 requirement.
8. Biomolecular Chemistry 314: Introduction to Human Biochemistry (or equivalent mammalian biochemistry). I, SS; 3 cr. P: Chemistry 104 or 108 or equiv. Organic Chemistry will not satisfy this requirement.
9. Physiology 335🙁Human Physiology with Lab) I, II, SS; 5 cr. P: Biology or Zoology and Chemistry 104 before enrollment. Students must have completed Physiology 335 or the equivalent within 5 years of admission to the professional program. If your physiology course was taken earlier, you have several options for meeting this requirement. Please see a detailed description of those options after prerequisite 17 below.
10. Anatomy 328: (Human Anatomy). II; 3 cr. P: Admission to Professional Curriculum in Nursing, or Pre-Physician Assistant and Zoology 101 and 102 or equivalent. Others contact Anatomy department for registration information.
11. Microbiology 101: (General Microbiology Lecture). I, II, SS; 3 cr. (B-E). P: Chemistry 103 or 108. Open to Fr. Students may not receive credit for both Microbiology 101 and 303. Students with one semester organic who will continue in biology or physical science take 303.
12. Microbiology 102: (General Microbiology Laboratory). I, II, SS; 2 cr. P: Microbiology 101 or 303 or con reg. (preferred). Open to Fr.
13. Psychology 201 or 202: (Introduction to Psychology). I, II; 3 cr. Students may not receive credit for both 201 and 202.
14. Humanities: 6 cr. Six credits at any level are required. Humanities courses are designated in the timetable by H, L, X, or Z.
15. Social Studies: 6 cr. Six credits at any level, in addition to Psychology 201 or 202 are required. Social Studies courses are designated in the timetable by S, Y, or Z.
16. Ethnic Studies: 3 cr. Three credits of the above Humanities or Social Studies or other electives must also be a course in ethnic studies. Ethnic studies courses are designated in the timetable by a lower case e.


(TAKES THE GRE)

Here is an example of an AA program:
Nova's AA program:

Accepts GRE,

REQUIRED and cannot be survey courses C is required
English 1 Semester
General biology 2 Semesters
General chemistry 2 Semesters
Organic chemistry 1 Semester
Biochemistry 1 Semester
General physics 2 Semesters
Calculus 1 Semester


So clearly, they are not all what you suggest.

Just keeping it real.

hey nite cap thanks for your return 3 years later. You just couldnt stay away from the anesthesiologist forum. First of all there is no such thing as biochem 1 and 2. There is biochem. and typically there is no lab for that class J.O.. and I doubt you took chem with labs for your RN program. And the fact you have no respect for science just says a lot about what kind of person and healthcare worker you are and will be.


Go look at the prereqs for AA school and PA school and get back to me.

thanks for your time nitecap

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Here is an example of an AA program:
Nova's AA program:

Accepts GRE,

REQUIRED and cannot be survey courses C is required
English 1 Semester
General biology 2 Semesters
General chemistry 2 Semesters
Organic chemistry 1 Semester
Biochemistry 1 Semester
General physics 2 Semesters
Calculus 1 Semester

I'm not here to get into a pissing contest or anything, but the reqs. you list do include the standard pre-med reqs. For the 12 or so schools I'm applying to, the pre-reqs are:

2 semesters of Gen. Chem w/ lab
2 semesters of O. Chem w/ lab
2 semesters of Physics w/ lab
2 semesters of Bio w/ lab
w/ some sundery English and math classes

For the PA schools, though, you're spot on. I haven't seen any PA programs that require o. chem or physics, though the others are generally required w/ extra biology classes and a&p.

 

[maceo]

First, I have no idea who nitecap is.

Second, I have all the PA and AA pre reques in front of me. The vast majority of PA programs do NOT require all the pre med classes or the MCAT. Most of the AA programs also do NOT require all the pre med classes or the MCAT. I dont know why you cant seem to understand that, its in black and white.

Second, where I went to school (university), there was Ochem 1 & 2, Biochem 1 (basic) & 2 and Chem 1 & 2 with labs (all of them). The Biochem has 2 sections one was a general chem with a minor lab (very basic) and the other was a more indepth one without a lab (the pre med one) You did not have to take 1 to do 2, I took 1 as a paramedic.

My BSN program DID include Biochem and chem 1 & 2 with lab and we had med students and others in the class with us.

Clearly, I have insight into how useful (or not) these classes are since I took them all. No, just about none of them impact how good a clinical practitioner you will be (or are) when you are done whatever school you undertake. You can argue this all you want but we all know the truth of the matter (as many of my MD/DO friends have said many times about the pre med classes and the MCAT).

Maceo, your posts are nearly all across the board uninformed and I just want to keep this thread in the public forum based in reality.

Below are the pre reqs for one PA school and one AA school just to prove how wrong you are.

This is from the AAPA website:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Q. What are the prerequisites for applying to a PA program? .
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]A. PA programs look for students who have a desire to study, work hard, and to be of service to their community. Most physician assistant programs require applicants to have previous health care experience and some college education. The typical applicant already has a bachelor's degree and approximately four years of health care experience. Commonly nurses, EMTs, and paramedics apply to PA programs. Check with PA educational programs of interest to you for a list of their prerequisites

This is an example from UW Madison:

.UW-Madison students and undergraduate transfer students matriculating on any campus Summer 1996 or later, must complete the following General Education Requirements (GER):
1. Communication, 3 to 6 credits.
Part A: Literacy proficiency. 2 to 3 credits at first-year level dedicated to reading, listening, and discussion with emphasis on writing. Students may be exempt from Part A based on placement testing or AP credit. (Approved courses are designated in the timetable by a lower case a.)
Part B: Enhancing literacy proficiency. 2 to 3 credits of more advanced course work for students who have completed or been exempt from Part A. (Approved courses are designated in the timetable by a lower case b.)
2. Quantitative Reasoning, 3 to 6 credits.
Part A: 3 credits of mathematics, computer science, statistics, or formal logic. Students may be exempt from Part A based on placement testing or AP credit. (Approved courses are designated in the timetable by a lower case q.)
Part B: 3 additional credits in quantitative reasoning. (Approved courses are designated in the timetable by a lower case r.)
All students must complete the following prerequisites (NOTE: A grade of C minus or lower in a required prerequisite is unacceptable.):
3. Foreign Language: All students graduating from high school after December 1990 must have completed two years of the same foreign language in high school, or take two semesters of the same language at the university level.
4. Chemistry 103: (General Chemistry). I, II, SS; 4 cr. (P-E). Open to Fr. Only 4-5 credits from Chemistry 103, 108, and 109 will be accepted for degree credit. (Math 112 or equivalent is a prerequisite for Chemistry 103 on the UW-Madison campus.)
5. Chemistry 104: (General Chemistry). I, II, SS; 5 cr. (P-E). Open to Fr. P: Chemistry 103. Not for credit for those who have taken Chemistry 110.
6. Zoology 101: (Animal Biology lecture). I, II, SS; 3 cr. (B-E). Lecture. Open to Fr. Not for credit for those who have taken Zoology 151 or 152 or equivalent.
7. Zoology 102: (Animal Biology laboratory). I, II, SS; 2 cr. (B-E). P: Zoology 101 or con reg. Open to Fr. Students who take the sequence Zoology 151 or 152 equivalent must complete both courses in order to satisfy the Zoology 101 and 102 requirement.
8. Biomolecular Chemistry 314: Introduction to Human Biochemistry (or equivalent mammalian biochemistry). I, SS; 3 cr. P: Chemistry 104 or 108 or equiv. Organic Chemistry will not satisfy this requirement.
9. Physiology 335🙁Human Physiology with Lab) I, II, SS; 5 cr. P: Biology or Zoology and Chemistry 104 before enrollment. Students must have completed Physiology 335 or the equivalent within 5 years of admission to the professional program. If your physiology course was taken earlier, you have several options for meeting this requirement. Please see a detailed description of those options after prerequisite 17 below.
10. Anatomy 328: (Human Anatomy). II; 3 cr. P: Admission to Professional Curriculum in Nursing, or Pre-Physician Assistant and Zoology 101 and 102 or equivalent. Others contact Anatomy department for registration information.
11. Microbiology 101: (General Microbiology Lecture). I, II, SS; 3 cr. (B-E). P: Chemistry 103 or 108. Open to Fr. Students may not receive credit for both Microbiology 101 and 303. Students with one semester organic who will continue in biology or physical science take 303.
12. Microbiology 102: (General Microbiology Laboratory). I, II, SS; 2 cr. P: Microbiology 101 or 303 or con reg. (preferred). Open to Fr.
13. Psychology 201 or 202: (Introduction to Psychology). I, II; 3 cr. Students may not receive credit for both 201 and 202.
14. Humanities: 6 cr. Six credits at any level are required. Humanities courses are designated in the timetable by H, L, X, or Z.
15. Social Studies: 6 cr. Six credits at any level, in addition to Psychology 201 or 202 are required. Social Studies courses are designated in the timetable by S, Y, or Z.
16. Ethnic Studies: 3 cr. Three credits of the above Humanities or Social Studies or other electives must also be a course in ethnic studies. Ethnic studies courses are designated in the timetable by a lower case e.


(TAKES THE GRE)

Here is an example of an AA program:
Nova's AA program:

Accepts GRE,

REQUIRED and cannot be survey courses C is required
English 1 Semester
General biology 2 Semesters
General chemistry 2 Semesters
Organic chemistry 1 Semester
Biochemistry 1 Semester
General physics 2 Semesters
Calculus 1 Semester


So clearly, they are not all what you suggest.

Just keeping it real.

whats up nitecap,

listen you just shot your argument in the foot.

you just answered the question.

Nova AA program is basically all major science courses with a lab. These arent watered down nursing version of courses.

and uw looks like they require all the chemistry as well..

Just put up a link to a bsn requirement please.. Put that link up. DOnt copy and paste. its all fluff courses. SO the question is. How can you claim equivalency when you take fluff courses? they arent even real courses

 

[Planktonmd]

Just to keep this firmly planted in reality...

Well besides the fact that chem will make absolutely zero impact on how "good" a physician, APN or anyone else is, I did take biochem 1&2 and Chem 1&2 with labs in my RN program.

This myth keeps coming up which just shows how little you know about PAs and AAs. PAs dont require all the prereqs to med school. In fact, they dont require most of them. Most AA programs also do NOT require all the pre med classes and some of the schools do not require the MCATs. This keeps coming up but it is incorrect.

I think we have clearly explained to you that you need to keep your propaganda where it belongs.
I am still waiting for one post of value from you that does not have one purpose:
AANA agenda!
Even that you think you are protected by the SDN admins, If you are unable to participate in anything other than politically motivated garbage then you need to stay at the mid-level section.
Thank you.

 

[Frank Rizzo]

My LMFAO program included all of those prereqs... plus golf 101, propaganda spreading 101, basket weaving 101, and bullshiitting 101, bullshiitting 102, and the honors level course, bullshiitting 589.

 

[aphistis]

My LMFAO program included all of those prereqs... plus golf 101, propaganda spreading 101, basket weaving 101, and bullshiitting 101, bullshiitting 102, and the honors level course, bullshiitting 589.

Those were all independent study, right?

 

[RxBoy]

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but recently I was pondering some of the politically oriented threads on the anesthesiology forum, and it crossed my mind that a lot of the folks here seem to want it both ways concerning government.

On the one hand, I see a lot of people saying "Donate to your PAC, become a member of the ASA, and alert your representatives that CRNAs are pushing to extend their rights too far!" Intrinsically, it's saying that laws need to be passed or be kept from passing that will limit what CRNAs can do.

On the other hand, many of the same folks are saying that any government intervention in health care (specifically heath insurance) will result in terrible inefficiencies and will destroy the system. They say that reimbursements will fall, and no one will be helped by any interference. They want government to butt out and not change anything.

Aren't these two opinions opposites? Either the free market will solve both CRNAs and health insurance, or the government should step in and regulate both. What differentiates the two issues such that government needs to be involved in one and not the other? Any justifications? Now I'm not saying this isn't completely sensible, but to me, it seems like these folks want laws passed that will help them, but are forcefully against any laws that might threaten their earning potential.

You obviously don't know the difference between regulation and intervention. We don't want any new government intervention.

1) Economically - We don't want new health care cuts, we don't want new taxes, we don't want new stimulus bills and bailouts.

2) Medically - We don't want new government intervention stating nurses are equivalent to doctors, we don't want medical assistants stating they are equivalent to nurses, ect.

Now if your implying let the free market dictate who and who shouldn't practice medicine, than you are ignorant. That means that any Joe Shmo bread baker who knows a little about medicine could also claim to be a doctor, and hand out prescriptions every time you're sick. The ignorant patient saves a lot of money and doesn't have to wait in line to see a doctor. This is precisely why we have governments, to insure the safety of its citizens. Libertarians don't want BIG government, which dictates the economics of citizens as well.

 

[Bertelman]

hey nite cap thanks for your return 3 years later. You just couldnt stay away from the anesthesiologist forum. First of all there is no such thing as biochem 1 and 2. There is biochem. and typically there is no lab for that class J.O.. and I doubt you took chem with labs for your RN program. And the fact you have no respect for science just says a lot about what kind of person and healthcare worker you are and will be.


Go look at the prereqs for AA school and PA school and get back to me.

thanks for your time nitecap

I would love to offer my undergrad transcript as evidence of Biochem 1 & 2

 

[maceo]

I would love to offer my undergrad transcript as evidence of Biochem 1 & 2

dont show transcript but show bulletin from your school

 

[ChrisA]

Plank

Last I checked the only section that requires one to be an MD to post in is the hidden one here. I am "allowed" to post anywhere else I want, that is apart of the TOS.

As for "propaganda" I have proven my point with evidence (as per usual). There is ALOT of disinformation presented here in the public section which needs to be corrected. When i have proven what I have said (besides your personal hatred of anyone not on your political agenda) I did nothing wrong.

Clearly all PA and AA schools do not require all the pre med classes or MCATs, exactly as I said. Nova does not require all the pre meds OR the MCAT.

I think we have clearly explained to you that you need to keep your propaganda where it belongs.
I am still waiting for one post of value from you that does not have one purpose:
AANA agenda!
Even that you think you are protected by the SDN admins, If you are unable to participate in anything other than politically motivated garbage then you need to stay at the mid-level section.
Thank you.

 

[ChrisA]

it takes a 2 second google search. Feel free to do it yourself.

dont show transcript but show bulletin from your school

 

[badasshairday]

My LMFAO program included all of those prereqs... plus golf 101, propaganda spreading 101, basket weaving 101, and bullshiitting 101, bullshiitting 102, and the honors level course, bullshiitting 589.

Nice, now all oyou have to do is take propabull****ing 601 and you can get your doctorate in LMFAO. DLMFAO!

BTW, it is offered online. sweet.

 

[Bertelman]

dont show transcript but show bulletin from your school

410. Comprehensive Biochemistry I. (3-1). Credit 3. I, II, S
Structure, function and chemistry of proteins and carbohydrates; kinetics, mechanisms and regulation of enzymes; metabolism of carbohydrates. Not open to biochemistry or genetics majors. Prerequisite: CHEM 228 or approval of instructor.
411. Comprehensive Biochemistry II. (3-1). Credit 3. I, II, S
A continuation of BICH 410. Structure, function, chemistry and metabolism of lipids and nucleic acids; cellular metabolism viewed from the standpoint of energetics and control mechanisms; interrelationships of metabolic pathways . Not open to biochemistry or genetics majors . Prerequisite: BICH 410.

 

[Planktonmd]

Plank

Last I checked the only section that requires one to be an MD to post in is the hidden one here. I am "allowed" to post anywhere else I want, that is apart of the TOS.

As for "propaganda" I have proven my point with evidence (as per usual). There is ALOT of disinformation presented here in the public section which needs to be corrected. When i have proven what I have said (besides your personal hatred of anyone not on your political agenda) I did nothing wrong.

Clearly all PA and AA schools do not require all the pre med classes or MCATs, exactly as I said. Nova does not require all the pre meds OR the MCAT.

You have proven nothing.
All you did is repeat the old clichés borrowed from your leaders at the AANA and this is basically an indication of bad intentions.
You are here only for one reason: Cheap childish nurse propaganda.
And you are incapable of any meaningful or useful participation in this forum as you have repeatedly proven (actually this is the only thing that you have proven beyond any doubt so far).
Again I am still waiting for anything of value to come out of you, anything that can benefit others and not intended to stir more stupid political crap. Anything that could make students and residents consider seeing you as a colleague rather than someone who's only talent is to spread nurse propaganda on a physician forum.
we are giving you a chance here, show us that you are a qualified anesthesia provider, teach us something!!
I know that I can't hope for much from you.
But I will tell you this: if you spread lies here I will make sure that these lies are addressed properly according to the TOS's that you think are protecting you.

 

[Southpaw]

.

 

[Southpaw]

Just keeping it real.

1) First, this is a really stupid argument because I don't believe any of those courses have a bearing on how good a clinician I will become.

2) The pre-med reqs when I applied were gen chem, o chem, gen bio, physics, and english. They were the easiest courses I had in ugrad and were used to bump up my GPA as my core courses put a hurtin' on me.

3) The AA courses you listed for NOVA were exactly the pre-med course requirements when I applied. Are they different now? Am I missing something? I know some med schools like to see biochemistry and maybe a few others, but just as many don't as they teach it in a different fashion (much more in-depth and difficult) in med school. The Nova program accepts GRE OR MCAT, and with the required courses being exactly those needed to do well on the MCAT, the only reason one would have for taking the GRE for their application would be not doing well on the MCAT (common occurrence).

4) The PA program you listed (UW Madison) included reqs for their bachelors degree. For their Masters degree they have added the requirements of A&P, biochem, gen chem, micro, psych, statistics, and zoology. Additionally, from knowing lots of friends that have gone to PA school, their ugrad course requirements are much more extensive than those required for med school b/c they're schooling is reduced by two years. Most PA programs that I know of are master's degree programs. You gave the requirements for a bachelors. Most also require extensive clinical experience as a req for admission as they like you to be able to hit the ground running. Now, of course, I'm not talking about EVERY program but I do believe my friends when they say these are the requirements for most programs.

I don't even know what you were arguing for, but seeing as you only post when a CRNA is insulted I'm sure it had something to do with that. But your post had a great deal of misinformation regarding PA education among other things that I wanted to clear up.

Edit: I should add that it probably would benefit one to take the GRE rather than the MCAT given the choice. It's a cheaper exam to take and laughably easier.

 

[jwk]

Plank

Last I checked the only section that requires one to be an MD to post in is the hidden one here. I am "allowed" to post anywhere else I want, that is apart of the TOS.

As for "propaganda" I have proven my point with evidence (as per usual). There is ALOT of disinformation presented here in the public section which needs to be corrected. When i have proven what I have said (besides your personal hatred of anyone not on your political agenda) I did nothing wrong.

Clearly all PA and AA schools do not require all the pre med classes or MCATs, exactly as I said. Nova does not require all the pre meds OR the MCAT.

Chris,

Try and stick with what you know, not what you think you know but don't. The idea that we need YOU to correct anything is laughable. However, since you seem to want to educate us, I would like to see the curriculum of a BSN program that requires real physics, organic, biochem, etc., (all of them). I'm not talking about a random spattering of CRNA pre-reqs - I'm talking about these courses specifically being REQUIRED for a BSN.

I can't speak for the PA programs. PA's don't do anesthesia, and that's unlikely to change. You really don't want to open up that can of worms do you?

AA programs require a rigorous pre-med curriculum. Do ALL the AA programs require ALL the pre-med classes? I don't know Chris - do we need you to define what ALL the pre-med classes are? Do they all require the MCAT - no, and no one said they did. WTF is your point? Who gives a crap? You're splitting hairs and just making yourself look stupid.

 

[econdr]

 

[leviathan]

Why does it matter whether CRNAs take the same pre-requisites as medical students, anyhow? They don't relate to your knowledge as a physician. If you want to talk about medically-related courses taken during a nursing program, you have a couple of really superficial courses in anatomy, physiology, etc. that are thrown in with a bunch of courses about nursing philosophy, english lit, etc. Medical school is 100% medicine and goes into 10 times more depth than nursing school.

This isn't even worth a debate.

 

[2win]

That's an intelligent dude...Looks like Michael Jackson. Or one of stimulus beneficiary. Cool!

 

[econdr]

That's an intelligent dude...Looks like Michael Jackson. Or one of stimulus beneficiary. Cool!

OR

looks like someone who also has a baby penis, just like you.
Thanks for sharing by the way, your picture gave me nightmares...

 

[econdr]

Looks like Michael Jackson. Or one of stimulus beneficiary.

btw, that's classy! unless I missed something, michael jackson didn't get any stimulus money. so please elaborate. if you are saying what i think you are you are a very sad man.

 

[Planktonmd]

btw, that's classy! unless I missed something, michael jackson didn't get any stimulus money. so please elaborate. if you are saying what i think you are you are a very sad man.

I say let's not go there.

 

[Josh L.Ac.]

Where's armygas to post his RN curriculum that included ZERO level science classes?

 

[powermd]

1) First, this is a really stupid argument because I don't believe any of those courses have a bearing on how good a clinician I will become.

2) The pre-med reqs when I applied were gen chem, o chem, gen bio, physics, and english. They were the easiest courses I had in ugrad and were used to bump up my GPA as my core courses put a hurtin' on me.

Not sure where you went to undergrad, but any college worth it's salt should have tough basic science classes. The competition created by at least 60-100+ fresh young minds eager get into med school gunning for an A is what makes those classes hard. I've seen 'nursing' school basic science exams, and they're nothing like what I faced at my middle to upper tier undergrad school. If you gave those exams to my undergrad pool there would be no grade distribution because everyone would score 100% correct.

Of course, if you're some kind of math/science prodigy, I can see how college level basic science classes would be easy.

I challenge this notion going around that tough undergrad science classes don't contribute to what kind of a clinician you become. That experience competing for grades in a rigorous fashion builds a foundation of discipline early on. You learn how to learn, which is critical to the self-education you will need in residency and beyond. If they go easy on you in undergrad, you may just go easy on yourself when you're the only one watching. And that's not good for you, or your patients. This is exactly what concerns me about people not trained the way I was trained (RNs). They lack not only the knowledge and training of MDs (and perhaps PAs), but the discipline as well.

 

[Southpaw]

Not sure where you went to undergrad, but any college worth it's salt should have tough basic science classes. The competition created by at least 60-100+ fresh young minds eager get into med school gunning for an A is what makes those classes hard. I've seen 'nursing' school basic science exams, and they're nothing like what I faced at my middle to upper tier undergrad school. If you gave those exams to my undergrad pool there would be no grade distribution because everyone would score 100% correct.

Of course, if you're some kind of math/science prodigy, I can see how college level basic science classes would be easy.

I challenge this notion going around that tough undergrad science classes don't contribute to what kind of a clinician you become. That experience competing for grades in a rigorous fashion builds a foundation of discipline early on. You learn how to learn, which is critical to the self-education you will need in residency and beyond. If they go easy on you in undergrad, you may just go easy on yourself when you're the only one watching. And that's not good for you, or your patients. This is exactly what concerns me about people not trained the way I was trained (RNs). They lack not only the knowledge and training of MDs (and perhaps PAs), but the discipline as well.

I did a dual degree engineering program in ugrad, so the premed reqs weren't difficult. But I do agree, they're used by most colleges to weed out those not willing to work hard and they're often the most difficult courses many ugrads take.

With regards to your statement about competing for grades and setting a standard for educational discipline, I completely agree. But, I also believe the way in which premeds compete with one another, which is likely initiated back in high school and perhaps earlier, sets a standard for individualism which gets worse and worse as the years go. I see this is as a problem as the physician community is so disjointed and rarely able to come together for any sort of unified agreement. As much as I appreciate the individualism and competitive atmosphere of the premed req courses, I dislike the fact that from an early stage, physicians never really learn to work together.

 

[maceo]

I challenge this notion going around that tough undergrad science classes don't contribute to what kind of a clinician you become. That experience competing for grades in a rigorous fashion builds a foundation of discipline early on. You learn how to learn, which is critical to the self-education you will need in residency and beyond. If they go easy on you in undergrad, you may just go easy on yourself when you're the only one watching. And that's not good for you, or your patients. This is exactly what concerns me about people not trained the way I was trained (RNs). They lack not only the knowledge and training of MDs (and perhaps PAs), but the discipline as well.

excellent point. truly insightful post.

 

[maceo]

I did a dual degree engineering program in ugrad, so the premed reqs weren't difficult. But I do agree, they're used by most colleges to weed out those not willing to work hard and they're often the most difficult courses many ugrads take.

With regards to your statement about competing for grades and setting a standard for educational discipline, I completely agree. But, I also believe the way in which premeds compete with one another, which is likely initiated back in high school and perhaps earlier, sets a standard for individualism which gets worse and worse as the years go. I see this is as a problem as the physician community is so disjointed and rarely able to come together for any sort of unified agreement. As much as I appreciate the individualism and competitive atmosphere of the premed req courses, I dislike the fact that from an early stage, physicians never really learn to work together.

also very insightful post. YOu guys post some good things.